Cancel culture IRL

[HansMustermann]

Not sure if anyone did mention this already, but here's a fun concept I'd like to introduce at this point: the freedom of association. It's not even just an abstract concept, but it's considered a fundamental human right.

In fact, at least in the USA, according to a supreme court decision, it's considered to be an essential part of the freedom of speech. Including explicitly including the right to associate just to make your speech more heard.

That literally means I can decide to associate with, say, people who dislike Bill O'Reily, discuss our issues, and take action together. And as per the afore mentioned supreme court ruling, I can associate purely for the explicit purpose of speaking against O'Reily.

Now there are arguably limitations to it, depending on how far you extend the concept of "association", and how far you consider it to be a problem for society. Like if you define employment to be a kind of association, we can forbid it to discriminate by race.

But just shielding some bellends from consequences doesn't seem like, shall we say, a high priority reason to limit a fundamental human right.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You present anything that overly complex and detailed to the "Proudly Wrong" and they will do nothing but nitpick and rules lawyer us for eternity.

You keep saying things like this. Who are these "proudly wrong" people that you're referring to? Are they rampant on ISF or in this discussion?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You keep saying things like this. Who are these "proudly wrong" people that you're referring to? Are they rampant on ISF or in this discussion?

You figure it out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not sure if anyone did mention this already, but here's a fun concept I'd like to introduce at this point: the freedom of association. It's not even just an abstract concept, but it's considered a fundamental human right.

That's why I keep asking people who keep railing against "Cancel Culture" as a concept (again this is distinct from not agreeing with any one example or instance of it) how they think the world is supposed to work?

Trying to turn it into a "social contract" or some deep philosophical debate is pretty far from the point.

It's far more simple, and far more basic.

If you're a bad person, people aren't going to want to interact with you and most interactions in society are voluntary to some degree.

 

[Leftus]

What punishment are we talking about?

Again nobody wanting to deal with you because you are toxic is not a punishment.

We were talking about physical abuse. Something that can, and is, usually punished for in the legal system.

Extra-judicial punishment, which is what is being called for, I find troublesome.

 

[HansMustermann]

@JoeMorgue
To some extent, yes. But I don't think the main thrust is as much that you have to interact with a bad person, as that you shouldn't talk about why they were bad, and definitely not be part of a group doing it. Notice for example how in the bad poll I discussed above, they had to specify that it's "group shaming."

Basically it seems to me somewhat akin to the complaint about those evil "new atheists." You know, ones who are open about it and talk about it and have boards and associations and all that evil stuff. Life was so much easier when they just shut the hell up and you could pretend that it's just a few isolated loonies.

Same about "cancel culture", really. Just deciding to not buy from some company may be decried, but nowhere near as much as being open about it and talking about it. It's when you do that talking about it that you're supposedly some monster out to "cancel" someone.

Basically IMHO it's again a case of how life was easier when people shut the hell up and you could pretend that it's only a few isolated loonies that have a problem with, say, sexual harassment at work or with people cracking bigoted jokes or whatever.

 

[Leftus]

Got it so all those background checks and such should be not at all allowed. As long as they are not presently in prison they are clearly beyond all consequences of their actions.

Just like people would be morally obligated to buy "If I did It" by OJ Simpson.

Was O'Reily losing his job when all his sexual harassment suits had been settled wrong? What is the proper thing to do when a coworker keeps paying out settlements for sexual harassment?

Was it a crime?

And what is wrong with buying that book, since all the proceeds went to the Goldman family?

How long should someone be punished after they have been released from prison? Why bother releasing them at all, right? Since they are forever stained by their sin.

 

[HansMustermann]

We were talking about physical abuse. Something that can, and is, usually punished for in the legal system.

Extra-judicial punishment, which is what is being called for, I find troublesome.

While I can even somewhat sympathize with the position, and I've even said it myself before, I'll also have to agree with Joe: people are still free to want to associate with you or not. As long as they're not crossing some legal boundaries themselves, like assaulting you or defacing your property, you can't really tell them they have to interact with you. It may be for the right or the wrong reasons, but they still have the basic human right to do as they please.

 

[JoeMorgue]

@JoeMorgue
To some extent, yes. But I don't think the main thrust is as much that you have to interact with a bad person, as that you shouldn't talk about why they were bad, and definitely not be part of a group doing it. Notice for example how in the bad poll I discussed above, they had to specify that it's "group shaming."

Basically it seems to me somewhat akin to the complaint about those evil "new atheists." You know, ones who are open about it and talk about it and have boards and associations and all that evil stuff. Life was so much easier when they just shut the hell up and you could pretend that it's just a few isolated loonies.

Same about "cancel culture", really. Just deciding to not buy from some company may be decried, but nowhere near as much as being open about it and talking about it. It's when you do that talking about it that you're supposedly some monster out to "cancel" someone.

Basically IMHO it's again a case of how life was easier when people shut the hell up and you could pretend that it's only a few isolated loonies that have a problem with, say, sexual harassment at work or with people cracking bigoted jokes or whatever.

This is why I'm so completely and totally done with the Proudly Wrong and their obsession with:

- Reactions to evil wrongness being "dramatic."
- Reactions to evil wrongness being "hyperbolic."
- "Oh you'll never convince the other side if you don't act differently."

I mentioned this earlier in the thread (or the other thread about insulting people, as I said they are really the same meta-conversation at this point) but my upbringing is a factor in all this.

My childhood was filled with Thanksgivings and Christmases and family get-togethers filled with variations on "Oh don't talk politics around Aunt Ruth, you know how she gets" and "Listen don't mention that your cousin is dating a black girl around Uncle Ted, you know how he gets" and it wasn't until I entered adulthood to it strike me that nobody ever told Aunt Ruth and Uncle Ted to just not be unreasonable Proudly Wrong douchebags. The onus was never on them to be better people, but on everyone else to accommodate them. If you let one of their triggers slip around them, you were the bad one.

And that's what we are letting all discourse turn into.

This is what I mean when I say I'm done with the Proudly Wrong having all the agency in how discussion "go" because the correct and the "Wrong without normal parameters" people of the world are expected to walk on eggshells around them lest we set them off.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is why I'm so completely and totally done with the Proudly Wrong and their obsession with:

- Reactions to evil wrongness being "dramatic."
- Reactions to evil wrongness being "hyperbolic."
- "Oh you'll never convince the other side if you don't act differently."

I mentioned this earlier in the thread (or the other thread about insulting people, as I said they are really the same meta-conversation at this point) but my upbringing is a factor in all this.

My childhood was filled with Thanksgivings and Christmases and family get-togethers filled with variations on "Oh don't talk politics around Aunt Ruth, you know how she gets" and "Listen don't mention that your cousin is dating a black girl around Uncle Ted, you know how he gets" and it wasn't until I entered adulthood to it strike me that nobody ever told Aunt Ruth and Uncle Ted to just not be unreasonable Proudly Wrong douchebags. The onus was never on them to be better people, but on everyone else to accommodate them. If you let one of their triggers slip around them, you were the bad one.

Ands don't leave your kids alone with Uncle George...

 

[dirtywick]

Was it a crime?

And what is wrong with buying that book, since all the proceeds went to the Goldman family?

How long should someone be punished after they have been released from prison? Why bother releasing them at all, right? Since they are forever stained by their sin.

OJ is such an interesting example here since he didn’t even get punished for the double murder he committed yeah the world is probably being too hard on OJ, the real victim here.

nobody is mandated whether or not to buy OJs books or any other product or service he offers. people choosing not to associate with him or spend their money to benefit him, whether due to his past actions, personality, body odor, or any number of other reasons real or imagined, isn’t a punishment nor does it make him a victim.

if you feel bad for OJ, send him a check. send him a birthday card, follow him on Twitter. it’s always been an option. a lot of people are choosing not to do it. but you can, if you want to stop him from being canceled. that’s how that works.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again how should the system work?

I don't want to buy a double-murders book. What happens? What should happen? What problem in this system are we trying to fix?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Extra-judicial punishment, which is what is being called for, I find troublesome.

Let me make sure I understand you: Are you saying that someone getting fired from their job is on the receiving end of "extra-judicial punishment?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

You figure it out.

That's an idiotic response. It makes me think that you're just whinging and throwing around imagineered dragons to try to lance.

 

[lobosrul5]

Either their crime is of the sort it keeps them out of society, or they should be allowed to ply their trade. Do we really want employers to be the moral or legal touchstones of society?

If they deserve to be punished, then the legal system should be the one to impose it. To continue to punish someone after the legal system has rendered its verdict seems profoundly unjust.

I find it rather hypocritical that generally the same people crying that they can be fired for being racist or otherwise horrible on social media, are the same ones perfectly fine with the likes of Hobby Lobby denying their employees birth control in their health insurance plans because its against the owners morality.

That may or may not be your position. Your thought just made me think of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you're a bad person, people aren't going to want to interact with you and most interactions in society are voluntary to some degree.

The French Catholics thought the Huguenots were bad people, and the general approach was that good people in society shouldn't interact with those bad, bad Huguenots. Same thing with the Anglicans with respect to Puritans and Quakers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The French Catholics thought the Huguenots were bad people, and the general approach was that good people in society shouldn't interact with those bad, bad Huguenots. Same thing with the Anglicans with respect to Puritans and Quakers.

"This soup is too hot! It's burning my tongue."
"Oh I can help. I'll tell you a completely unrelated story about this time that somebody said soup was too hot when it wasn't. There, I bet your tongue isn't burning anymore!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

While I can even somewhat sympathize with the position, and I've even said it myself before, I'll also have to agree with Joe: people are still free to want to associate with you or not. As long as they're not crossing some legal boundaries themselves, like assaulting you or defacing your property, you can't really tell them they have to interact with you. It may be for the right or the wrong reasons, but they still have the basic human right to do as they please.

What if they're sending you death threats, slandering you across all of social media, and sending coercive threats to your employer that your employer needs to fire you or else they will flood social media saying that the employer *supports* whatever it is that they accused you of doing?

All while hiding behind anonymity.

 

[lobosrul5]

The French Catholics thought the Huguenots were bad people, and the general approach was that good people in society shouldn't interact with those bad, bad Huguenots. Same thing with the Anglicans with respect to Puritans and Quakers.

And we, as a society, have decided its wrong to refuse or terminate employment based on religion, among other categories. We haven't as a society, as yet, decided anyone is entitled to not be fired for being a douche on Facebook. I really hope we don't get there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the "Oh noes we can never have standards of any kind because I will never trust society to enforce them fairly" squad's opinion has been noted.

We can't never do anything because you don't trust anyone.