Cancel culture IRL

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

"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"

So, tell em and if they refuse, do nothing. Great. Luckily, not every store has policies like this one.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

RedStapler can't get this person fired without support from a wider audience. Neither could the inciting internet weirdo.

The individual criticisms of internet strangers isn't cancel culture. If the behavior showcased isn't sufficiently reprehensible to enough people, nothing happens.

The internet mob managed to hold off lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks to figure out that Kroeger Andy wasn't at fault because Kroeger has bad policies that put him into an unwinnable situation as an employee.

[Joe Random]

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.

Somehow I'll find a way to cope with your disappointment. And your failure to address the 'if so/if not so' part of my post.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

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

Call it what you will; I'm not getting the sense you did any research whatsoever before jumping on the fire Andy bandwagon.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The individual criticisms of internet strangers isn't cancel culture. If the behavior showcased isn't sufficiently reprehensible to enough people, nothing happens.

I'm not sure those two sentences actually sit well together. The individual trees aren't the forest, but enough trees together...?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The internet mob managed to hold off lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks to figure out that Kroeger Andy wasn't at fault because Kroeger has bad policies that put him into an unwinnable situation as an employee.

After at least half a dozen individuals (not counting RedStapler) publicly called for Andy to be sacked. These folks all leapt before they looked.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm not sure those two sentences actually sit well together. The individual trees aren't the forest, but enough trees together...?

After at least half a dozen individuals (not counting RedStapler) publicly called for Andy to be sacked. These folks all leapt before they looked.

I can find half a dozen people willing to send death threats because someone made the wrong kind of fan fiction. The internet is littered with all kinds of bizarre, hair trigger loudmouths. The vast majority of the time, their deranged screeds don't amount to anything substantial.

Cherry picking internet nuts isn't proof of much of anything. Kroeger Andy was never cancelled.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Cherry picking internet nuts isn't proof of much of anything. Kroeger Andy was never cancelled.

And yet we can usefully ask ourselves whether those attempting to cancel him were (1) doing something worthwhile and (2) motivated by culture.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

And yet we can usefully ask ourselves whether those attempting to cancel him were (1) doing something worthwhile and (2) motivated by culture.

Why bother?

As far as I can tell, Kroeger Andy wasn't even close to being cancelled. Lunatics raving at the moon on Twitter don't interest me. Or, at least, not for anything beyond amusement.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

As far as I can tell, Kroeger Andy wasn't even close to being cancelled.

I've no idea how many Twitter lunatics it takes to get someone sacked, but you must know that it sometimes happens. Do you think the individuals calling for Andy to be sacked were doing something worthwhile?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can we take 6 people as the minimum required to be classed as a culture? And that calling for someone to be sacked is required to make something a cancellation attempt?

We're starting to get somewhere towards a definition, at least.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've no idea how many Twitter lunatics it takes to get someone sacked, but you must know that it sometimes happens. Do you think the individuals calling for Andy to be sacked were doing something worthwhile?

No, I think they were either very misguided or malicious. Luckily the overwhelming view was an outright rejection of the claim that Kroeger Andy should get canned.

Do you think it's worthwhile to wring your hands over the failed attempts of internet weirdos? There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on on the web, why does this incident merit attention?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

These seem like wildly different examples.

I would hope that I could offer more and other obviously different environs to help flesh out the contours of my view. It's odd you'd say they were "wildly different examples"; I thought they were too similar, as each deals with somewhat sacred space.

Quote:

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 thought about addressing this incident, but determined it was obvious those comments were not material he was working out. They were a reaction to heckling. Richards didn't come to the stage that night to see how calling audience members ******* was going to play. His show unmistakably went off-script, he had a meltdown and reacted in an abusive way. Context matters.

That said, in cases of extemporaneous crowd interaction, I would allow for even more leeway precisely because the exchanges are (mostly) unscripted. As I recall, the first time he called his Black hecklers *******, some people laughed, but Richards (apparently) was not trying to be funny.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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

It doesn't matter if the US has crappy health-care because now we have social media to raise funds.

_______________________________________

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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.

You're straining so hard you might injure yourself. You said "white supremacists teaching middle school social studies," and now "racist public speech... to get them fired."

The person is not White, was not a social studies teacher (at least at the time), and the incident took place in high school (not middle school). More importantly, he was responding to an e-mail (not speaking in public), positing a weird epistemological position about not being able to say the Holocuast occurred (you infer racist), and he was not fired but reassigned. He sounds more incompetent than anything, and should not have been a principal.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on on the web, why does this incident merit attention?

A few reasons.

1) Online shaming leading to demonetization/deplatforming/disemployment are a broader cultural phenomenon worthy of consideration.

2) This is a pretty clear-cut example of an attempting shaming which backfired.

3) The orignal poster was someone I once met at a skeptic conference.

If you find these reasons insufficient, I'm sure there are other threads in the conceptual vicinity which could use your attention.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

A few reasons.

1) Online shaming leading to demonetization/deplatforming/disemployment are a broader cultural phenomenon worthy of consideration.

2) This is a pretty clear-cut example of an attempting shaming which backfired.

3) The orignal poster was someone I once met at a skeptic conference.

If you find these reasons insufficient, I'm sure there are other threads in the conceptual vicinity which could use your attention.

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cancel culture isn't nearly as unreasonable and unhinged as some people seem to believe. They sussed out this nonsense quickly and rejected the attempt.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cancel culture isn't nearly as unreasonable and unhinged as some people seem to believe. They sussed out this nonsense quickly and rejected the attempt.

They who? Most of the pushback I've been seeing has a certain ideological bent.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

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.

Um, no. I don't do it at all, to anyone, ever. End of story. I bet that the other posters in this thread who are opposed to this behavior also don't engage in it themselves.

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Bret Weinstein
Nick Sandmann
Others I don't recall at the moment.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Cain

I would hope that I could offer more and other obviously different environs to help flesh out the contours of my view. It's odd you'd say they were "wildly different examples"; I thought they were too similar, as each deals with somewhat sacred space.

They're wildly different, because one is a professor reading out significant words as part of educating his students*, whereas the other is someone expressing their own opinions - or, perhaps, the opinions of a character they have created and are choosing to embody.

Quote:

Context matters.

That's what I said, wasn't it? That whether or not something a comedian said on stage was okay or not would depend on what, exactly, they said. They don't get an automatic pass on saying absolutely anything just because they're a comedian.

Or, to put it another way, offering up an example of "comics working out material in a club" as being different to "undsiguised racism" is rather ignoring the fact that it's entirely possible for "comics working out material in a club" to be racists saying racist things. There are, after all, no shortage of cruel, racist jokes in this world.

Quote:

That said, in cases of extemporaneous crowd interaction, I would allow for even more leeway precisely because the exchanges are (mostly) unscripted.

I'm not sure if that should get more leeway. True, you're more likely to misspeak when you're talking extemporaneously, but you're also less likely to censor your true feelings than if you're repeating something you've gone over and over and rehearsed to within an inch of your life. Or, to put it another way, you're more likely to say what you actually think.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if the US has crappy health-care because now we have social media to raise funds.

Then as well as being a problem with the crappy health-care system, it's also a problem with the US attitude towards money, and the US capitalist system. It's not the fault of the people helping out that the help is needed in the first place.

I think it's absolutely appalling that citizens of the richest country in the world have to beg to strangers for life-saving medical treatments to common ailments. But I don't blame the beggars,** or the people who give them something. I blame the system that requires them to beg.

*Which isn't to say that I necessarily agree with his decision to do so, as opposed to telling his class to read it, or implying the word in some way. I don't know enough about the case to form a strong opinion, and I'm not interested enough to research it.

**Unless they've actively campaigned against welfare/healthcare reform. In which case it's a bit leopards at my face.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Others I don't recall at the moment.

Justine Sacco, Lindsey Stone, Adria Richards, Alicia Ann Lynch, etc.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Bret Weinstein
Nick Sandmann
Others I don't recall at the moment.

Yes, those are probably better examples than this story, where literally no one got cancelled.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, those are probably better examples than this story, where literally no one got cancelled.

Do you think anyone could have reasonably foreseen that specific outcome when the original tweet was only a day old? Just curious, really, I don't think the outcome matters so much as the intended outcome when evaluating an attempt at public shaming.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

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.

..

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

Darat do you have me on ignore? Or are you just completely pretending my posts don't exist?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Joe Random

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

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Cherry picking internet nuts isn't proof of much of anything. Kroeger Andy was never cancelled.

Cherry picking news articles isn't proof of much of anything. This black guy over here was never killed by the police.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Joe Random

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.

So we finally have someone willing to call the firing of these officers cancel culture and really ****** up?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-n...l-slurs-video/

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Why bother?

As far as I can tell, Kroeger Andy wasn't even close to being cancelled.

Why bother? As far as I can tell, that black guy over there wasn't even close to being killed.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Do you think it's worthwhile to wring your hands over the failed attempts of internet weirdos? There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on on the web, why does this incident merit attention?

Do you think it's worthwhile to wring your hands of the times the police failed to successfully kill a black guy? There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on with cops, why does this incident merit attention?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Cherry picking news articles isn't proof of much of anything. This black guy over here was never killed by the police.

Which is why we ask about positive cases of this existing. Yet you refuse to make any kind of statement for or against the firing of people in many of the cases I bring up. Were they an appropriate response or cancel culture?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Joe Random

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.

So as no theft of assault that would mean this firing is really ****** up then?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-n...l-slurs-video/

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So we finally have someone willing to call the firing of these officers cancel culture and really ****** up?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-n...l-slurs-video/

The interactions were monitored by one of the cops' supervisors, and took place while on the job.
Does not seem to qualify from any angle.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cancel culture isn't nearly as unreasonable and unhinged as some people seem to believe.

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cop brutality against black people isn't nearly as widespread and vicious as some people seem to believe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

The interactions were monitored by one of the cops' supervisors, and took place while on the job.
Does not seem to qualify from any angle.

So if the conversation was off duty at a party it would be ok then and they shouldn't be fired. It was only becasue they were BSing on duty about it.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, those are probably better examples than this story, where literally no one got cancelled.

But they're still examples that you seem to dismiss...

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Cain

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.

<<chef's kiss>>

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cop brutality against black people isn't nearly as widespread and vicious as some people seem to believe.

Ah the black people are crappy drivers defense. Clearly they must be because there is no way to explain the higher rates of being pulled over and wide spread racism is clearly not a realistic posibility.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So if the conversation was off duty at a party it would be ok then and they shouldn't be fired. It was only becasue they were BSing on duty about it.

Maybe, maybe not.
If the conversation were off duty, how would the PD even be considering it?

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah the black people are crappy drivers defense. Clearly they must be because there is no way to explain the higher rates of being pulled over and wide spread racism is clearly not a realistic posibility.

A "realistic possibility" is exactly what it is.

[Dr. Keith]

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.

That doesn't sound like something that deserves much discussion, much less righteous outrage. You can't possibly be right.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Maybe, maybe not.
If the conversation were off duty, how would the PD even be considering it?

Social media is great for that.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've no idea how many Twitter lunatics it takes to get someone sacked, but you must know that it sometimes happens. Do you think the individuals calling for Andy to be sacked were doing something worthwhile?

I think the key here is not the number of twidiots pile on, it is whether the actions being published are a problem for the employer.

Kroger saw an employee doing as instructed by corporate. Kroger gave those instructions so it would be HR suicide to fire the guy. Even if they change their policy, which I see no evidence of them doing.