Krystal and Saagar: Americans WIDELY Disapprove Of ‘Cancel Culture,’ Afraid To Share Opinions

Krystal and Saagar: Americans WIDELY Disapprove Of ‘Cancel Culture,’ Afraid To Share Opinions





Krystal and Saagar discuss how Americans really feel about cancel culture and the impact it has had on people nationwide.

About Rising: 
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day’s political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day’s political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country’s most important political newsmakers. 

Follow Rising on social media:

Website: Hill.TV

Facebook: facebook.com/HillTVLive/

Instagram: @HillTVLive

Twitter: @HillTVLive

Follow Saagar Enjeti & Krystal Ball on social media:

Twitter: @esaagar and @krystalball

Instagram: @esaagar and @krystalmball


source
Rising,Krystal Ball,Saagar Enjeti,2020,Campaign,2020 Election,Progressive,Progressive Politics,Democrats,Democratic Party,Republicans,GOP,Republican Party,Morning Consult,Polling,Cancel Culture,Bernie Sanders,Thomas Chatterton,Defense,Spending,Americans
#Krystal #Saagar #Americans #WIDELY #Disapprove #Cancel #Culture #Afraid #Share #Opinions

Recommended For You

About the Author: The Hill

34 Comments

  1. I am among the 10 percent who thinks it hasnt gone far enough at all. Freedom of speech is awesome, but there SHOULD be to sequences to your words. Cancelling them is using the tools you have to boycott individuals who hide behind an enabling business. If they don't represent you, then fire them. If you don't, I and people like me will boycott you since you are ok with this behavior.

  2. This is funny. The county I live in voted 70% Trump. I had a pic of Ilhan Omar as my computer desktop for a little while. One of the proud deplorables (he went through the office with his victory salute after the election of "deplorables, baby!") saw the Omar pic and said a number of things to me. The last thing was suggesting I was anti-Semitic because I admired Ilhan Omar. So it depends on where you live.

  3. Has Saagar realized yet that these videos consistently get the least views because his views on this issue are steaming piles of bullshit? Also the generations he agrees most with on policy disagrees with him and people generally believe in societal norms, sounds like you're on the wrong side. Do better.

  4. It's the perfect marriage of free speech and the free market, expressing through direct referendum. It's the same mechanisms that propagate science denial and alt-facts but we don't shut those down.

  5. Also I agree with CATO on certain topics.However they are Elitists who are only speaking to the elite. People misconstrue their positions as "lies" rather than personal interest. Anyone from austrian economics(Law and economics neoliberals from Mont Pellerin like mises, hayek, etc.) to Libertarians like ron paul isn't going to explain how the world works to you. Especially the part which pits their own benefits against your interests. That said we can agree all this taxation for private military contractors as public spending is THEFT.

  6. Is it dangerous to walk down a street in US? Yes. Why? Simply because people own guns.

    If you do a study of crime rates and violent deaths, countries which outlaw guns have the least crimes and violence.

    If you walk down a street in these countries, you can be assured that if anyone attacks you, the most lethal weapon would be a knife. That perpetrator would have to get close to you to harm you, and knife is alot less lethal than firearms. That perpetrator is also in danger of physical harm due to proximity.

    Although it is almost impossible since there are more firearms than people in US, and it is in the Constitution, the only way to get rid of these violence is to ban firearms. Police can carry guns, but they are not allowed to do it unless they are in mortal danger.

  7. I think you guys glossed over an important facet of this. You referred to a poll question about whether people should "face consequences" for expressing an unpopular opinion, and never really seemed to differentiate between what different things "consequences" might refer to.

    As a free speech near-absolutist, I think it's perfectly fair for unpopular opinions to garner consequences, consequences like people finding that opinion distasteful and expressing that to the person with the opinion. Do you mean should people be fired from their jobs? Face criminal charges? "Consequences" is incredibly broad, and some consequences are deserved for nothing more than expressing an opinion, because just like you don't have a right not to be offended, you also don't have a right for people not to be offended by what you say and letting you know what they think of it. I think it's fair to boycott someone or something based on an opinion, and to try to convince others to do the same if they share the values that led to that opinion. It's my own freedom of expression that I'm refusing to give up.

    I'm free to publicly criticize you if I feel like it, and public criticism is a necessary consequence of individual freedom of expression in practice. So TL;DR, yes I believe there should be, or at least can fairly be consequences for unpopular opinions because of the same principle that empowers people with unpopular opinions to share them freely.

  8. You started things off talking about cancel culture. I have seen that term used left and right up and down. I don't think anybody really understands what it means. Would you please define it as you understand it? Thank you.

  9. The trouble with the term "cancel culture" is that I find those who use the term pejoatavely are hypocrites participating in the very oppression they supposedly renounce. It's a catch-all term that people use to label anyone who makes them uncomfortable.

    The thing is, some people have a more valid reason to police that discomfort than others. When that discomfort is rooted in a substantiated fear of one's life, unfair and disproportionate treatment under the law, facing artificial barriers that have nothing to do with one's choices or character, that ABSOLUTELY should be called out and policed. The problem is that the laws and systems that are SUPPOSED to police that unfairness AREN'T DOING SO, so it's now up to the people facing the consequences of that injustice to police it themselves.

    And some Americans would dismiss these protests as "cancel culture."

    Then there are others whose discomfort is rooted not in substantiated injustice, but in inconvenience. In unsubstantiated fear of life. Those who interpret minor sacrifices for the greater good as a threat to their freedom, as if their freedom is more important than the health and well-being of their fellow neighbors.

    Now these people deserve the right to express themselves. But they don't get the freedom to escape criticism. Their efforts to silence criticism, calling it "cancel culture," is ironically the actual oppressive behavior they supposedly accuse "cancel culture" of reflecting.

    TL;DR
    Inconvenience and annoyance don't justify cancellation. Injustice does. "Cancel culture" is a horribly generic term that seeks to vilify "cancellation" without examining the causes of that "cancellation." So we should strike the term from our vocabulary immediately.

  10. So, it seems the cancel culture is verbal in it's essence. That is; it's about what you've said or typed, and not about what you've done, good or bad, in your life. Kinda like blowback; undesirable and unexpected and often unavoidable. Eggs are cracked in making the day's breakfast, notwithstanding the eggs complaint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *