• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Maybe.
But, is there anyone who- while under stress- has not gone on a rant about their "entitled, lazy, stupid..etc...etc..." Customers/ Clients/ Patients/ Students/ Children/ Patrons etc... ?

I suspect that if I sought out only those who have never complained of the idiocy of their customers to provide a service, I would never get that service provided.
Click to expand...

It's true to an extent and I even wrote a post higher up in this thread that culminated in a call for some level of charity in these situations.

But I'd say that the job of Mayor at least requires a self awareness of how a post like this would be read by constituents and shows pretty poor judgement. If he was otherwise beloved and this was a moment of weakness under great stress, I could understand if his constituents understood. That doesn't seem to be the case. I'm always in favor on taking things in context.

But in general, one would expect someone capable of running a city to be capable of understanding they should contain their venting to friends and family and not their public facing social media megaphone, and possessing the restraint to do so. Doesn't mean that someone who fails that is automatically unfit for office, but it's certainly a piece of evidence in that direction.
 
Cavemonster said:
It's true to an extent and I even wrote a post higher up in this thread that culminated in a call for some level of charity in these situations.

But I'd say that the job of Mayor at least requires a self awareness of how a post like this would be read by constituents and shows pretty poor judgement. If he was otherwise beloved and this was a moment of weakness under great stress, I could understand if his constituents understood. That doesn't seem to be the case. I'm always in favor on taking things in context.

But in general, one would expect someone capable of running a city to be capable of understanding they should contain their venting to friends and family and not their public facing social media megaphone, and possessing the restraint to do so. Doesn't mean that someone who fails that is automatically unfit for office, but it's certainly a piece of evidence in that direction.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that a post such as that would not be cheered by more of his (4000?) constituents than derided.
That is not a safe assumption to make.

If one is physically and mentally sound, and cannot get through a week of inclement weather without taxing a system already under strain (my assumption- no more a guaranteed accurate assesment than yours- conceded), one is an idiot. And if my Mayor expressed disdain for idiocy in public, I would probably vote for him/her again.
 
Distracted1 said:
You are assuming that a post such as that would not be cheered by more of his (4000?) constituents than derided.
That is not a safe assumption to make.

If one is physically and mentally sound, and cannot get through a week of inclement weather without taxing a system already under strain (my assumption- no more a guaranteed accurate assesment than yours- conceded), one is an idiot. And if my Mayor expressed disdain for idiocy in public, I would probably vote for him/her again.
Click to expand...

The question I was initially responding to was about whether a post by a public figure could be made in a way meaningfully separate from their public position.

Your post here seems to agree. Whether you take it positively or negatively, what an elected official says reflects on their fitness for office.

You're correct that there certainly exists a possibility that expressing any particular sentiment might be taken as a positive OR a negative by constituents. In this case, given his attempts to claim a separation from his official capacity, and his resignation it seems not to have worked out so well.
 
Cavemonster said:
The question I was initially responding to was about whether a post by a public figure could be made in a way meaningfully separate from their public position.

Your post here seems to agree. Whether you take it positively or negatively, what an elected official says reflects on their fitness for office.

You're correct that there certainly exists a possibility that expressing any particular sentiment might be taken as a positive OR a negative by constituents. In this case, given his attempts to claim a separation from his official capacity, and his resignation it seems not to have worked out so well.
Click to expand...
Could be.
Also could be that he simply decided now was as good of a time as any to quit a job he no longer wished to have.
 
arthwollipot said:
Being friends with a number of people who use they/them, I can assure you that the "pronoun thing" is absolutely not that.

If someone asks you to use particular pronouns, please use them. It's not hard.
Click to expand...

And if they want me to use boop, bop, beep?
 
It suddenly occurs to me that the first incidence of cancel culture I ever saw was in Weird Al’s UHF in 1989. The whole town cancelled RJ Fletcher. And that was down to a pirate broadcast of a private comment! How uncalled for.

“This community means about as much to me as a festering ball of dog snot. You think I care about the pea-brained yokels of this town? (...) But, there is one good thing about broadcasting to a town full of mindless sheep. I always know I have them exactly where I want them.”

I mean, who hasn’t made such a comment in a moment of frustration, come on.
 
Lithrael said:
It suddenly occurs to me that the first incidence of cancel culture I ever saw was in Weird Al’s UHF in 1989. The whole town cancelled RJ Fletcher. And that was down to a pirate broadcast of a private comment! How uncalled for.

“This community means about as much to me as a festering ball of dog snot. You think I care about the pea-brained yokels of this town? (...) But, there is one good thing about broadcasting to a town full of mindless sheep. I always know I have them exactly where I want them.”

I mean, who hasn’t made such a comment in a moment of frustration, come on.
Click to expand...
I take it you never saw "A Face in The Crowd"? (1957)
 
d4m10n said:
Sounds to me like they were talking about how they intended to perform their duties as police officers. Is that really comparable to, say, screen actors sharing right- or left-wing memes?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the public persona of a prominent screen actor is a component of their job.
 
Lithrael said:
It suddenly occurs to me that the first incidence of cancel culture I ever saw was in Weird Al’s UHF in 1989. The whole town cancelled RJ Fletcher. And that was down to a pirate broadcast of a private comment! How uncalled for.

“This community means about as much to me as a festering ball of dog snot. You think I care about the pea-brained yokels of this town? (...) But, there is one good thing about broadcasting to a town full of mindless sheep. I always know I have them exactly where I want them.”

I mean, who hasn’t made such a comment in a moment of frustration, come on.
Click to expand...

Nice.
Best part of that movie... "SUPPLIES!"

"You get to drink from THE FIRE HOSE!!!!"
 
Distracted1 said:
Maybe.
But, is there anyone who- while under stress- has not gone on a rant about their "entitled, lazy, stupid..etc...etc..." Customers/ Clients/ Patients/ Students/ Children/ Patrons etc... ?

I suspect that if I sought out only those who have never complained of the idiocy of their customers to provide a service, I would never get that service provided.
Click to expand...

What’s great is you have the freedom to make that choice.

Other might make a different choice.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
There's actually a slight turn of phrase in the incident that caught my attention.

When he resigned as mayor Tim Boyd commented that he "never meant to speak for the city" but only as a "private citizen."

There's actually the germ of maybe something to consider in there.

Is John Doe and "John Doe: Official Title Speaking in an Official Position" the same person when we're talking social standards?

*Note: Speaking only in general, not of this particular incident*
Click to expand...

when private citizen says "the city owes you nothing, you're on your own" I can say "glad he's not in charge"

On matters unrelated to their official position, I think people can use their judgement on whether or not to hold comments against them. On matters related to their official position I think it's asking a lot to ignore their comments just because they are off work and speaking as a private citizen.
 
johnny karate said:
Yes, because the public persona of a prominent screen actor is a component of their job.
Click to expand...
And here is where we will simply have to disagree. As a matter of ethics and (on occasion) public policy, I'd prefer our corporate overlords to have somewhat less influence over our off-the-clock behaviour.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
And here is where we will simply have to disagree. As a matter of ethics and (on occasion) public policy, I'd prefer our corporate overlords to have somewhat less influence over our off-the-clock behaviour.
Click to expand...

And our cops the freedom to be in the KKK in their free time. Who really cares if their kids teacher has a white supremacist podcast anyway?
 
d4m10n said:
And here is where we will simply have to disagree. As a matter of ethics and (on occasion) public policy, I'd prefer our corporate overlords to have somewhat less influence over our off-the-clock behaviour.
Click to expand...

I think you've got it backwards here. What she did off the clock influenced her relationship with her employers. (They chose to end that relationship).

She is absolutely free to do what she likes off the clock. But no corporate overlord or anyone else is forced to associate with her if they don't like that.
 
Here is the thing, it is easy for me to find cases of people being fired for social media posts that I take issue with. I mean a cop who thinks killing blacks is wrong, of course they get fired.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/505592-massachusetts-detective-fired-after-post-supporting-black-lives-matter

But it is a case by case basis, like the social media posts here I think warrant being fired

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nypd-official-fired-over-hateful-posts-after-internal-trial/2866546/

It is not some kind of blanket issue, there are cases individuals agree with and cases that they do not. But it is not some kind of new thing or focused on one political side of an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom