Cancel culture IRL

[dirtywick]

what I ought to do is not support people or companies that have a value system that i find disturbing. it’s not arbitrary or disingenuous to do so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Anyway, I don't see the point in bringing up people who deserved 'cancelation' (and worse).

I didn't bring him up. I responded to the suggestion that it was irrational and immoral to stop showing and/or consuming his work because his comedy was separate from his decades of drugging and raping women.

 

[mumblethrax]

what I ought to do is not support people or companies that have a value system that i find disturbing. it’s not arbitrary or disingenuous to do so.

Fascinating that the thing you're inclined to do is also the thing you're obligated to do. Maybe you could show your work?

Let's say I'm pro-life, and I find my co-worker's pro-choice values disturbing. Am I therefore justified in trying to get her fired?

I didn't bring him up.

I know.

 

[dirtywick]

Fascinating that the thing you're inclined to do is also the thing you're obligated to do. Maybe you could show your work?

Let's say I'm pro-life, and I find my co-worker's pro-choice values disturbing. Am I therefore justified in trying to get her fired?

I don’t think so but that’s not my decision to make for you and I’m not going to try and align your moral compass to mine.

If you find out your co worker is a card carrying member of NAMBLA are you comfortable spending 40 hours a week with them?

 

[mumblethrax]

I don’t think so but that’s not my decision to make for you and I’m not going to try and align your moral compass to mine.

But you just said that you thought you ought not support people whose value systems you find disturbing. Why, then, do you think I shouldn't try to get my co-worker fired? Sauce for the goose....

It should also probably occur to you that there's a direct contradiction in adopting a "Hey man, you do you" policy while also trying to "not support" people whose values you find disturbing.

If you find out your co worker is a card carrying member of NAMBLA are you comfortable spending 40 hours a week with them?

I'm going to assume this means he advocates pedophilia without (to my knowledge) engaging in it (otherwise, it's not that interesting). So, I'd say that would make me uncomfortable but I would also not try to get him fired. If he worked directly with young boys I'd probably let his supervisor know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I didn't bring him up. I responded to the suggestion that it was irrational and immoral to stop showing and/or consuming his work because his comedy was separate from his decades of drugging and raping women.

Uhh... no, that was not suggested at all. He was brought up as an example of people being not 100% good or evil, and as an example of one person's absolutely abhorrent behavior in one situation doesn't mean that everything else that they do outside of that situations is inseparably horrible as well.

I am capable of thinking that Benjamin Franklin owning slaves was bad.. .while simultaneously thinking that his contributions to diplomacy and science were good.

 

[dirtywick]

But you just said that you thought you ought not support people whose value systems you find disturbing. Why, then, do you think I shouldn't try to get my co-worker fired? Sauce for the goose....

No no no, you’re the one who brought ought into this. I said people should make individual choices based on their personal values. I told you what I thought about it and encourage you to make your own decision. I obviously can’t speak to what you should want to do. You can continue to support whoever you wish, or not.

It should also probably occur to you that there's a direct contradiction in adopting a "Hey man, you do you" policy while also trying to "not support" people whose values you find disturbing.

How so? Nobody is entitled to unconditional support. If you doing you isn’t working out it’s not society that needs to change.

I'm going to assume this means he advocates pedophilia without (to my knowledge) engaging in it (otherwise, it's not that interesting). So, I'd say that would make me uncomfortable but I would also not try to get him fired. If he worked directly with young boys I'd probably let his supervisor know.

I’d tell my boss I’m uncomfortable and it’s either him or me. Why would I be wrong to do that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I’d tell my boss I’m uncomfortable and it’s either him or me. Why would I be wrong to do that?

Because that approach can be used by ANYONE for ANY BELIEF. There's nothing that restricts that tactic to only "truly bad" things.

Not too long ago, that same "him or me" was used to exclude homosexual people from employment. It was also used to exclude Jewish people from employment. And women.

There is agreement on the core principle of racism being bad among (almost) all of us on this forum. But using that agreement as the basis for a tactic doesn't make that tactic unavailable to people who believe differently.

 

[dirtywick]

Because that approach can be used by ANYONE for ANY BELIEF. There's nothing that restricts that tactic to only "truly bad" things.

Not too long ago, that same "him or me" was used to exclude homosexual people from employment. It was also used to exclude Jewish people from employment. And women.

There is agreement on the core principle of racism being bad among (almost) all of us on this forum. But using that agreement as the basis for a tactic doesn't make that tactic unavailable to people who believe differently.

Homosexuality, gender, and Jewishness aren’t beliefs. And I think it’s asking a bit much for everyone else to accept and ignore uncomfortable work environments, let alone continue to financially support people who have values you find unacceptable.

If they changed the MA to allow racist posts I’d ask them to change it back or I’d be gone. Maybe you’d stick around and that’s great. It’s not any different.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay, since he's come up - a couple of things about Bill Cosby.

Firstly, he really was cancelled. Remember how come he actually got caught? The accusations against him had gone around for years. They were mostly kept out of the spotlight until they gained some recognition when a stand-up comedian (I forget who) mentioned it as part of his act. IIRC, it was along the lines of paraphrasing Cosby complaining about how black kids don't have standards any more because they wear their trousers too low and how he'd never do that, followed by "no, but you did rape a lot of women, Bill". But even then, that barely made a splash.

Later (maybe even a couple of years later) Cosby's official twitter account tried to get some viral publicity by posting blank meme templates of Cosby and asking people to make memes with them and use whatever hashtag they'd come up with. And people did, but rather than using phrases like "Mmm, I love jello!", which they had been hoping for, they instead referenced the fact that he was a rapist.

That's what created the public pressure which allowed the women to come forwards and for Cosby to be prosecuted. It's also what spearheaded the #MeToo movement which, while certainly not flawless or without bumps in the road, has seen public figures being held responsible for sexual abuse they have perpetrated and has moved the needle slightly more towards gender equality in Hollywood.

All of that because of a twitter mob making it viral.

Secondly, if the thinking really is "well, sure, he's a rapist - but he's a funny rapist" then ask yourself whether you'd get a mural of him painted on the side of your house with the caption "I *Heart* Bill Cosby". And, if not, then perhaps you can understand why a commercial entity such as a TV station might also not want to be seen to endorse him and thereby implicitly also endorse his crimes.

Hannibal Buress is the standup comic widely seen as initiating the Cosby downfall by plainly stating the he was a rapist during a comedy show.

 

[Mumbles]

Hannibal Buress is the standup comic widely seen as initiating the Cosby downfall by plainly stating the he was a rapist during a comedy show.

Also, the "cancel" aspect referred to a comedy tour Cosby was doing after being charged in court, where people protested demanding that his tour dates be canceled. This came shortly after the #muterkelly push, which asked radio stations and the like to stop playing music from the longtime child rapist R. Kelly.

How this became a "culture", I still suspect is because white right-wingers mangled black slang, as they always do.

 

[mumblethrax]

No no no, you’re the one who brought ought into this. I said people should make individual choices based on their personal values.

What you said was "what I ought to do is not support people or companies that have a value system that i find disturbing". You only objected to 'ought' once I pointed out that your reasoning leads to contradiction. 'Should', in the sense you're using it, is synonymous with 'ought', so the substitution is unimportant.

How so? Nobody is entitled to unconditional support. If you doing you isn’t working out it’s not society that needs to change.

If you don't believe that your values are binding on anyone else, then it's unclear how you can even determine who is entitled to support (unconditional or otherwise).

I’d tell my boss I’m uncomfortable and it’s either him or me. Why would I be wrong to do that?

The argument would go something like this: even NAMBLA creeps need jobs, and it's better for them to have jobs than be made destitute, foisted on poor neighborhoods that can least afford to deal with them, with nothing left to lose. Given this, my comfort does not seem to be of paramount importance; trying to get them fired so that I might be more comfortable is akin to a NIMBY complaint. Also, while I think their views are abhorrent, I distinguish between abhorrent views and abhorrent practices. For the most part, I'd feel like my efforts would be better spent trying to persuade them that their views are terribly misguided than in trying to get them fired.

 

[dirtywick]

If you don't believe that your values are binding on anyone else, then it's unclear how you can even determine who is entitled to support (unconditional or otherwise).

i don't think it's unclear at all. people can do what they want, i don't have to like or support what they do

The argument would go something like this: even NAMBLA creeps need jobs, and it's better for them to have jobs than be made destitute, foisted on poor neighborhoods that can least afford to deal with them, with nothing left to lose. Given this, my comfort does not seem to be of paramount importance; trying to get them fired so that I might be more comfortable is akin to a NIMBY complaint. Also, while I think their views are abhorrent, I distinguish between abhorrent views and abhorrent practices. For the most part, I'd feel like my efforts would be better spent trying to persuade them that their views are terribly misguided than in trying to get them fired.

i don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be obligated to tolerate and accept every view point in every circumstance. although we're fixated on employment scenarios for some reason, if the guy wanted you to buy little boy shaped cookies for a NAMBLA fundraiser i'd assume there's some line you'd draw somewhere. again, people are allowed to apply their personal values to their financial decisions.

i don't think there's anything wrong with that approach by the way, perhaps even commendable. hey man, you do you.

but as a moral obligation, for me, keeping pedophiles well employed in my workspace in my neighborhood and spending time with them to persuade them to give it up isn't something i'd take the opportunity to do. and i don't feel bad about it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Because that approach can be used by ANYONE for ANY BELIEF. There's nothing that restricts that tactic to only "truly bad" things.

Wow, it's almost like the practice is neither inherently good nor bad, and instead should be viewed as a tool that is judged on a case-by-case basis. You might be on to something here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Cancel culture is one that can be seen as widely democratic

You can only be canceled if your behavior is something that is widely seen by the public as being bad. The whole mechanism of getting people fired is that the employer is afraid to be seen bucking a widely held social norm against a bad behavior. Ostracization is only possible if enough people in a community decide that a certain behavior is worth rebuke.

Pure democracy can be wrong. The majority sometimes errs, but is there a better option?

 

[mumblethrax]

i don't think it's unclear at all. people can do what they want, i don't have to like or support what they do

"People can do what they want" is either morally nihilistic or a particularly crude kind of moral subjectivism. Here you refuse to make any moral judgment on the behavior of others--whatever people decide to do is ipso facto the right thing for them to do. "I'm going to withdraw financial support (or try to get them fired, or whatever else I can get away with) if they hold values I find disturbing" is not morally nihilistic, nor subjective. It requires you apply your own values in making moral judgments about other people (that their values are disturbing).

These two ideas cannot be reconciled. Either people can do what they like, in which case you have no grounds for making moral judgements, or you are justified in withdrawing support (or whatever), in which case you clearly don't believe that people can do what they want (not in the relevant sense, anyway). Sometimes, you're going to tut-tut what other people do.

In short, it's just mealy-mouthed.

although we're fixated on employment scenarios for some reason, if the guy wanted you to buy little boy shaped cookies for a NAMBLA fundraiser i'd assume there's some line you'd draw somewhere.

Yeah, I wouldn't support NAMBLA guy's fundraiser. Because I don't see that any good can come of it, and I don't want much to do with him. I might join in the office lottery pool, if I'm cajoled to, even though I think playing the lottery is for dumbs, and the lottery itself ethically dubious. Something something social cohesiveness.

I am sympathetic with people who have difficulty finding exactly how much tolerance a democratic society requires. I don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but I'm fairly confident about some of the places where it isn't drawn.

again, people are allowed to apply their personal values to their financial decisions.

You're back to saying "People can do what they want!" without grappling with what they ought to do, which is exactly how I characterized your earlier remark, and which you objected to for some reason.

but as a moral obligation, for me, keeping pedophiles well employed in my workspace in my neighborhood and spending time with them to persuade them to give it up isn't something i'd take the opportunity to do. and i don't feel bad about it.

I'm not asking you to feel bad about it, I'm asking you to think about it before you just go ahead and do what you want anyway (which is not a particularly sound basis for a moral obligation).

Rashness is something that social media probably does promote. It's a social space that celebrates first drafts. This dead format is preferable, by virtue of only being a complete waste of time.

 

[dirtywick]

"People can do what they want" is either morally nihilistic or a particularly crude kind of moral subjectivism. Here you refuse to make any moral judgment on the behavior of others--whatever people decide to do is ipso facto the right thing for them to do. "I'm going to withdraw financial support (or try to get them fired, or whatever else I can get away with) if they hold values I find disturbing" is not morally nihilistic, nor subjective. It requires you apply your own values in making moral judgments about other people (that their values are disturbing).

These two ideas cannot be reconciled. Either people can do what they like, in which case you have no grounds for making moral judgements, or you are justified in withdrawing support (or whatever), in which case you clearly don't believe that people can do what they want (not in the relevant sense, anyway). Sometimes, you're going to tut-tut what other people do.

In short, it's just mealy-mouthed.

what a bizarre misunderstanding of my position.

people can do what they want because i'm not forcing them to make their decisions based off of my own values. people can do what they like, and i can respond to what they do, as in they're not entitled to my support. i am making a moral judgement of their words and actions, it's how i'm determing which people i do and don't support.

your interpretation of what i'm saying is so odd that i am having trouble following it, and i'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over.

people can do what they want to based off of their own moral compasses. if it's not the same values as mine, then i'm not likely to support their actions. i don't find that particularly complicated.

I'm not asking you to feel bad about it, I'm asking you to think about it before you just go ahead and do what you want anyway (which is not a particularly sound basis for a moral obligation).

Rashness is something that social media probably does promote. It's a social space that celebrates first drafts. This dead format is preferable, by virtue of only being a complete waste of time.

that you think i'm thoughtless doing random things is another bizarre assumption

anyway i don't have anything more to add to this tangent with you. i appreciate your input, thanks

 

[I Am The Scum]

The fight against cancel culture hits an extremely ironic speedbump. Newsmax hosted Mike Lindell after he (and his company) got banned from Twitter. As a certifiable crazy person, Mike could not resist the urge to immediately dive into a subject that got Newsmax into a whole lot of trouble last week. Hilarity ensues.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's not really that difficult: free will means you are free to act as you will, it does not mean you are necessarily free from criticism and judgment of others for doing so. Nobody gets magical immunity to consequences. Does this always lead to justice and fairness? Of course not.

 

[tyr_13]

It's not really that difficult: free will means you are free to act as you will, it does not mean you are necessarily free from criticism and judgment of others for doing so. Nobody gets magical immunity to consequences. Does this always lead to justice and fairness? Of course not.

Naw, too scary. I'm gonna just keep arguing against anything I'm afraid might be used against me. My ego can't handle self-reflection anyway, so it's a win-win.