Oh yeah, one more thing: your entire argument hinges on a non-trivial interpretaion of Cruz's bill, namely that the statement "... teaches or otherwise advances the idea that the Constitution is fundamentally racist" refers to the OG Constitution from 1789 rather than the form of the Constitution takes on as of today, that is, with all reconstruction and civil rights era amendments in place and the 3/5ths compromise obsolte, etc. pp.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 29 2021 10:43pm

I'm not going to respond to this, instead I'm going to tell you something.

I'm pulling these examples because they are things that the vast majority of people can look at and quickly and accurately come to the conclusion that they are cancel culture. If I was interested in every little example I personally like, I'd easily fill the thread with them, but I'm going out of my way to find the most obvious examples.

I am kindly requesting that you do some thinking on why you haven't yet had a single example where you thought it was a cancelling, because these are not hard problems. These are the easiest problems.

You couldn't even teach the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, because doing so would require acknowledging why they were passed.

Highly renowned historians, among them several Pulitzer price winners:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-gets-schooled-11576540494
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140

Non sequitur. Acknowledging why they were passed would acknowledge slavery, but doing so would not logically imply that the Constitution is "fundamentally racist". A document which consists of hundreds of provisions and laws containing some racist ones is not enough to qualify the entire document as being fundamentally racist.

Your whole argument is a non sequitur, because it's not even the point of the thread. This bill will never make it out of the Senate (hell, it will likely never make it to the floor). But it's still a big, bright example of conservative cancel culture.

Well, that depends on one's definition of "cancel culture". Cruz is not proposing to silence private citizens or academic discourse on these issues, he suggests withdrawing state funding from the teaching of an idea which he deems factually incorrect and corrosive to social cohesion. Depending on how broad or loose one defines cancel culture, the question if his bill is an example of it very much does come down to the question of whether the idea he wants to defund is factually incorrect or not. And that, in turn, hinges on the word "fundamentally" and on whether we're talking about the currently valid parts of the Constitution or its original version from 1789.

I dont even want to take a too strong stance on these question, I just wanted to explain why I think that this example is not nearly as clear cut cancel culture as thor suggests.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 29 2021 11:07pm

He's proposing to cut funding.

Fuck you if you think that's not silencing public citizens or academic discourse. That is the bedrock of cancel culture as defined by conservatives.

Reminds me of this pic I saw in another thread.

Guy's crazy.

" (4) Since 2010, the Department of State has adhered to the
working definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring
Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Some contemporary
examples of anti-Semitism include the following:
(A) Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing
or harming of Jews (often in the name of a radical
ideology or an extremist view of religion).
(B) Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or
stereotypical allegations about Jews as such, or the
power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not
exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or
of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or
other societal institutions."

Not part of the law, just a set of definitions and basis for the bill.

https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ434/PLAW-115publ434.htm