Cancel culture IRL

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Cancel culture thrives on sharing.

Sharing isn't shaming, is it? Granted, some ISF'ers who found what either Andy or Danielle did to be shameful now know about it. I cannot take credit for shaming either of them, though. I haven't said that either one should repent nor that either one should be punished.

ETA: I'm not sure how we can reasonably discuss "cancel culture" without discussing specific attempts at cancellation. Any ideas?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Cain

I don't know how to characterize this other than "stubbornly stupid."

And I don't know how to characterise your post other than "needlessly rude and not addressing what I actually said".

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Sharing isn't shaming, is it? Granted, some ISF'ers who found what either Andy or Danielle did to be shameful now know about it. I cannot take credit for shaming either of them, though. I haven't said that either one should repent nor that either one should be punished.

That seems a little "will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" You're admitting that you amplified the shaming, but that because you personally didn't say that you thought s/he should be shamed that you bear absolutely zero culpability if your actions happen to have facilitated the shaming.

Quote:

ETA: I'm not sure how we can reasonably discuss "cancel culture" without discussing specific attempts at cancellation. Any ideas?

How about discussing matters which are resolved? You yourself have admitted that when you posted the OP you had no idea at all how the situation would develop, although you imagined it going differently to how it did. I would have thought it trivially obvious that if you want to have a serious, fact-based discussion about a subject that the examples you should use to illustrate it should be ones about which the facts at the very least can be known.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

That seems a little "will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" You're admitting that you amplified the shaming, but that because you personally didn't say that you thought s/he should be shamed that you bear absolutely zero culpability if your actions happen to have facilitated the shaming.

Come now. Did anyone here turn around and try to put pressure on Andy, Danielle, or their respective livelihoods? If so, I'll cop to culpability. If not, I won't.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"The fact that my actions could have caused harm of exactly the type I'm railing against is irrelevant because I'm unaware of whether or not they actually did".

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"The fact that my actions could have caused harm of exactly the type I'm railing against is irrelevant because I'm unaware of whether or not they actually did".

"Made up quotes are cool and totally not strawmen."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by xterra

Purely by coincidence, I had a conversation with an employee (I'll call him "Joe" for convenience) in a Kroger subsidiary early last week...

I'm a little late to this dance, but was scrolling through the irst page and this caught my attention..

What is a Kroger subsidiary?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

"Made up quotes are cool and totally not strawmen."

If you feel it's a straw man, you could explain your position better. As it is what you said was that you would only "cop to culpability" if someone here had "turn[ed] around and tried] to put pressure on Andy, Danielle, or their respective livelihood", all while implicitly conceding that that was a possible outcome, given that "some ISF'ers who found what either Andy or Danielle did to be shameful now know about it" due to your post. I think what I said was a reasonable paraphrase, but I'm open to you explaining how I'm wrong, and also to how you believe the ethics are substantially different between you posting that tweet here and someone re-tweeting it or indeed the woman in question making the tweet in the first place.

To me, they don't seem like different actions at all, they only differ in scale.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

lI think what I said was a reasonable paraphrase, but I'm open to you explaining how I'm wrong...

Okay, how about you link the post where I was railing against the harms of cancel culture or (more on point) railing against the harms caused by discussions about specific cancellations.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

And I don't know how to characterise your post other than "needlessly rude and not addressing what I actually said".

You're accusing me of not addressing what you said? You -- Mister Mischaracterization. Surreal.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I'm a little late to this dance, but was scrolling through the irst page and this caught my attention..

What is a Kroger subsidiary?

Stores owned by Kroger but operated under different names (e.g., in Southern California, we have Ralphs).

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Come now. Did anyone here turn around and try to put pressure on Andy, Danielle, or their respective livelihoods? If so, I'll cop to culpability. If not, I won't.

Right. So you're saying that you didn't expect anyone to actually take that case seriously enough to get into a mob with torches and pitchforks either way, even when you give it a bit more exposure... yet you used it as an example of that anyway. And you managed to preach for a few days about how people should think before joining such a mob, yet somehow in all that time it never occurred to you that that's the whole reason why such cases don't get a mob, while cases where someone was genuinely an awful person do.

Oh wait, you were just doing the usual false equivalence dance, that is so usual when such defenses come up for why awful behaviour should have no consequences. Here's a totally non-equivalent case, let's pretend it's equivalent, so let's draw conclusions for the non-equivalent cases from it, right?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

So you're saying that you didn't expect anyone to actually take that case seriously enough to get into a mob with torches and pitchforks either way, even when you give it a bit more exposure...

Anyone on a skeptic discussion forum wherein people purportedly value getting their facts straight. Since we hadn't yet heard from either Andy or the maskless people in the store, it's obviously premature to pick up our torches. (Unless you're British and your torch takes batteries.)

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And you managed to preach for a few days about how people should think before joining such a mob...

I'm just glad you guys came to hear my sermons. The collection plates will be around shortly.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Oh wait, you were just doing the usual false equivalence dance, that is so usual when such defenses come up for why awful behaviour should have no consequences.

I fairly specifically disclaimed the idea that all cancellations are equivalent at post #110.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

How did you make the leap from "Individual X ought not lose their job" to "Public accountability for bad actors is a lost cause," though?



Seems to me that some shamings and/or sackings are obvious overreactions, while others are appropriate reactions to (workplace) incapacity or (personal) immorality. Plenty of cases lie in a gray area as well, IMO. Can we discuss this topic without hand-wringing? I'd like to think so.

What discussion where you hoping to spur by posting the original OP? It is noticeably light on content or prompts, just a link to an event.

What more is there to say about this incident? Some rando tried to gin up an internet mob to get some grocery store worker fired, and it failed. I suppose even the failed attempts of cancellation are part of the larger context of cancel culture, but it's hard to make a lot of conclusions using this example. It's definitely not an example of an unhinged cancel culture, because the public pretty quickly saw through the complaint and dismissed it as tedious nonsense. If anything, it's proof that the internet mob has some ability to see nuance and exercise at least some degree of skepticism.

Using the term "cancel culture" is begging the question. It's a term that presumes that social consequences for bad behavior is a somewhat recent development, which is obviously untrue. It assumes that this events are somehow connected, but the events often vary the spectrum of bad behavior. There are novel elements to modern taboos, such as the internet or the growing lack of patience for public racists and other bigots that previously would have been tolerated or even celebrated. Using the term assumes a connection to other cancellation events, when the only connection seems to be conservatives crying about it.

Cancel culture implies some connection between events like Brett Weinstein and Amy Cooper, which seems entirely spurious, other than right wing pundits will try to spin up a narrative about SJW wokescolds coming to take scalps.

Conservatives have been crying about "politically correct" culture for decades. There's nothing new about this behavior.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

What discussion where you hoping to spur by posting the original OP?

Here you go:

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What I'm asking is whether it makes sense to cancel publicly shame this employee. Any thoughts?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Here you go:

No, it doesn't make sense to publicly shame this person, which is why the person that initiated it is being widely mocked for attempting to do so.

The story has gotten some publicity, but I don't see meaningful public shaming coming towards Kroeger Andy. The lion's share of the criticism seems pointed towards either Kroeger corporate policy or the person who posted the video.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I'm a little late to this dance, but was scrolling through the irst page and this caught my attention..

What is a Kroger subsidiary?

The Kroger brand owns several grocery stores, including (but not limited to) Fry's, Fred Meyer, QFC, Smith Food & Drug, and King Soopers.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Sharing isn't shaming, is it? Granted, some ISF'ers who found what either Andy or Danielle did to be shameful now know about it. I cannot take credit for shaming either of them, though. I haven't said that either one should repent nor that either one should be punished.

ETA: I'm not sure how we can reasonably discuss "cancel culture" without discussing specific attempts at cancellation. Any ideas?

Maybe do a bit of basic research about the issue prior to posting and then post with a clear opinion on what you see and what is good or bad about it. Do something to start the discussion other than: Look at that! What the hell is that!?!

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Maybe do a bit of basic research about the issue prior to posting and then post with a clear opinion on what you see and what is good or bad about it.

Why, though? What's wrong with soliticing other people's opinions, especially while you're still mulling something over?

[zooterkin]

Derail on punching racists split to here. Please keep to the topic of this thread, thank you.

Posted By:zooterkin

[d4m10n]

FWIW - I did not intend this thread to be about just one attempted "cancellation" but rather about the broader phenomenon of leveraging social platforms to get an offending individual demonetized, deplatformed, disemployed, or otherwise sanctioned IRL as the result of collective protest.

If there is an effort underway to ensure that the aforementioned tube racist gets sacked in addition to getting knocked TF out, that would be on topic, IMO.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

FWIW - I did not intend this thread to be about just one attempted "cancellation" but rather about the broader phenomenon of leveraging social platforms to get an offending individual demonetized, deplatformed, disemployed, or otherwise sanctioned IRL as the result of collective protest.

So how about Infowars as a victim of cancel culture?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So how about Infowars as a victim of cancel culture?

I could try to guess exactly which events you're talking about, if you want. Don't expect me to get it right first time around.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I could try to guess exactly which events you're talking about, if you want. Don't expect me to get it right first time around.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/63603...ies-mega-purge

here you go

[d4m10n]

Oh yeah, I sort of remember that now.

I guess you could call that cancel culture, though it doesn't seem to fit the usual pattern of a specific triggering event going viral and causing a backlash. (At least not that I can tell.)

If major social platforms don't want to host "content...glorifying violence" or "using dehumanizing language" I'm not seeing much of a problem there. It's their servers, after all, and I'm not getting the sense that any of those platforms are systematically eliminating the right-wing talk show types who don't engage in such behavior.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Oh yeah, I sort of remember that now.

I guess you could call that cancel culture, though it doesn't seem to fit the usual pattern of a specific triggering event going viral and causing a backlash. (At least not that I can tell.)

If major social platforms don't want to host "content...glorifying violence" or "using dehumanizing language" I'm not seeing much of a problem there. It's their servers, after all, and I'm not getting the sense that any of those platforms are systematically eliminating the right-wing talk show types who don't engage in such behavior.

But it fits the claims of cancel culture far better, it was multiple platforms deplatforming them, way more clear than someone losing a job because of a racist rant in public.

It goes to the point that cancel culture isn't a thing, it is just a buzz word for people being upset about their behavior being viewed as problematic now when it was accepted in the past. And everyone has plenty of cases that they endorse this cultural enforcement and cases they object to it. It isn't the loss of job or the like that is the problem but if you take issue with the behavior that is causes this cultural enforcement.

Which is exactly the point, we can debate the merits of the results in specific cases, be it donglegate or cops getting "fired" when a video of them assaulting black kids goes viral. And we agree with the firing or disagree with it. That does not make one more cancel culture than the other.

The only way that anything is changing is that it is harder to be anonymous. Of course anonymity is far from a human universal, as most cultures were small enough that you had to make a serious effort to not be known to everyone in your village, like moving to somewhere no one knew you.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Which is exactly the point, we can debate the merits of the results in specific cases, be it donglegate or cops getting "fired" when a video of them assaulting black kids goes viral. And we agree with the firing or disagree with it. That does not make one more cancel culture than the other.

Who said otherwise?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Who said otherwise?

That is the whole point people going on rants about cancel culture are all about.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That is the whole point people going on rants about cancel culture are all about.

Okay but whose rants are you referencing?

[smartcooky]

"So how about Infowars as a victim of cancel culture?"

1. Rule of So

2. Nope, they're a victim of Alex Jones' wilful ignorance and blind stupidity.

[d4m10n]

Just in case there was ever any doubt that "Alex Jones" is a character in a long running performance art piece:

https://twitter.com/robrousseau/stat...68985625022464

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

"So how about Infowars as a victim of cancel culture?"

1. Rule of So

2. Nope, they're a victim of Alex Jones' wilful ignorance and blind stupidity.

Then what is cancel culture aside from all the consequences Jones has faced, why isn't that cancel culture? He was certainly canceled.

[Puppycow]

With the disclaimer that I've never heard of either of these YouTubers, or seen any of their videos until Charlie did a video about the "controversy" a couple days ago, a prominent YouTuber with almost 5 million subscribers has had his channel deleted by YouTube for a "targeted harassment" campaign against another YouTuber.

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

To me, it seems pretty blatant. That is, if there's a rule against targeted harassment of other YouTube content creators, then this sort of behavior would seem to fall clearly within the definition of the banned behavior. (I'm going by Charlie's description of it. I never saw any of the videos in question.)

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

To me, it seems pretty blatant. That is, if there's a rule against targeted harassment of other YouTube content creators, then this sort of behavior would seem to fall clearly within the definition of the banned behavior.

I don't follow many YT folks but I've seen at least a few tiffs in which they go back and forth making videos rebutting each other and occasionally putting in a few personal jibes. For example, Noel Plum and Essence of Thought have gone back and forth on no-platforming and on fairness in sport, among other things. Can we trust the YouTube mods to understand these videos referencing each other as serialized public debate rather than targeted harassment?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't follow many YT folks but I've seen at least a few tiffs in which they go back and forth making videos rebutting each other and occasionally putting in a few personal jibes. For example, Noel Plum and Essence of Thought have gone back and forth on no-platforming and on fairness in sport, among other things. Can we trust the YouTube mods to understand these videos referencing each other as serialized public debate rather than targeted harassment?

Well, if neither channel has been sanctioned by YouTube yet, maybe so far, so good. Hopefully certain decisions are not left to algorithms to decide.

I know that a certain chess YouTuber who I subscribe to had a video taken down once for reasons that remain mysterious (I suspect a 4chan prank). There was absolutely nothing controversial in the video. I think it was just an interview between the YouTuber and a high-ranking chess player. At the time there was a 4chan troll campaign to say that chess is racist because white moves first. The video was restored eventually, but only after a twitter campaign from his subscribers.

[d4m10n]

I cannot tell what offense the woman in the pink blouse has committed here, but I assume it must've been truly awful, because the mob seems righteously pissed.

https://twitter.com/MikeNayna/status...49483500404738

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I cannot tell what offense the woman in the pink blouse has committed here, but I assume it must've been truly awful, because the mob seems righteously pissed.

https://twitter.com/MikeNayna/status...49483500404738

What is the point you are trying to make by sharing that link?

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I cannot tell what offense the woman in the pink blouse has committed here, but I assume it must've been truly awful, because the mob seems righteously pissed.

https://twitter.com/MikeNayna/status...49483500404738

Then you should not post it to make whichever point you were trying to make.
But I get it "ANGRY MOB SCREAMS AT WOMAN. SOCIETY IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE"

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Darat

What is the point you are trying to make by sharing that link?

I too am curious.

Response to the video seems to be pretty unanimously critical of whatever weird performative nonsense the crowd was up to.

No idea what this has to do with cancel culture. I see no one getting cancelled here.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

What is the point you are trying to make by sharing that link?

Nayna puts forth the hypothesis that the crowd is comfortable with mass public shaming IRL b/c they've been acculterated to performative shaming online. I think he may be on to something here, if only because I've trouble imagining feeling that good about bullying someone like this.

ETA: Here's another angle on that incident.

https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status...67900756496387

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I cannot tell what offense the woman in the pink blouse has committed here, but I assume it must've been truly awful, because the mob seems righteously pissed.

https://twitter.com/MikeNayna/status...49483500404738

She would be entirely justified to punch the ******** getting in her face square in the nose.