Cancel culture IRL

mumblethrax said:

If you're trying not to be an arbiter on right and wrong, you probably shouldn't say things like "Is it wrong? Of course not."

Click to expand...

Fair point. I’ll amend it to “is it permissible” and throw an “in my opinion” in there somewhere.

Would you say that people who did support such a boycott believed themselves to be right and expressed themselves freely and that you respect their ability to do so?

Click to expand...

Yes.

dirtywick said:

Fair point. I’ll amend it to “is it permissible” and throw an “in my opinion” in there somewhere.

Click to expand...

Except that in your opinion, it is wrong--you wouldn't do it. What you really need is "In their opinion." You have the courage of other people's convictions, no matter how odious.

JoeMorgue said:

Again nobody has to agree or disagree on any one particular example of someone being cancelled. That's a personal judgement call that can be discussed on an individual basis.

The claim is that "Cancel Culture" is some new (or particularly noteworthy) example of people disagreeing that we need to worry about or somehow more of a threat to society, discourse, civility, etc, etc. That claim remains undefended.

Click to expand...

The threat, I believe, is the validation of mob mentality. How many times did we see on #LWB threads that people were fired and getting death threats, only to discover later that the narrative was wrong? Or even better, how many times was the whole story never fleshed out, but just the accusation resulted them in being "cancelled", with their names forever attached to a Google search of the event? Mobs seldom judge right. They judge what they want to.

JoeMorgue said:

And again we're in a discussion that is showing the inherent dishonesty and... icky subtext with "Oh all we're worried about is people.... going too far *scare chord*!" crowd.

- Enslave black people for centuries. Nothing.
- Keep women as second class citizens. Silence.
- Demonization of homosexuals. Crickets.
- "Cancels" a doucheturd on Twitter. *Pouring out of the wordwork* "OH LORDY LORDY HAVE YOU STOPPED TO CONSIDER THE HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS WENT TOO FAR! WHERE DOES IT END! WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE! THOUGHT POLICE!"

Click to expand...

The Mammy inflection is exquisite *chef's kiss*

You'd also be hard pressed to provide an example of someone silent on the issue of slavery or the rest of the straw. While I get your point about selective battles, it doesn't make sense that a conservative type would be inclined to argue a conservative interpretation of the problems of pop justice?

Thermal said:

The threat, I believe, is the validation of mob mentality. How many times did we see on #LWB threads that people were fired and getting death threats, only to discover later that the narrative was wrong? Or even better, how many times was the whole story never fleshed out, but just the accusation resulted them in being "cancelled", with their names forever attached to a Google search of the event? Mobs seldom judge right. They judge what they want to.

Click to expand...

Except so far almost invariably the narrative that was wrong -- in fact an outright lie -- was that some random mob reaction resulted in a cancellation, and usually immediate cancellation at that, when the guy was innocent. Almost invariably it's presented as some clear cut case of, "some guy with twitter makes something up, mob asks for cancellation, poor innocent guy gets immediately cancelled"... the last one being either explicitly stated or you're just left to infer that that's what happened since it's presented as a cancellation example. Except when you actually google it, it turns out that at least one of those 3 claims is an outright lie.

So I'd worry less about validating some "mob mentality" that, as it turns out doesn't actually work as claimed, and more about validating some people's idea that they can just outright lie about their evidence, if they can't make a case otherwise.

mumblethrax said:

Except that in your opinion, it is wrong--you wouldn't do it. What you really need is "In their opinion." You have the courage of other people's convictions, no matter how odious.

Click to expand...

My point is that my opinion shouldn’t be particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things. If you want to know whether or not I personally agree or disagree with a persons views and whether or not those views will effect my financial support of that individual and the various entities they do business with, sure I’ll talk about it.


But at the end of the day I respect people’s agency in determining what they want to say publicly, who they wish to associate with, and where they want to spend their time and money. If somebody doesn’t want to see Jerry Seinfeld’s comedians in cars show because he’s too Jewish, like really, what are you going to do? I don’t like Ben Shapiro’s stupid face, you going to force me to buy a ticket to his movie? We can talk about right and wrong but at the end people are free to do what they feel they need to. It’s decisions they need to make for themselves.

JoeMorgue said:

In other words you gave me examples of all societal interactions ever of all time, not some new scary thing that needs a new name the Boomers can clutch their rosary beads over every [time] a racist suffers some negative consequence...

Click to expand...

I gave you a set of examples that all have a number of key features in common:

1. Public shaming gone viral
2. Facilitated by social media platforms
3. Resulting in excessive organizational sanctions

You can try to reframe this in terms that would make sense to a hunter-gatherer tribe, but that isn't going to work for any number of reasons. If nothing else, the speed at which a public shaming gains hundreds or thousands of adherents across the globe is incomparable to what it was only a couple decades ago.

JoeMorgue said:

"Cancel Culture" is just a scare word used to describe the wrong people deciding they don't want to tolerate other people's negative behavior anymore.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to use that phrase to denote the phenomenon described above, feel free to invent your own. Bear in mind, though, that if you're going to completely disavow use of the phrase then you probably aren't an authoritative source as to what others ought to take it to mean.

JoeMorgue said:

We went through a goddamn century of black people having to drink out of seperate water fountains and nobody during all that time decided to call that cancel culture...

Click to expand...

It might come as something of a surprise to everyone here that the phrase "cancel culture" was apparently invented (or at least popularized) by "Black Twitter."

JoeMorgue said:

"Cancel Culture" tends to be what it is called when disenfranchised people use social pressure instead of having it used against them.

Click to expand...

I don't think that bit is necessarily part of the problem at all. From what I've seen, viral shaming is typically helped along by someone with a large platform who draws a load of eyeballs to the original offense. In the case of Gelato Andy, it was PZ Myers. In the case of Justine Sacco, it was Sam Biddle. It would be silly to describe these high-profile men as disenfranchised.

mumblethrax said:

What you really need is "In their opinion." You have the courage of other people's convictions, no matter how odious.

Click to expand...

Beautiful turn of phrase there. I will be stealing that.

d4m10n said:

If you don't want to use that phrase to denote the phenomenon described above, feel free to invent your own. Bear in mind, though, that if you're going to completely disavow use of the phrase then you probably aren't an authoritative source as to what others ought to take it to mean.

Click to expand...

You can hold your breath on that "gotcha" since my entire point is THERE IS NOTHING NEW OR NOTEWORTHY HAPPENING outside of the fact that some people are butthurt that the wrong people are now doing it.

There's no need for a new phrase to describe racists getting put in their place.

Thermal said:

The threat, I believe, is the validation of mob mentality. How many times did we see on #LWB threads that people were fired and getting death threats, only to discover later that the narrative was wrong? Or even better, how many times was the whole story never fleshed out, but just the accusation resulted them in being "cancelled", with their names forever attached to a Google search of the event? Mobs seldom judge right. They judge what they want to.

Click to expand...

First of all, let’s leave death threats out of it. Death threats are illegal, should be treated as so, and nobody here is advocating for death threats. Death threats are neither a defining characteristic of nor unique to “cancel culture” as we’re discussing it here.

Aside from that, do you deny that the conduct surrounding “cancel culture” (e.g. calling for someone to be fired) is an expression of free speech, and therefore is protected under the First Amendment?

If so, why should this expression of free speech be tolerated any less than hate speech, conspiracy theories, and other odious expressions of free speech we are told we must tolerate?

JoeMorgue said:

You can hold your breath on that "gotcha" since my entire point is THERE IS NOTHING NEW OR NOTEWORTHY HAPPENING outside of the fact that some people are butthurt that the wrong people are now doing it.

Click to expand...

Well if the claim is in ALL CAPS then it must be true.

JoeMorgue said:

There's no need for a new phrase to describe racists getting put in their place.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you'd say the folks I mentioned above are racists. I suppose one could say Justine Sacco is racist by willfully missing her point (which was about white ignorance and privilege) but surely you aren't that shallow with your hot takes.

The whole cancel culture accusations are ridiculous. Trump and the far right 'cancels' liberals and progressives as much or more than the left does.

Examples:

CPAC no longer will sell a booth at their convention to the the Freedom from Religion foundation.
What is voter suppression other than an attempt to cancel the voices of people that disagree?
How about Jim Crow laws?
Or laws and policies against the LGBTQ?
What about Kathy Griffin?
Taylor Swift?
The Dixie Chicks?
Trump attempted to cancel the NFL and any player that wouldn't stand for the National Anthem.

I barely scratched the surface of this hypocrisy.

Seriously righties? Are you so blind that you don't see this?

Freshly added to the list is coca-cola.

Their racial sensitivity training is too confrontational to white sensibilities, they must be boycotted (preferably without a hint of self-awareness).

They appear to have gotten LinkedIn to remove the course.

My all time favourite cancellation was the takedown of that knitting Karen who compared going to India with being offered a seat on a flight to Mars. Freakin' white people and their microagressions.

acbytesla said:

The whole cancel culture accusations are ridiculous. Trump and the far right 'cancels' liberals and progressives as much or more than the left does.

Click to expand...

Is it unethical for them to attempt to "cancel" people like Griffin and Kaepernick for their political expressions?

(Yes, obviously.)

d4m10n said:

Is it unethical for them to attempt to "cancel" people like Griffin and Kaepernick for their political expressions?

(Yes, obviously.)

Click to expand...

I kind of miss the point of all of these "look at all these examples of how bad cancel culture (which doesn't exist) is!!, it totally proves what a good thing cancel culture (which doesn't exist) is!!" arguments as well.

johnny karate said:

Another glaring example of what this is really all about: The powerful and privileged using their power and privilege to silence those without either.

It’s only “cancel culture” when the powerful and privileged realize the system they’ve abused for so long can finally be used to hold them accountable.

JoeMorgue and others have made this argument more eloquently than I have, but I think that pretty much sums it up.

Click to expand...

Sort of like how the GOP and even the NRA all jumped on board with gun regulation in the 60's and 70's after Blacks figured out that the 2nd amendment included them.

d4m10n said:

Is it unethical for them to attempt to "cancel" people like Griffin and Kaepernick for their political expressions?

(Yes, obviously.)

Click to expand...

I'd say that it is far more unethical to try and oppose someone for supporting and defending people being given the rights denied for decades, if not centuries, than it is to oppose someone for being outright abusive to others and calling for them to be treated as second-class citizens with few rights than everyone else.

d4m10n said:

Is it unethical for them to attempt to "cancel" people like Griffin and Kaepernick for their political expressions?

(Yes, obviously.)

Click to expand...

I have no problem with canceling Griffin...to a point. Her joke showed violence against POTUS. I think she paid her sentence though.

Kaepernick is another story. He exercised his right not to stand for the national anthem.

dirtywick said:

My point is that my opinion shouldn’t be particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things.

Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things, it isn't, but as long as you have to deal with other people, it's the only thing you've got. Hobbling yourself by abdicating the responsibility to engage with moral questions at all and deferring to the opinion of another (by which I mean any other) is a disastrous move that leads to the conclusion that everything is permissible, because in the real world very few people are mustache-twirlers trying to do the wrong thing. You seem happy enough to report the moral views of other people, so I'm unclear on why you're so reluctant to report your own. Sapere aude.

If somebody doesn’t want to see Jerry Seinfeld’s comedians in cars show because he’s too Jewish, like really, what are you going to do?

Click to expand...

I'd say "I disagree, I think he's exactly Jewish enough."

I don’t like Ben Shapiro’s stupid face, you going to force me to buy a ticket to his movie?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to force you to do anything--moral inquiry is conducted in the language of reason. One of the advantages of seriously engaging with moral questions is that we might find a way to distinguish between not spending money on Ben Shapiro's awful ******** and organizing a boycott against Jewish people simply because they are Jewish. After teasing out fundamentals, we could then apply those to other cases.

We can talk about right and wrong but at the end people are free to do what they feel they need to. It’s decisions they need to make for themselves.

Click to expand...

It's precisely because people have agency that it's possible to critique, abhor, or contemn their decisions; if they had no agency, they would not be morally blameworthy. It's a truism that people will do what they will do, but why would that prevent me from commenting on what they ultimately decide to do, particularly if what they decide to do is horrible, misguided, or ill-advised? Respecting other people's autonomy doesn't mean we're bound respect the decisions they make. Sometimes people **** up, even judging them only by their own standards.

acbytesla said:

I have no problem with canceling Griffin...to a point. Her joke showed violence against POTUS. I think she paid her sentence though.



Kaepernick is another story. He exercised his right not to stand for the national anthem.

Click to expand...

He also took in criticism of how he was going about it and changed his behavior accordingly. He went from sitting on the bench to taking a knee.