Cancel culture IRL

[Darat]

This echoes the "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument.

No it doesn’t. It just describes human behaviour, one that we’ve been aware of for thousands of years.

 

[Lplus]

No it doesn’t. It just describes human behaviour, one that we’ve been aware of for thousands of years.

It describes revenge.

 

[Darat]

It describes revenge.

Actually it doesn’t, revenge is something else (albeit that revenge could enter into it as of course there are no clear bright lines in separating human behaviours).

 

[PhantomWolf]

This echoes the "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument.

I'd say it's more fighting Fire with Fire.

Conservatives don't get to complain that they don't like it when they get a serving or what they have been dishing out for decades if not longer.

If you want to be a bully and punch people, then don't cry when your victims turn on you and punch you in the nose back.

Oh, and on the whole good guy/bad guy with a gun thing, if someone keeps on shooting at you, returning fire is a totally acceptable thing to do.

 

[Lplus]

Actually it doesn’t, revenge is something else (albeit that revenge could enter into it as of course there are no clear bright lines in separating human behaviours).

I'd say it's more fighting Fire with Fire.

Conservatives don't get to complain that they don't like it when they get a serving or what they have been dishing out for decades if not longer.

If you want to be a bully and punch people, then don't cry when your victims turn on you and punch you in the nose back.

Oh, and on the whole good guy/bad guy with a gun thing, if someone keeps on shooting at you, returning fire is a totally acceptable thing to do.

Looks pretty much like revenge to me - or do you consider it to be justice perhaps?

An eye for an eye......

 

[johnny karate]

Really!?
Those claiming that it resembles McCarthyism, religious persecution, and discrimination against sexual orientation are making favorable comparisons?

I don’t recall using the word “favorable”.

Also, this is in the context of an argument you’re making, not one I’m making. If the comparisons don’t hold up, it’s probably because your argument isn’t very good.

 

[d4m10n]

Others have taken apart some other aspects of your reasoning, and Joe already pointed out the banality of pretending the paradox of tolerance isn't a well known phenomenon, but it bears repeating that not being tolerant of things like moronic rationalizations for a party to undemocratically seize power is one of the only ways to maintain a functioning modern society.

I hope we can all agree that cancellations and boycotts aren't exactly overreactions when the individual in question is preaching the violent overthrow of a legitimate democratic regime. I'd be surprised if that specific scenario comes up (in the context of "cancel culture") so it's hard to see why the paradox of tolerance^WP should be in play here.

 

[johnny karate]

Looks pretty much like revenge to me - or do you consider it to be justice perhaps?

An eye for an eye......

This is what I love about the wokescold mentality.

A millionaire doesn’t get her contract renewed for a television show about space wizards and laser swords because she insisted on acting like a jack ass in public, and here we are talking about vague concepts of revenge and justice.

Again, no one wants to address the specifics of this situation.

No one is willing to actually defend Gina Carano’s behavior.

No one is willing to argue that Disney should be obligated to keep her on their show.

Instead, we have to talk about McCarthyism and the Old Testament.

It’s all just an attempt to distract from the fact that this is nothing more than a straightforward case of someone losing a job as a result of their own behavior.

 

[johnny karate]

I hope we can all agree that cancellations and boycotts aren't exactly overreactions when the individual in question is preaching the violent overthrow of a legitimate democratic regime. I'd be surprised if that specific scenario comes up (in the context of "cancel culture") so it's hard to see why the paradox of tolerance^WP should be in play here.

Interesting that you reserve the right to determine when boycotts and cancellations are justified, but wish to deny others that same right.

Also interesting that you don’t see the slippery slope in your position that you so easily see in everyone else’s.

 

[Darat]

Looks pretty much like revenge to me - or do you consider it to be justice perhaps?

An eye for an eye......

We were talking slightly past each other, I was commenting on the wider so-called “cancel culture” which has been shown to have been around forever rather than the motivation for why some people may use that behaviour.

Yes I do agree that some people could use the behaviour for what we can describe as revenge. However I actually think that’s a minority of cases, to me it seems it is simply that someone doesn’t like - for whatever reason something someone has posted or said and reacts to that.

 

[d4m10n]

Interesting that you reserve the right to determine when boycotts and cancellations are justified, but wish to deny others that same right.

Interesting that you've read that into what I've written.

 

[johnny karate]

Interesting that you've read that into what I've written.

Then once again, the point of your argument eludes me.

Here’s what I have so far: “Cancel culture” is bad except for sometimes when it isn’t. But when it’s bad, people should stop doing it.

Feel free to make corrections or fill in blanks.

 

[Brainster]

From this thread it would seem to be that those that claim there is a “cancel culture” want people to be able to say (legally allowed speech) whatever they want without any consequences.

And the other side says you can't say anything unless it meets with our approval, and we reserve the right to change our mind about what meets our approval and apply that ruling retroactively and inconsistently.

 

[Cavemonster]

And the other side says you can't say anything unless it meets with our approval, and we reserve the right to change our mind about what meets our approval and apply that ruling retroactively and inconsistently.

Can you articulate that idea without the hyperbole factor? Clearly you don't mean it as literally written.

There are many things said, tweeted and communicated in the world that I don't approve of. That my "side" doesn't approve of. But it clearly can be said.

You can say many things here on the board that I don't like. I don't possess the power to stop you. You already have said a lot of things I don't like or approve of morally on this board. Has that gotten you fired from a job?

So clearly you mean something more narrow and specific in your complaint. Please, spell it out without the exaggeration.

 

[Darat]

And the other side says you can't say anything unless it meets with our approval, and we reserve the right to change our mind about what meets our approval and apply that ruling retroactively and inconsistently.

No - the ‘other side’ in relation to my post would just be those people that say they don’t see this cancel culture.

 

[d4m10n]

Then once again, the point of your argument eludes me.

Possibly your confusion is due in part to adding in claims I didn't make.

Here’s what I have so far: “Cancel culture” is bad except for sometimes when it isn’t. But when it’s bad, people should stop doing it.

I can think of all kinds of cultural or behavioral phenomena which are just fine until folks take it too far. Masculinity is just fine, until it's toxic. Drinking beer is fine until it leads to alcoholism. Tee-totaling is fine until you try to make it compulsory for everyone. Working out with caloric restriction is fine unless you go over the edge into anorexia. Focusing on work is fine unless it requires neglecting your family. Heck, we even separate killing human beings into the categories of justifiable homicide and murder.

If we can all agree that not all cancellations are worthwhile, then we can talk about what makes some of them justifiable. No need to try to formulate and evaluate sweeping generalizations, so far as I can tell.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay seriously.

Glib, mush-mouthed, vague truisms about "But you can take stuff too far" are pointless. It's true about literally everything so has no place in a conversation about any one thing in particular unless you can explain, with actual facts and examples, how the current thing actually being discussed is a particularly noteworthy and valid example of that.

There's no point in pointing out to the people pulling the drowning man out of the water that he'll die of dehydration if you "take it too far in the other direction."

"Stuff can go too far." Thank you Lord Baelish, any other overly obvious and besides the point pearls of wisdom you want to share with the Small Council? In every crisis there is an opportunity? He who fails to plan plans to fail? Only shake it off two times, after that you are just playing with it? This broadcast not to be rebroadcast without the explicit written permission of Major League Baseball?

I'm sick of discussions where one side has an actual point that exists in the real world and one side has a broad philosophical contrarian outline of a point they might get around to making one day that only exists in their alternative universe fan fiction.

 

[Max_mang]

I can think of all kinds of cultural or behavioral phenomena which are just fine until folks take it too far. Masculinity is just fine, until it's toxic. Drinking beer is fine until it leads to alcoholism. Tee-totaling is fine until you try to make it compulsory for everyone. Working out with caloric restriction is fine unless you go over the edge into anorexia. Focusing on work is fine unless it requires neglecting your family. Heck, we even separate killing human beings into the categories of justifiable homicide and murder.

So cancel culture is fine until...when?

 

[johnny karate]

Possibly your confusion is due in part to adding in claims I didn't make.

*Shrugs* That’s what happens when you leave it up to other people to figure out what your argument is rather than plainly stating it.

I can think of all kinds of cultural or behavioral phenomena which are just fine until folks take it too far. Masculinity is just fine, until it's toxic. Drinking beer is fine until it leads to alcoholism. Tee-totaling is fine until you try to make it compulsory for everyone. Working out with caloric restriction is fine unless you go over the edge into anorexia. Focusing on work is fine unless it requires neglecting your family. Heck, we even separate killing human beings into the categories of justifiable homicide and murder.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said, just a lot more succinctly.

If we can all agree that not all cancellations are worthwhile, then we can talk about what makes some of them justifiable. No need to try to formulate and evaluate sweeping generalizations, so far as I can tell.

Great. The floor is yours. I’m all ears.

 

[Thermal]

I'm sick of discussions where one side has an actual point that exists in the real world and one side has a broad philosophical contrarian outline of a point they might get around to making one day that only exists in their alternative universe fan fiction.

The real world point is often short and uninteresting, but makes a great jumping-off point to a larger discussion, or to explore where the limits are. That's not a bad thing, as long as it's not used as a bob and weave.