IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cancel culture

Reply
Old 1st November 2021, 07:29 PM   #481
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,018
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Hard to see how that's relevant. Comstock wielded state power, where most of the complaints around "cancel culture" seem mostly to be rooted in indignation that the unwashed masses might hold strong negative opinions of people who are their betters.
We can also see that any state sanctioned cancelling appears to be coming from the right - Texas laws etcÖ:
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 07:39 PM   #482
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Is this an aspect of our culture which you would like to see changed?
Which what? My answer would be ďpeople who make death threatsĒ. Whatís the other option?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 07:40 PM   #483
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
People who threaten a person's life should not be afforded the protection of free speech laws.
18 U.S.C. ß 115 hasn't been struck down on 1st Amendment grounds, so I think it's safe to say that death threats aren't protected speech in the United States.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
My answer would be ďpeople who make death threatsĒ.
It was a simple yes or no question.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 1st November 2021 at 07:42 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 07:44 PM   #484
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,238
I'm struggling to find the eerie parallels there also.

Anthony Comstock was a singular politician who created an organization to monitor public morality, created and changed legislation to reflect his morality, and later abused his power to leverage the legal system to punish people he found obscene.

Cancel culture, if one could even agree on a definition of what it really is, is many people from a variety of backgrounds under no real organization mostly publicly shaming others online for a variety and even at times contradictory reasons.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 11:33 PM   #485
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 23,133
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
18 U.S.C. ß 115 hasn't been struck down on 1st Amendment grounds, so I think it's safe to say that death threats aren't protected speech in the United States.

It was a simple yes or no question.
And yet they have photos of people who have made these death threats, so presumably, they know wjo these people are. Why have they not been arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. ß 115 ?
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2021, 11:35 PM   #486
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 23,133
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
I'm struggling to find the eerie parallels there also.

Anthony Comstock was a singular politician who created an organization to monitor public morality, created and changed legislation to reflect his morality, and later abused his power to leverage the legal system to punish people he found obscene.

Cancel culture, if one could even agree on a definition of what it really is, is many people from a variety of backgrounds under no real organization mostly publicly shaming others online for a variety and even at times contradictory reasons.

That's because there aren't any. The two situations are not remotely alike - not even superficially.
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 03:43 AM   #487
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It was a simple yes or no question.
I must have misread the question last night. Which aspect, specifically, are you referring to? I think creditable death threats should not be protected by free speech. I think euphemisms and analogies referring to the death of someone involved should be protected. I donít think it is unreasonable for police to investigate the latter in order to determine the former if there is any ambiguity about which it is.

I also think none of this has to do with cancel culture. Itís death threats and harassment, which are already illegal and have a remedy. As I have said, cancel culture has existed forever in the intersection of free speech and capitalism. Arguably before that with public shaming and shunning. The only thing new here is the term applied to it and using it as an excuse to avoid accountability for one's unpopular words and actions.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 05:02 AM   #488
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why have they not been arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. ß 115 ?
I gave an example of a law which criminalizes specific threats at the federal level, but it likely doesn't apply in this particular case. Look to the relevant state criminal code.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I also think none of this has to do with cancel culture.
When the cancel mob rears up and calls for someone to be deplatformed or disemployed, is it uncommon for some of them to go further and make threats against physical safety? Seems fairly routine to me.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I think euphemisms and analogies referring to the death of someone involved should be protected.
I agree, if they are clearly intended as performance rather than calls to action, e.g. the bizarre case of Kathy Griffin.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 05:08 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 05:21 AM   #489
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
When the cancel mob rears up and calls for someone to be deplatformed or disemployed, is it uncommon for some of them to go further and make threats against physical safety? Seems fairly routine to me.
Historically, it is very common. Pro-desegregation folks experienced all that and more. civil rights activists did, too. Anti-war activists. Neo-Nazis. Etc.

You guys are acting like this is anything new.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 06:02 AM   #490
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You guys are acting like this is anything new.
The only thing newóAFAIKóis the speed at which (dis)information can travel through social networks.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 06:43 AM   #491
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The only thing newóAFAIKóis the speed at which (dis)information can travel through social networks.
That's not really the case with Dave Chappelle or Donald Trump*, though.



* I mean, besides the disinformation that Trump himself propagates.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 07:16 AM   #492
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That's not really the case with Dave Chappelle or Donald Trump...
Agreed. Cancellations work best when the mob appears much larger than the countervailing fan base.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 10:22 AM   #493
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Agreed. Cancellations work best when the mob appears much larger than the countervailing fan base.
Because capitalism.


ETA: To expand, if the criticism exceeds a company's risk tolerance to their bottom line, they will remove the controversial material. If the material continues to drive profits, they will not remove the material. This is not cancel culture. This is, and always has been, the nature of capitalism. Earlier you mentioned (dis)information. Yes, there is some of that, but it, too, has always existed as either "marketing" or "public relations". The only difference with the speed of it is companies have a reduced time to react to changes in public opinion, thus forcing the decision to continue or cut material. But, it is all just ongoing capitalism.

Do you think those outraged by the first interracial kiss on TV between Kirk and Uhura weren't trying to get Star Trek cancelled?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 2nd November 2021 at 10:33 AM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 10:39 AM   #494
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Because capitalism.
Agreed

Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.


Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you think those outraged by the first interracial kiss on TV between Kirk and Uhura weren't trying to get Star Trek cancelled?
I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 10:46 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 10:43 AM   #495
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Agreed

Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...425b6c59ff.jpg
I am not familiar.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.
When has capitalism ever concerned itself with being ethical?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 10:45 AM   #496
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
When has capitalism ever concerned itself with being ethical?
Why on Earth would anyone feel constrained by capitalism when talking about ethics?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 10:50 AM   #497
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why on Earth would anyone feel constrained by capitalism when talking about ethics?
Who said we were talking about ethics? This thread is about cancel culture, i.e. the crossing point between capitalism and free speech.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:03 AM   #498
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Who said we were talking about ethics?
I did, when I affirmed that it was unethical to try to cancel folks like Roddenberry, Fontana, and Coon for depicting interracial romance on the small screen, around 20 minutes ago.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
This thread is about cancel culture, i.e. the crossing point between capitalism and free speech.
I created this thread to discuss the ethics of one particular (attempted) cancellation while it was just getting off the ground. While I'm happy to see the topic broadened, I'll not have you narrowing it so as to exclude talk of ethics.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 11:05 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:05 AM   #499
SuburbanTurkey
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Null
Posts: 15,479
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I did, when I affirmed that it was unethical to try to cancel folks like Roddenberry, Fontana, and Coon for depicting interracial romance on the small screen.
So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:17 AM   #500
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I created this thread to discuss the ethics of one particular (attempted) cancellation while it was just getting off the ground. While I'm happy to see the topic broadened, I'll not have you narrowing it so as to exclude talk of ethics.
Well, that was not at all clear. You asked if it made sense, not if it was right or ethical. I did a quick search and the references are vanishingly small.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I did, when I affirmed that it was unethical to try to cancel folks like Roddenberry, Fontana, and Coon for depicting interracial romance on the small screen, around 20 minutes ago.
I would argue that it is the same as all free speech. Free speech, itself, is neither ethical nor unethical. It is the nature of the free speech that is either ethical or unethical. Likewise, criticism of free speech is neither ethical nor unethical, but the nature of criticism that is ethical or unethical.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:24 AM   #501
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?
See post #490
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:27 AM   #502
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
See post #490
Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:27 AM   #503
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I would argue that it is the same as all free speech. Free speech, itself, is neither ethical nor unethical.
You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Suppose someone wants to lecture on the virtues of homeopathy at your local speaker's corner. Such a speech is clearly unethical since it causes people to seek out remedies which don't work. At the same time, such speech is legally protected.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 11:29 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:28 AM   #504
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.
I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 11:29 AM   #505
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to be unconstrained by law?
Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 12:07 PM   #506
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.
But that is all that "cancel culture" is.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 12:46 PM   #507
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.
I feel I should elaborate. I am saying that free speech is merely the protected right to speak. It is neither ethical nor unethical. What one chooses to speak about can be either ethical or unethical (or neutral, I suppose).

MLK Jr.'s use of speech: ethical.
Hitler's use of speech: unethical.

Speaking out against MLK's use of speech: unethical.
Speaking out against Hitler's use of speech: ethical.

Removing ethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: unethical or neutral
Removing unethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: ethical or neutral

"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical. Like most things, it depends on the context. Is it unethical to remove ethical speech from one's platform, if it means that the platform can no longer afford to operate and, thus, can't show any content at all?

I also feel like these are not so much a SI&CE issue as it is a R&P issue.


* the actual "canceling"
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 01:12 PM   #508
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 23,133
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.
First you will have to teach d4m10n not to quote you while removing the words and sentences that give context to what you wrote (so that he can twist what you said into something other that what you meant).

Good luck with that!
__________________
What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd November 2021 at 01:13 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 01:12 PM   #509
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,816
Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease

A new production of Into The Woods, set to be co-directed by Monty Python star Terry Gilliam, will no longer be staged at the Old Vic.

...[i]ndustry publication The Stage has reported some staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the actor.

Some members of the Old Vic 12, a group of young writers, producers and directors who work on projects for the theatre, have referred to the cancellation of Gilliam's show on social media.

"This should have been scrapped over a year ago, but it's taken them this long to do something right for ONCE," tweeted Nassy Konan.

https://twitter.com/nasikonan/status...16675342127108

and there are some replies to that Tweet.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 02:58 PM   #510
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
But that is all that "cancel culture" is.
The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical.
I've said this over and over upthread.

Quote:
Like most things, it depends on the context.
Yes, exactly.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 03:01 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 03:21 PM   #511
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader.
Iím all ears. What else is it?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 03:40 PM   #512
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 34,018
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Agreed

Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.


I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.
I donít think we can chalk this up to capitalism, per se. universities in the UK are public ones so all universities charge the same amount. And recently those fees have become ridiculously high.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 03:44 PM   #513
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I’m all ears. What else is it?
Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

Quote:
[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 03:58 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 05:24 PM   #514
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

Quote:
[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.
Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.
How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies? Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them? That is only a means to an end and that end is buying a product or a service, or providing a view that they can charge others for. People withdraw support by withholding their money. Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech. The same kind of speech that may be curated or dismissed by distributers, but not by the government. It's free speech through a different channel.

"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback. Just like always. The only difference is the media, which isn't that different, just faster.

Your definition only supports my point.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 06:55 PM   #515
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies?
By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them?
I don't care to speculate on this.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
People withdraw support by withholding their money.
Among other methods, yes.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.
Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycottWP?

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech.
Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback.
Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd November 2021 at 06:57 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 08:51 PM   #516
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,552
Latest example that free speech is a hollow promise for True Christians out there working hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna4335
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2021, 09:39 PM   #517
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,105
This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.
__________________
"ŅWHAT KIND OF BIRD?
ŅA PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2021, 04:21 AM   #518
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 108,205
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.
And who can now "do" the cancelling - it used to be a privileged few who had the means, now all of us plebs can "do it" to those privileged folks.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2021, 06:03 AM   #519
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,606
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.
Which does what, exactly? What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever? (Hint: follow the money)

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't care to speculate on this.
Iím not at all surprised, but in case Iím wrong, why not?

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycottWP?
Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here. Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech? Was the USSR the one ďcancelledĒ in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled? Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?

How is this similar to what weíre talking, other than in name?

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.
Thatís exactly what I said. Each new technology expanded the reach of peopleís speech. Each time, it became faster, cheaper, and more accessible.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.
This is, perhaps, the best counter argument you could make. You probably should have led with this.

I donít know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right? As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views. Further, and Iím sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.


You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isnít just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism. There may be other factors to flavor that interaction, but nothing that fundamentally changes the core nature of it.

The internet is a faster, broader communication method, but it doesnít fundamentally change how communication works. We still have to articulate our ideas and style our delivery in order to persuade others.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2021, 06:48 AM   #520
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever?
I wasn't talking about speaking, but about (de)shelving books. (Sorry that wasn't clear.)

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here.
You said "Boycotts are about withholding money," I provided a fairly clear counterexample.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech?
I would say that ostentatiously refusing to compete is a form of speech, intended to convey a specific message.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Was the USSR the one “cancelled” in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled?
I wasn't making a point about cancellation, but about the scope of what people call boycotts.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?
No.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How is this similar to what we’re talking, other than in name?
It is similar in that it is also a boycott.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I don’t know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right?
Allegedly, but (IMO) probably not.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views.
I suppose that hinges in part on whether spoken sexual advances count as speech, but I think it's fair to say that he never spoke about his dating predilections from the podium.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Further, and I’m sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.
I don't believe Carrier physically hurt anyone. If he had done so, that would be a solid reason to have him cancelled.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isn’t just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism.
You have yet to come up with an argument that cancellation via public shaming is an unknown phenomenon in pre- or post-capitalist societies. Which ones should we be looking at?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 3rd November 2021 at 06:57 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.