Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It's bad when the bad people do it.

Enlightened centrists can't discern between good or bad things, news at 11.

Yes, it's bad when bad people do it. This isn't really controversial for anyone who hasn't twisted themselves into a nonsensical position that places aesthetics over substance.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It's bad when the bad people do it.

it's not me who has a problem with any of this.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Telling people to attack Target pride displays, threaten their employees and boycott it because "Target hired a satanist to convert YOUR children into their sex cult." when Target did no such thing and only sold things designed for people you hate for not a single valid reason, is completely unjustified.

What if some customers decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

Originally Posted by dirtywick

it's not me who has a problem with any of this.

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over store displays, actions which go well beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What if people decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over displays, even if that's a fair bit beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

I think I'll sooner leap over the empire state building than suburbanites will stop shopping at Target.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over store displays, actions which go well beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

oh, good point. you were right, it is worse when bad people do it.

[d4m10n]

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Probably because an act of violence can be done unilaterally, meanwhile reputational harm depends on others agreeing with the insult being levied. Kroger Andy came out his scrape as the generally more sympathetic figure, and Muscato's attempts largely backfired in her being perceived as the villain.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

so have we settled in on violence and threats is too far, saying what you think about other people on the internet is fine?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

so have we settled in on violence and threats is too far, saying what you think about other people on the internet is fine?

Saying what you think about them is fine, unless you are lying or mistaken. The people calling for Andy to be sacked by Kroger did so based on woefully insufficient information, having only heard from a single Karen person who complained to the internet.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Muscato's attempts largely backfired in her being perceived as the villain.

This doesn't excuse her actions, or those of the would-be cancellers who played along.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This doesn't excuse her actions, or those of the would-be cancellers who played along.

Her actions were objectionable because her judgement of the situation was poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with publicly shaming people who engage in bad behavior. She was herself subjected to a bit of public flogging that strikes me as appropriate for her bad behavior.

And we're back to "it's bad when bad people do it" again, which is absolutely true.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Saying what you think about them is fine, unless you are lying or mistaken. The people calling for Andy to be sacked by Kroger did so based on woefully insufficient information, having only heard from a single Karen person who complained to the internet.

alright, you're allowed to say whatever you want about other people as long as you're pretty sure you're right

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

There's nothing inherently wrong with publicly shaming people who engage in bad behavior.

If you are talking about viral outrage posts on sites like Twitter and Facebook, there is no process in place to gather facts and determine whether any given shaming is actually warranted or not. Playing along with any given public shaming campaign runs a serious risk of targeting the wrong person or spreading disinformation about the right person. It's not like we've never seen a campaign of online shaming end in retraction.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Excluding voices is often a useful and necessary part of expression. The right to association also means a right not to associate, and like minded people are often justified to exclude those that don't share similar attitudes.

I'm not really seeing how this squares with the "cancel culture" crowd who act like these basic truths are some affront to liberal values.

Right to association means that you can exclude people you dislike from your PRIVATE interactions. Seeking to exile them from PUBLIC interactions is something altogether different.

Targeted intentional harassment shouldn't be glossed over just because you agree with the bullies.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Can't argue with results

I'll make you down as supporting inquisition and witch hunts then.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Enlightened centrists can't discern between good or bad things, news at 11.

Yes, it's bad when bad people do it. This isn't really controversial for anyone who hasn't twisted themselves into a nonsensical position that places aesthetics over substance.

You seem to be missing that it's bad when the good people do it as well.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You seem to be missing that it's bad when the good people do it as well.

Is it? Public shame strikes me as an excellent tool for enforcing social norms, and it's nice to have a response that exists between doing nothing and throwing people in prison.

the public shame that the Central Park Karen got hit with, for example, seems like a perfect use case for non-carceral punishment of outrageously anti-social behavior.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Right to association means that you can exclude people you dislike from your PRIVATE interactions. Seeking to exile them from PUBLIC interactions is something altogether different.



Targeted intentional harassment shouldn't be glossed over just because you agree with the bullies.

I don't believe TurkeysGhost made any mention of harassment or bullies.

Harassing an individual and coordinating with others (not the individual in question) towards a common goal are entirely different things.

Withdrawing interaction is an entirely different social tool than confrontation and aggression. The former, by definition, precludes the latter!

Similar to how those "silent protests" where people just line a sidewalk and quietly stare, no words, no chanting, no heckling, just total stoney silence, are far more effective at times than loud protests and black-clad tweeners with spray paint cans and clubs.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What if some customers decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

Your question is if it is wrong to be stupid bigoted crybabies.

Yes, that's blameworthy. There is no world in which the merits of the case don't matter for withdrawing support and trying to convince others to do the same.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

There is no world in which the merits of the case don't matter for withdrawing support and trying to convince others to do the same.

Boycotts and cancellations are good when they uphold your values, but not those of "stupid bigoted crybabies" like the people boycotting Target.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Boycotts and cancellations are good when they uphold your values, but not those of "stupid bigoted crybabies" like the people boycotting Target.

Obviously. That’s what it means to have values. If I thought somebody else’s values were just as good as mine, holding my values, rather than theirs, would be arbitrary.

[dirtywick]

big difference between whether or not something is allowed vs something i would do. if you want to cancel target because they don't want to eradicate the trans, go ahead it's allowed. want to make fun of someone on twitter for boycotting target? also allowed. this is all fine.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Is it? Public shame strikes me as an excellent tool for enforcing social norms, and it's nice to have a response that exists between doing nothing and throwing people in prison.

the public shame that the Central Park Karen got hit with, for example, seems like a perfect use case for non-carceral punishment of outrageously anti-social behavior.

Oh, there are people I would like to see get the treatment that Cersai got in "Game of Thrones"

'SHAME! SHAME!

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Boycotts and cancellations are good when they uphold your values, but not those of "stupid bigoted crybabies" like the people boycotting Target.

I don't see you making much mention of right wing cancellation and boycotts...

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I don't see you making much mention of right wing cancellation and boycotts...

Bud Light? Right wing lost their minds over that (and not for the totally justified fact that it is an awful beer)

[tyr_13]

As the cancellation of Target continues, those staunch opponents of 'Cancel Culture' call for another cancellation in their war to cancel anyone not cisgender and heterosexual. This time it is The North Face.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I don't see you making much mention of right wing cancellation and boycotts...

If you already know those are wrong, why should I harp on about them?

ETA: See post #2120 for a good example of conservative cancel culture. I've never claimed that this phenomenon is somehow unique to the left.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you already know those are wrong, why should I harp on about them?

Why would you limit yourself to just challenging me, while ignoring what others are saying?

BTW doesn't targeting a specific individual that way sound an awful lot like the "cancel culture" d4m10n is decrying in the first place?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Why would you limit yourself to just challenging me, while ignoring what others are saying?

It's not just you. No one in this thread has defended conservative cancellations, so there is no need to go on about them. We all already agree it is wrong when the right wing does it.

Originally Posted by lomiller

BTW doesn't targeting a specific individual that way sound an awful lot like the "cancel culture" d4m10n is decrying in the first place?

In English "you" can be plural, e.g. "If you [all] already know those are wrong, why should I harp on about them?"

That said, no one is "targeting" you for deplatforming or disemployment, as they did to Kroger Andy and Gelato Andy. Don't be hyperbolic.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It's not just you. No one in this thread has defended conservative cancellations, so there is no need to go on about them. We all already agree it is wrong when the right wing does it.

In English "you" can be plural, e.g. "If you [all] already know those are wrong, why should I harp on about them?"

That said, no one is "targeting" you for deplatforming or disemployment, as they did to Kroger Andy and Gelato Andy. Don't be hyperbolic.

???

First you say that you don't need to criticize conservative cancel culture because I already know it's wrong. But, you follow that up by saying you were not talking about me specifically. If that's the case why won't you criticize conservative cancel culture for the benefit of those who support it.

Keep in mind that conservative cancel culture is showing itself to be doing things that are actually disturbing like using the power of government to silence opposition and actual harassment of employees rather then just subjecting people to online criticism. The fact that you refuse to criticize actions like this while getting your undies in a bunch about people getting blowback for being a**holes online shows a real bias in your posting pattern IMO.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Is it? Public shame strikes me as an excellent tool for enforcing social norms, and it's nice to have a response that exists between doing nothing and throwing people in prison

Doesn't work against the GQP... they have none.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Doesn't work against the GQP... they have none.

It works fine within their own community. See how all the "RINOs" have been either cowed into submission or ostracized by their fascist peers.

Different communities have different values, and what might be shameful in one can be valorized in another.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by lomiller

???

First you say that you don't need to criticize conservative cancel culture because I already know it's wrong. But, you follow that up by saying you were not talking about me specifically. If that's the case why won't you criticize conservative cancel culture for the benefit of those who support it.

Keep in mind that conservative cancel culture is showing itself to be doing things that are actually disturbing like using the power of government to silence opposition and actual harassment of employees rather then just subjecting people to online criticism. The fact that you refuse to criticize actions like this while getting your undies in a bunch about people getting blowback for being a**holes online shows a real bias in your posting pattern IMO.

if i was trying to convince someone that cancel culture is a problem i'd probably choose the best examples.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by lomiller

First you say that you don't need to criticize conservative cancel culture because I already know it's wrong. But, you follow that up by saying you were not talking about me specifically. If that's the case why won't you criticize conservative cancel culture for the benefit of those who support it.

Who has supported conservative cancellations anywhere on this thread?

See posts 2120 & 2616 for several examples of conservative cancel culture. I've never claimed that the process of cancellation is somehow unique to the left, but I would go so far as to claim that the people defending cancellations happen to be of the left, herein this discussion. If someone wants to defend a conservative cancellation, I'd be happy to consider their argument. Until that happens, though, we should probably focus on cancellations which are arguable either way rather than the ones we all already agree upon.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Who has supported conservative cancellations anywhere on this thread?

See posts 2120 & 2616 for several examples of conservative cancel culture. I've never claimed that the process of cancellation is somehow unique to the left, but I would go so far as to claim that the people defending cancellations happen to be of the left, herein this discussion. If someone wants to defend a conservative cancellation, I'd be happy to consider their argument. Until that happens, though, we should probably focus on cancellations which are arguable either way rather than the ones we all already agree upon.

the way conservatives have redefined the term and embraced utilizing it to their benefit while bemoaning it's existence is probably the only notable thing about the right's relationship to it.

besides, the right and left both appear to have moved on from even talking about it at all. which is probably enlightening in how much of a problem cancel culture is to society.

[d4m10n]

Why should we care if they've moved on? Partisan activists aren't intellectually or morally exemplary, last I checked.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why should we care if they've moved on? Partisan activists aren't intellectually or morally exemplary, last I checked.

if the victims of cancel culture don't care about it anymore it's time to move on

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

if the victims of cancel culture don't care about it anymore it's time to move on

Did you check with the victims who've been deplatformed or disemployed as the result of viral outrage? I'd be interested in hearing their take.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did you check with the victims who've been deplatformed or disemployed as the result of viral outrage? I'd be interested in hearing their take.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

idk they seem fine to me. what's the worst thing that's happened?

-edit-

oh yeah, that one guy lost his part time job at big lots or whatever 5 years ago.

[d4m10n]

If you're really asking for the worst case examples, consider what happened to Salman Rushdie fairly recently or Theo van Gogh much less recently. After they were publicly demonized for speech or expression, they were individually targeted for violent reprisal.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

oh yeah, that one guy lost his part time job at big lots or whatever 5 years ago.

Imagine not empathizing with people who cannot hold on to a part time job. Lol nothing matters, amirite?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk