Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It's just as likely that the venue who admitted to booking the show as a stunt then realized they could make a bigger name for themselves by cancelling because of unspecified feelings of unsafeness in "the community". You know, another stunt.

I'd say my explanation is significantly more straightforward: Some people got upset and asked the venue to cancel the concert, and (after a bit of hemming and hawing) the venue capitulated to their demands.

[Graham2001]

Found this article which is describing online bullying but the person who wrote it called it 'Canceling'

Quote:

Last week, I watched my teen daughter get cancelled on Snapchat in real-time. It was savage, brutal, and heartbreaking.

Friendships ended in a matter of minutes.

A mother watching the pack mentality as girls were added to the group chat to participate in a public verbal bashing. Some of these girls she barely knew.

Other girls stuck in the middle, not wanting to support my daughter in case the same thing happened to them.

It was vile, appalling, and honestly made me despair for this generation that we are raising who seem completely incapable of communicating with each other in person. What should have been a private conversation between two friends sorting something out became a very public ambush.

And why you ask?

All because of third-hand 'evidence' that my daughter had said something about another girl.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/...hat/ar-AAYKJvc

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

Found this article which is describing online bullying but the person who wrote it called it 'Canceling'





https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/...hat/ar-AAYKJvc

If it is about online bullying what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd say my explanation is significantly more straightforward: Some people got upset and asked the venue to cancel the concert, and (after a bit of hemming and hawing) the venue capitulated to their demands.

Is anyone surprised that you think your explanation, which requires your assumption to be true and then uses that presumed truth as evidence that it is true, is the correct one?

Be honest, had you heard of John Hinckley's "music" or the Market Hotel before the Market Hotel's stunt cancellation brought them to your attention?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd say it's generally worthwhile to distinguish between problems which can be fixed by changing policy and problems which can really only be fixed by changing minds.

What’s the problem here that you think needs to be fixed?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Is anyone surprised that you think your explanation, which requires your assumption to be true and then uses that presumed truth as evidence that it is true, is the correct one?

Why should anyone care if people are surprised? Here is what happened, step-by-step:

1. Venue sets up gig
2. Venue sells out gig
3. Venue pressured to cancel gig
4. Venue cancels gig

This is textbook cancel culture in action, even if the protagonist is singularly unsympathetic.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What’s the problem here that you think needs to be fixed?

Ask the people who paid to see the concert.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Have you checked to see whether the podcast in question actually got cancelled subsequent to this prediction?

https://twitter.com/replyall/status/1526981831748468740

Today was the last day of Reply All, a massively popular show which brought joy to many listeners until the cancel culture fair reckoning brought it down.

https://twitter.com/newsmanual/statu...76089962876928

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Ask the people who paid to see the concert.

The problem that needs fixing is that a concert was cancelled?

Concerts get cancelled all the time for a variety of reasons. How many concerts do you think were cancelled during the first two years of the pandemic? (Hint: A lot.) Most emotionally-healthy adults accept this minor disappointment and move on with their lives.

Why do you view this as a problem that needs fixing?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Today was the last day of Reply All, a massively popular show which brought joy to many listeners until the cancel culture fair reckoning brought it down.

https://twitter.com/newsmanual/statu...76089962876928

Luckily, the joy we get from laughing at people emotionally invested in the existence of a podcast will last us a lifetime.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why should anyone care if people are surprised? Here is what happened, step-by-step:

1. Venue sets up gig
2. Venue sells out gig
3. Venue pressured to cancel gig
4. Venue cancels gig

This is textbook cancel culture in action, even if the protagonist is singularly unsympathetic.

Have you, perhaps, heard that correlation does not equal causation? Is there some reason you're ignoring that by cancelling the gig Market Hotel got massive amounts of free publicity and the fact that that certainly gives them just as much if not more motive to cancel than a handful of tweets?

Will d4m10n continue to assume his conclusions? Stay tuned!

[johnny karate]

Even putting the causation error aside and assuming the reasoning is correct, it’s still not clear what the problem is.

What’s being described is a scenario in which a venue scheduled an event, a bunch of people said “We don’t like that and you shouldn’t do it”, and the venue said “Okay then, we won’t do it”.

What is the specific problem with that?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Even putting the causation error aside and assuming the reasoning is correct, it’s still not clear what the problem is.

What’s being described is a scenario in which a venue scheduled an event, a bunch of people said “We don’t like that and you shouldn’t do it”, and the venue said “Okay then, we won’t do it”.

What is the specific problem with that?

I think it's something to do with a podcast or something?

Or d4m10n's previous take that popular performers should never be held accountable for their actions....no, wait, Hinckley isn't a popular performer.

Wait...maybe it's mean tweets?

Um, yeah...I'm struggling to figure out what problem d4m10n is trying to bring out attention to, as well.

[tyr_13]

Even big law firms like Kirkland and Ellis get in on the cancellations... https://abovethelaw.com/2022/06/paul...e-case-may-be/

(No, it isn't cancel culture like Clement claims and the article is very snarky about how stupid the claim is.)

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Concerts get cancelled all the time for a variety of reasons. How many concerts do you think were cancelled during the first two years of the pandemic?

Analogizing cancel culture to an historically disruptive pandemic might not be quite the own you think it is. I'm happy to concede that both forms of virality need to be mitigated and minimized.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Why do you view this as a problem that needs fixing?

Any time people are denied the opportunity to enjoy a performance, speech, podcast, film, book, etc. they are denied at least some of the benefits of living in a free marketplace of ideas.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Is there some reason you're ignoring that by cancelling the gig Market Hotel got massive amounts of free publicity and the fact that that certainly gives them just as much if not more motive to cancel than a handful of tweets?

First off, it's silly to assume that tweets are the only feedback in play here just because I scraped Twitter rather than Instagram—one of those sites is readily searchable, the other is not.

Secondly, the venue knew exactly what they were up against:
https://twitter.com/markethotelnyc/s...70317061480453

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

First off, it's silly to assume that tweets are the only feedback in play here just because I scraped Twitter rather than Instagram—one of those sites is readily searchable, the other is not.

I never said those tweets were the only feedback, just that they were both milqetoast and also the absolute worst that a motivated searcher such as yourself was able to come up with. If someone is not already convinced of your point, the fact that you can't actually find anything worse than 'you shouldn't do that' from a couple of people with 17 followers means that this supposed "backlash" was weak sauce indeed, and far more likely to be an excuse for the venue to get real publicity with a stunt cancellation.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Secondly, the venue knew exactly what they were up against:
https://twitter.com/markethotelnyc/s...70317061480453

Yes, the venue knew that there was a large enough segment of the populace who has uncritically bought into the "cancel culture" narrative and would eat up their stunt.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."

So, the venue that got a metric **** ton of free publicity for cancelling a show that they didn't really want to hold anyway gave lip-service to how "not free" they were to make a name for themselves by cancelling? I'm sure that you find that convincing because you have already assumed that cancel culture is real, and an existential crisis on par with a virus that killed over a million Americans, but I've already pointed out that assuming your conclusion is a bad way to argue this point.

And anyway, over in the Roe V Wade Strikedown thread, you implied that the only definition or usage of "cancel culture" was "trying to get someone fired"....which this isn't that. Why, it's almost like "cancel culture" is just another right wing faux freakout nebulous term where the word can mean anything you want it to and nothing you don't, with that definition changing depending on your position at the moment. Like CRT or "gay agenda".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

...snip...

Why, it's almost like "cancel culture" is just another right wing faux freakout nebulous term where the word can mean anything you want it to and nothing you don't, with that definition changing depending on your position at the moment. Like CRT or "gay agenda".

I think more akin to "political correctness", they used all the same whining and whinging about that - "oh he was fired because he was politically incorrect", "oh we can't have Christmas because it is politically incorrect" and all that crap.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why, it's almost like "cancel culture" is just another right wing faux freakout nebulous term where the word can mean anything you want it to and nothing you don't, with that definition changing depending on your position at the moment.

The phrase wasn't invented by right wingers, as I've already explained in the first iteration of this thread back when we were still hashing out definitions. (You might want to click on the linked definition as well, let us know if it's too nebulous.)

Originally Posted by wareyin

And anyway, over in the Roe V Wade Strikedown thread, you implied that the only definition or usage of "cancel culture" was "trying to get someone fired"....which this isn't that.

If you're a musician performing gigs, canceling those gigs is effectively ending your musical career.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The phrase wasn't invented by right wingers, as I've already explained in the first iteration of this thread back when we were still hashing out definitions. (You might want to click on the linked definition as well, let us know if it's too nebulous.)

Is there some reason I should find one particular definition out of the many contradictory definitions you use to be compelling? Or is that just the one that fits best now but we'll completely ignore it when it comes to the next example you provide?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you're a musician performing gigs, canceling those gigs is effectively ending your musical career.

You've never been a musician, have you?

And...gigs? You showed one, single. Kinda like a sick day being used to claim a career has ended.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Is there some reason I should find one particular definition out of the many contradictory definitions you use to be compelling?

You are free to provide a definition which you find preferable, and I'll try to remember which one you are using.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Or is that just the one that fits best now but we'll completely ignore it when it comes to the next example you provide?

Every example I've mentioned was either an attempt to deplatform a known public figure (traditional "cancel culture" in the dictionary sense) or else an attempt to turn a private figure into a limited public figure for the sake of viral public shaming (e.g. OP).

Originally Posted by wareyin

And...gigs?

At least three cities were planned.

https://deadline.com/2022/06/john-hi...el-1235046409/

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You are free to provide a definition which you find preferable, and I'll try to remember which one you are using.

Why should I have to provide a definition for a thing you're trying and failing to make a case for? It's your push, you have to define it. The problem is that if you stick to one definition, it appears the whole house of cards falls apart. If you use it the oh so scary term in many different ways, even if they contradict what you said before, it appears that your ephemeral phantasm just might possibly be real.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Every example I've mentioned was either an attempt to deplatform a known public figure (traditional "cancel culture" in the dictionary sense) or else an attempt to turn a private figure into a limited public figure for the sake of viral public shaming (e.g. OP).

This "deplatforming" you speak of...that's your complaint that venues aren't forced to host events that they don't want to host, right?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

At least three cities were planned.

https://deadline.com/2022/06/john-hi...el-1235046409/

Dang, that mass public movement you speak of actually caused events to be cancelled before Fox News or anybody made the events public? It's so massive that cancel culture now warps time and space to retroactively apply?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Analogizing cancel culture to an historically disruptive pandemic might not be quite the own you think it is. I'm happy to concede that both forms of virality need to be mitigated and minimized.

I wasn’t attempting to analogize anything, or attempt an own. I’m merely pointing out that the cancellation of a concert is neither uncommon nor a tragedy. It’s nothing more than a minor inconvenience that occasionally happens in life.

Quote:

Any time people are denied the opportunity to enjoy a performance, speech, podcast, film, book, etc. they are denied at least some of the benefits of living in a [url="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#FreExp"]free marketplace of ideas

That would only apply if the podcasters or performers in question were being prevented from expressing their ideas. They’re not. They have the exact same freedom to express themselves that I have, someone who has never had a podcast or been booked in a concert venue.

Quote:

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."

Arguing that a performance some people find offensive harms no one but cancelling that performance does cause harm is not an argument that can be made while retaining any degree of credibility.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Analogizing cancel culture to an historically disruptive pandemic might not be quite the own you think it is. I'm happy to concede that both forms of virality need to be mitigated and minimized.

Any time people are denied the opportunity to enjoy a performance, speech, podcast, film, book, etc. they are denied at least some of the benefits of living in a free marketplace of ideas.

First off, it's silly to assume that tweets are the only feedback in play here just because I scraped Twitter rather than Instagram—one of those sites is readily searchable, the other is not.

Secondly, the venue knew exactly what they were up against:
https://twitter.com/markethotelnyc/s...70317061480453

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."

You still, after all this time, do not seem to get the fact that rights and freedoms apply to everyone.

If I own a venue, I have the right to decide who does and who does not get to use MY venue. Furthermore, not only do I have the right to not need to justify to anyone why I won't let some group or organization use my venue, I also have the right to be unfair and inconsistent in what I decide.

I will let an Antifa group use my venue, but not a neo-Nazi group.
I will let a pro-abortion rights group use my venue, but not an anti abortion group.
I will let a pride group use my venue but not an anti-LGBTQ group
Oh, and Peter Boghossian gets nowhere near my venue for any reason

I have the right to have the things being available in my venue reflect my philosophy and beliefs. These are my inalienable rights... My Venue, My Choice!

[d4m10n]

Canceled at 17 via The Cut.

Some replies:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...e-rape-culture

https://slate.com/business/2022/06/d...-unpacked.html

https://www.gawker.com/media/new-yor...led-teen-story

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If I own a venue, I have the right to decide who does and who does not get to use MY venue. Furthermore, not only do I have the right to not need to justify to anyone why I won't let some group or organization use my venue, I also have the right to be unfair and inconsistent in what I decide.

For the sake of clarity, can you please quote the thing that I said which denied such rights?

ETA: You're talking about legal rights, right?

[d4m10n]

One more June cancellation, in just under the wire:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphi...d_is_for_sale/

https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphi...now_dissolved/

Still trying to find a comprehensive write-up as to how the place imploded after the workers rose up.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

For the sake of clarity, can you please quote the thing that I said which denied such rights?

Its not just one thing, its the general tone of your posts. You have been critical of the de-platforming of speakers and performers by the venue or owners of the venues at which they were going to perform.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

ETA: You're talking about legal rights, right?

Is there any other kind?

[Dr. Keith]

More cc in real life, well, animated real life:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...04045.html?amp

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Canceled at 17 via The Cut.

Some replies:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...e-rape-culture

https://slate.com/business/2022/06/d...-unpacked.html

https://www.gawker.com/media/new-yor...led-teen-story

For the tl;dr crowd: Teenage boy shared a nude photo of his underage girlfriend with his buddies and was subsequently shunned at his high school when word got out. For some reason, the article - and presumably d4m10n - wants us to feel bad for the boy, who not only engaged in a disgusting violation of trust and privacy, but also almost certainly broke the law. No concern is expressed for the girl who was violated.

“Cancel culture” hand-wringers seem to choose their examples like Trump chose cabinet members. Only the Very Best People.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

For the sake of clarity, can you please quote the thing that I said which denied such rights?

ETA: You're talking about legal rights, right?

Great, we’ve established the venue was within their rights to cancel the concert.

What’s the problem, then?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You have been critical of the de-platforming of speakers and performers by the venue or owners of the venues at which they were going to perform.

I certainly have. Allowing those speakers and performers to go forward would have contributed to a more robust free marketplace of arts and ideas, a social goal worth pursuing in my estimation.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Is there any other kind?

Many people (such as those who drafted the Declaration of Independence which will be celebrated this weekend) seem to believe that rights exist in something like a platonic realm. I hope scientific skeptics can avoid this pitfall.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Great, we’ve established the venue was within their rights to cancel the concert.

This isn't the politics forum, it's the social issues forum. Legal rights are not dispositive here.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

For the tl;dr crowd: Teenage boy shared a nude photo of his underage girlfriend with his buddies and was subsequently shunned at his high school when word got out. For some reason, the article - and presumably d4m10n - wants us to feel bad for the boy, who not only engaged in a disgusting violation of trust and privacy, but also almost certainly broke the law. No concern is expressed for the girl who was violated.

He was drunk at a party when he showed the photo (on his phone) to a few kids. And your last line is either a lie or yet another demonstration of an inability to read.

Quote:

“Cancel culture” hand-wringers seem to choose their examples like Trump chose cabinet members. Only the Very Best People.

Being a minor is a mitigating circumstance (in addition to being drunk and showing the picture rather than disseminating it). Nobody disputes that it was still a terrible thing to do. People are more than the worst thing they've done, or the best thing they've done. While the most dramatic cases of injustice involve good people being victimized for fighting on behalf of a noble cause, most cases of cancel culture will involve dumb-to-bad people doing bad things. Critics of cancel culture do not say Diego should be free to live his life as if this has never happened, or that he's among the very best. The critique is that this type of punishment is inconsistent and disproportionate. There are also harmful consequences, seen in the article: spirals of silence, dysfunction, moral panic.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This isn't the politics forum, it's the social issues forum. Legal rights are not dispositive here.

To be clear, is it your opinion that the owner of the venue has no right to determine who does and does not perform in their venue outside of the technical one granted by the law?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

He was drunk at a party when he showed the photo (on his phone) to a few kids. And your last line is either a lie or yet another demonstration of an inability to read.



Being a minor is a mitigating circumstance (in addition to being drunk and showing the picture rather than disseminating it). Nobody disputes that it was still a terrible thing to do. People are more than the worst thing they've done, or the best thing they've done. While the most dramatic cases of injustice involve good people being victimized for fighting on behalf of a noble cause, most cases of cancel culture will involve dumb-to-bad people doing bad things. Critics of cancel culture do not say Diego should be free to live his life as if this has never happened, or that he's among the very best. The critique is that this type of punishment is inconsistent and disproportionate. There are also harmful consequences, seen in the article: spirals of silence, dysfunction, moral panic.

Socially undesirable behavior often results in negative social consequences. This is one of the basic tenets of living in a society. Most people learn and accept this truth when they are still children.

What Diego did isn’t only socially undesirable, it’s also criminal. He’s lucky being shunned is the worst thing that happened to him.

Maybe he was just a dumb kid who did something foolish, but he still did it. There are consequences in life and this is an opportunity for him to learn that important lesson. Maybe he’ll think twice before he violates someone else.

My sympathies remain with his underage victim.

Seriously though, the posters here who are mad that social consequences for bad behavior exist really need to start picking better people to champion.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Socially undesirable behavior often results in negative social consequences. This is one of the basic tenets of living in a society. Most people learn and accept this truth when they are still children.

Anti-social behavior ought to have negative social consequences. Who says otherwise? Who says that what Diego did was not bad, or does not deserve punishment? Another boy, a "self-appointed enforcer" who takes the initiative to go after Diego, reportedly said in a statistics class, "'There are not many people that I would bash in the head with a hammer. Diego is one of them.'" Later, he reportedly wrote, "**** Diego. I love cancel culture. If you were to cancel anyone, who would you cancel?" Is this socially undesirable behavior? Because it seems as though this boy was being rewarded with status and attention.

Quote:

What Diego did isn’t only socially undesirable, it’s also criminal. He’s lucky being shunned is the worst thing that happened to him.

Compared to what? I'm reminded of an article in Mother Jones a while back:

"No part of my experience [in an Iranian prison]—not the uncertainty of when I would be free again, not the tortured screams of other prisoners—was worse than the four months I spent in solitary confinement. What would he say if I told him I needed human contact so badly that I woke every morning hoping to be interrogated? Would he believe that I once yearned to be sat down in a padded, soundproof room, blindfolded, and questioned, just so I could talk to somebody?"

Quote:

Seriously though, the posters here who are mad that social consequences for bad behavior exist really need to start picking better people to champion.

This reflects a morally cartoonish, Manichean view of the world. Principled people do not get to choose the most compelling victims; they just have their principles. I don't care if George Floyd, for example, had long criminal record, or had just committed a crime and disobeyed a lawful order to remain in the squad car. This kind of vindictiveness is Nancy "I care about the real victims" Grace-adjacent.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

Anti-social behavior ought to have negative social consequences. Who says otherwise? Who says that what Diego did was not bad, or does not deserve punishment? Another boy, a "self-appointed enforcer" who takes the initiative to go after Diego, reportedly said in a statistics class, "'There are not many people that I would bash in the head with a hammer. Diego is one of them.'" Later, he reportedly wrote, "**** Diego. I love cancel culture. If you were to cancel anyone, who would you cancel?" Is this socially undesirable behavior? Because it seems as though this boy was being rewarded with status and attention.

Feel free to shun that boy and encourage others to do so if you are unsatisfied with the response to his behavior.

Quote:

Compared to what? I'm reminded of an article in Mother Jones a while back:

"No part of my experience [in an Iranian prison]—not the uncertainty of when I would be free again, not the tortured screams of other prisoners—was worse than the four months I spent in solitary confinement. What would he say if I told him I needed human contact so badly that I woke every morning hoping to be interrogated? Would he believe that I once yearned to be sat down in a padded, soundproof room, blindfolded, and questioned, just so I could talk to somebody?"

Compared to being criminally prosecuted for the potential crime that he committed. I would argue that’s worse than a high school shunning.

Quote:

This reflects a morally cartoonish, Manichean view of the world. Principled people do not get to choose the most compelling victims; they just have their principles. I don't care if George Floyd, for example, had long criminal record, or had just committed a crime and disobeyed a lawful order to remain in the squad car. This kind of vindictiveness is Nancy "I care about the real victims" Grace-adjacent.

George Floyd was murdered. Is that the most histrionic comparison you could come up with? Perhaps a Holocaust comparison would really drive the point home.

But let’s be clear: You’re making a victim out of a kid who violated a young girl and probably committed a crime in the process because other kids are now saying mean things about him. He’s not the victim here. The girl he violated is.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Feel free to shun that boy and encourage others to do so if you are unsatisfied with the response to his behavior.

This is a nihilistic dodge. The question was whether or not you believe the boy engaged in socially undesirable behavior.

Quote:

Compared to being criminally prosecuted for the potential crime that he committed. I would argue that’s worse than a high school shunning.

Assuming they pursued it, the case would get plea-bargained down to what? Community service and a fine? Where social currency is the be-all, end-all, I could see these kids preferring to be caned rather than shunned. The dialogue in the article sounded like a version of idiocracy: "Bruh, that was a little out of pocket."

Quote:

George Floyd was murdered. Is that the most histrionic comparison you could come up with? Perhaps a Holocaust comparison would really drive the point home.

But let’s be clear: You’re making a victim out of a kid who violated a young girl and probably committed a crime in the process because other kids are now saying mean things about him. He’s not the victim here. The girl he violated is.

It's possible to be a victimizer and a victim. If someone bashed Diego's head with a hammer, you would not, I hope, say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!" According to the article, is it fair to say that Diego was bullied and harassed?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Secondly, the venue knew exactly what they were up against:
https://twitter.com/markethotelnyc/s...70317061480453

Finally, the venue explained their actions fairly clearly in the above-linked Instagram post. "We aren't living in that kind of free country anymore..." because of a cultural shift in favor of deplatforming those whom we find offensive, even when their performance "harms no one in any practical way."

Of course they are. Business make choices about which group of people is more valuable to them every single day. They weighed their options and made their choice accordingly. That's how freedom works. Freedom is not a guarantee your choices will be all be consequence free.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is a nihilistic dodge. The question was whether or not you believe the boy engaged in socially undesirable behavior.

I generally don’t think people should be saying they want to hit other people with hammers, but if they don’t actually do it, and saying they want to doesn’t violate the law, I’m not sure how outraged I’m supposed to be about it.

However, it doesn’t matter what I believe about it, and I’m not sure why you think it does. The determination for what is or isn’t socially acceptable is made by his peer group, not some random person on the internet.

This is nothing but a red herring.

Quote:

Assuming they pursued it, the case would get plea-bargained down to what? Community service and a fine? Where social currency is the be-all, end-all, I could see these kids preferring to be caned rather than shunned. The dialogue in the article sounded like a version of idiocracy: "Bruh, that was a little out of pocket."

It’s difficult to take someone seriously who argues that being “cancelled” is worse than criminal prosecution or corporeal punishment.

Quote:

It's possible to be a victimizer and a victim.

You could use this same tortured logic to argue that any criminal who is prosecuted and penalized for their crimes is also a “victim”.

Quote:

If someone bashed Diego's head with a hammer, you would not, I hope, say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!"

No, that would be a crime. Unlike some people in this thread, I don’t downplay criminal behavior or sympathize with those who engage in it.

Quote:

According to the article, is it fair to say that Diego was bullied and harassed?

Bullied? No, not really. The act of bullying implies a power dynamic in which stronger kids are targeting weaker kids. It’s hard to make that argument here when the kids allegedly “bullying” Diego were doing so in response to him victimizing someone else. You’re basically arguing that the kids who stand up to the bully are the real bullies.

Harassing? Sure. But that term has a fairly broad definition that includes forms of relatively innocuous behavior. I’m not particularly bothered when politicians who support unpopular policies are “harassed” by their constituents, and I’m also not particularly bothered when a kid who who subjects a young girl to humiliation is “harassed” by other kids who don’t like that he did that. As long as the behavior remains within the bounds of the law, them’s the breaks.

My sympathies remain with the young girl he violated.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I generally don’t think people should be saying they want to hit other people with hammers, but if they don’t actually do it, and saying they want to doesn’t violate the law, I’m not sure how outraged I’m supposed to be about it.

However, it doesn’t matter what I believe about it, and I’m not sure why you think it does. The determination for what is or isn’t socially acceptable is made by his peer group, not some random person on the internet.

This is nothing but a red herring.

This sort of amoral response gets at the root of your dishonesty. If a kid were shunned on suspicion of being gay, would you throw your hands up, "Well, I'm just a random person on the Internet. The determination of whether or not 'faggy' behavior should be socially acceptable is really something for his peer group to decide."

Quote:

It’s difficult to take someone seriously who argues that being “cancelled” is worse than criminal prosecution or corporeal punishment.

I did not say that it is worse. I said that I could see how a child might prefer other forms of punishment. This is cognitive empathy, and it's something you might want to try to develop.

Quote:

You could use this same tortured logic to argue that any criminal who is prosecuted and penalized for their crimes is also a “victim”.

There are convicted criminals who are victims of the system -- specifically when their punishment is disproportionate. It's almost as if punitive punishment has been an ongoing theme for however many years this topic has been discussed.

Quote:

Bullied? No, not really. The act of bullying implies a power dynamic in which stronger kids are targeting weaker kids. It’s hard to make that argument here when the kids allegedly “bullying” Diego were doing so in response to him victimizing someone else. You’re basically arguing that the kids who stand up to the bully are the real bullies.

This is nonsense all the way down. Is it hard to argue Muammar Gaddafi's human rights were violated because he had been in power (up until the moment he wasn't in power)? Yes, of course bullies can get bullied by their victims. Gross transgressions do not grant moral blank checks. And anyway, as far as this school is concerned, the continued harassment does not seem to come from the victims. Diego's main antagonist was a boy. There was another incident where a girl threatened to have her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend canceled, followed through on it, but the two "couldn't stay away from each other," so when he ran away from home, she urged him to come back.

Quote:

Harassing? Sure. But that term has a fairly broad definition that includes forms of relatively innocuous behavior. I’m not particularly bothered when politicians who support unpopular policies are “harassed” by their constituents, and I’m also not particularly bothered when a kid who who subjects a young girl to humiliation is “harassed” by other kids who don’t like that he did that. As long as the behavior remains within the bounds of the law, them’s the breaks.

You're rationalizing harassment by arguing against "harassment." And it's not like you have to guess what happened; someone wrote a ~10,000 word article. The school concluded that the kid had been bullied and harassed. It's also mighty naive of you to assume other kids dogpile because they take umbrage at the original offense. Some just like to dogpile.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

This sort of amoral response gets at the root of your dishonesty. If a kid were shunned on suspicion of being gay, would you throw your hands up, "Well, I'm just a random person on the Internet. The determination of whether or not 'faggy' behavior should be socially acceptable is really something for his peer group to decide."

This kid wasn’t shunned for a lifestyle choice. He was shunned for victimizing and humiliating a young girl.

It’s so weird that “cancel culture” hand-wringers not only can’t seem to grasp the concepts of nuance and context, it’s like they think those concepts don’t even exist.

Here, let me help on your journey to enlightenment: Not everything is the same.

Quote:

I did not say that it is worse. I said that I could see how a child might prefer other forms of punishment. This is cognitive empathy, and it's something you might want to try to develop.

I have empathy for the young girl he violated.

Quote:

There are convicted criminals who are victims of the system -- specifically when their punishment is disproportionate. It's almost as if punitive punishment has been an ongoing theme for however many years this topic has been discussed.

There are also convicted criminals who aren’t victims at all. Bearing the brunt of negative consequences that directly result for your own bad behavior doesn’t automatically make you a victim.

Quote:

This is nonsense all the way down. Is it hard to argue Muammar Gaddafi's human rights were violated because he had been in power (up until the moment he wasn't in power)? Yes, of course bullies can get bullied by their victims. Gross transgressions do not grant moral blank checks. And anyway, as far as this school is concerned, the continued harassment does not seem to come from the victims. Diego's main antagonist was a boy. There was another incident where a girl threatened to have her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend canceled, followed through on it, but the two "couldn't stay away from each other," so when he ran away from home, she urged him to come back.

All stories truly worthy of a Greek tragedy.

My sympathies remain with the young girl who was victimized, and not with her victimizer.

Quote:

You're rationalizing harassment by arguing against "harassment." And it's not like you have to guess what happened; someone wrote a ~10,000 word article. The school concluded that the kid had been bullied and harassed. It's also mighty naive of you to assume other kids dogpile because they take umbrage at the original offense. Some just like to dogpile.

And some just like to show their buddies nude photos of their underage girlfriends without her consent for the lolz and high-fives. Diego had a choice in determining what happened to him. The young girl he violated didn’t.

My sympathies remain with his victim.