Cancel culture IRL

[cullennz]

I think we currently don't have to look too far for an example of cancel culture.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

I can readily agree that we need to focus on specific examples, assuming we can get past the idea that all cancellations are either justifiable or else unjustifiable.

Do you have any specific examples in mind? I'll throw out a few here:

I'd say what happened to Justine Sacco in 2013 was wildly excessive. Had her original tweet not gone viral, things would've turned out better for all concerned, including (oddly enough) Sam Biddle. No one's lives were improved by pretending that a badly constructed joke mocking white privilege and ignorance was actually an expression of racism.

I'd say that what happened to the brogrammers at PyCon 2013 was excessive, and what happened to Adria Richards was worse than excessive. Had the entire affair been kept in the room, away from the online mobs, things would've turned out better for all concerned.

I'd say that what happened to Tim Hunt following WCSJ 2015 was fairly excessive. Had the entire affair been kept in the room, well away from the online mobs, things would've turned out better for all concerned, including UCL.

So much for the well-known examples, here's one which I had the privilege of witnessing firsthand, in real time, and the shame of participating in as well. Even though what Gelato Andy did was wrong (he admits as much) the ratings bombing and anonymous threats were way over the top. Had the skeptics who attended that conference taken an approach which didn't include viral shaming (as the organizers did) literally everyone would've been better off.

Maybe there are examples where online shaming takes down people who really needed to be taken down a notch, disemployed, divested from, etc. Perhaps there are already threads about them. So far as I've seen, though, getting a load of strangers involved typically adds far more heat than light.

 

[Brainster]

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

The cancel culture they don't see that imposes consequences on people, as you put it?

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.

 

[angrysoba]

So much for the well-known examples, here's one which I had the privilege of witnessing firsthand, in real time, and the shame of participating in as well. Even though what Gelato Andy did was wrong (he admits as much) the ratings bombing and anonymous threats were way over the top. Had the skeptics who attended that conference taken an approach which didn't include viral shaming (as the organizers did) literally everyone would've been better off.

I don't understand. Someone owns an ice cream shop and writes a sign saying he won't serve someone (who? I don't think he says in his "classy" apology, so he is not referencing the specific action he took), and then having threatened to not do business with someone is now upset because those people won't make use of his business? Huh?

Oh, and apparently he didn't realize that openly saying on a sign that he won't do business with someone, that someone would post the images on social media? This is naive at best.

Is this really "cancel culture"?

 

[Cain]

I posted heavily for the same reason I had to stop: Work. Posting to procrastinate, and then not posting to deal with the nonsense. But the nonsense continues at ISF...

I have a hunch that the right wing people crying about "cancel culture" also are very much in support of at-will employment which makes it possible.

While amusing, it's immaterial. It's been noted repeatedly that they're hypocrites, and I'm not arguing from that perspective. We saw this at least as far back as 2014 in the ridiculous thread about Brendan Eich.


Carano gaining more attention:

If it doesn't, then what does being "cancelled" even mean?

Suffering harassment, loss of employment, among other things.

And, yes, her no longer being part of a family network on a kid's show limits the number of people who will see her, go "she's cool", and follow her on social media. It especially limits the younger, more impressionable people who will do so.

They should digitally alter her likeness to protect these children.

She's not been evaluated for her political views. She's been evaluated for saying dangerously racist stuff in public.

Does it matter if she's spreading dangerous racist conspiracy theories because she's a racist out of hatred or if she's spreading dangerous racist conspiracy theories because she's stupid? How could we tell the difference? What would the real-world difference actually be?

It's not clear what you're talking about. Quote. Her. And, yes, intention matters. Even for a hard-core consequentalist. This is elementary. An elderly man who accidentally runs over a half-dozen people at a farmer's market is not going to merit the same kind of punishment as the guy who tries to run his ex over but ends up only injuring himself.

And since you didn't answer I'll ask again: "Assuming that there actually is a 'culture war', why is objecting to someone posting antisemitism escalating the culture war while posting antisemitism isn't?"

"Objecting" is doing a lot of work here. Again, the intention of the anti-Semistism matters, as does the nature of the "objection." There's a difference between, "Hey, shouldn't do that" versus "you'll never work in this town again."

It isn't a dog whistle; it is just straight mockery of declaring pronouns. Her statement is 'look what you made me do' and not the kind of apology one who unintentionally made such a mistake would almost undoubtedly make. She meant it.

'You'd assume' is worth what? Would you do the same and blame others if you made the same 'mistake'?

Clear as mud. She meant what exactly? To mock people who declare pronouns? I'm trying to find evidence of her "transphobia."

Why are you posting aggravating evidence arguing for her termination as if they were mitigating?

I love when people insist on each piece be viewed in isolation (which you're going to say you're not doing, but is exactly what you're doing) and if each one doesn't completely justify the action taken then the action was unjustified.

No. The reason I looked up and posted her most controversial comments is due to your vagueness.

Appeal to worse problems and abstract wankery about humans being dumb in general is one step above 'what is reality man?' as far as handwaves go. I mean the 'well some of the criticisms of her by some people were unfair' is a better attempt, but still fails.

I think the main problem is that you don't really know how to think or argue (like many people on this forum). You've seen a list of informal fallacies. "Hey, this sounds like an appeal to worse problems," but it completely ignores the context. Earlier I asked how firing Carano made the world a better place and mocked performative activism, which you dismissed as well-poisoning. Even if we ascribe the purest motives, it just shows how, like you, these people are misguided and morally unserious.

 

[Frank Newgent]

How do you cancel somebody wearing a MAGA hat? What's involved in the act?

 

[angrysoba]

Nothing passive about it. I called the post laughable.

This is passive aggressive: "the shark has been jumped and the thread doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously."

Now I will ask your opinion. How would you characterise the wearing of a MAGA hat? At least one (and I’m guessing many more) think that is justification for cancellation. How about you?

I have no idea because I have no idea what you mean by "cancellation".

Oh, and I’m not asking you and others to do anything. Just pointing out the hyperbole form those on your side of the debate.

I think it would be better to address those making the hyperbole if that's what annoys you.

 

[Mumbles]

The bigger question is why do you care what hat someone wears?

"He/she is wearing that cap. Must take it personally"

With the exception of maybe KKK, but then that is more a hood thingey

THey're markers of open and possibly violent white supremacism, so no real difference. And yeah, I wouldn't go to a business where the owner were wearing either - not out of offense, but rather because I would expect very poor treatment, such as spit in food, refusal to serve in a timely manner, and the like.

Best to skip it.

 

[cullennz]

THey're markers of open and possibly violent white supremacism, so no real difference. And yeah, I wouldn't go to a business where the owner were wearing either - not out of offense, but rather because I would expect very poor treatment, such as spit in food, refusal to serve in a timely manner, and the like.

Best to skip it.

You actually believe anyone who wore a MAGA cap was a white supremacist?

It would be funny if I didn't know you actually think this in your head.

 

[angrysoba]

This is completely ingenuous.

Thank you.

You have been active in this thread about “cancel culture” and you have no idea of it? Pull the other leg.

It depends on the context.

Mumbles said he wouldn't buy anything from a vendor wearing it. I wholeheartedly support this "cancellation", if that be its name.

If someone I knew who wears a MAGA hat everywhere she or he goes asked me for a job, I might not want to hire that person. If that's cancellation, then sure.

If someone worked for a childrens TV show on BBC and they were known to walk around with a MAGA hat I might be persuaded that they shouldn't be on a children's TV show on the BBC, etc...

Give me some other examples and I will give you my opinions.

 

[Mumbles]

You actually believe anyone who wore a MAGA cap was a white supremacist?

Enough of a chance that I wouldn't risk much of anything with them - particularly if they're still doing so in 2021.

Half of the US voted for the idiot

Closer to 1/4 all told - and a majority of them, when asked, freely express racist opinions in polls. A5d a glance over his record over the past decade or...five shows why - Toupee Fiasco has always done the same, to the point of letting it infect his many failed businesses, and his campaign platforms, and his acts in office.

You want half the country to "expect very poor treatment, such as spit in food, refusal to serve in a timely manner, and the like."

All good.

But I think it is a tad dim.

But you don't give an actual reason to do so. Again, it's no different an indicator than a KKK robe, or a Confederate battle flag. Is it possible that the person is just hopelessly naive and has no idea how they're driving away business for no reason? Sure, but that doesn't bode well either. But more likely than not, they're of the "I'm-tired-of-being-called-racist-when-I-say-black-people-are-all-lazy-and-hate-education" style racists.

 

[Darat]

…snip…

Suffering harassment, loss of employment, among other things.

..snip..

Harassment is illegal so that’s already dealt with. Loss of employment - the ones protesting/boycotting/cancelling don’t have the power to sack anyone, which would seemingly mean you want employment law to be changed so no one can be sacked based on the reaction by the public to anything they post on social media etc?

 

[johnny karate]

I can readily agree that we need to focus on specific examples, assuming we can get past the idea that all cancellations are either justifiable or else unjustifiable.

Do you have any specific examples in mind? I'll throw out a few here:

I'd say what happened to Justine Sacco in 2013 was wildly excessive. Had her original tweet not gone viral, things would've turned out better for all concerned, including (oddly enough) Sam Biddle. No one's lives were improved by pretending that a badly constructed joke mocking white privilege and ignorance was actually an expression of racism.

I'd say that what happened to the brogrammers at PyCon 2013 was excessive, and what happened to Adria Richards was worse than excessive. Had the entire affair been kept in the room, away from the online mobs, things would've turned out better for all concerned.

I'd say that what happened to Tim Hunt following WCSJ 2015 was fairly excessive. Had the entire affair been kept in the room, well away from the online mobs, things would've turned out better for all concerned, including UCL.

So much for the well-known examples, here's one which I had the privilege of witnessing firsthand, in real time, and the shame of participating in as well. Even though what Gelato Andy did was wrong (he admits as much) the ratings bombing and anonymous threats were way over the top. Had the skeptics who attended that conference taken an approach which didn't include viral shaming (as the organizers did) literally everyone would've been better off.

Maybe there are examples where online shaming takes down people who really needed to be taken down a notch, disemployed, divested from, etc. Perhaps there are already threads about them. So far as I've seen, though, getting a load of strangers involved typically adds far more heat than light.

Providing examples of what you see as a problem without clearly defining the problem isn’t particularly helpful.

So far, it seems entirely defined by your own personal judgement. An actual problem needs some kind of objective measure.

 

[Cain]

Harassment is illegal so that’s already dealt with. Loss of employment - the ones protesting/boycotting/cancelling don’t have the power to sack anyone, which would seemingly mean you want employment law to be changed so no one can be sacked based on the reaction by the public to anything they post on social media etc?

Except to register my disagreement, I'll ignore your hand-wave on online harassment. Also, needless to say, I do not take the position people can post "anything" on social media.

Specifically in the case of Carano, I have been speaking in terms of norms. She works in an industry that is unlike most traditional employment. A person can have contracts with Disney, Universal and Paramount within a one-year stretch (or all three simultaneously). Second, image does matter. Jennifer Lawrence does not get paid twice as much as Chris Pratt for some soppy space romance because she's working so much harder.

If somebody does not want to stand for the national anthem, you say, "Well, that's their point of view." Call the kneeling silly, misguided, evil, whatever, but it's dirty pool to complain to an employer, and people intellecutally and emotionally insecure enough to organize and participate in a campaign should feel embarassed. Pinker's Better Angels talks about honor culture (challenging men to duels for real and perceived slights). It's barbaric and retrograde, even if it discourages questionable gossip. Younger generations would mock their red-face fathers at the latest squabble. "What're ya gonna do, Dad? Challenge him to a duel?"

It's quite a good thing that it's now considered disreputable to settle such disputes by shedding blood, taking a person's life. Also not a good thing: Online mobs trying to upend a person's livelihood. And, no, it's not enough if a kneeling athlete on a career downslide is made the center-piece of a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

Not everything can be legislated, especially if we're talking about a culture of free-expression. That said, legislation could help foster such a culture. The Supreme Court's speech rulings in the sixties helped give rise to the sacredness of expression. The 1964 Civil Rights Act helped transform attitudes toward discrimination in public accommodations. The shift in elite opinion -- the NYT bowing to pressure, universities caving on matters of free inquiry -- is unsettling.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The really funny thing about all this is that the same people who were upset and trying to get the likes of Colin Kaepernick fired for taking a knee in protest and trying to get Brie Larson fired from Captain Marvel, and even attacked her YouTube channel when it first started, all for daring to say that not all movies based on comic book adaptions are targeted at white males, are now the same ones that are decrying the non-re-signing of Gena Carano.

 

[dirtywick]

Except to register my disagreement, I'll ignore your hand-wave on online harassment. Also, needless to say, I do not take the position people can post "anything" on social media.

Specifically in the case of Carano, I have been speaking in terms of norms. She works in an industry that is unlike most traditional employment. A person can have contracts with Disney, Universal and Paramount within a one-year stretch (or all three simultaneously). Second, image does matter. Jennifer Lawrence does not get paid twice as much as Chris Pratt for some soppy space romance because she's working so much harder.

If somebody does not want to stand for the national anthem, you say, "Well, that's their point of view." Call the kneeling silly, misguided, evil, whatever, but it's dirty pool to complain to an employer, and people intellecutally and emotionally insecure enough to organize and participate in a campaign should feel embarassed. Pinker's Better Angels talks about honor culture (challenging men to duels for real and perceived slights). It's barbaric and retrograde, even if it discourages questionable gossip. Younger generations would mock their red-face fathers at the latest squabble. "What're ya gonna do, Dad? Challenge him to a duel?"

It's quite a good thing that it's now considered disreputable to settle such disputes by shedding blood, taking a person's life. Also not a good thing: Online mobs trying to upend a person's livelihood. And, no, it's not enough if a kneeling athlete on a career downslide is made the center-piece of a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

Not everything can be legislated, especially if we're talking about a culture of free-expression. That said, legislation could help foster such a culture. The Supreme Court's speech rulings in the sixties helped give rise to the sacredness of expression. The 1964 Civil Rights Act helped transform attitudes toward discrimination in public accommodations. The shift in elite opinion -- the NYT bowing to pressure, universities caving on matters of free inquiry -- is unsettling.

You know, the idea that sometimes the online mob can make unreasonable demands, and sometimes companies cave into these demands, but it's not a big enough problem that unduly infringing on everyone's right to free speech, free association, and free commerce isn't a viable solution seems to be the position you're both arguing for and against.

In fact, I think bringing up specific examples and discussing the nuances of each is just more evidence that "cancel culture" does indeed have a time and place.

Maybe I missed something?

On a seperate note, I'd take issue with saying that Kaepernick was on a career downslide. In context, and even out of context, he was a starter quality QB in the NFL.

 

[PhantomWolf]

infringing on everyone's right to free speech, free association

You do understand that these Rights are only in protections from the Government regulating such things, and even then there are limitations on these rights, for instance, you don't have a right to incite violence and call it free speech, and you don't have to the right to associate with other felons if you are a convicted felon yourself.

and free commerce

There is no right to free commerce. The Government can create and enforce whatever regulations it likes on commerce.

 

[dirtywick]

You do understand that these Rights are only in protections from the Government regulating such things, and even then there are limitations on these rights, for instance, you don't have a right to incite violence and call it free speech, and you don't have to the right to associate with other felons if you are a convicted felon yourself.

Yes I do realize that. We were talking about legislation so it’s important.

There is no right to free commerce. The Government can create and enforce whatever regulations it likes on commerce.

That’s true. But unnecessary limitations on commerce that discourage competitive markets should be avoided

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes I do realize that. We were talking about legislation so it’s important.

Really, must have been a different thread to the one I was reading because I thought this one was discussing "the online mob [who] can make unreasonable demands," and the "companies [who sometimes] cave into (sic) these demands." I must have missed the part where the Government was making legislation to force companies to fire people that post socially objectionable materials.

That’s true. But unnecessary limitations on commerce that discourage competitive markets should be avoided

Again, I haven't seen this from the Government at all. Maybe you can point to it.

 

[dirtywick]

Really, must have been a different thread to the one I was reading because I thought this one was discussing "the online mob [who] can make unreasonable demands," and the "companies [who sometimes] cave into (sic) these demands." I must have missed the part where the Government was making legislation to force companies to fire people that post socially objectionable materials.

OK why not try reading the post I was quoting and see if you can find the word legislation in it? Then put my post into context and come back when you’re caught up, because it seems like you’re barely reading what I wrote let alone the things you’re not responding to.

Again, I haven't seen this from the Government at all. Maybe you can point to it.

It’s my opinion on it.