Tag: cancel culture

Discord vs IRC

I’ve written about a few of these topics in the past and I’m sure they will be revisited again in the future. In our modern world connected as we are through the technology of the internet. There is still a need for text only based real time chatting between 2 or more people.

Text only based chatting has many advantages over both voice or video methods of communication. Far less bandwidth is needed is the biggest advantage. It can work on even the worst internet connections and the slowest of PCs.

In the days of Dial-up internet, were AOL was the king of providers, they had a multitude of chatrooms for many topics and communities across their membership. And outside of AOL and accessible to it, and all other providers were the many servers and networks of Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

During the height of IRC’s popularity it had over a million users signed in across the multitude of networks and servers. Today, with the rise of Social Media, this number has been reduced to a quarter of what it once was.

A vast majority of IRC users are now found on the Discord service. It has a number of similarities to IRC that allows users to feel “at home” there. However there are a lot of differences too between the 2 platforms.

Here are some of the similarities and differences:

Discord has a native “pretty” interface. Granted IRC does not but it’s totally depends on which IRC client one uses to access IRC.

Discard has audio and visual communications options. IRC does not have these functions at all. They are left to other services to provide them.

Discord has Avatars and Profiles. Although IRC at its base level does not. There are IRC clients that provide similar functions.

Both services have bots running on them in multiple channels performing a multitude of various tasks.

Discord requires registration in order to use it. IRC does not require registration, but many networks and servers have registration available and it’s recommended.

Discord has the ability to create channel threads. Topics that filter out of the main channel discussion into a sub-channel without leaving the channel. IRC does not have this unique ability. In IRC one would have to chat privately or form a separate channel with the smaller number of users.

Both services off the ability to chat privately between users.

IRC is independent. There are networks and stand alone servers. Each one is unique. Discord “servers” are all part of Discord and ran on the same equipment as all others.

This one fact can lead to a single point of failure for Discord. If the Discord service goes down. All of the Discord “servers” are done. Not true at all with IRC since each server and network are independent of one another.

And with the independence, IRC is individually owned. Where as Discord is corporately owned and could change any aspect of its service with a board member vote. Including making the entire service a paid service.

On Discord you can @mention another user of the “server” you are connected to and they would be notified of the mention. IRC doesn’t have this as a built-in function. However, like other functions that are built-in to Discord, many IRC clients have similar functions.

On Discord, if you join a “server”, you are automatically in all the channels save for ones that are role restricted which can cause unwanted notifications of chats. One IRC when you connect to a server you only join the channels you want to join or none at all.

With IRC, anyone can create a new channel just by joining it. And that person gets admin rights in that channel automatically. If there is registration available and the user desires they can register the channel and make it permanent. But on Discord, only Admins can create new channels. It’s the same role given to create, destroy, or modify any channel so it’s not given out to everyone.

Discord has a history feature. Once you join a “server” and are in the channels you can infinitely scroll up to see what was previously said in that channel by anyone. On IRC, there is a +H mode that can be set on some servers or networks that allow a similar functionality but it’s usually not infinite.

Discord admins have the ability to delete chats in a channel. IRC doesn’t have this ability. Once the chat is there it’s there. But new users generally wont see it because of the lack of history available.

Bots are on both services as previously mentioned. And bots are very handy to have to provide functions and features that aren’t part of the system. With Discord, you have to have Dev permissions to create a bot. And that bot cannot run on a regular member’s account. Doing so would get the bot and user banned from Discord. On IRC however, there are a variety of scripting options available. Some are based on the client program use to connect to IRC and others are dependent on the bot being used. And you can run scripts from your own client as well.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing IRC and Discord. Just looking at this list the favor leans towards IRC over Discord despite some of its unique features. Many Discord features can be duplicated or simulated in IRC with a bit of scripting or simple options enabled on one’s client program.

I will always be an IRC enthusiast. After all I have ran my own IRC network/server for 25 years. And in this day and age of cancel culture, the freedom of an IRC server is just what is needed.

I am sad to say that I have lost a few IRC channels to Discord. And looking at those Discord “servers” I could have over a 1000 users on my IRC network if they stayed or came back.

But if you are looking for a place to have an online real-time text based chat. I’m happy to help you get setup on IRC. You can connect via a browser at https://web.communiti.chat or point you favorite IRC client program to irc.commuinit.chat and get setup to go.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If there’s one thing Leftists love to do more than spending other people’s money, it’s playing with the English language. With the advent of “cancel culture,” the Left got caught off-guard a bit, but have since rolled out a new term to describe people getting rightly called out for bad behavior, either in the past or right now. Enter Hunter Biden and a couple of emails where he used a word that can be construed as negative towards blacks. Oh, and did I mention Hunter is white?

While we wait on the Left to try to walk out of the rhetorical minefield they’ve created, let’s take a closer look at this revamp of cancel culture.

consequence culture

What the Left thinks it means – holding people accountable for bad words and actions

What it really means – cancel culture with no time limit

Although it’s nice to see the Left embracing consequences for bad actions, as opposed to trying to federally subsidize them, let’s not fool ourselves. The Left believes in consequences…for everybody else. And they are the only ones who can determine what constitutes an offense and how severe it is. But the best part? They are the only ones who can determine if someone is forgiven. That’s a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, and if it has a good dental plan.

So, where does the consequence part of consequence culture come into play? If you’re a conservative or even a libertarian like me, it always applies. Even if your only crime is not being as Leftist as the hivemind, you can be a target. Just ask Ellie Kemper. She was crowned Queen of Love and Beauty at a debutante ball in 1999 connected to the Veiled Prophet Organization. As a result, she was attacked last week on social media for participating because the group had “an unquestionably racist, sexist, and elitist past,” according to Ms. Kemper’s apology.

Here’s the issue. By the time she was part of the pageant, the group had integrated. Gone were the days of white supremacy and/or exclusivity. Ms. Kemper was punished because she won a pageant from the wrong group at a time when that group had become more racially diverse. Why they chose Ms. Kemper to attack is beyond me, but then again most Leftist thinking is beyond me these days.

So, why does Hunter “I Prefer Coke to Pepsi” Biden get a pass for being a racist and Ellie Kemper get lambasted for not being one? Well, we’d better call Saul. Alinsky, that is. In his book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky gave us 13 rules that the Left continue to use. Without going into a diatribe on all 13, the basic ideas come down to how to hurt your political enemies while ensuring your allies don’t get bored with your agenda.

One of these rules in particular strikes me as apropos in the aforementioned instances: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” For the purposes of this sketch, the enemy is anyone who isn’t a hardcore Leftist. The key to this rule’s effectiveness comes down to appearances. If the Left wants you to think it has the power to hurt you personally, professionally, or monetarily, they will project an air of invincibility and popularity in the public circle. An example of this is their “right side of history” bullshit.

The obvious weakness with that argument, as well as their use of the Left’s version of The Art of War, is its reliance on illusion. Once you pull the curtain back and see who Oz really is, their strategy goes the way of disco. After that, the Left will only have the power you let them have. And with their ANTIFA and BLM squads LARPing as revolutionaries, the only card they have left in their deck is threat of violence. Then, it becomes a value decision: are you willing to ruin your life and the lives of your family members to hold a particular point of view?

That’s where the Left’s concept of consequence comes into play. Their goal is to silence the opposition by any means necessary. Knuckle under or be brought to heel. Of course, you could always pull a David Brock and become a rabid Leftist. Then, you can have all the coke binges, illegal firearms, and criminal activity you want. The Left will go out of their way to ensure you are protected from those mean ole conservatives! I believe the Mob has something similar. I believe it’s called…protection?

Wait. Is that what is at the heart of consequence culture? Why, yes! Yes it is! With a little help from Uncle Saul, the Left has perfected the art of the shakedown to the point Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may want to take notes, and not C-notes for a change.

But remember what I said earlier about this approach’s fatal flaw. As long as the Left has to deceive to make their point, they are never going to argue from a position of power unless we give it to them. On top of that, the more they play fast and loose with who is eligible to be held accountable, the harder it becomes for them to argue in good faith. These two strikes alone are enough to undercut the Left, but the third strike come from us. The Left needs us to act emotionally so it plays to their strengths, but they will get thrown off if your reaction doesn’t match their expectations. Their overconfidence becomes their Achilles heel because it limits their ability to see other options besides the ones they assume will be the ones we will take. Deprive them of their actual strength and deny them the power they want you to think they have, and they are weaker than Logan Paul’s fight game.

Then, really surprise them by holding them accountable to the rules they set up for everyone else because…well…consequence culture.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Have you ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? If not, the gist is sometimes what you want to happen comes with strings attached that you didn’t anticipate. Like eating gas station sushi on a long road trip. You may be happy in the short term, but further down the line you’re going to wind up puking your guts out at a Rest Stop outside Laramie, Wyoming.

Not that that’s ever happened to me, mind you…

Anyway, the Left is experiencing a gas station sushi situation of their own, thanks to a little something called cancel culture. When the Left wants a conservative marginalized from the open market of ideas, they do everything they can to discredit and silence them, expecting them to either apologize (which the Left will never accept) and comply (like confessed liar and Media Matters founder David Brock) or to go silent to avoid further persecution. Now, some prominent Leftist celebrities are watching this practice boomerang against them, and now they’re being held to the same standard they held for others.

And somehow it’s the Right’s fault.

This looks like a good time to look at cancel culture and mock it.

cancel culture

What the Left thinks it means – a movement co-opted by the Right to silence anti-Trump speech

What it really means – the Left not getting the message of 1984

I’m not a fan of silencing people for offending modern sensibilities because it tends to drive their message underground where it can thrive away from the attention of the offended. However, the Left and some members of the Right believe the ends justify the means. They’ve tried with Rush Limbaugh, Chik fil A, Fox News, and others with varying degrees of success. Mostly failure, but I want to be generous.

The entire idea of cancel culture, much like most of Leftist ideas, is absurd at its face. However, with the Left’s dominance of media, those ideas have been given absolute power, and in this case absolute power screws up absolutely. Keep this point in mind because it’s going to get even weirder.

Recently, Leftist celebrities are being called out for using blackface in sketches and shows. Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, Joy Behar, Tina Fey and others are facing legitimate criticism and apologizing for offending people. And in Fey’s case, she’s asking for the episodes of “30 Rock” that used it to be taken off any platform that replays her show. Although the apology and the removal of the offensive material may be enough to satisfy the cancel culture club, it doesn’t change the fact Fey and the producers of “30 Rock” made the decision to allow blackface in the first place.

That may be the biggest shock for the Left right now. Not only have they thought, said, and signed off on racist activities, they’ve championed the very tools of their own destruction…when those tools are used against other people. Although it’s fun to point and laugh (because, believe me, I have), it astounds me how tone-deaf these people are. It’s almost as if they thought they’d never be held to the standards they’ve set for others because their ideology made them immune. They say the right things, they support the right causes, so in their minds, they can’t be batting clean-up behind Adolf Hitler in the World’s Worst People Softball Tournament. It’s almost as if they never expected to get caught and suffer the consequences of their actions.

In other words, they’re all Hillary Clinton, circa 2016.

Leftists have tried to get in front of the cancel culture story by saying it doesn’t exist, but that was only after several people were caught up in cancel culture that the Left decided to say it wasn’t real. Just a teensy bit late on that, kids. Meanwhile those of us who paid attention in history and any literature class that included George Orwell in the reading list could see where this was going because it ends the same in fiction and reality: eventually everyone gets the axe in one form or another. Even the most stalwart believer of an ideology can be called an infidel at some point and, in fact, it’s the Leftist approach to everything. If they can’t find some reason to expel you, they’ll invent one. Paging Juan Williams…

So, how do we fight cancel culture? By not giving into it. The Left need you to be scared of being publicly shunned to force compliance or silence. Social media is a breeding ground for this kind of insanity, so either be completely non-offensive so they can’t find dirt on you or be loud and proud of who you are. Not everyone will be able to be as brash as Candice Owens, so find your comfort level and stick with it. Also, keep your emotions in check. Once you lash out at someone for an opinion that differs yours, you’ve sprung the trap that will allow you to be canceled at some point.

Above all else, though, try to be as intellectually diverse as possible. I don’t like Samuel L. Jackson’s politics, but I enjoy his work as an actor and I would never want him to be censored by anyone. As long as he’ll let me be me, I’ll let him be him. That’s the thing the Left doesn’t get. You don’t have to be in lockstep with everyone you like, and anyone who says you have to is an idiot. By keeping an open mind and accepting not everyone will dance to the beat of your own drum, not only will your life be more open and interesting, but you’ll recognize those who think they can tell you who you should and shouldn’t see are missing out. Plus, if you learn about ideas and concepts outside your comfort zone, you may become a fan of them or at least a better-informed critic.

On top of that, you can prove you’re not an immature brat like the Left. So, double-bonus!