Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

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 etc…:

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Is this an aspect of our culture which you would like to see changed?

Which what? My answer would be “people who make death threats”. What’s the other option?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

People who threaten a person's life should not be afforded the protection of free speech laws.

18 U.S.C. § 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

My answer would be “people who make death threats”.

It was a simple yes or no question.

[dirtywick]

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.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

18 U.S.C. § 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. § 115 ?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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 don’t 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. It’s 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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Why have they not been arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 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

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

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You guys are acting like this is anything new.

The only thing new—AFAIK—is the speed at which (dis)information can travel through social networks.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The only thing new—AFAIK—is 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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Because capitalism.

Agreed

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

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.

When has capitalism ever concerned itself with being ethical?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

When has capitalism ever concerned itself with being ethical?

Why on Earth would anyone feel constrained by capitalism when talking about ethics?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

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.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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"?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?

See post #490

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.

But that is all that "cancel culture" is.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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"

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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!

[Matthew Best]

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

"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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader.

I’m all ears. What else is it?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Agreed

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

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...425b6c59ff.jpg

I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.

I don’t 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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

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

People withdraw support by withholding their money.

Among other methods, yes.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott^WP?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

"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.

[Dr. Keith]

Latest example that free speech is a hollow promise for True Christians out there working hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna4335

[Checkmite]

This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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

I don't care to speculate on this.

I’m not at all surprised, but in case I’m wrong, why not?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott^WP?

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 “cancelled” 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 we’re talking, other than in name?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

That’s exactly what I said. Each new technology expanded the reach of people’s speech. Each time, it became faster, cheaper, and more accessible.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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 don’t 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 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.


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. 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 doesn’t fundamentally change how communication works. We still have to articulate our ideas and style our delivery in order to persuade others.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?