International Skeptics Forum
Page 44 of 58 « First  <  34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  >  Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Cain 1st July 2022 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13845825)
For the tl;dr crowd: Teenage boy shared a nude photo of his underage girlfriend with his buddies and was subsequently shunned at his high school when word got out. For some reason, the article - and presumably d4m10n - wants us to feel bad for the boy, who not only engaged in a disgusting violation of trust and privacy, but also almost certainly broke the law. No concern is expressed for the girl who was violated.
He was drunk at a party when he showed the photo (on his phone) to a few kids. And your last line is either a lie or yet another demonstration of an inability to read.

Quote:
“Cancel culture” hand-wringers seem to choose their examples like Trump chose cabinet members. Only the Very Best People.
Being a minor is a mitigating circumstance (in addition to being drunk and showing the picture rather than disseminating it). Nobody disputes that it was still a terrible thing to do. People are more than the worst thing they've done, or the best thing they've done. While the most dramatic cases of injustice involve good people being victimized for fighting on behalf of a noble cause, most cases of cancel culture will involve dumb-to-bad people doing bad things. Critics of cancel culture do not say Diego should be free to live his life as if this has never happened, or that he's among the very best. The critique is that this type of punishment is inconsistent and disproportionate. There are also harmful consequences, seen in the article: spirals of silence, dysfunction, moral panic.

johnny karate 1st July 2022 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13846253)
This isn't the politics forum, it's the social issues forum. Legal rights are not dispositive here.
To be clear, is it your opinion that the owner of the venue has no right to determine who does and does not perform in their venue outside of the technical one granted by the law?

johnny karate 1st July 2022 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13846293)
He was drunk at a party when he showed the photo (on his phone) to a few kids. And your last line is either a lie or yet another demonstration of an inability to read.



Being a minor is a mitigating circumstance (in addition to being drunk and showing the picture rather than disseminating it). Nobody disputes that it was still a terrible thing to do. People are more than the worst thing they've done, or the best thing they've done. While the most dramatic cases of injustice involve good people being victimized for fighting on behalf of a noble cause, most cases of cancel culture will involve dumb-to-bad people doing bad things. Critics of cancel culture do not say Diego should be free to live his life as if this has never happened, or that he's among the very best. The critique is that this type of punishment is inconsistent and disproportionate. There are also harmful consequences, seen in the article: spirals of silence, dysfunction, moral panic.
Socially undesirable behavior often results in negative social consequences. This is one of the basic tenets of living in a society. Most people learn and accept this truth when they are still children.

What Diego did isn’t only socially undesirable, it’s also criminal. He’s lucky being shunned is the worst thing that happened to him.

Maybe he was just a dumb kid who did something foolish, but he still did it. There are consequences in life and this is an opportunity for him to learn that important lesson. Maybe he’ll think twice before he violates someone else.

My sympathies remain with his underage victim.

Seriously though, the posters here who are mad that social consequences for bad behavior exist really need to start picking better people to champion.

Cain 2nd July 2022 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13846349)
Socially undesirable behavior often results in negative social consequences. This is one of the basic tenets of living in a society. Most people learn and accept this truth when they are still children.
Anti-social behavior ought to have negative social consequences. Who says otherwise? Who says that what Diego did was not bad, or does not deserve punishment? Another boy, a "self-appointed enforcer" who takes the initiative to go after Diego, reportedly said in a statistics class, "'There are not many people that I would bash in the head with a hammer. Diego is one of them.'" Later, he reportedly wrote, "**** Diego. I love cancel culture. If you were to cancel anyone, who would you cancel?" Is this socially undesirable behavior? Because it seems as though this boy was being rewarded with status and attention.

Quote:
What Diego did isn’t only socially undesirable, it’s also criminal. He’s lucky being shunned is the worst thing that happened to him.
Compared to what? I'm reminded of an article in Mother Jones a while back:

"No part of my experience [in an Iranian prison]—not the uncertainty of when I would be free again, not the tortured screams of other prisoners—was worse than the four months I spent in solitary confinement. What would he say if I told him I needed human contact so badly that I woke every morning hoping to be interrogated? Would he believe that I once yearned to be sat down in a padded, soundproof room, blindfolded, and questioned, just so I could talk to somebody?"

Quote:
Seriously though, the posters here who are mad that social consequences for bad behavior exist really need to start picking better people to champion.
This reflects a morally cartoonish, Manichean view of the world. Principled people do not get to choose the most compelling victims; they just have their principles. I don't care if George Floyd, for example, had long criminal record, or had just committed a crime and disobeyed a lawful order to remain in the squad car. This kind of vindictiveness is Nancy "I care about the real victims" Grace-adjacent.

johnny karate 2nd July 2022 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13846507)
Anti-social behavior ought to have negative social consequences. Who says otherwise? Who says that what Diego did was not bad, or does not deserve punishment? Another boy, a "self-appointed enforcer" who takes the initiative to go after Diego, reportedly said in a statistics class, "'There are not many people that I would bash in the head with a hammer. Diego is one of them.'" Later, he reportedly wrote, "**** Diego. I love cancel culture. If you were to cancel anyone, who would you cancel?" Is this socially undesirable behavior? Because it seems as though this boy was being rewarded with status and attention.
Feel free to shun that boy and encourage others to do so if you are unsatisfied with the response to his behavior.

Quote:
Compared to what? I'm reminded of an article in Mother Jones a while back:

"No part of my experience [in an Iranian prison]—not the uncertainty of when I would be free again, not the tortured screams of other prisoners—was worse than the four months I spent in solitary confinement. What would he say if I told him I needed human contact so badly that I woke every morning hoping to be interrogated? Would he believe that I once yearned to be sat down in a padded, soundproof room, blindfolded, and questioned, just so I could talk to somebody?"
Compared to being criminally prosecuted for the potential crime that he committed. I would argue that’s worse than a high school shunning.

Quote:
This reflects a morally cartoonish, Manichean view of the world. Principled people do not get to choose the most compelling victims; they just have their principles. I don't care if George Floyd, for example, had long criminal record, or had just committed a crime and disobeyed a lawful order to remain in the squad car. This kind of vindictiveness is Nancy "I care about the real victims" Grace-adjacent.
George Floyd was murdered. Is that the most histrionic comparison you could come up with? Perhaps a Holocaust comparison would really drive the point home.

But let’s be clear: You’re making a victim out of a kid who violated a young girl and probably committed a crime in the process because other kids are now saying mean things about him. He’s not the victim here. The girl he violated is.

Cain 2nd July 2022 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13846731)
Feel free to shun that boy and encourage others to do so if you are unsatisfied with the response to his behavior.
This is a nihilistic dodge. The question was whether or not you believe the boy engaged in socially undesirable behavior.

Quote:
Compared to being criminally prosecuted for the potential crime that he committed. I would argue that’s worse than a high school shunning.
Assuming they pursued it, the case would get plea-bargained down to what? Community service and a fine? Where social currency is the be-all, end-all, I could see these kids preferring to be caned rather than shunned. The dialogue in the article sounded like a version of idiocracy: "Bruh, that was a little out of pocket."

Quote:
George Floyd was murdered. Is that the most histrionic comparison you could come up with? Perhaps a Holocaust comparison would really drive the point home.

But let’s be clear: You’re making a victim out of a kid who violated a young girl and probably committed a crime in the process because other kids are now saying mean things about him. He’s not the victim here. The girl he violated is.
It's possible to be a victimizer and a victim. If someone bashed Diego's head with a hammer, you would not, I hope, say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!" According to the article, is it fair to say that Diego was bullied and harassed?

lomiller 2nd July 2022 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13841519)
Secondly, the venue knew exactly what they were up against:
https://twitter.com/markethotelnyc/s...70317061480453

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."
Of course they are. Business make choices about which group of people is more valuable to them every single day. They weighed their options and made their choice accordingly. That's how freedom works. Freedom is not a guarantee your choices will be all be consequence free.

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13846875)
This is a nihilistic dodge. The question was whether or not you believe the boy engaged in socially undesirable behavior.
I generally don’t think people should be saying they want to hit other people with hammers, but if they don’t actually do it, and saying they want to doesn’t violate the law, I’m not sure how outraged I’m supposed to be about it.

However, it doesn’t matter what I believe about it, and I’m not sure why you think it does. The determination for what is or isn’t socially acceptable is made by his peer group, not some random person on the internet.

This is nothing but a red herring.

Quote:
Assuming they pursued it, the case would get plea-bargained down to what? Community service and a fine? Where social currency is the be-all, end-all, I could see these kids preferring to be caned rather than shunned. The dialogue in the article sounded like a version of idiocracy: "Bruh, that was a little out of pocket."
It’s difficult to take someone seriously who argues that being “cancelled” is worse than criminal prosecution or corporeal punishment.

Quote:
It's possible to be a victimizer and a victim.
You could use this same tortured logic to argue that any criminal who is prosecuted and penalized for their crimes is also a “victim”.

Quote:
If someone bashed Diego's head with a hammer, you would not, I hope, say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!"
No, that would be a crime. Unlike some people in this thread, I don’t downplay criminal behavior or sympathize with those who engage in it.

Quote:
According to the article, is it fair to say that Diego was bullied and harassed?
Bullied? No, not really. The act of bullying implies a power dynamic in which stronger kids are targeting weaker kids. It’s hard to make that argument here when the kids allegedly “bullying” Diego were doing so in response to him victimizing someone else. You’re basically arguing that the kids who stand up to the bully are the real bullies.

Harassing? Sure. But that term has a fairly broad definition that includes forms of relatively innocuous behavior. I’m not particularly bothered when politicians who support unpopular policies are “harassed” by their constituents, and I’m also not particularly bothered when a kid who who subjects a young girl to humiliation is “harassed” by other kids who don’t like that he did that. As long as the behavior remains within the bounds of the law, them’s the breaks.

My sympathies remain with the young girl he violated.

Cain 3rd July 2022 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13847256)
I generally don’t think people should be saying they want to hit other people with hammers, but if they don’t actually do it, and saying they want to doesn’t violate the law, I’m not sure how outraged I’m supposed to be about it.

However, it doesn’t matter what I believe about it, and I’m not sure why you think it does. The determination for what is or isn’t socially acceptable is made by his peer group, not some random person on the internet.

This is nothing but a red herring.
This sort of amoral response gets at the root of your dishonesty. If a kid were shunned on suspicion of being gay, would you throw your hands up, "Well, I'm just a random person on the Internet. The determination of whether or not 'faggy' behavior should be socially acceptable is really something for his peer group to decide."

Quote:
It’s difficult to take someone seriously who argues that being “cancelled” is worse than criminal prosecution or corporeal punishment.
I did not say that it is worse. I said that I could see how a child might prefer other forms of punishment. This is cognitive empathy, and it's something you might want to try to develop.

Quote:
You could use this same tortured logic to argue that any criminal who is prosecuted and penalized for their crimes is also a “victim”.
There are convicted criminals who are victims of the system -- specifically when their punishment is disproportionate. It's almost as if punitive punishment has been an ongoing theme for however many years this topic has been discussed.

Quote:
Bullied? No, not really. The act of bullying implies a power dynamic in which stronger kids are targeting weaker kids. It’s hard to make that argument here when the kids allegedly “bullying” Diego were doing so in response to him victimizing someone else. You’re basically arguing that the kids who stand up to the bully are the real bullies.
This is nonsense all the way down. Is it hard to argue Muammar Gaddafi's human rights were violated because he had been in power (up until the moment he wasn't in power)? Yes, of course bullies can get bullied by their victims. Gross transgressions do not grant moral blank checks. And anyway, as far as this school is concerned, the continued harassment does not seem to come from the victims. Diego's main antagonist was a boy. There was another incident where a girl threatened to have her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend canceled, followed through on it, but the two "couldn't stay away from each other," so when he ran away from home, she urged him to come back.

Quote:
Harassing? Sure. But that term has a fairly broad definition that includes forms of relatively innocuous behavior. I’m not particularly bothered when politicians who support unpopular policies are “harassed” by their constituents, and I’m also not particularly bothered when a kid who who subjects a young girl to humiliation is “harassed” by other kids who don’t like that he did that. As long as the behavior remains within the bounds of the law, them’s the breaks.
You're rationalizing harassment by arguing against "harassment." And it's not like you have to guess what happened; someone wrote a ~10,000 word article. The school concluded that the kid had been bullied and harassed. It's also mighty naive of you to assume other kids dogpile because they take umbrage at the original offense. Some just like to dogpile.

johnny karate 3rd July 2022 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13847388)
This sort of amoral response gets at the root of your dishonesty. If a kid were shunned on suspicion of being gay, would you throw your hands up, "Well, I'm just a random person on the Internet. The determination of whether or not 'faggy' behavior should be socially acceptable is really something for his peer group to decide."
This kid wasn’t shunned for a lifestyle choice. He was shunned for victimizing and humiliating a young girl.

It’s so weird that “cancel culture” hand-wringers not only can’t seem to grasp the concepts of nuance and context, it’s like they think those concepts don’t even exist.

Here, let me help on your journey to enlightenment: Not everything is the same.

Quote:
I did not say that it is worse. I said that I could see how a child might prefer other forms of punishment. This is cognitive empathy, and it's something you might want to try to develop.
I have empathy for the young girl he violated.

Quote:
There are convicted criminals who are victims of the system -- specifically when their punishment is disproportionate. It's almost as if punitive punishment has been an ongoing theme for however many years this topic has been discussed.
There are also convicted criminals who aren’t victims at all. Bearing the brunt of negative consequences that directly result for your own bad behavior doesn’t automatically make you a victim.

Quote:
This is nonsense all the way down. Is it hard to argue Muammar Gaddafi's human rights were violated because he had been in power (up until the moment he wasn't in power)? Yes, of course bullies can get bullied by their victims. Gross transgressions do not grant moral blank checks. And anyway, as far as this school is concerned, the continued harassment does not seem to come from the victims. Diego's main antagonist was a boy. There was another incident where a girl threatened to have her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend canceled, followed through on it, but the two "couldn't stay away from each other," so when he ran away from home, she urged him to come back.
All stories truly worthy of a Greek tragedy.

My sympathies remain with the young girl who was victimized, and not with her victimizer.

Quote:
You're rationalizing harassment by arguing against "harassment." And it's not like you have to guess what happened; someone wrote a ~10,000 word article. The school concluded that the kid had been bullied and harassed. It's also mighty naive of you to assume other kids dogpile because they take umbrage at the original offense. Some just like to dogpile.
And some just like to show their buddies nude photos of their underage girlfriends without her consent for the lolz and high-fives. Diego had a choice in determining what happened to him. The young girl he violated didn’t.

My sympathies remain with his victim.

Graham2001 3rd July 2022 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13839501)
If it is about online bullying what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread?

Because it perfectly illustrates the dynamics of the online mobs that drive so much of what is called 'cancel culture'.

Darat 4th July 2022 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13847594)
Because it perfectly illustrates the dynamics of the online mobs that drive so much of what is called 'cancel culture'.
Why not call it "online bullying" rather than "cancel culture"?

Cain 4th July 2022 02:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13847470)
This kid wasn’t shunned for a lifestyle choice. He was shunned for victimizing and humiliating a young girl.
Earlier in your three card monte routine, you said, "Feel free to shun that boy and encourage others to do so if you are unsatisfied with the response to his behavior," but perhaps it's dawned on you that this sort of you-do-you moral relativism is not enough: we need an independent reason. Tabling for a moment if Diego's punishment has been taken too far, there's another problem: The students threaten to ostracize anyone who befriends (or secretly befriends) Diego. Dave and Jenni did not victimize and humiliate a young girl.

The vindictiveness and social conformity that you're willing to self-righteously co-sign is extremely right-wing. Law & order conservatives similarly advocate harsh penalties on the intuition that it will deter socially undesirable behavior. This is a mistake. One problem is that criminals, like teenagers, tend to be stupid and impulsive.

Quote:
There are also convicted criminals who aren’t victims at all. Bearing the brunt of negative consequences that directly result for your own bad behavior doesn’t automatically make you a victim.
I never suggested a person on the receiving end of punishment is "automatically" a victim. I outlined conditions where they could be victims.

Re: Gaddafi as an Example that Bullies Can Be Bullied
Quote:
All stories truly worthy of a Greek tragedy.
I'll take that for what it is: nothing at all.

Graham2001 4th July 2022 07:36 PM
From a site called 'Palo Alto Online' an account from June 2022 of what happened when someone noticed tiles dating from 1913 depicting a lotus & two other Buddhist symbols at a camp for children...


Quote:
Hidden Villa, a Los Altos Hills nonprofit known for its pastoral landscape and educational programs, announced on June 8 that all of this year's summer camp sessions are canceled due to the "abrupt departure" of camp staff members, disrupting summer plans for nearly 1,000 children.

But some now-former staff members say the situation was anything but abrupt: their resignations came after months of slow-building conflict that had boiled over — in particular, the handling of pre-Nazi swastika tiles that were embedded into the exterior of a camp building for nearly a century until they were removed June 7.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/...swastika-tiles

Lithrael 5th July 2022 09:37 AM
If the kerfuffle was actually about the tiles that would indeed be beyond ridiculous. But it does sound like the tile argument was just a proxy for the staff feeling ill used. The tiles were finally taken down, and the staff walked AFTER that.

d4m10n 7th July 2022 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13847744)
Why not call it "online bullying" rather than "cancel culture"?
Curious to know where (and why) you draw the line on this.

OP was about online bullying of a Kroger employee for failing to live up to the expectations of someone who had loads of influence online but fairly little influence offline (IRL). The predictable response (from many people) was to ask Kroger to put him out of a job for failing to live up to the expectations of the online influencer who made him go viral in the first place.

Graham2001 7th July 2022 10:37 PM
An article from The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression on the history behind 'Parental Advisory' labels on music. There are definite parallels with the censorship of comic books in the immediate post WWII period in that you have a social panic that forces companies to censor rather than face Government action.


This article looks at Frank Zappa's response to what was proposed.


Quote:
Almost as soon as music could be recorded and broadcast to audiences across the country, there were attempts to ban certain songs for supposedly corrupting morals. Elements of music censorship in America were born with Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit,” which was banned from several Southern radio stations in the 1940s for its graphic criticism of racism and segregation. Elvis Presley’s shaking legs were banned from television performances because they were thought to drive young, innocent children into sexual indulgences. The British got a taste of American censorship in the 1960s when the Rolling Stone’s “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” was banned from several US radio stations for its sexually suggestive lyrics. In 1985, music censorship came to the public forefront when the Parents Music Resource Center attempted to add a rating system to the “porn-rock” of the time.


....


Avant-Garde rock composer Frank Zappa was one of the few artists who stood up in opposition to this proposed rating system. In testimony on September 19, 1985, Zappa told the committee that the PMRC proposal was “an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children” and “infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children.” Zappa asserted that the system “read like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of toilet training program to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few.”

https://www.thefire.org/the-torture-...or-censorship/

autumn1971 8th July 2022 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13847594)
Because it perfectly illustrates the dynamics of the online mobs that drive so much of what is called 'cancel culture'.
So real life opprobrium and shunning is now “on-line”?
Someone tell the Amish that building a physical barn now counts as playing FarmVille and they need to stop

d4m10n 9th July 2022 10:51 AM
Possibly the most interesting cancellation of July 2022
 
#SummerCancellation season is in full swing.

Back in mid-June, a handful of workers at Mina's World rose up to demand the means of production from the owners of the café (all of whom are women of colour) and to publicly shame them for various offenses against social justice.

Two of the owners made a couple of (hostage style) videos asking for forgiveness and understanding. Here is one of them:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/sta...85710605848577

The third owner (evidently the main backer) eventually had enough of the workers of Mina's World uniting against her and decided to pull out of the venture. As of early this month, Mina's World has permanently closed.

An interesting overlap between this cancellation and the end of Reply All is that both of them happened at the intersection of social justice, internet culture, and Bon Appetit.

Dr. Keith 9th July 2022 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13850914)
An article from The Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression on the history behind 'Parental Advisory' labels on music. There are definite parallels with the censorship of comic books in the immediate post WWII period in that you have a social panic that forces companies to censor rather than face Government action.


This article looks at Frank Zappa's response to what was proposed.





https://www.thefire.org/the-torture-...or-censorship/
Nooo, they can’t cancel Zappa!!!!!!

wareyin 11th July 2022 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13851976)
#SummerCancellation season is in full swing.

Back in mid-June, a handful of workers at Mina's World rose up to demand the means of production from the owners of the café (all of whom are women of colour) and to publicly shame them for various offenses against social justice.

Two of the owners made a couple of (hostage style) videos asking for forgiveness and understanding. Here is one of them:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/sta...85710605848577

The third owner (evidently the main backer) eventually had enough of the workers of Mina's World uniting against her and decided to pull out of the venture. As of early this month, Mina's World has permanently closed.

An interesting overlap between this cancellation and the end of Reply All is that both of them happened at the intersection of social justice, internet culture, and Bon Appetit.
Your description is entirely at odds with what your links claim happened.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone desperately trawling the interwebs for an example of the dreaded Cancel Culture would stoop to hyperbolic and counterfactual claims about a situation to claim that it was finally a concrete example of this hitherto unproven culture.

In reality, workers complained about wage theft (extremely common in the restaurant industry), owner of the building decided to sell (possibly in retaliation), and coffee shop ran out of money, like nearly 80% of restaurants do.

Graham2001 15th July 2022 01:47 AM
Calls to rename the James Webb Space Telescope because...


Quote:
NASA has shared the James Webb Space Telescope’s (JWST) first high-resolution images of deep space, including some galaxies pictured 13 billion years ago—not long after the Big Bang. But despite this remarkable achievement for science, the JWST continues to stand as a bitter reminder of our country’s willingness to tolerate and even memorialize queerphobia.

https://www.intomore.com/other/homop...es-deep-space/

Puppycow 15th July 2022 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham2001 (Post 13855966)
Calls to rename the James Webb Space Telescope because...





https://www.intomore.com/other/homop...es-deep-space/
It's a bit late for that now, but I was thinking the other day, wouldn't it have been nicer if they had named it the Carl Sagan Space Telescope?

The naming was a unilateral decision taken by the NASA Administrator at the time on a personal whim apparently. He couldn't think of anyone more appropriate than one of his own predecessors.

Hevneren 15th July 2022 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13851976)
#SummerCancellation season is in full swing.

Back in mid-June, a handful of workers at Mina's World rose up to demand the means of production from the owners of the café (all of whom are women of colour) and to publicly shame them for various offenses against social justice.

Two of the owners made a couple of (hostage style) videos asking for forgiveness and understanding. Here is one of them:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/sta...85710605848577

The third owner (evidently the main backer) eventually had enough of the workers of Mina's World uniting against her and decided to pull out of the venture. As of early this month, Mina's World has permanently closed.

An interesting overlap between this cancellation and the end of Reply All is that both of them happened at the intersection of social justice, internet culture, and Bon Appetit.
Not the owners. Looking at the hostage video, one of them clearly is a white guy. I suspect there's some serious "identifying" going on here.

gnome 15th July 2022 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13853018)
Your description is entirely at odds with what your links claim happened.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone desperately trawling the interwebs for an example of the dreaded Cancel Culture would stoop to hyperbolic and counterfactual claims about a situation to claim that it was finally a concrete example of this hitherto unproven culture.

In reality, workers complained about wage theft (extremely common in the restaurant industry), owner of the building decided to sell (possibly in retaliation), and coffee shop ran out of money, like nearly 80% of restaurants do.
So #SummerOfObjectingToWageTheft... doesn't quite have the same ring. But I say...make it last all year!

johnny karate 15th July 2022 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13853018)
Your description is entirely at odds with what your links claim happened.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone desperately trawling the interwebs for an example of the dreaded Cancel Culture would stoop to hyperbolic and counterfactual claims about a situation to claim that it was finally a concrete example of this hitherto unproven culture.

In reality, workers complained about wage theft (extremely common in the restaurant industry), owner of the building decided to sell (possibly in retaliation), and coffee shop ran out of money, like nearly 80% of restaurants do.
It should also be noted that the tweet that was linked is "Libs of TikTok", the notorious right wing Twitter account that marshals alt-right trolls to harass and threaten LGBT people and their supporters, usually teachers.

So to recap: One of our resident "cancel culture" hand-wringers posted a ginned-up story about an alleged "cancel culture" incident and sourced their claim with a right wing Twitter account that exists to harass gay people... or "cancel" them, one might say.

It's like rain on your wedding day.

Stout 15th July 2022 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevneren (Post 13856024)
Not the owners. Looking at the hostage video, one of them clearly is a white guy. I suspect there's some serious "identifying" going on here.
Indeed. This is some serious woke on woke cannibalism going on here with the only result being the whole enterprise being burnt to the ground. I wonder if mom, the third owner is going to open up another money pit to keep her daughters? dreams of a social justice oriented business alive....or is she going to tell them both to get a job, save your money and finance your own "vision".

Just in case you didn't get enough cringe out of the hostage video, here's some bonus cringe.

gnome 16th July 2022 01:01 PM
Did we not just find out that the source of the conflict was completely different than the article claimed? And yet it's still being run with as an example.

Stout 16th July 2022 08:16 PM
Nah, we tried but after further research we found we had to de-center the wage theft idea and focus on what this really was. Woke-on woke cannibalism.

gnome 17th July 2022 01:15 PM
Care to show us that further research?

d4m10n 17th July 2022 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevneren (Post 13856024)
Not the owners. Looking at the hostage video, one of them clearly is a white guy.
Half Korean trans woman, actually.

rdwight 18th July 2022 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13853018)
Your description is entirely at odds with what your links claim happened.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone desperately trawling the interwebs for an example of the dreaded Cancel Culture would stoop to hyperbolic and counterfactual claims about a situation to claim that it was finally a concrete example of this hitherto unproven culture.

In reality, workers complained about wage theft (extremely common in the restaurant industry), owner of the building decided to sell (possibly in retaliation), and coffee shop ran out of money, like nearly 80% of restaurants do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13856090)
So #SummerOfObjectingToWageTheft... doesn't quite have the same ring. But I say...make it last all year!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13856965)
Did we not just find out that the source of the conflict was completely different than the article claimed? And yet it's still being run with as an example.
What are you two talking about? I honestly can't understand how you can look at the information provided and come to the conclusion this is a wage theft issue. The only mention of this in their grievances is about labor exploitation, and a mention of unpaid backpay. Is this actual pay or an amount they came to and feel owed due to what they call promised wage increases from the owners? That is a small note in an otherwise direct demand for the business to be handed over due to racist actions of the owners, of which there are literally zero specifics. They said they would provide clarity and context to these claims. Why didn't they?

Your description of it also makes no sense. "We are owed wages, so hand us the business". Because that is a common action. This is a clear cut situation where the workers and partial owners are in a bubble, in which the actual financial backer did not belong. Apparently the other owner/mother wrote up a post about this, in which she laid out her perspective. Poor Korean immigrant that came with nothing, became a successful CPA and now gave her daughter a loan to start this business. She basically said the other owners spent 3 years rehabbing the property and she wasn't going to just give it to workers because they demanded it.

At which point, one of the workers doxxed all her properties online, including her home address. Which is when she went nuclear and listed the property for sale. She was subsidizing the business while it was open, and I can see why she didn't feel like bothering with it anymore.

The cafe also lost business due to this whole attempt which is why they could no longer stay open. It's a complete self own and minimizing the wild bubble these people were in is not doing them any favors.

Darat 18th July 2022 05:49 AM
Is it an example of "cancel culture"?

wareyin 18th July 2022 05:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13857560)
Care to show us that further research?
When you're really biased, you don't have to do any research. Just find a claim you agree with, or failing that just assert that you're right, and bam!

wareyin 18th July 2022 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13857873)
What are you two talking about? I honestly can't understand how you can look at the information provided and come to the conclusion this is a wage theft issue. The only mention of this in their grievances is about labor exploitation, and a mention of unpaid backpay. Is this actual pay or an amount they came to and feel owed due to what they call promised wage increases from the owners? That is a small note in an otherwise direct demand for the business to be handed over due to racist actions of the owners, of which there are literally zero specifics. They said they would provide clarity and context to these claims. Why didn't they?
Unpaid backpay is....wage theft. How is this confusing?

d4m10n 18th July 2022 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13857881)
Is it an example of "cancel culture"?
Two women (both of Asian ancestry) were put out of a job as a result of a social media shaming campaign run against them, despite profusely apologizing for the harm they did as gentrifiers of the neighborhood in which they built their business.

rdwight 18th July 2022 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13857888)
Unpaid backpay is....wage theft. How is this confusing?
Their entire premise has nothing to do with wage theft, even if they mention it in demands (along with, you know, having the entire business handed to them). Without specifying a single portion of their complaints, or giving any context to it. And I am suppose to believe the owners that are willing to literally hand the workers the business are not paying them in retaliation. And you want to center this as a wage dispute. Guess we should believe those states rights pushes for the civil war, they claimed it ya know?

rdwight 18th July 2022 08:52 AM
Also since I can no longer find the mother/owner's post I will spoiler the text she had in response to this.

part 1- Dear Philly Community,

My name is EJ Egghart, mother of Kate Egghart who is a co-founder of Mina’s World.

MW IG blocked me (I assume Kate and Sonam tying to protect me from untruthful accusations about me), but I have a lot of friends following MW and send me those postings. I felt compelled to reach out to the community directly from me, EJ Egghart.

I am doing this with incredible sadness and disappointment of what has going on in MW, where I became aware of, only recently. First, many of you ask to clarify – here is my story.

Let me share my personal life a little bit with you. I am a first-generation immigrant from Korea. In fact I arrived in this country in my mid-20’s I had to learn to speak English. Growing up in a tragedy stricken poor family from Korea, the only thing I want to accomplish in life was financially secure family. That is why I became a CPA (Accountant), which seemed a small secure job to me. As a single Mom with no money and no family support, I had to do it all by myself. The harder I worked, the successful I became. I believed in helping any struggling people by giving chances to start a career. Poor Kate never experienced a rich kid stuff from me. I don’t believe in handouts, or trust funds. I believe in hard work and pay it forward such blessings to others. When Kate and Sonam approached me with their ideas of creating MW and make a cheerful and happy community space, I agreed and we did the following:

Part II-1) I purchased the current MW location from an Iranian businessman who left the building for decades as an abandoned storage. Here are photos.

2) From a business perspective, their idea was not justifiable (too expensive restoration for the location), however, I went along with the plan for the following reasons:

• I would like to contribute revitalization of once very vibrant commercial community now turn to be deteriorated.

• I would like to create job opportunities for young people in the area.

• I trusted Kate and Sonam to do justice since their heart is in “Social Justice” rather than making money for themselves.

• Kate and Sonam spent 3 years of agonizing efforts to clean that property, build out and open the café in Feb 2020.

• As we are all painfully aware, after 2 weeks of opening, they had to shut down due to Covid. Sonam lost her father over it too. During the shut-down, Sonam and Kate did fund-raise for employees to get paid.

• Also, during that time, they started 52nd Fridge to feed people and I have been paying electricity for that Fridge 24/7 365 days a year over 2 years now.

• In August 2021, MW shutdown for 2 weeks for all employees paid vacations.

3) With current business model of low coffee pricing, high labor costs, expensive beans they purchase, MW has been suffering significant financial losses. I am a CPA who has been doing books, so I knew this difficulty and assisted them with $70,000 worth of benefits (no rents for 2 years, paying insurances for them and free accounting consulting services for taxes) so far. In another note, if you feel having ANY unpaid wages, please inform MW immediately. I will look into it as a CPA.

Part III-4) Yes, I opposed to co-oping. No co-ops can continue the MW under the same model without incredible amount of cash infusion and restructuring the business. With Kate and Sonam, they cannot get a loan. Simply they do not have credit and no collateral. No financial institution will give them a loan. Yes, Kate is my daughter, but my money is NOT her money. I believe we don’t inherit poverty (happened to me), nor inherit the wealth. Kate is on her own after college. Don’t blame her because she is my daughter; she didn’t even want the MW and I convinced her that she can do good things with my help. I thought we are doing something good and proud of what Kate and Sonam is doing until I read some employees postings ridden with hatred toward Kate and Sonam and incredibly me as well.

Now, I hear that we did public harms. Ok, please clarify me. What did we/I do?

Gentrification? – The only blame is Kate and Sonam did too well to make MW a class act. Look around the west philly, do you really think you can stop the gentrification? The very reason you are there is the cause of gentrification. Let’s not be hypocritical. Didn’t you move there because it is cheap rents, want nice clean shops? And friendly community? You should target virtually everybody and every shop in the street. MW cannot be held responsible for all gentrification in West Philie and on 52nd street.

You don’t like how Sonam and Kate is running the business? You should give some rooms for Sonam and Kate to improve their business skills knowing how huge hearts they have for the community. Well, you can always find a different employer to work for too. Cooping sounds good – but what really do employees want? They coerced employers to hand over their 5 years’ hard work for free.

Part IV- 3) You can find another employer who did a half of work Kate and Sonam did in the last 2.5 years in West Philie, please let me know; we would like to learn more from them.

4) This public lynching in cyberspace with lies and humiliation is not only unacceptable but also illegal when it affects business. If anyone needs more clarification from me, please let me know so that we a Q&A session can be set up.

For so many road blocks Kate and Sonam had to overcome before and during the MW for the last 5 years, I had to remind them why they wanted to do MW. When they have financial losses, I had to remind them of their intention of “social justice” not financial gain for themselves. Now, it seems there is neither emotional nor financial rewards from these thankless efforts from reading those cyberspace postings.

Now I am at the crossroad: Shall I throw a towel to the air and say I am done with this absurdness? Or engage in a fight with people taking cyber space to spit on me and my kids based on lies and ignorance. You do not want MW, we are gladly shut down and move on. If you want MW stay in community, I am not asking you crowd funding or venoming money; rather post your opinions clearly and let the wide world know this can’t continue by bullying employers with kind hearts. Without crowd funding, using more financial disciplined restructuring, we will continue MW as a good community space so many people enjoyed for the last 2.5 years and which became a big part in my heart. Don’t send anyone money. Post kind words to Sonam, Kate and me(EJ).

With Compassionate Heart, EJ Egghart

Stout 18th July 2022 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13857884)
When you're really biased, you don't have to do any research. Just find a claim you agree with, or failing that just assert that you're right, and bam!
Bias? That's an interesting tack considering everyone involved is marginalized on at least one axis. If you want to try an oppression olympics thing we may be able to root out some bias but really, this is more of a window into the weird world of woke.

d4m10n 18th July 2022 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13857991)
Also since I can no longer find the mother/owner's post I will spoiler the text she had in response to this.
I'm pretty sure that was her reply to one of the hostage style videos which was deleted off of the Mina's World Instagram page.

wareyin 18th July 2022 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13857907)
Their entire premise has nothing to do with wage theft, even if they mention it in demands (along with, you know, having the entire business handed to them). Without specifying a single portion of their complaints, or giving any context to it. And I am suppose to believe the owners that are willing to literally hand the workers the business are not paying them in retaliation. And you want to center this as a wage dispute. Guess we should believe those states rights pushes for the civil war, they claimed it ya know?
Wait, do you actually believe that the owners that shut the business down were "literally" willing to hand the business to the workers instead? No wonder unpaid backpay being wage theft is so confusing.

wareyin 18th July 2022 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858014)
Bias? That's an interesting tack considering everyone involved is marginalized on at least one axis. If you want to try an oppression olympics thing we may be able to root out some bias but really, this is more of a window into the weird world of woke.
Why would I want to try an oppression olympics? I'm pointing out that a poster who uses "woke" as a perjorative is not basing his analysis on anything but his own extreme biases.

Stout 18th July 2022 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858033)
Why would I want to try an oppression olympics? I'm pointing out that a poster who uses "woke" as a perjorative is not basing his analysis on anything but his own extreme biases.
So, shooting in the dark then. After failing to center the issue on a topic the issue wasn't centered on, get offended and cry bias. Let me rephrase my post in a more sensitive, caring, and compassionate way.

Nah, we tried but after further research we found we had to de-center the wage theft idea and focus on what this really was. Social justice advocate on social justice advocate cannibalism.

Better?

wareyin 18th July 2022 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858061)
So, shooting in the dark then. After failing to center the issue on a topic the issue wasn't centered on, get offended and cry bias. Let me rephrase my post in a more sensitive, caring, and compassionate way.

Nah, we tried but after further research we found we had to de-center the wage theft idea and focus on what this really was. Social justice advocate on social justice advocate cannibalism.

Better?
Oh, did you think I was offended? Don't worry, chap, your biases certainly didn't offend me. We get a lot of that same stuff from a couple posters here, and it wasn't like yours was super unique or special enough to get anyone all hot and bothered.

Stout 18th July 2022 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858075)
Oh, did you think I was offended? Don't worry, chap, your biases certainly didn't offend me. We get a lot of that same stuff from a couple posters here, and it wasn't like yours was super unique or special enough to get anyone all hot and bothered.
But you were concerned enough to make a post about it so it must have triggered you in some way. Or maybe it was the general idea that there are some serious conflicts among <<social justice advocates>> that are so serious that they'd rather burn everything to the ground than attempt reconciliation.

wareyin 18th July 2022 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858085)
But you were concerned enough to make a post about it so it must have triggered you in some way. Or maybe it was the general idea that there are some serious conflicts among <<social justice advocates>> that are so serious that they'd rather burn everything to the ground than attempt reconciliation.
Mildly more interesting tactic, here. Let me guess, the fact that you felt compelled to post wasn't because you were triggered, right? Or have you not yet realized that your claim applies to your own actions?

Stout 18th July 2022 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858092)
Mildly more interesting tactic, here. Let me guess, the fact that you felt compelled to post wasn't because you were triggered, right? Or have you not yet realized that your claim applies to your own actions?
Nah, I only posted in response to the all about wage theft bit of misinformation. Just doing my part to debunk that fake news.

So where were we before this derail about biases came up? Guess we'll see when this is all sent to AAH.

wareyin 18th July 2022 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858106)
Nah, I only posted in response to the all about wage theft bit of misinformation. Just doing my part to debunk that fake news.

So where were we before this derail about biases came up? Guess we'll see when this is all sent to AAH.
It's kinda cute how we're pretending that unpaid wages aren't wage theft just to "trigger the libs" now.

autumn1971 18th July 2022 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858014)
Bias? That's an interesting tack considering everyone involved is marginalized on at least one axis. If you want to try an oppression olympics thing we may be able to root out some bias but really, this is more of a window into the weird world of woke.
It’s more a window into a whole bunch of people, including mom, who had no business plan worth ****, yet threw money into a hole. The business was a failure, the workers were unhappy working in a failing business, and every side decided that drama worth of a telanovela was the answer.

Everyone got what they deserved.

The fact that all the idiots chose to air their failures on modern media does not change the fact that the failure was a real-world event that was independent of all the whining on-line by everyone involved.

autumn1971 18th July 2022 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stout (Post 13858085)
But you were concerned enough to make a post about it so it must have triggered you in some way. Or maybe it was the general idea that there are some serious conflicts among <<social justice advocates>> that are so serious that they'd rather burn everything to the ground than attempt reconciliation.
You’ve written your own episode of the soap opera!
How adorable!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 AM.
Page 44 of 58 « First  <  34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  >  Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.