Cancel culture IRL

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I did.

It strikes me as an absurdly broad definition. Does cancel culture, to your eye, mean any kind of attempt to enforce social norms?

I'm not really comfortable with your continued hounding of d4m10n about his posting of this video. I think you may be trying to cancel him.

[ponderingturtle]

New outrage of cancel culture

https://abcnews.go.com/WNN/video/tro...-hate-72591210

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It strikes me as an absurdly broad definition.

Good thing I wasn't going for a definition.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Good thing I wasn't going for a definition.

I was wrong to re-engage this. I should exercise more self-discipline.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I was wrong to re-engage this. I should exercise more self-discipline.

Oooh, spankings?!?!?!?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Seems weird that RedStapler won't go so far as to say whether that fake quote was intended as a characterization of what actually happened or not.

Seems weird that you are still trying to set up a cheap gotcha even if everyone is perfectly aware of what you are doing

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

Seems weird that you are still trying to set up a cheap gotcha even if everyone is perfectly aware of what you are doing

Either you believe the words you typed between quotation marks at #330 or else you meant to imply that someone else believes it to be true. Doesn't really matter to me much either way, but you could surely be much less obscure than you are being at present.

1a) Why do you believe the mob was shouting at the woman in the pink blouse?

1b) If unsure, do you have a best guess?

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Either you believe the words you typed between quotation marks at #330 or else you meant to imply that someone else believes it to be true. Doesn't really matter to me much either way, but you could surely be much less obscure than you are being at present.

1a) Why do you believe the mob was shouting at the woman in the pink blouse?

1b) If unsure, do you have a best guess?

They have read your posts in this forum, they think the woman is a friend of yours and they are urging her to tell you to stop the cheap gotchas.

[d4m10n]

Evasion noted.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Fellas, is it cancel culture to cross state lines to commit a double murder against anti-police protesters?

Asking for a friend.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Are you trying to say that sometimes mob action is thought through and well-justified, therefore mob action is always good?

No

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

How is this story of a lady getting yelled at newsworthy?

I doubt that it is newsworthy, except possibly for the local stations in D.C.

It does, however, seem like a good example of what happens when a righteous mob feels empowered to coerce an individual to adopt and affirm their beliefs.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Good thing I wasn't going for a definition.

OK, so we can have an actual discussion please tell me your definition of cancel culture.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see a mob, but no lynching.

This lady got shouted at. Not a pleasant experience, I'm sure, but I see no lingering injury.

I'm rolling up a response that is addressing several of your posts here. You say this doesn't seem newsworthy, and that this lady has no injury, essentially implying that it's no big deal, she's fine.

Yet... in the "punching people on the tube" thread, you seemed to take the stance that a single loudmouthed jerk making nasty comments to a few people was both newsworthy and was threatening enough to justify the target of his bad behavior taking physical action against him.

It seems like you feel one guy yelling at three guys is sufficient threat for those three guys to physically assault him... but you simultaneously feel that dozens of people yelling directly into the face of one lone woman and blocking her in is... no big deal?

How do you reconcile those views?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Earlier when I mentioned the likes of pressure groups I thought you were saying cancel culture is different, but I'm thinking you are in fact saying it is the same behaviour we've always had?

What do you want to happen in regards to " cancel culture"? Do you want some components of that behaviour to made illegal? For private companies like Twitter and Facebook to not their platforms for people to protest? And so on?

Darat, do you read my posts at all? Or do you ignore me, personally? Just asking because...

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This doesn't follow. I'm having a bit of trouble putting my thoughts into words here, so bear with me. It's kind of like looking at a case of a fundamentalist killing an abortion doctor, then saying "Since you think criminal behavior is somehow related to "religious fundamentalism" - which parts of "religious fundamentalism" do you want to see criminalized"? It's missing a lot of steps in between.

I think part of the point that is being missed here is that "cancel culture", no matter what you call it, encourages and opens the door to criminal behavior: threats, violence, vandalism, coercion. Those actions are already criminal, and should be dealt with appropriately. Part of the problem though is that a lot of those actions (threats and coercion) happen on line in an anonymous fashion. Even some of the RL actions have a veneer of anonymity to them - the people shooting at the cop and his family don't have a personal connection to him, they're just some rando from the internet most likely. Which makes it incredibly difficult for the police to pursue.

It's not that "cancel culture" needs to be criminalized at all. It's that it needs to be acknowledged as a behavior that increases the probability of anonymous criminal behavior, that has real world consequences for the targets including emotional trauma as well as loss of livelihood and potential violence, and that it should be discouraged.

You seem to tap-dance around the issue, and you keep circling back to questions that have already been answered. You keep responding as if people are saying "cancel culture" is something brand new and totally different, even though it's been repeatedly acknowledged that witch hunts and mob retaliation have been around forever and have never been a good thing. The anonymity involved in the behavior today amplifies the effect and makes it worse. Just because the behavior has happened before doesn't make it okay, and I cannot understand your persistent attempts to just sweep it under the rug as being no big deal.

You also keep tiliting at the windmill of "what parts of cancel culture do you think need to be criminalized or made illegal" even though that has been responded to many times.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Evasion noted.

yawn

[Emily's Cat]

Suburban Turkey & RedStapler: Do you approve of the behavior of the protesters toward the woman in the pink shirt? Why or why not?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

OK, so we can have an actual discussion please tell me your definition of cancel culture.

I'd say it's any subculture which normalizes efforts to modify behavior in the following way:

Originally Posted by d4m10n

A large group of people unaffected by the events in question (e.g. at a particular Kroger) piling on in order to influence cultural norms. Often paired w/ demands for a particular employee to be reprimanded, suspended, or sacked.

The woman in the pink blouse is not a victim of an attempted cancellation (yet) but she did have a rather unpleasant encounter with call-out culture in the form of a spontaneous struggle session^WP at a sidewalk cafe.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd say it's any subculture which normalizes efforts to modify behavior in the following way:

And that is it?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

And that is it?

That's just my working definition. There are other more authoritative definitions to be had, e.g. on the relevant wiki.

[I Am The Scum]

Disagreeing with me is cancel culture

[Elaedith]

Disagreeing with someone is the antithesis of cancel culture.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

struggle session^WP

Finally you let the cat out of the bag. You're scared that your beloved country could become some communist hellhole. Why didn't you say so?

I'm just kidding but the question remains: Why use words from the Mao regime. Completely ridiculous.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

Why use words from the Mao regime.

Fair question. Once I see your answer to #377 I'll get to it.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Fair question. Once I see your answer to #377 I'll get to it.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Ok, I tried. Which one of the 2 people from your avatar picture are you

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

Ok, I tried.

Have you seen the question from #377 yet?

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Have you seen the question from #377 yet?

What did you get for your 10th birthday? Lego or Barbie?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

What did you get for your 10th birthday? Lego or Barbie?

Evasion noted.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm rolling up a response that is addressing several of your posts here. You say this doesn't seem newsworthy, and that this lady has no injury, essentially implying that it's no big deal, she's fine.

Yet... in the "punching people on the tube" thread, you seemed to take the stance that a single loudmouthed jerk making nasty comments to a few people was both newsworthy and was threatening enough to justify the target of his bad behavior taking physical action against him.

It seems like you feel one guy yelling at three guys is sufficient threat for those three guys to physically assault him... but you simultaneously feel that dozens of people yelling directly into the face of one lone woman and blocking her in is... no big deal?

How do you reconcile those views?

I think you already know the answer.

I never claimed that the guy on the tube deserved to get domed for being loud. He deserved to get hit for trying to intimidate black passengers with white supremacy.

If these people had tried to make this woman feel inferior on the basis of race, I would feel fine with her defending herself with violence.

That didn't happen.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Suburban Turkey & RedStapler: Do you approve of the behavior of the protesters toward the woman in the pink shirt? Why or why not?

I think insisting on performative disavowals of white privilege is tedious and probably counterproductive. I generally agree with the sentiment "white silence is violence". We're a somewhat democratic society, and the cops brutalizing the public is at best the result of disinterest of the broad public in the routine violation of civil rights in poor and non-white communities. That being said, there are many more high priority targets deserving protester attention.

I think these protesters would be much better off causing a ruckus in front of the Mayor's mansion or the police chief's million dollar home rather than screwing with randos trying to eat a cafe.

All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. This is a non-event. It's a desperate attempt by reactionaries to drum up animus towards reform movements.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning.

Whereas getting heckled by a single drunk racist ******* is so major, it warrants violent retaliation.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think you already know the answer.

I never claimed that the guy on the tube deserved to get domed for being loud. He deserved to get hit for trying to intimidate black passengers with white supremacy.

If these people had tried to make this woman feel inferior on the basis of race, I would feel fine with her defending herself with violence.

That didn't happen.

It comes across as though you think that saying racist things is de-facto intimidation, regardless of whether there is physical intimidation involved... but that actual physical intimidation is not sufficient for self defense if there's not a racism element to it?

Given the behavior of the large crowd of people around her, would you be in support of her acting in self defense and punching any of the people around her?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think insisting on performative disavowals of white privilege is tedious and probably counterproductive. I generally agree with the sentiment "white silence is violence". We're a somewhat democratic society, and the cops brutalizing the public is at best the result of disinterest of the broad public in the routine violation of civil rights in poor and non-white communities. That being said, there are many more high priority targets deserving protester attention.

I think these protesters would be much better off causing a ruckus in front of the Mayor's mansion or the police chief's million dollar home rather than screwing with randos trying to eat a cafe.

All that considered, it's important to remember that getting heckled by a protest crowd is a slight so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. This is a non-event. It's a desperate attempt by reactionaries to drum up animus towards reform movements.

I think your framing of it as "heckling" is a bit... overly generous. It's also interesting that you didn't actually say "no, it's not acceptable" but rather approached as not being a "high priority target".

Also, you seem to have latched on to the word "reactionary" and keep using it. I'm not sure why.

[Emily's Cat]

Large crowd, physically intimidating a single person, blocking her in against a wall... not a big deal, it's heckling and just a minor slight.

One person saying very rude things to three people who have multiple ways to move away from him... massive problem that justifies "preemptive self-defense".

[Mumbles]

Like I said:

Right-wingers grab whatever they see trending on black twitter (in this case, "#CancelCosby", calling for the cancellation of Bill Cosby's comedy tour, imagine that!), graft the word "culture" to it, and completely fail to understand what was the discussion was about or come up with any sort of coherent definition, even when it's completely obvious.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It comes across as though you think that saying racist things is de-facto intimidation, regardless of whether there is physical intimidation involved... but that actual physical intimidation is not sufficient for self defense if there's not a racism element to it?

Given the behavior of the large crowd of people around her, would you be in support of her acting in self defense and punching any of the people around her?

Someone saying "this is my country" or anything to that effect is an implicit threat of second class citizenship. I feel fine with such sentiments being met with a violent response.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Large crowd, physically intimidating a single person, blocking her in against a wall... not a big deal, it's heckling and just a minor slight.

One person saying very rude things to three people who have multiple ways to move away from him... massive problem that justifies "preemptive self-defense".

What do you mean by unacceptable? It was certainly quite rude. I don't see anything criminal here.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

What do you mean by unacceptable? It was certainly quite rude. I don't see anything criminal here.

Of course you don't.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Of course you don't.

I don't either, at least not in the relevant jurisdiction. It remains perfectly legal to surround someone and shout abuse at them in D.C. and I'm looking fwd to more of that happening to elected officials rather than random civilians who've done nothing wrong.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Of course you don't.

Is ST missing something? Do tell.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Is ST missing something? Do tell.

The crowd of people surrounding the lady appear to be a more credible threat with a clearer case of intentional intimidation than the guy on the train.

If we were to remove race from the situation, and look solely at the dynamics involved, I think almost anyone would feel that the lady surrounded by the crowd would likely feel more threatened than the three folks on the train would.

Racism is a definite problem, and it most certainly needs to be rectified. But at the end of the day, someone saying mean things is not a more credible threat than a person being surrounded by a crowd yelling at them for not doing what the crowd insists that she must do.

One person yelling at a few rich guys, calling them filthy capitalist pigs who has virtually raped all of their wage slaves is rude, and I could understand the target of such abuse being angry. But one rich guy being surrounded by a crowd yelling at him to give them his money is something else entirely.

One person yelling at a few women that they're evil sluts who belong in the kitchen is execrable, and the target of such language would rightly be offended and angry. One woman being surrounded by an angry crowd yelling at her to go make babies like she's supposed to is a very different situation.

Of course, neither of those analogies is really a great fit. But the dynamic remains. In the tube case, it's one guy saying very cruel racist things to three people, all of whom had room to move away from him and had the option to exit by a different door and avoid any confrontation. I completely understand them being angry, it seems appropriate that they should be angry. One of them, however, decided to knock the racist yeller out... and was lauded for it and had permanent brain damage wished upon him.

In this case, one woman is minding her own business when a crowd of protesters surrounds her, and insists that she raise her fist. Her lack of action leads an entire group of people to get in her face, in a clearly intimidating fashion, yell directly at her, and block her in. She has no escape. And this is brushed off as no big deal, just a slight inconvenience really.

The stark contrast in the perception of moral high ground between these two events is appalling.