Identity culture, echo chambers, and call-out culture

[TurkeysGhost]

Funny how when patriotism was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority of communist sympathizers, and nobody cared about protecting them from the wicked mob, right?

All those witches and jews surely deserved what they got, is that what you're saying? Or are you merely special pleading, because you agree with the opinion behind the sentiment and haven't bothered to consider the effect of the principle itself?

This time around we'll assess malevolent actors by the damage that is actually done. Unlike conspiracy theories about Jews or witches, we have petty concrete evidence of the damage done by racists, homophobes, and other bigots.

Pretty strange to draw an analogy to witches when the supposed "victim" here is someone celebrating an extrajudicial killing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, this went sideways. It seems to have been completely missed that I am not responding to the specific case mentioned in the OP, but rather to the pattern of behavior and action that deprives people of their livelihoods and issues death threats to children.

But carry on. It will be interesting when the public censure and outrage harms someone you support.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well, this went sideways. It seems to have been completely missed that I am not responding to the specific case mentioned in the OP, but rather to the pattern of behavior and action that deprives people of their livelihoods and issues death threats to children.

But carry on. It will be interesting when the public censure and outrage harms someone you support.

Context is important. Trying to lump all "cancel culture" together is a generalization that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Funny how when patriotism was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority of communist sympathizers, and nobody cared about protecting them from the wicked mob, right?

All those witches and jews surely deserved what they got, is that what you're saying? Or are you merely special pleading, because you agree with the opinion behind the sentiment and haven't bothered to consider the effect of the principle itself?

Interesting that you think "patriotism" and "communism" are antithetical. Don't know where you're getting "witches and Jews" from -- do you think a pogrom is equivalent of getting fired from Wendy's for making a racist remark?

I think it's safe to assume that absolutely anything you follow with "is that what you're saying?" the answer is "no", because it's a hyperbolic strawman. I've already stated my principles above, which are: "Common sense, proportionate response, and thinking carefully before publishing something to the entire globe."

 

[Emily's Cat]

What concerns me most about this trend is the acceptance of it as right and appropriate by a great many people who consider themselves to be supporters of civil liberties. Several people feel that this form of virtue enforcement via mob is admissible, because they agree with the opinion that underlies the sentiment. I fear the consequences when the principle moves beyond that immediate sentiment, and into the broader enforcement of conformity of thought.

...

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Common sense, proportionate response, and thinking carefully before publishing something to the entire globe."

!!!

 

[angrysoba]

Can we boiled this down to a proposition, please?

Is it “I am free to speak my brains and you are not free to tell anyone about it?”

Or is it:

“Doxxing is never acceptable”

?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's an interesting and important topic, but the lack of focus makes it hard to post my opinion(s).

I'll give the thread a bit of time to mature.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can we boiled this down to a proposition, please?

Is it “I am free to speak my brains and you are not free to tell anyone about it?”

Or is it:

“Doxxing is never acceptable”

?

I'd aim between the two. It's foolish to publish absolutely anything without discretion, and doubly foolish to expect no negative consequences to ensue. But equally responses should be proportionate to the offense, and not overreaction. If Bubba Sue posts a picture of herself in her Confederate flag thong, yeah, laugh at her, and don't invite her to your pool party, but that's as far as you need to go. If Nurse Killfest posts a video explaining how she deliberately drops all the black babies in the NICU where she works then yes, kick up a huge stink at once.

 

[casebro]

Do you think it's OK to tell you that I fly the American flag without me being called a Fascist?

Or will you guys dox me as a racist, and umm, ...umm... take my medicare away?

You folks seem to think I am in the minority, but you still call me names. Doesn't seem very Liberal or accepting to me. What ever happened to "I disagree with what he says, but I support his right to say it."?

I smell a hint of hypocrisy.

I fly the flag as a symbol of solidarity. We are ALL Americans. It SHOULD be flown higher than your other flags- rainbow, BLM, Mexican, you are all Americans- first. Even the California flag down that street. Or my Lithuanian flag.

And if my flag should get torn down, I can replace it with the one that was draped across the coffin of a fighter of REAL fascism. Or would you rather be typing in German?

But all of today's rhetoric is all first world problems. Just ask the immigrants on my street, they are paying $2200/month rent (successful Americans) , NOT to live elsewhere. Elsewheres like Viet Nam, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mexico, China. They know what real fascism is. And they fly the flag too. Dox them, *************.

 

[Emily's Cat]

!!!

Yes, but your explanation of what should or should not be published is very vague, as if it's magically self-evident. It basically boils down to "if what you have to say might make someone* angry, then you shouldn't say it"





*Of course "someone" in this context doesn't seem to apply to all people, just to some people, and there's no explanation of which people are the ones who people should fear to anger.

 

[d4m10n]

It's an interesting and important topic, but the lack of focus makes it hard to post my opinion(s).

Agreed! Let's talk about canceling Richard Carrier in particular. Or Ben Radford. Or Michael Shermer. Or Neil Tyson. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or Linda Bellos. (Etc. & so forth...)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

Do you think it's OK to tell you that I fly the American flag without me being called a Fascist?

Or will you guys dox me as a racist, and umm, ...umm... take my medicare away?

You folks seem to think I am in the minority, but you still call me names. Doesn't seem very Liberal or accepting to me. What ever happened to "I disagree with what he says, but I support his right to say it."?

I smell a hint of hypocrisy.

I fly the flag as a symbol of solidarity. We are ALL Americans. It SHOULD be flown higher than your other flags- rainbow, BLM, Mexican, you are all Americans- first. Even the California flag down that street. Or my Lithuanian flag.

And if my flag should get torn down, I can replace it with the one that was draped across the coffin of a fighter of REAL fascism. Or would you rather be typing in German?

But all of today's rhetoric is all first world problems. Just ask the immigrants on my street, they are paying $2200/month rent (successful Americans) , NOT to live elsewhere. Elsewheres like Viet Nam, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mexico, China. They know what real fascism is. And they fly the flag too. Dox them, *************.

Just when you thought parody was dead.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd aim between the two. It's foolish to publish absolutely anything without discretion, and doubly foolish to expect no negative consequences to ensue. But equally responses should be proportionate to the offense, and not overreaction. If Bubba Sue posts a picture of herself in her Confederate flag thong, yeah, laugh at her, and don't invite her to your pool party, but that's as far as you need to go. If Nurse Killfest posts a video explaining how she deliberately drops all the black babies in the NICU where she works then yes, kick up a huge stink at once.

So, what about Amy Cooper? I don't approve of her actions... but she didn't post the video herself. She did objected to being videoed, and she did not consent to that video of her being posted at all. She also did not provide her own identification. Someone else recognized her and made her name and employer public knowledge. Where does your position come into play on this one? Does she deserve what she got? Is it meet and appropriate that she be fired due to demand by social media? Is it appropriate that the internet mob is seeking to have her professional credentials taken away?

And what about Nick Sandmann? He didn't publish anything, he didn't expose himself voluntarily... and what was posted was not even a full and accurate representation of the interaction. Where do you stand on what happened to him? Do you feel that he and his family receiving death threats was appropriate? Do you feel that social warrior pressure to expel him from his school were justified? And if not, what do you think *he* should have done to avoid the mob response?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, but your explanation of what should or should not be published is very vague, as if it's magically self-evident.

Because it's common sense and up to the individual to decide. And gamble on.

What is with you that you insist on having some outside source make an official ruling? That's not life, there's not a great big kindergarten teacher going to make the call and remove the need to think about it ourselves, individually, every time.

It basically boils down to "if what you have to say might make someone* angry, then you shouldn't say it"

Absolutely not by any stretch a reasonable interpretation of what I said.

*Of course "someone" in this context doesn't seem to apply to all people, just to some people, and there's no explanation of which people are the ones who people should fear to anger.

You really don't get it, do you? Everyone must utilize sense and judgment. I get the impression you are looking for official declarations of Waivers From Responsibility. Those are only for children beneath the age of reason, the severely mentally ill, and those being coerced somehow against their will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because it's common sense and up to the individual to decide. And gamble on.

What is with you that you insist on having some outside source make an official ruling? That's not life, there's not a great big kindergarten teacher going to make the call and remove the need to think about it ourselves, individually, every time.



Absolutely not by any stretch a reasonable interpretation of what I said.




You really don't get it, do you? Everyone must utilize sense and judgment. I get the impression you are looking for official declarations of Waivers From Responsibility. Those are only for children beneath the age of reason, the severely mentally ill, and those being coerced somehow against their will.

I'm talking about the development of a social norm here, not some external authority.

Right now, the social norm being created and put in place is that if a person says something that "society" deems to be "bad", then "society" is right to persecute that person, and people associated with them, as well as anyone who opposes their persecution. The norm that is bubbling up is that "society" can, by force, deny livelihood to anyone that "society" decides isn't good enough. "Society" can issue death threats to individuals, their families, and their employers in order to evict the transgressor from that society.

That is absolutely something I think needs to be discussed. Because right now, leaving it up to each individual to try to decide whether or not they should say anything is kowtowing to a mob. And there's absolutely no reason to think that this mob will stop where you or I think they should stop. There's no guarantee that this mob will not decide that something you and I hold dear is now verbotten.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, what about Amy Cooper?

She showed her stupid racist ass in public, lying to the police and misusing public resources.

I don't approve of her actions...

Glad to hear it.

but she didn't post the video herself. She did objected to being videoed, and she did not consent to that video of her being posted at all.

No legal expectation of privacy in a public place, interacting with the public. She didn't mind acting like that, she's just upset she got caught.

She also did not provide her own identification. Someone else recognized her and made her name and employer public knowledge.

Something she should have realized was likely to happen before she showed her whole stupid racist ass in public.

Where does your position come into play on this one?

Let's see. Did she use common sense? No. Did she think carefully before publishing to the entire world? She didn't publish but she must have known someone else would. So again no.

Does she deserve what she got? Is it meet and appropriate that she be fired due to demand by social media?

Proportionate response? I think so. She's a lying bigot with a proven example of being very, very stupid. That's not a good look for an employer, she is an embarrassment to them and it would be mad of them to keep her on.

Is it appropriate that the internet mob is seeking to have her professional credentials taken away?

Depends on what the credentials are. I don't know. I note the inflammatory language you're using here, "mob", indeed. Is all public response a "mob" when you disagree with what they do or say?

And what about Nick Sandmann? He didn't publish anything, he didn't expose himself voluntarily... and what was posted was not even a full and accurate representation of the interaction. Where do you stand on what happened to him?

Was he that smirky kid who got involved in a public confrontation? Yes, I know he didn't do what was initially claimed. I don't think anybody should get involved in public confrontations unless there is overriding reason to do so, like preventing someone from being harmed. So I think he shouldn't have done what little he did, the public overreacted to what turned out to be false information, and nobody involved in that particular contretemps comes out looking good.

There isn't always a "good" and "bad" side in every conflict. Sometimes everybody's a jerk.

Do you feel that he and his family receiving death threats was appropriate? Do you feel that social warrior pressure to expel him from his school were justified?

Of course not. Those are disproportionate responses, even if he had been guilty of the sins of which he was accused. I note again the inflammatory language; if you want to pretend objectivity you may want to avoid that.

And if not, what do you think *he* should have done to avoid the mob response?

Kept himself to himself and minded his own business. It's something most people should do in public. There are several cultures that place great importance on not making public scenes and spectacles, and I think that is admirable.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm talking about the development of a social norm here, not some external authority.

Right now, the social norm being created and put in place is that if a person says something that "society" deems to be "bad", then "society" is right to persecute that person, and people associated with them, as well as anyone who opposes their persecution. The norm that is bubbling up is that "society" can, by force, deny livelihood to anyone that "society" decides isn't good enough. "Society" can issue death threats to individuals, their families, and their employers in order to evict the transgressor from that society.

That is absolutely something I think needs to be discussed. Because right now, leaving it up to each individual to try to decide whether or not they should say anything is kowtowing to a mob. And there's absolutely no reason to think that this mob will stop where you or I think they should stop. There's no guarantee that this mob will not decide that something you and I hold dear is now verbotten.

I think you are running the edge of a paranoid delusion here. People reacting to stuff they hear about is not a new "social norm". There is not some "mob" out to persecute you for your wicked hot takes on issues. If you are terrified that what you say might make you unpopular then perhaps you ought to use common sense about what you say and where you publish it. Do you not now exercise judgment and consider your audience when you speak? Do you talk about sex at the dinner table with the grandparents and the archbishop? Do you talk about controversial politics at work with your coworkers? Do you complain about the servants in front of the servants? If not then congratulations! you're already a victim of this dreadful mob called "other people"!

 

[Emily's Cat]

She didn't publish but she must have known someone else would.
....


Was he that smirky kid who got involved in a public confrontation? ...
Kept himself to himself and minded his own business.

I think you should amend your prior position statement of "Common sense, proportionate response, and thinking carefully before publishing something to the entire globe."

In neither case did either of those people publish anything. In both cases, it was published by someone else without their consent. But in both cases, you seem just fine with it having been published by force by someone else who took offense.

So perhaps, it shouldn't be "use common sense before publishing to the entire world"... but rather "live in fear that someone might publish something without your consent".

You also say that Nick Sandmann should have kept to himself and minded his own business... but that's exactly what he did do. He was keeping to himself, and he was minding his own business. He didn't get involved in a public confrontation - a public confrontation was forced upon him. He did nothing but stand there. Do you perhaps mean to say that he should have run away when there was someone of color nearby, and his keeping to himself might possible be used against him by someone publishing without his consent the fact that he was keeping to himself and minding his own business?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I note the inflammatory language you're using here, "mob", indeed. Is all public response a "mob" when you disagree with what they do or say?

When the public response is from a relatively small group of people, who are safely anonymous, and who are publicizing something with the agenda of creating outrage... and when the public response involves death threats and coercion.. I rather think "mob" is the appropriate term.