International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354396)

d4m10n 11th June 2022 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13830331)
You, of course, have the option to no longer patronize their business and let them know why, but I think I read somewhere that might be "cancel culture".

I'm a lot less worried about pressuring corporations than targeting individual employees.

Darat 11th June 2022 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13830467)
That the tools of the censor once established can be used by anyone. The target in this case is 'Woke', the prosecutors are not.



And, they have been subjected to the kind of 'Process Due' the Woke love, the person making the final call on if the accused is guilty is the accuser.

Sincerely I can make no sense of what you have posted, to me it reads as if there are whole clauses/sentences/words missing that make this make sense to you.

Could you try again and start with assuming I may not know the jargon you are using nor the background to your assumptions?

Darat 11th June 2022 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13830471)
Not strictly 'Cancel Culture' but an interesting dynamic. To summarize, Dave Weigel a reporter at the Washington Post, retweeted a poor taste joke and was censured, suspended, apologised, etc.


Another reporter at the Post, Felicia Sonmez (Looks White, but claims to be LatinX.) launched a twitter crusade against Weigel and anyone who defended him.


She's now been fired from the Washington Post for:





The full NYT article is quite fascinating.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/b...gton-post.html


Also worth looking at is Jerry Coyne's commentary.



https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/...er-an-apology/

1) Why isn't that cancel culture?
2) And if it isn't what relevance does it have to the discussion in this thread?

:confused:

Darat 11th June 2022 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13830684)
I'm a lot less worried about pressuring corporations than targeting individual employees.

And?

d4m10n 11th June 2022 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13830692)
And?

And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13830691)
1) Why isn't that cancel culture?

I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.

johnny karate 11th June 2022 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13830684)
I'm a lot less worried about pressuring corporations than targeting individual employees.

Yet you’ve criticized it as part of the “cancel culture” problem. You’ve repeatedly bemoaned the “mobs” who “force” corporations to fire people. Seems really convenient for you to be unconcerned about it now that it serves your current argument.

johnny karate 11th June 2022 08:11 AM

How To Undermine Your Own Argument in Two Easy Steps

Step 1: Claim you take no issue with public pressure being applied to corporations:
Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13830701)
And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.

Step 2: Complain about public pressure being applied to a corporation:
Quote:

I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.

Darat 11th June 2022 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13830701)
And I've never said we should refrain from pressuring corporations just because doing so might be characterized (however unreasonably) as cancel culture.

I'd say it is, especially if WaPo was reacting to the madness of crowds (on social media) when they disciplined Weigel and sacked Sonmez.

I'm curious as to why Graham2001 doesn't think it is.

dudalb 11th June 2022 02:20 PM

Waiting for the anti woke crowd to scream bloody murder about Juneteenth now being an official US Holiday.

Graham2001 12th June 2022 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13830834)
I'm curious as to why Graham2001 doesn't think it is.


Remember when Twitter blocked Trump the mantra was 'Corporations are not bound by the US Constitution' and therefore don't have to abide by it, which the Woke thought was a good thing. Then when Musk made noises about purchasing it and the cry from the Woke was 'The Government has to regulate corporations to protect the vunerable'.


In the Washington Post case I support their actions in regards Weigel, the joke was not funny and I consider it offensive to women. As for Sonmez, her behaviour was completely out-of-line, and if you look at the photograph attached to this commentary by Jerry Coyne, her claims to be LatinX stand on shaky ground.


Going by appearance (Which is what the Woke are obsessed with.) she's White...


Quote:

Three days ago I reported that Washington Post journalist David Weigel was suspended by the paper for a month for retweeting this dubious and offensive joke:

Even if he returns, I suspect his life at the paper will be forever hard. But since Wiegel apologized for this and deleted the tweet, my view was that a stiff talking-to but his editors and a warning that this must never be repeated would suffice for his punishment. (Surprisingly, in my old age I’m getting less punitive. Maybe it’s my belief in the absence of free will!) But readers disagreed with me, saying Weigel should have been fired, and so be it.

Now, however, the controversy has blossomed further, this time resulting in the outright firing of another Post reporter, Felicia Sonmez. Sonmez not only attacked Weigel, but did worse: she repeatedly attacked The Washington Post despite other reporters asking her to stop. The summary is in this NY Times article (click to read), but you can also read about it on CNN.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/...g-of-reporter/

Darat 12th June 2022 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13831201)
R...snip...

That doesn't answer my question.

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 03:54 AM

scrutiny
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13829227)
Doesn't seem to answer my question which was "Why do you not consider your comments as an example of “cancel culture”?"

Given that you have not answered my questions, I don't feel compelled to answer yours. Nevertheless, I provided a definition in comments #1725, and I noted that my in question did not fit this definition. If you want to construct an argument to the contrary, the onus is on you to do so.

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 03:55 AM

relevance?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13830920)
Waiting for the anti woke crowd to scream bloody murder about Juneteenth now being an official US Holiday.

What does this have to do with cancel culture?

Darat 13th June 2022 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13831800)
Given that you have not answered my questions, I don't feel compelled to answer yours. Nevertheless, I provided a definition in comments #1725, and I noted that my in question did not fit this definition. If you want to construct an argument to the contrary, the onus is on you to do so.

Nope you are still not answering my question with an answer that addresses the question.

According to you your criticism doesn't amount to cancel culture because you were not asking for anyone to be fired. The definition from your post also doesn't require someone to be seeking someone to be fired to be classed as cancel culture. So you do not seem to have a coherent definition for cancel culture as you use the phrase.

So we keep going back to the point of why isn't your criticism cancel culture? You seem to consider your use of social media, your criticisms not to be cancel culture - but apart from the comment about not seeking to have someone fired you have no answer as to why we shouldn't lump you in with all the other people pushing this terrible "cancel culture". I see nothing different to what you are doing compared to what other people are doing that you do consider to be cancel culture.

It is all rather confusing.

(And no I'm not answering your questions to me yet because we still haven't got past the first question I asked you - if you want to invoke a reciprocity rule than I will play along with you but for that to work you need to answer the question I asked you.)

JoeMorgue 13th June 2022 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13831801)
What does this have to do with cancel culture?

Nothing, which is the whole point.

JoeMorgue 13th June 2022 05:25 AM

Since we're now a dozen nested threads deep and the most basic questions from the Cancel Culture Screechers haven't been answered I am now forced to just assume that "Cancel Culture" is one of:

A) A Culture Club Cover Band
B) A Sourdough Bread Starter
C) A New Line of Cells in Research

And answering questions under that assumption.

How is Cancel Culture's cover of Karma Chameleon?

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 09:54 AM

the march of progress
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13831817)
(And no I'm not answering your questions to me yet because we still haven't got past the first question I asked you - if you want to invoke a reciprocity rule than I will play along with you but for that to work you need to answer the question I asked you.)

At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.

JoeMorgue 13th June 2022 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13832038)
At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.

Oh would you just stop it. This isn't some childish game of "I asked you first."

Because keep asking you to answer the goddamn question not because there's some "Roberts Rules Of Order" about it but because of the fact you can't/won't and at this part can't/won't intentionally define what YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

Darat 13th June 2022 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13832038)
At least one question that I asked you was back to March. I suggest you address that question first.

Wow - that is so pathetic that I'm embarrassed for you.

We have both been in a lot of the same threads over the last nearly 13 years, can you please provide the tally of questions asked to and answered by each of us - one assumes you have such a tally.....

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 04:24 PM

asked and answered
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13832054)
Oh would you just stop it. This isn't some childish game of "I asked you first."

Because keep asking you to answer the goddamn question not because there's some "Roberts Rules Of Order" about it but because of the fact you can't/won't and at this part can't/won't intentionally define what YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

I have defined it and repeatedly linked to that definition. You are...speaking falsely...again and again.

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 04:36 PM

scrutiny versus Stern
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13831817)
Nope you are still not answering my question with an answer that addresses the question.

According to you your criticism doesn't amount to cancel culture because you were not asking for anyone to be fired. The definition from your post also doesn't require someone to be seeking someone to be fired to be classed as cancel culture. So you do not seem to have a coherent definition for cancel culture as you use the phrase.

So we keep going back to the point of why isn't your criticism cancel culture? You seem to consider your use of social media, your criticisms not to be cancel culture - but apart from the comment about not seeking to have someone fired you have no answer as to why we shouldn't lump you in with all the other people pushing this terrible "cancel culture". I see nothing different to what you are doing compared to what other people are doing that you do consider to be cancel culture.

It is all rather confusing.

(And no I'm not answering your questions to me yet because we still haven't got past the first question I asked you - if you want to invoke a reciprocity rule than I will play along with you but for that to work you need to answer the question I asked you.)

Scott Greenfield’s definition was “Cancel culture is the breakdown of social norms that allow for the free speech of criticism but inhibit people from joining together with like-minded people to not merely disagree with words or ideas they find unacceptable (or perceive to be unacceptable on behalf of others), but then act upon them for the purpose of inflicting secondary punishment to their antagonists, whether based on fact, opinion or false accusation, without need for proof or due process and disconnected from the nature of the original ‘offense.’”

That punishment can take the form of someone’s being fired is explicitly brought up in the column of which this definition is a part, and firings have been discussed in this thread many times (implicit in this definition is that there might have been an actual offense but that the punishment could be more severe than is warranted). However, I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that punishment must take this form. Nor is it the only form of punishment that Mr. Greenfield mentioned. EDT: Moreover, I would point out that the context of this discussion is Mr. Shapiro's suspension from Georgetown. Academic work can be hindered a little or a great deal from a suspension, depending on the particulars; therefore, it has the effect of being a punishment.

Oxford Languages defines to scrutinize as to “examine or inspect closely and thoroughly.” At Merriam-Webster this verb is defined as “to examine closely and minutely.” There is nothing in either definition which indicates that the outcome of such scrutiny will be either a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the thing in question. Therefore, a call for scrutiny is not even necessarily a criticism, let alone a call for someone to be fired or otherwise punished.

Now let us contrast scrutiny with what Mark Joseph Stern helped to do regarding Ilya Shapiro. Mr. Stern has over 100,000 followers on twitter. According to Charles Cooke at the National Review, he “screenshotted and shared them, condemned their author as a racist troll in tweets that tagged his employer, insisted dramatically that he was ‘ashamed’ of his ‘alma mater…’”. In an Op-Ed in the Washington Post on 3 February 2022 Megan McArdle wrote in response to this incident, “At this late date, it seems almost unnecessary to point out that if you publicly accuse someone of racism, sexism or other similar wrongs, you are effectively calling for that person to be fired, or at the very least, to suffer some kind of workplace discipline. Yet apparently someone needs to restate the obvious.”

At Reason on 3 February 2022 David Kopel wrote, “Stern told his readers: ‘Shapiro preemptively declared that Biden's nominee, whoever she is, will not be qualified… And he doesn't see how this belief is colored by his own racism.’” The first part is patently false, and Kopel provided information that refutes the second part: “In fact, Shapiro has said that the best nominee for the Supreme Court could be a black woman—namely D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. In a 2016 event at the University of Chicago Law School, he listed Judge Brown as among several he would consider nominating, if he had the power.”

What you wrote was not even wrong. As for your confusion, it is partially the result of making unwarranted assumptions.

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 04:46 PM

must versus might
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13829850)
This is rather puzzling, when asked why your criticism wasn't an example of the very cancel culture you are railing against. You said:

"I did not call for anyone to get fired...."

How can I interpret your response as to mean anything other than to be an example of the cancel culture you rail against one must call for someone to be fired?

If you are now saying that a call for someone to be fired isn't part of your definition of cancel culture fair enough but it does mean you did not answer the question you quoted.

Why is your criticism or call it behaviour not an example of cancel culture?

There is a difference between the words "must" and "might." Although the difference is slight, "criticism" carries with it some meanings that are distinct from "scrutiny." What you wrote is a distortion of what I said. Whether it arises from your confusion or your deliberate attempt to muddy the water is another matter.

Chris_Halkides 13th June 2022 05:38 PM

Janice Rogers Brown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13830506)
What he meant is open to argument. What he said is not.

What Mr. Shapiro said about Judge Janice Rogers Brown (discussed in a different comment) strongly supports the idea that he does not consider black judges to be lesser per se.

Graham2001 13th June 2022 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13830689)
Sincerely I can make no sense of what you have posted, to me it reads as if there are whole clauses/sentences/words missing that make this make sense to you.

Could you try again and start with assuming I may not know the jargon you are using nor the background to your assumptions?


In regards 'Process Due'.


1. The Survivor makes their statement.


2. The Perp is arrested.


3. The Perp is taken to the tribunal and advised of his punishment.


This whole concept arose out of the frustration of things like the McMartin Pre-school Case, where despite what the 'Survivors' stated the 'Perps' were never convicted.



You see it in many Universities where someone does something deemed 'offensive' (e.g. The 'Perp'.) and the people in authority make statements to the effect that the 'Perp' will be '...dealt with...'

Dr. Keith 13th June 2022 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13832428)
What Mr. Shapiro said about Judge Janice Rogers Brown (discussed in a different comment) strongly supports the idea that he does not consider black judges to be lesser per se.

So why must you pretend that something else was said?

Dr. Keith 13th June 2022 08:31 PM

To get back to the topic of the thread, a bit of cancellation in real life:

https://nypost.com/2022/06/13/lizzo-...e-outrage/amp/

d4m10n 13th June 2022 08:37 PM

Can't exactly say the song got worse.

Dr. Keith 13th June 2022 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13832514)
Can't exactly say the song got worse.

Cancellations often have happy endings. Why would you expect otherwise?

Graham2001 14th June 2022 01:00 AM

And from the New York Times:


Quote:

Imagine a world in which all the men disappear from the planet in a single moment: Planes they were piloting are left unmanned (literally), their female passengers abandoned in midair; men in bed with their girlfriends mysteriously vanish; boys in the playground dematerialize before their mothers’ eyes. The girls and women left behind are given no apparent reason for the sudden absence of half the world’s population.

Now imagine another world — one in which an author proudly announces her forthcoming novel only to be attacked online for its fantastical premise. Months before the book comes out, it is described on Goodreads as a “transphobic, racist, ableist, misogynist nightmare of a book.” On Twitter, people who have yet to read the novel declare that it’s their responsibility to “deplatform” it. When one of the author’s friends, herself a writer, defends the book, she is similarly attacked, and a prominent literary organization withdraws her nomination for a prize for her own book.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/o...ewman-men.html

Darat 14th June 2022 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides (Post 13832378)
...snip...

Interesting post and thanks for it I enjoyed reading it.

I have above snipped out all the parts that didn't address the question I had asked of you which is why isn't your use of social media, your use of criticism not cancel culture?

Let me remind you that when I asked you previously you said it was because you were not seeking to have someone fired.

When asked was that a necessary criteria for you to determine that something is cancel culture or not you then said it wasn't and indeed your interesting post just clarified that. So why on earth you brought it up in the first place is beyond me.

But I am happy to leave that aside and we are therefore back to you not being apparently able to explain why your use of social media, your criticism isn't cancel culture.

We really are left with nothing from you beyond "because".

Darat 14th June 2022 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13832620)

Yet again "and"?

Simply dropping a quote with no commentary really isn't a discussion, you need to give us at least some clue at least to why you wanted to drop that quote into a discussion, I have to assume it is meant to have something to do with the topics under discussion? Or are you wanting to draw our attention to the font the New York Times uses in its online reports, is it the formatting they use, is it their style guide?

Give us a clue.

Dr. Keith 14th June 2022 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13832620)

Imagine a poster who cares very little.

JoeMorgue 14th June 2022 06:03 AM

*Walk around my house... picks up the coffee pot...*

Hey is this cancel culture?

*Opens the oven door*

Cancel culture!? Are you in there!

*Looks to my left*

AHA! Cancel Culture! There you are! I knew you couldn't hide from me... no wait, wait that's the toaster.

johnny karate 14th June 2022 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13832620)

So the New York Times wants me to imagine a world where free speech exists and can often be ugly and problematic?

Gosh, I’ll try…

Darat 14th June 2022 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13832852)
So the New York Times wants me to imagine a world where free speech exists and can often be ugly and problematic?

Gosh, I’ll try…


"....Most people don’t want to live in a world in which books are vilified without being read and their authors attacked ad hominem for the temerity of having written them....."
Where has the author been? Certainly can't have lived on this earth for the last say 5000 years. I bet before the first clay tablet was dry Shuruppak's self help tablet was being decried!

JoeMorgue 14th June 2022 09:23 AM

51 pages into the second thread and it's still

*Shows an example of HOW SOCIETY HAS ALWAYS WORKED*

Thermal 14th June 2022 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13832889)
51 pages into the second thread and it's still

*Shows an example of HOW SOCIETY HAS ALWAYS WORKED*

If you tried to stop a man from entering an apartment without swiping in first, no one would know and it would be a minor nuicance to all, and maybe a story to tell at lunch the next day. Now, it ruins your life and reputation internationally, and overnight. Reporters clamoring at your door and death threats from people who call you a racist.

"Society" has not remotely always worked this way.

JoeMorgue 14th June 2022 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13832902)
If you tried to stop a man from entering an apartment without swiping in first, no one would know and it would be a minor nuicance to all, and maybe a story to tell at lunch the next day. Now, it ruins your life and reputation internationally, and overnight. Reporters clamoring at your door and death threats from people who call you a racist.

"Society" has not remotely always worked this way.

Wow that's a deep cut from your "Why didn't the black man just run faster?" catalogue to bring up with no point except to absolutely prove the other side's point.

Society has always worked that way if you're the "right" kind of person is literally the whole point.

johnny karate 14th June 2022 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 13832902)
If you tried to stop a man from entering an apartment without swiping in first, no one would know and it would be a minor nuicance to all, and maybe a story to tell at lunch the next day. Now, it ruins your life and reputation internationally, and overnight. Reporters clamoring at your door and death threats from people who call you a racist.

"Society" has not remotely always worked this way.

I think you need to ratchet up the drama a little bit. Maybe throw in a car chase or two.

johnny karate 14th June 2022 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13832907)
Wow that's a deep cut from your "Why didn't the black man just run faster?" catalogue to bring up with no point except to absolutely prove the other side's point.

Society has always worked that way if you're the "right" kind of person is literally the whole point.

I like the implication that white people being subjected to "death threats for being racist" somehow makes society a worse place than our long and hallowed tradition of black people being subjected to "death by racist".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.