Cancel culture IRL

[Distracted1]

Calls for Brie Larson to be cancelled ? Say it's not so.

I particularly liked this bit:
...The petition also claims that Brie Larson has not donated to any charities other than The Motion Picture and Television Fund Foundation, and that she needs to step down....

She is obviously "for" cancer.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's try to recap then.

Some of us take the position that "Cancel Culture" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Cancel Culture" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

Other people in this thread responded by noting that 1) "Cancel Culture" isn't new, it's been around forever and 2) Some people really deserve to be punished and have their lives ruined for transgressing social norms and 3) Some of those people came out of it okay at the end of the day so it's no big deal.

My response to 1) was to say that whether or not it's new is irrelevant, it's an activity that is wide open to abuse and presents a problem. It presented a problem when it was done in the past as well (cite McCarthyism, witch burnings, etc.). You responded with the very odd rejoinder of "well why are you suddenly worried about it now?". To which I responded that I wasn't alive when those prior things happened. It doesn't make sense for me to be "worried" about things that happened in the past and which I cannot affect in any way, whereas this is happening now, and I see in it the same patterns of behavior that have led to extremely bad outcomes in the past, so I am worried about what is happening now. This seems confusing to you, and I really don't know why.

My response to 2) is that the subjective determination that some people deserve it isn't enough. That same determination was believed to be sufficient by actors in the past who engaged in widespread persecution of belief and all sorts of atrocities. One's belief in their moral righteousness should not rationalize harassment of others who do not hold that same belief.

My response to 3) is that the eventual non-death outcome for some high-profile people doesn't offset the risk and the danger. We only get exposed to the high profile cases in the media, and many of those people can garner support and move on. But someone of lesser means might end up devastated. It's akin to arguing that because some children who were bullied managed to survive and become stronger for it, we shouldn't take a stand against bullying.

My response to all of this is that slippery slope arguments rooted in distortions of fact and vague generalities, coupled with a lack of consistency in how standards are applied, are not the slightest bit compelling.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And you're failing at that. Badly.

"Cancel culture" has no utility as a term outside of demonizing basic human social interaction when the "wrong" people use it.

Your position ends up implying that persecution, harassment, and retaliation for beliefs are acceptable social interactions, as long as their done by the "right" people. Is that really your stance on this topic?

 

[johnny karate]

Honestly, are you even keeping track of your own arguments here?

You made a point of implying that somehow I'm okay with sexism, racism, murder, and thievery, because *you personally* somehow haven't seen me argue against those things. Even though on some of those topics I actively and frequently DO argue against them. You imply that I'm being selective, and somehow I'm okay with all of those things, and I only have a problem with cancel culture. That's the standard that YOU introduced, not me. YOU brought that into it.

So, by your own standard, you must be just fine with sex slavery, right? I mean, I haven't seen you doing any hand-wringing about that, so clearly YOUR standard implies that you've got no problem with sex-slavery.


What are you even talking about here? You're not making any sense at all.

You implied that posters in this thread are okay with death threats and harassment. True or false?

Edit: Haha... your post previous to this one pretty much does just that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your position ends up implying that persecution, harassment, and retaliation for beliefs are acceptable social interactions, as long as their done by the "right" people. Is that really your stance on this topic?

You see.. this is kind of things you say and then all act huffy when people just ignore you because you are impossible to have an actual honest discussion with.

You are talking to voices in your head because you are obviously not talking to anyone in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

Your position ends up implying that persecution, harassment, and retaliation for beliefs are acceptable social interactions, as long as their done by the "right" people. Is that really your stance on this topic?

Yeah, Joe! Are you okay with persecution, harassment, and retaliation? You must be because of all the times you never suggested that you were.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm legit wondering if some people just have never to argue a position, so they only thing they can do is just repeat back what people have told them in the past about their arguments.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Let's try to recap then.

Some of us take the position that "Cancel Culture" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Cancel Culture" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

Some of us take the position that "Free Speech" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Free Speech" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

 

[d4m10n]

"Cancel culture" has no utility as a term outside of demonizing basic human social interaction when the "wrong" people use it.

Assuming we can agree that "the popular practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive" is a real cultural phenomenon, do you think we should have a word or phrase for it?

I would argue that we should, and indeed, we already do.

ETA: I would also argue that it's a far remove from "basic human social interaction" since that's something we do everyday whereas you've got to put in at least a bit of extra effort to join in an attempted cancellation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Assuming we can agree that "the popular practice of withdrawing support for public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive" is a real cultural phenomenon, do you think we should have a word or phrase for it?

I would argue that we should, and indeed, we already do.

Okay you go into the woods and meditate under a tree for a few years until you figure it out, then rejoin the discussion.

I refuse to guide someone to pure, simple obviousness. I'll be damned if I'll drag them there kicking and screaming, fighting me every inch of the way.

I have now extended every possible bit of courtesy and patience to you in explaining my position while receiving none in return.

My patience has run out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Some of us take the position that "Free Speech" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Free Speech" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

How so? I don't even need a real source for this, I'd be satisfied with a scenario that demonstrates how free speech results in those things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Some of us take the position that "Free Speech" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Free Speech" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

Careful, you're about to give the Proudly Wrong an opening.

This isn't a free speech question. Everyone knows you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

The counter-cancel-culture (great band name) argument is that you shouting fire in my theater is differing from me shouting fire in your theater.

 

[Distracted1]

Some of us take the position that "Free Speech" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Free Speech" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

IOW
Some of you are anti-free speech.

That has been clear for a while now. But stating it openly is refreshing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

IOW
Some of you are anti-free speech.

That has been clear for a while now. But stating it openly is refreshing.

And some people here are pro-free speech for people in power, no free-speech for the little people.

In your world you only get free speech if you own the television station or print your own newspaper.

You want freedom of speech with cost barriers to keep the wrong people's voice from being heard.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And we're right back to a primary tactic of the Proudly Wrong.

When I insult you, the topic is the insult.

WHen you insult me, the topic is your right to free speech.

Whenever you are wrong or in the wrong, you just go and run and hid behind some broader philosophical debate.

 

[d4m10n]

Okay you go into the woods and meditate under a tree for a few years until you figure it out, then rejoin the discussion.

I refuse to guide someone to pure, simple obviousness. I'll be damned if I'll drag them there kicking and screaming, fighting me every inch of the way.

I have now extended every possible bit of courtesy and patience to you in explaining my position while receiving none in return.

My patience has run out.

This post adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

If you don't think the phrase "cancel culture" refers to an actual cultural phenomenon, just say so.

If you've got a better phrase for the actual cultural phenomenon, please say so.

If you think the actual cultural phenomenon described by the phrase isn't really worth discussing, there are plenty of other threads on social issues.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you don't think the phrase "cancel culture" refers to an actual cultural phenomenon, just say so.

I have.

Multiple times.

You just don't listen.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And some people here are pro-free speech for people in power, no free-speech for the little people.



In your world you only get free speech if you own the television station or print your own newspaper.



You want freedom of speech with cost barriers to keep the wrong people's voice from being heard.

Having one's words broadcast on television or published in a newspaper are not "rights" or a prerequisite for achieving "free speech."

Why should a platform built by others' hard work be open to someone who just wandered up and declared they have a "right" to use it?

 

[Distracted1]

How so? I don't even need a real source for this, I'd be satisfied with a scenario that demonstrates how free speech results in those things.

Actually, he is very correct on many of those points.

Some of us take the position that "Free Speech" has some serious problems, is open to extreme abuse, is notoriously reactionary and allows anonymous people to punish perceived wrong-thinkers on the basis of incomplete or erroneous information, and has a high potential for crossing the line into outright extrajudicial persecution of belief. We essentially argue that, while not every single instance of "Free Speech" has bad outcomes, it has in many cases imposed serious hardship, suffering, and trauma on people and it allows for the "internet mob" to engage in death threats and harassment that are illegal but can't be pursued because the actors are anonymous.

Just a couple- but clearly germane to the topic.

ETA: the middle paragraph above ,with the highlights, is the quoted post of Dr. Kieth #1548. I don't know why it wound up outside of a quote box.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Having one's words broadcast on television or published in a newspaper are not "rights" or a prerequisite for achieving "free speech."

Why should a platform built by others' hard work be open to someone who just wandered up and declared they have a "right" to use it?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I never said anyone has a right to anyone else's platform.

The use of social media is not about anyone's right to use the platform.

But people using it to get their voices out as long as the platform allows them is not a problem to be solved and that's all the "Cancel Culture" is really about.

It's not about "Right to platform." That's always up to the platform. If Facebook tomorrow says that only recipes for Swedish meatballs and literally no other topics can be discussed on Facebook, so be it.