Cancel culture IRL - Page 5

Cain · 12th August 2020, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Since claims of racism are un-falsifiable the tag must follow her forever. It has no meaning, apparently, or one so mutable as to be meaningless- ergo she cannot ever rid herself of it.

Like having the "cooties"- it is serious and fatal, and the accusation is what gives it to one.

She apparently said "White Lives Matter More." I don't know how you figure that as unfalsifiable unless she was being satirical (which makes her a sick person because who does that??).

Confusion arises when people start to infer. Some have inferred (in bad faith) that "Black Lives Matter" means ONLY Black Lives Matter, but that's not the case at all.

A better way of explaining a racist comment might point to the heat of the moment, or claim intoxication. For some reason people usually assume that what was not said on purpose is truer than what was said on purpose.

ponderingturtle · 12th August 2020, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

Also, you're not using speech to counter-speech. You're largely using speech to stifle speech. The expression you're drawing upon is mostly intended toward resolving ideas, not a particular individual's employment grievance.

This sounds like a weird reason to have a white supremacists teaching middle school social studies. I mean I guess it is back to teaching the controversy with the holocaust, though when someone advocated that they of course where subject to cancel culture.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/us/fl...rnd/index.html

d4m10n · 12th August 2020, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then as people have pointed out there is nothing new about it and it should not be treated as if it were some radical new thing. It is just the targets being changing with the times. So why treating it as a huge new problem that it is hitting racists?

Who said the problem is remotely new?

We've seen (attempted) cancellations for many years now, heck we've even had entire threads about whether skeptical speakers ought to be cancelled or not based on various allegations of impropriety.

Stout · 12th August 2020, 04:35 PM

Kroger Andy's Go fund me up to $27K and still climbing.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/send-krogerandy-on-a-vaca

What was an activist like Muscato doing shopping in a Krogrer anyway ? Should have been shopping in a small independent black-owned business.

Mark Schierbecker is probably having a laugh over this.

smartcooky · 12th August 2020, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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.

This, right here!

d4m10n · 12th August 2020, 05:54 PM

For those seeking a relatively unbiased definition of "cancel culture" or its immediate ancestor "call-out culture" here is the relevant wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online...d_cancellation

Cain · 12th August 2020, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

This sounds like a weird reason to have a white supremacists teaching middle school social studies. I mean I guess it is back to teaching the controversy with the holocaust, though when someone advocated that they of course where subject to cancel culture.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/us/fl...rnd/index.html

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 13th August 2020, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

This goes for undsiguised racism. It does not apply to the UCLA professor put on leave because he read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (which includes a racial slur). Or to comics working out material in a club.

These seem like wildly different examples. Wouldn't the latter depend on what the material actually was? There's that footage of Kramer from Seinfeld "working out material in a club" by just repeatedly shouting "******! ******! ******! There's a ******! He's a ******!" at a black audience member. Was the negative reaction to that wrong because he was a comedian doing stand-up in a small club?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 13th August 2020, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

That's obnoxious and oppressive. My remedy is putting myself out there to the public? Cancel culture and victimhood culture suck to the extent they're offshoots of camera-sponge culture. If I'm holding up a sign about impeaching whomever, it's not about me. It's about the rat-bastard politician.

I would say that if you're holding up a sign in public - especially at an event that's televised, and within view of the cameras - then you are putting yourself out there to the public.

Quote:

I'd rather not live in the sort of world where GoFundMe is our biggest health-care provider. Social media is a tyranny of the gregarious.

This is not a point about social media. This is a point about the crappy US healthcare system.

Darat · 13th August 2020, 02:35 AM

For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?

Puppycow · 13th August 2020, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

unless she was being satirical (which makes her a sick person because who does that??).

I see what you did there.

Puppycow · 13th August 2020, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?

Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church.

ponderingturtle · 13th August 2020, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

It is someone investigating who is behind public racist speech, and using that information to get them fired. It is exactly cancel culture, and as such she is exactly who you should be defending. You know provided you think cancel culture is bad.

HansMustermann · 13th August 2020, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church.

The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend.

TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too.

You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too.

And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal.

Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group.

And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back.

SuburbanTurkey · 13th August 2020, 04:05 AM

Is this store even a good example of cancel culture anymore? Further reporting shows allegations of everyday racism that is well beyond the scope of the daughter sharing extremely racist views on Twitter.

Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 13th August 2020, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense.

In other words, it's "It's PC gone MAD! You can't wish anybody a Merry Christmas any more!" with a catchier name.

And it's mostly pushed by the same people, for the same reasons. There's a thread in US Politics right now about how Trump invoked cancel culture in his Mt. Rushmore speech.

It's the same thing, wearing a fancy new hat. And the hat is fancy enough that the right-wingers have managed to convince some outside their target demographic that it really is a different person under that false moustache and glasses.*

*They're attached to the hat, nit-pickers.

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?

All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.

HansMustermann · 13th August 2020, 05:45 AM

Is it that disproportionate, though? In the case of some people they are effectively trying to "cancel" a whole race, gender or side of the political spectrum, but when they get a backlash I'm supposed to believe it's somehow disproportionate that it exists at all.

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Is it that disproportionate, though?

In the case of openly genocidal individuals, disproportional responses are less of an issue, obviously. Neither Gelato Andy nor Kroger Andy fit that description, though.

HansMustermann · 13th August 2020, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

In the case of openly genocidal individuals, disproportional responses are less of an issue, obviously. Neither Gelato Andy nor Kroger Andy fit that description, though.

I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that.

Whether directly, or as a very overt implication. As in, it's not discrimination if blacks are less represented in some jobs, or women have a glass ceiling, it's genuinely how far they're qualified to go, or how much their contribution is actually worth to society, or the difference is just how much they inconvenience the employer, or whatever. Or so the bellend narrative goes.

I mean, we're barely out of several years straight of "The Bell Curve" pseudo-science being used to claim point blank that most blacks are too stupid for most jobs. And I don't even mean jobs like surgeon, but it was claimed that even to be a frikken traffic cop, nah, they're not smart enough for that, according to those chucklenuts.

So, yes, effectively they ARE trying to "cancel" some people's livelihood, whether after they got it, or prevent them from getting it in the first place.

And yet I'm supposed to think that when one racist bellend is hit even glancingly with the same crap stick he was trying to hit millions with, I'm supposed to believe that THAT is disproportionate.

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that.

As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are.

Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit?

BobTheCoward · 13th August 2020, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.

The things you describe though are not really punishments. A breakup of a mutual relationship is not a punishment.

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are.

Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit?

What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't.

I live in Germany, I've seen plenty of people getting kicked out of stores because they refused to wear a mask. So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me.

Darat · 13th August 2020, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend.

TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too.

You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too.

And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal.

Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group.

And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back.

This really does seem to be a fair summary (albeit of course it's a generalisation with the limitations of that).

Been in a few threads like this and so far the ones who claim this is all new and terrible and want "it" to stop don't have any ideas on how to make it stop.

Much of what they bring up in the threads as the issues they have will be about behaviour that is already illegal in many countries, for example vandalism, harassment and assault.

So what else do they want to be made illegal to stop this new "cancel culture"?

Many of the examples that have been brought up as egregious examples involve people losing their job (which all agree is not a good thing for the person) so one would expect those against the new cancel culture would want to see employers being prevented from sacking people who are targeted by a cancel-culture-campaign.

We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. There are also some areas where you can be sacked for "disreputable" behaviour but these grounds for dismissal are usually arising from terms in the employment contract rather than statutory rights. (Please note doing something illegal outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign".

pgwenthold · 13th August 2020, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on.

Interesting. What would the law say about firing someone who led a KKK rally?

RolandRat · 13th August 2020, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Darat;13188859 We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. There are also some areas where you can be sacked for "disreputable" behaviour but these grounds for dismissal are usually arising from terms in the employment contract rather than statutory rights. (Please note doing something [B

illegal[/b] outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign".

According to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/...harry-freedman

You can be fired in the UK for political views.

"It came as a surprise to me that one can be dismissed for one's political views. But the employment legislation clearly outlines certain discriminatory reasons for dismissal, against which an employee has statutory grounds for appeal.

These include sexual or racial discrimination, or discrimination on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation religion or belief. If your employer discriminates against you because of your political beliefs you do not have a statutory right of appeal."

This was in 2009 though, has there been amendments made to the legislation?

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by RedStapler

What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't.

Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided.

Originally Posted by RedStapler

So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me.

Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The things you describe though are not really punishments.

Losing a job is not comparable to prison or flogging, to be sure.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 13th August 2020, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.

It is apparently against the rules to cross-post things that people have said in other threads, so I will instead just say that about a week ago you made a post in another thread in which you linked to a twitter pile-on, while not even knowing if the claims in that twitter thread were true, or if the individual the thread was inviting a pile-on of was perpetrating a hoax. I don't think you're as concerned with "hav[ing] a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on" as you would like people to believe.

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided.

No, you were asking "Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place?"

I asked you why you brought up the "better place" part. All I can see right now is you giving distracting non-answers.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons?

I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer?

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by RedStapler

I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer?

I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted.

If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired.

Joe Random · 13th August 2020, 08:27 AM

I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO.

US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that.

Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really ****** up one.

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Joe Random

I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO.

US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that.

Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really ****** up one.

You don't have a browser history?

Sorry, but these "I can't find it right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" posts are really ****** up.

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by RedStapler

I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted.

If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired.

Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

Yes, I did. Why are you asking?

SuburbanTurkey · 13th August 2020, 08:43 AM

I fail to see how "Kroeger Andy" is an example of cancel culture gone too far when the response to the twitter post is mostly mockery and dismissal. Andy never really seemed to be in danger of being fired, has not been fired, and is largely seen as the unfortunate target of some internet weirdo.

If anything, Kroeger Andy is an example of the self-imposed restraints of cancel culture. It's actually not that easy to whip up a false mob.

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by RedStapler

Yes, I did. Why are you asking?

Did those sources happen to say whether Andy was authorized by policy to do anything more than just talk to non-compliant customers? Did the sources relate the facts of the incident from Andy's POV? From another third party?

RolandRat · 13th August 2020, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by RedStapler

You don't have a browser history?

Sorry, but these "I can't find it right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" posts are really ****** up.

This is from the twitter thread in the OP:

https://twitter.com/obtusenosemoose/...90636846850048

It was posted by someone who said he currently works for the company.

The important part is probably the underlined and bolded part:

"Under no circumstances should a customer be forcibly removed and instead reminded in accordance to the mandate they are forbidden to shop without a facial covering"

d4m10n · 13th August 2020, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I fail to see how "Kroeger Andy" is an example of cancel culture gone too far when the response to the twitter post is mostly mockery and dismissal.

Even now RedStapler is making the case that the mob didn't go far enough re: getting Andy sacked. Is that an instance of cancel culture?

ETA: Did you just justify mockery and dismissal as the appropriate response to at least some attempted cancellations?

RedStapler · 13th August 2020, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did those sources happen to say whether Andy was authorized by policy to do anything more than just talk to non-compliant customers? Did the sources relate the facts of the incident from Andy's POV? From another third party?

Ah. here's the cheap gotcha I've been waiting for.

Yes, the policy was "Don't throw people out if they don't wear a mask". The general, nationwide policy is "Wear a mask or you don't come in".

Now, of course, everything is fine with you. After all, it was a store policy and he just followed orders,lol.

12th August 2020, 12:59 PM	#161
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,275	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Since claims of racism are un-falsifiable the tag must follow her forever. It has no meaning, apparently, or one so mutable as to be meaningless- ergo she cannot ever rid herself of it. Like having the "cooties"- it is serious and fatal, and the accusation is what gives it to one. She apparently said "White Lives Matter More." I don't know how you figure that as unfalsifiable unless she was being satirical (which makes her a sick person because who does that??). Confusion arises when people start to infer. Some have inferred (in bad faith) that "Black Lives Matter" means ONLY Black Lives Matter, but that's not the case at all. A better way of explaining a racist comment might point to the heat of the moment, or claim intoxication. For some reason people usually assume that what was not said on purpose is truer than what was said on purpose.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

12th August 2020, 01:02 PM	#162
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,433	Originally Posted by Cain Also, you're not using speech to counter-speech. You're largely using speech to stifle speech. The expression you're drawing upon is mostly intended toward resolving ideas, not a particular individual's employment grievance. This sounds like a weird reason to have a white supremacists teaching middle school social studies. I mean I guess it is back to teaching the controversy with the holocaust, though when someone advocated that they of course where subject to cancel culture. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/us/fl...rnd/index.html
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th August 2020, 03:33 PM	#163
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Then as people have pointed out there is nothing new about it and it should not be treated as if it were some radical new thing. It is just the targets being changing with the times. So why treating it as a huge new problem that it is hitting racists? Who said the problem is remotely new? We've seen (attempted) cancellations for many years now, heck we've even had entire threads about whether skeptical speakers ought to be cancelled or not based on various allegations of impropriety.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 12th August 2020 at 03:57 PM.

12th August 2020, 04:35 PM	#164
Stout Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,346	Kroger Andy's Go fund me up to $27K and still climbing. https://www.gofundme.com/f/send-krogerandy-on-a-vaca What was an activist like Muscato doing shopping in a Krogrer anyway ? Should have been shopping in a small independent black-owned business. Mark Schierbecker is probably having a laugh over this.
Stout Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,346

12th August 2020, 05:49 PM	#165
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,786	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat 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. This, right here!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

12th August 2020, 05:54 PM	#166
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	For those seeking a relatively unbiased definition of "cancel culture" or its immediate ancestor "call-out culture" here is the relevant wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online...d_cancellation
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

12th August 2020, 09:21 PM	#167
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,275	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle This sounds like a weird reason to have a white supremacists teaching middle school social studies. I mean I guess it is back to teaching the controversy with the holocaust, though when someone advocated that they of course where subject to cancel culture. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/us/fl...rnd/index.html I don't see what that has to do with anything.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

13th August 2020, 01:01 AM	#168
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,247	Originally Posted by Cain This goes for undsiguised racism. It does not apply to the UCLA professor put on leave because he read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (which includes a racial slur). Or to comics working out material in a club. These seem like wildly different examples. Wouldn't the latter depend on what the material actually was? There's that footage of Kramer from Seinfeld "working out material in a club" by just repeatedly shouting "****! **! **! There's a **! He's a ****!" at a black audience member. Was the negative reaction to that wrong because he was a comedian doing stand-up in a small club?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

13th August 2020, 01:09 AM	#169
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,247	Originally Posted by Cain That's obnoxious and oppressive. My remedy is putting myself out there to the public? Cancel culture and victimhood culture suck to the extent they're offshoots of camera-sponge culture. If I'm holding up a sign about impeaching whomever, it's not about me. It's about the rat-bastard politician. I would say that if you're holding up a sign in public - especially at an event that's televised, and within view of the cameras - then you are putting yourself out there to the public. Quote: I'd rather not live in the sort of world where GoFundMe is our biggest health-care provider. Social media is a tyranny of the gregarious. This is not a point about social media. This is a point about the crappy US healthcare system.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 13th August 2020 at 01:14 AM.

13th August 2020, 02:35 AM	#170
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,953	For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th August 2020, 02:45 AM	#171
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 25,738	Originally Posted by Cain unless she was being satirical (which makes her a sick person because who does that??). I see what you did there.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

13th August 2020, 02:49 AM	#172
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 25,738	Originally Posted by Darat For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen? Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

13th August 2020, 02:51 AM	#173
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,433	Originally Posted by Cain I don't see what that has to do with anything. It is someone investigating who is behind public racist speech, and using that information to get them fired. It is exactly cancel culture, and as such she is exactly who you should be defending. You know provided you think cancel culture is bad.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th August 2020, 03:16 AM	#174
HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 18,009	Originally Posted by Puppycow Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church. The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend. TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too. You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too. And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal. Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group. And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back.
	__________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand? Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th August 2020 at 03:21 AM.

13th August 2020, 04:05 AM	#175
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,930	Is this store even a good example of cancel culture anymore? Further reporting shows allegations of everyday racism that is well beyond the scope of the daughter sharing extremely racist views on Twitter. Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

13th August 2020, 04:28 AM	#176
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,247	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense. In other words, it's "It's PC gone MAD! You can't wish anybody a Merry Christmas any more!" with a catchier name. And it's mostly pushed by the same people, for the same reasons. There's a thread in US Politics right now about how Trump invoked cancel culture in his Mt. Rushmore speech. It's the same thing, wearing a fancy new hat. And the hat is fancy enough that the right-wingers have managed to convince some outside their target demographic that it really is a different person under that false moustache and glasses.* *They're attached to the hat, nit-pickers.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

13th August 2020, 05:01 AM	#177
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by Darat For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen? All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

13th August 2020, 05:45 AM	#178
HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 18,009	Is it that disproportionate, though? In the case of some people they are effectively trying to "cancel" a whole race, gender or side of the political spectrum, but when they get a backlash I'm supposed to believe it's somehow disproportionate that it exists at all.
	__________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

13th August 2020, 05:55 AM	#179
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Is it that disproportionate, though? In the case of openly genocidal individuals, disproportional responses are less of an issue, obviously. Neither Gelato Andy nor Kroger Andy fit that description, though.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 13th August 2020 at 06:14 AM.

13th August 2020, 06:20 AM	#180
HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 18,009	Originally Posted by d4m10n In the case of openly genocidal individuals, disproportional responses are less of an issue, obviously. Neither Gelato Andy nor Kroger Andy fit that description, though. I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that. Whether directly, or as a very overt implication. As in, it's not discrimination if blacks are less represented in some jobs, or women have a glass ceiling, it's genuinely how far they're qualified to go, or how much their contribution is actually worth to society, or the difference is just how much they inconvenience the employer, or whatever. Or so the bellend narrative goes. I mean, we're barely out of several years straight of "The Bell Curve" pseudo-science being used to claim point blank that most blacks are too stupid for most jobs. And I don't even mean jobs like surgeon, but it was claimed that even to be a frikken traffic cop, nah, they're not smart enough for that, according to those chucklenuts. So, yes, effectively they ARE trying to "cancel" some people's livelihood, whether after they got it, or prevent them from getting it in the first place. And yet I'm supposed to think that when one racist bellend is hit even glancingly with the same crap stick he was trying to hit millions with, I'm supposed to believe that THAT is disproportionate.
	__________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand? Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th August 2020 at 06:26 AM.

13th August 2020, 06:28 AM	#181
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that. As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are. Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 13th August 2020 at 06:34 AM.

13th August 2020, 06:42 AM	#182
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,228	Originally Posted by d4m10n All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense. The things you describe though are not really punishments. A breakup of a mutual relationship is not a punishment.

13th August 2020, 06:44 AM	#183
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Originally Posted by d4m10n As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are. Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit? What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't. I live in Germany, I've seen plenty of people getting kicked out of stores because they refused to wear a mask. So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me.
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839

13th August 2020, 06:54 AM	#184
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,953	Originally Posted by HansMustermann The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend. TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too. You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too. And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal. Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group. And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back. This really does seem to be a fair summary (albeit of course it's a generalisation with the limitations of that). Been in a few threads like this and so far the ones who claim this is all new and terrible and want "it" to stop don't have any ideas on how to make it stop. Much of what they bring up in the threads as the issues they have will be about behaviour that is already illegal in many countries, for example vandalism, harassment and assault. So what else do they want to be made illegal to stop this new "cancel culture"? Many of the examples that have been brought up as egregious examples involve people losing their job (which all agree is not a good thing for the person) so one would expect those against the new cancel culture would want to see employers being prevented from sacking people who are targeted by a cancel-culture-campaign. We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. There are also some areas where you can be sacked for "disreputable" behaviour but these grounds for dismissal are usually arising from terms in the employment contract rather than statutory rights. (Please note doing something illegal outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign".
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th August 2020, 07:40 AM	#185
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by Darat We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. Interesting. What would the law say about firing someone who led a KKK rally?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

13th August 2020, 07:50 AM	#186
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 922	Originally Posted by Darat;13188859 We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. There are also some areas where you can be sacked for "disreputable" behaviour but these grounds for dismissal are usually arising from terms in the employment contract rather than statutory rights. (Please note doing something [B illegal[/b] outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign". According to this: https://www.theguardian.com/careers/...harry-freedman You can be fired in the UK for political views. "It came as a surprise to me that one can be dismissed for one's political views. But the employment legislation clearly outlines certain discriminatory reasons for dismissal, against which an employee has statutory grounds for appeal. These include sexual or racial discrimination, or discrimination on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation religion or belief. If your employer discriminates against you because of your political beliefs you do not have a statutory right of appeal." This was in 2009 though, has there been amendments made to the legislation?
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 922

13th August 2020, 07:58 AM	#187
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by RedStapler What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't. Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided. Originally Posted by RedStapler So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me. Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons? Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The things you describe though are not really punishments. Losing a job is not comparable to prison or flogging, to be sure.
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 13th August 2020 at 08:03 AM.

13th August 2020, 08:04 AM	#188
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,247	Originally Posted by d4m10n All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense. It is apparently against the rules to cross-post things that people have said in other threads, so I will instead just say that about a week ago you made a post in another thread in which you linked to a twitter pile-on, while not even knowing if the claims in that twitter thread were true, or if the individual the thread was inviting a pile-on of was perpetrating a hoax. I don't think you're as concerned with "hav[ing] a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on" as you would like people to believe.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

13th August 2020, 08:11 AM	#189
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Originally Posted by d4m10n Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided. No, you were asking "Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place?" I asked you why you brought up the "better place" part. All I can see right now is you giving distracting non-answers. Originally Posted by d4m10n Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons? I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer?
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Last edited by RedStapler; 13th August 2020 at 08:12 AM.

13th August 2020, 08:14 AM	#190
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by RedStapler I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer? I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin Last edited by d4m10n; 13th August 2020 at 08:18 AM.

13th August 2020, 08:20 AM	#191
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Originally Posted by d4m10n I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread? I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted. If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired.
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839

13th August 2020, 08:27 AM	#192
Joe Random Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,793	I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO. US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that. Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really ****** up one.
	Last edited by Joe Random; 13th August 2020 at 08:28 AM.

13th August 2020, 08:32 AM	#193
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Originally Posted by Joe Random I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO. US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that. Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really **** up one. You don't have a browser history? Sorry, but these "I can't find it right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" posts are really **** up.
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839

13th August 2020, 08:35 AM	#194
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,386	Originally Posted by RedStapler I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted. If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

13th August 2020, 08:42 AM	#195
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839	Originally Posted by d4m10n Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread? Yes, I did. Why are you asking?
RedStapler Guest Join Date: Mar 2020 Posts: 839