Cancel culture IRL

[tyr_13]

It is kind of entertaining that some maintaining that 'cancel culture' is a meaningful problem in and of itself act like if several people are failing to clear the bar, the bar must be unacceptably high. In many contexts, that is actually true.

But 'don't support blatant lies to rationalize the overthrow of our democracy' isn't in any way a high bar. Don't post amazingly false equivalencies that have the effect of minimizing the Holocaust. Don't intentionally mock trans gender people and if you accidentally do, apologize. These aren't like the Catholics thinking the Protestants were evil; the fact that some conclusions were wrong or debatable doesn't make correct conclusion impossible. It doesn't even mean some conclusions like 'don't march with obvious literal Nazis' are not close calls. Some calls are actually pretty easy.

People have more of the benefit of the doubt than people are pretending.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Gosh, we liberals have so much to be ashamed of.

Thank you for chastening us before we became dangerous to decent society.

 

[Darat]

Huge attempted clean up the long derails in this thread. Keep to the topic of this thread which is meant to be about “Cancel Culture”. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Emily's Cat]

2) You’re concerned with free speech and yet you seem to want to curtail the free speech rights of people who wish to exercise it calling for boycotts of which you personally disapprove. Critics of “cancel culture” never seem to be able to account for this contradiction.

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

 

[johnny karate]

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

You should save some of those eye-rolls for your repeated and baseless insistence that businesses are somehow being “coerced”. They richly deserve it.

It’s nothing more than a fantasy wokescolds have manufactured to let themselves off the hook for being against free speech of which they disapprove while pretending to be free speech advocates.

 

[lobosrul5]

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

I guess you can decide the meaning of the word "coercion", however legally speaking none of your examples were of coercion.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/what-is-coercion-law.html

Lets take your tuna example for instance. They boycotted the manufacturer or brand rather than grocery store chains that sold it. Great. But boycotting a grocery store would also not be coercion. It would also have been likely impracticable for many people since they may have not had the option to shop for food at a grocery store that did not sell dolphin safe tuna.

I'm risking whataboutism here, but what about when the AFA called for a boycott of 7-11 and Walden Books for selling magazines they disagreed with. They urged people not to shop at those chains at all, instead of just not buying certain publications. Don't pretend the right hasn't done the same thing in the past and indeed present, that the left is doing now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You should save some of those eye-rolls for your repeated and baseless insistence that businesses are somehow being “coerced”. They richly deserve it.

It’s nothing more than a fantasy wokescolds have manufactured to let themselves off the hook for being against free speech of which they disapprove while pretending to be free speech advocates.

This is so completely bass-ackward from my position. I'm not against anybody's free speech. That's the whole point!

 

[johnny karate]

This is so completely bass-ackward from my position. I'm not against anybody's free speech. That's the whole point!

Then you should probably stop using disingenuous terms like “coercion” when referring to people exercising free speech.

 

[Brainster]

A Slate podcast host has been suspended for taking McNeil's side:

Pesca went on in a subsequent message: “The question is: Is an out loud utterance of that word, in a work environment, fire-able, censurable, etc… Even as a point of clarification to a question exactly about the use of that word. I thought not necessarily. I agreed with John McWhorter. But that’s (notice the date) 2019 thinking. McNeil was originally disciplined in 2019. Just a little while later society seems to have rendered a different verdict.”

A few minutes later, Rachelle Hampton, a black staff writer, joined the conversation and wrote, “Feel like it’s weird that everyone’s dancing around the point that working in an environment where white people feel empowered to say the n-word in service of whatever argument they want to make is incredibly hostile for black people.”

In that conversation Pesca himself did not use the n-word. The article goes on to note that he had used the word in the past, but always in the same context, of whether is is allowed to be mentioned at all. In 2021, there really is no debate on the issue. One would have to be a fool to use that word if you are white. But Pesca is being cancelled for suggesting that McNeil should not have been fired, which is apparently an unacceptable opinion to hold.

 

[johnny karate]

A Slate podcast host has been suspended for taking McNeil's side:



In that conversation Pesca himself did not use the n-word. The article goes on to note that he had used the word in the past, but always in the same context, of whether is is allowed to be mentioned at all. In 2021, there really is no debate on the issue. One would have to be a fool to use that word if you are white. But Pesca is being cancelled for suggesting that McNeil should not have been fired, which is apparently an unacceptable opinion to hold.

I love when people badly misrepresent what is stated in an article and also link the article. Such a hilarious self-own. Did you think no one would actually read it?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Man, it's gonna be terrible when all the Trump CHUDs stop reading Slate, really gonna hit them in the pocket books.

 

[johnny karate]

Entitled jack ass is suspended from his job after offending coworkers with his inappropriately-expressed opinions on a controversial topic that he wouldn’t shut up about:

“I feel outraged,” a Slate staffer told me when asked about Pesca’s participation in the conversation. “I cannot believe I had to watch him enthusiastically provoke people on whether or not it is appropriate to use a racist slur.” Other Slate staffers that spoke to Defector expressed frustration and anger at Pesca’s insistence on having that particular conversation. “I don’t want to be in a workplace where people feel emboldened to have this argument. People’s humanity is not an intellectual debate,” one said.

 

[dirtywick]

hey man, some people just really need to use racial slurs at work.

If you think about it, they’re the real victims here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

CPAC just cancelled one of their speakers. IS NOWHERE SAFE FROM THIS BLIGHT!!!!

We have just learned that someone we invited to CPAC has expressed reprehensible views that have no home with our conference or our organization. The individual will not be participating at our conference.

https://twitter.com/CPAC/status/1363961280818774029

One of the speakers is a pretty overt anti-Semite. After this was commented on in the press, CPAC cancelled

THIS IS #CENSORSHIP AT ITS BEST! ALL BECAUSE I SAID “I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE VALIDITY OF #JUDAISM AND AM WILLING TO PLACE $50,000 ON MY SELF TO DEBATE THE TOP #JEWISH RABBI”’ NOW IM NO LONGER INVITED TO @CPAC_TV
#RACIST , #DICTATORSHIP , #YOUNGPHARAOH

https://twitter.com/PHARAOH_ATEN_/status/1363978334435237888

The theme for CPAC this year is "America Uncancelled". Womp womp.

 

[Cavemonster]

We have just learned that someone we invited to CPAC has expressed reprehensible views

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

 

[angrysoba]

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

Do any of the Cancel Culture types have a problem with firing people in the Trump administration for saying the election was fair and square?

No? Is it only when discussing the N-word that cancel culture becomes a problem?

 

[lobosrul5]

Do any of the Cancel Culture types have a problem with firing people in the Trump administration for saying the election was fair and square?

No? Is it only when discussing the N-word that cancel culture becomes a problem?

I think its OK when the right does it, because we all know and expect them to be intolerant and authoritative.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Suffering harassment, loss of employment, among other things.

What "other things"?

They should digitally alter her likeness to protect these children.

What in the ever-living **** is this stupid straw-man supposed to mean?

It's not clear what you're talking about.

Sure it 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."

Why should a stupid person spreading dangerous racist conspiracy theories be more able to spread dangerous racist conspiracy theories than a malicious person spreading the exact same dangerous racist conspiracy theories? Doesn't the actual harm come from the dangerous racist conspiracy theories actually being spread? Especially if the person doing the spreading has a certain degree of cultural caché and thereby an audience who will actually listen to them.

And you still didn't answer the actual question. I can ask it for a third time: "Assuming that there actually is a 'culture war', why is objecting to someone posting antisemitism escalating the culture war while posting antisemitism isn't?"

 

[HansMustermann]

I mean... it's not like the entire first half of my post was drawing a distinction between boycotts and coercion or anything, right? I mean, I totally insisted that they're exactly the same thing and railed against boycotts, right?

Yes, roll eyes indeed. Because it only serves as a hypocritical distinction for why it's ok to try to cancel someone for stuff YOU find justifiable (e.g., if they're the owner of some fishing boat), but it's not ok if it's for what you don't like. The former gets neatly filed under 'boycott', the latter under 'cancel culture'.

Guess what? Even using your example of a boycott you find perfectly ok, in the UK as of 2019, small coastal vessels, most of them owned by some guy who has that as his only way to make a living, make up about 79% of the UK fishing fleet. THOSE were the guys your apparently justified boycotts were trying to "cancel", by targeting the companies doing business with them.

But it's apparently ok if THOSE have to look for a new job because you pressured the food companies to no longer do business with him, but apparently it's not ok if it's about a twit spouting bigoted stuff on Twitter.

Guess also what? Contrary to your made up distinction, those boycotts too were ALSO targeting companies and individuals only tangentially connected to the problem. Most of the restaurant owners, or even companies canning and selling canned tuna, didn't own the fishing boats. They just bought it from the guys doing the actual fishing. Yet you were ok with them being caught in that. Just apparently not when it's about a twit posting bigoted stuff on Twitter.

Guess also what? Same goes for your other rationalizations. Nobody is harrassing customers of Disney+ either, for example. I haven't yet met anyone who tried to prevent me from getting that subscription renewed. It's the exact same boycott that is being threatened.

Yeah, yeah, OMG, but targeting the vendor might deprive other people of their fix of seeing the twit on Disney+, bla, bla, bla. But that's no different from boycotting a restaurant for selling tuna. The restaurant might go out of business (most of them are barely staying afloat even without a boycott,) or go "screw it!" and change their menu to burgers instead to bypass the whole debacle entirely, and deprive the local tuna lovers of their fix. Not that it's the end of the world, but neither is the other one. What matters is that at the end of the day it's still the same mechanism in action.

You just bend over backwards to do frankly illogical rationalizations as to why the boycotts you find ok are ok, while the ones you don't are not ok.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I thought that was how you got invited to CPAC?

Racism, generally speaking, is probably acceptable to the fine people at CPAC. Anti-Semitism is something the mainstream right still sorta cares about, in their bizarre way. Unconditional support of Israel is a litmus test for these people, so I imagine open anti-Semitism is a bit hard to stomach.

Surprised Nick Fuentes hasn't tried to spring on this and get the guy as a speaker for AFPAC.