It’s something I struggle with. Some bad news comes out about some public persona doing something shitty and they get cancelled. But sometimes I really struggle with giving up the things they’ve made because I like them. There are also occasions where the person has been accused of something and it doesn’t seem true to me, or I think they’re genuinely sorry and have been punished enough, and the context isn’t being considered.
What do you think? Who do you feel conflicted about enjoying?
“I should be allowed to mock you, but you shouldn’t be allowed to do anything about it” < your words
Isn’t not giving Dave Chappelle money or time or attention the grand sum of things that you can do about his stance without violence?
I think you and I have had interactions elsewhere on Lemmy, and typically they’re very antagonistic and I don’t know why that is.
I earnestly try to be a reasonable person and to express my views without judgment of other people.
I do this in hopes that debate produces something positive, but from what I remember, typically, no matter what I say to you, your response is to exacerbate the argument rather than resolve it.
Sometimes other people have views that do not mesh with yours, yet they are not your enemy.
I know trans people. I have trans friends. I live in a very progressive area by choice. I have gone to protests to protect women and trans people alike.
I am an ally, and if you think that me believing or having a reason to believe that Dave Chappelle is also an ally makes me not an ally, then that’s pretty much the end of the conversation, right?
“do anything about it” doesn’t have to mean violence. What the fuck? Why is that the first thing you jump to?
Yes, that is the do anything about it that I’m talking about. The thing Chapelle calls cancel culture, and fights against. So if violence isn’t allowed and neither is organizing to have a voice as loud as his, then what is allowed besides letting him have his way?
I don’t choose who is or isn’t an ally.
If the consensus of the trans community is supporting Chapelle, then I’ll shut up about it because I’d clearly be mistaken, but that doesn’t seem to be the case afaict, which aligns with my understanding of why Chapelle is problematic in general; he uses libertarianism as a carte blanche to pick on minorities. this just demonstrates how libertarianism is ironically discriminatory in practice, but it teaches bigots a language to defend themselves with.
How am I supposed to interpret this, from someone who immediately accused me of supporting violence and then doubled down on that accusation?