Cancel culture IRL

[d4m10n]

Yes I know. We are all very clear about what your argument/point/chip on shoulder is NOT. We just don't have any idea what it is because YOU NEVER SEEM TO GET AROUND TO MAKING IT.

#1202

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Cavemonster]

#1202

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13402294#post13402294

Then you take the time to stop and ask yourself whether the boycott or cancellation effort you've been considering joining is grounded on moral principles or not. Oftentimes, it seems to me, people just enjoy getting in on the latest craze. Sometimes they seem to really relish a sort of performative self-righteousness, showing off to the others on the same bandwagon. Saw this often enough growing up with evangelicals, and I still see it these days among those who do not claim faith.

This? Your whole argument in this thread is that you think some people piling on to twitter complaints enjoy the dogpile more than they care about the issue?

I've gotta say, if that's the conversation you wanted to have, the rest of your posts were largely bizarre choices towards that end.

 

[d4m10n]

Your whole argument in this thread is that you think some people piling on to twitter complaints enjoy the dogpile more than they care about the issue?

My argument is that we should be fairly thoughtful and careful before joining in an online cancellation effort. From what I've seen of previous efforts, skepticism isn't playing much of a role. People tend to believe whatever the initial accusations say and just pass it on like a meme.

 

[johnny karate]

My argument is that we should be fairly thoughtful and careful before joining in an online cancellation effort. From what I've seen of previous efforts, skepticism isn't playing much of a role. People tend to believe whatever the initial accusations say and just pass it on like a meme.

Should we also be thoughtful and careful before making “cancel culture” and “ideological conformity” accusations?

Because when it comes to things like morality, ethics, thoughtfulness, and carefulness, it only seems to apply to one side of the issue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to make the same request I've made in other threads when the Proudly Wrong

Please stop referring to people who disagree with your moral judgements as "proudly wrong". Unless you can accurately demonstrate the wrongness involved, as well as pridefullness, it's nothing more than an insult that you're sneaking in under the radar.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is an example of the kind of behavior and response that I consider to be "cancel culture", even though it doesn't have any particularly negative outcomes.

'Shocked by the uproar': Amanda Gorman's white translator quits

A black American poet, Amanda Gorman, is being translated into Dutch. Gorman selected Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, a white nonbinary author, to translator her work. An activists and journalist Janice Deul wrote an targeting the publisher for using a translator that was not white. The publisher and Rjinveld decided that Rjinveld should withdraw and not be the translator... because she is white.

Even though Rjinveld was selected by the black author herself.

So... the author didn't have any problem with her work being translated by a white author. The publisher honored the wishes of the author herself. But a third party instigated and led a social backlash against the publisher, on their belief that the work of a black person should only be translated by another black person. And the social backlash was significant enough to effectively override the wishes of the author.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please stop referring to people who disagree with your moral judgements as "proudly wrong".

No. Get over it. Or die mad about it I don't care.

I'm not talking about people who are just wrong. I'm talking about a specific subgroup of the same half dozen people who react the exact same way, dragging the discussion down into broader and broader topics until we're explaining water is wet and fire it hot to them, when anyone tells them they are wrong about actual facts, not "moral judgements" or "ideology" or "having a different opinion" or whatever the next code word for "I want to be wrong but not have it called that" you or anyone else pulls out of their hinder.

Deal with it. Don't like it? Stop being wrong and reacting that way.

We're 43 pages into this thread and we have one side arguing a point and one side that argues a different point every time they get argued into a corner about their previous point so we're in the stupid ******* semantic weeds of throwing dictionaries at each other and I'm tired of it.

When your house is burning down you don't pretend we have to stop and re-define "fire" and "house" like you do when other people's are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Get over it. Or die mad about it I don't care.

I'm not talking about people who are just wrong. I'm talking about a specific subgroup of the same half dozen people who react the exact same way, dragging the discussion down into broader and broader topics until we're explaining water is wet and fire it hot to them, when anyone tells them they are wrong about actual facts, not "moral judgements" or "ideology" or "having a different opinion" or whatever the next code word for "I want to be wrong but not have it called that" you or anyone else pulls out of their hinder.

Deal with it. Don't like it? Stop being wrong and reacting that way.

I asked you this before, and you failed to respond. In what way am I "wrong" in this thread?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Most actors are credited. What level of ideological conformity should we expect from them?

Enough not to upset the cash flow. And it isn't ideological conformity, it is public expressions that upset the cash flow, no matter what their ideology actually is. What you do matters, not what you think.

But you know this and keep acting like there is some overarching moral standard that is being applied post hoc. It's as simple as "don't be such as ass that you kill the golden goose."

 

[Cavemonster]

Here is an example of the kind of behavior and response that I consider to be "cancel culture", even though it doesn't have any particularly negative outcomes.

'Shocked by the uproar': Amanda Gorman's white translator quits

A black American poet, Amanda Gorman, is being translated into Dutch. Gorman selected Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, a white nonbinary author, to translator her work. An activists and journalist Janice Deul wrote an targeting the publisher for using a translator that was not white. The publisher and Rjinveld decided that Rjinveld should withdraw and not be the translator... because she is white.

Even though Rjinveld was selected by the black author herself.

So... the author didn't have any problem with her work being translated by a white author. The publisher honored the wishes of the author herself. But a third party instigated and led a social backlash against the publisher, on their belief that the work of a black person should only be translated by another black person. And the social backlash was significant enough to effectively override the wishes of the author.

What I see:

A hiring choice was made.
A critic criticized that hiring choice.
The people involved reacted to the criticism.

I don't super agree with the criticism as I understand it, (But I'm not familiar with much of Dutch culture or poetry translation norms). But that's sort of beside the point.

I don't see this as particularly different from other situations where decision makers reacted to criticism of their decisions. This one seems even less new than others because the criticism was coming from a traditional source, a published piece rather than from social media.

If all the times critics weighed in on decisions and decision makers reacted are cancel culture, then this is nothing new and I'd struggel to see it as a particular culture instead of the timeless "criticism".

I'm sure with a tiny bit of digging I could find some centuries old examples of the same pattern of criticism and response.

If your point is that sometimes decision makers respond to criticism they shouldn't value. I'll agree with you, but it seems like such a broad and timeless point that no one is really arguing against.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Here is an example of the kind of behavior and response that I consider to be "cancel culture", even though it doesn't have any particularly negative outcomes.

'Shocked by the uproar': Amanda Gorman's white translator quits

A black American poet, Amanda Gorman, is being translated into Dutch. Gorman selected Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, a white nonbinary author, to translator her work. An activists and journalist Janice Deul wrote an targeting the publisher for using a translator that was not white. The publisher and Rjinveld decided that Rjinveld should withdraw and not be the translator... because she is white.

Even though Rjinveld was selected by the black author herself.

So... the author didn't have any problem with her work being translated by a white author. The publisher honored the wishes of the author herself. But a third party instigated and led a social backlash against the publisher, on their belief that the work of a black person should only be translated by another black person. And the social backlash was significant enough to effectively override the wishes of the author.

I'm not sure I like the result, but who here did something wrong?

Should Janice Deul not be able to express the opinion that black works should be translated by black writers?

Should other people who share this opinion be banned from social media until they conform ideologically?

I'm really not sure what remedy you are looking for.

Also, the story I read said that the publisher still supported Rjinveld if they were willing to proceed. It was left completely up to Rjinveld.

 

[Distracted1]

And yet you seemed to have done just that.

“Cancel culture” is portrayed as an imminent threat to free speech, and yet actual threats to free speech are paid lip service or outright ignored.

Pages and pages of handwringing over poor Gina Carano. But no comment on Lora Burnett.*




* I apologize for the incorrect use of “wokescold” in that post.

Ms. Burnett was not actually fired. She suffered no harm from her attempted "cancellation".

Can I take if from your post that you have joined those of us who are arguing that attempted cancellation is wrong even in cases where little actual harm occurs ?

 

[Distracted1]

Enough not to upset the cash flow. And it isn't ideological conformity, it is public expressions that upset the cash flow, no matter what their ideology actually is. What you do matters, not what you think.

But you know this and keep acting like there is some overarching moral standard that is being applied post hoc. It's as simple as "don't be such as ass that you kill the golden goose."

It is not public expression. It is the ideology of the expression.
Other actors send out twits, make Facebook posts, etc... without penalty.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is not public expression. It is the ideology of the expression.
Other actors send out twits, make Facebook posts, etc... without penalty.

It is not the ideology, it is the expression.

Do others in Disney's employ make references to their suffering and compare it to the holocaust? It is not about the suffering or the ideology.

 

[Distracted1]

It is not the ideology, it is the expression.

Do others in Disney's employ make references to their suffering and compare it to the holocaust? It is not about the suffering or the ideology.

No. And they are not fired for making the twits.
Ergo- it is not the making of twits that gets one fired- it is the ideology of their content.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is not public expression. It is the ideology of the expression.
Other actors send out twits, make Facebook posts, etc... without penalty.

Yes they send out Tweets, make Facebook posts that aren't hateful or wrong and they are treated different from the employees that do.

Where did we lose you? What possible thing about this can you not understand?

If I'm an employer and I have one employee who (metaphorically) stands on the street corner shouting 2+2=4 and another employee who (metaphorically) stands on the street corner shouting 2+2=Jewish Space Lasers I'm not treating those employees the same.

You can hide the same pearl clutching routine behind whatever new variation of "*GASPS* So you're saying people should be punished for just having different opinions?!" you'll make up next, but none of this new, none of it needs a new name, none of it is shocking, and none of it is a problem to be solved and for the last 43 pages we've been asking what problem needs to be solved and haven't gotten an answer despite the amount of noise we've gotten.

 

[Distracted1]

Yes they send out Tweets, make Facebook posts that aren't hateful or wrong and they are treated different from the employees that do.

Where did we lose you? What possible thing about this can you not understand?

If I'm an employer and I have one employee who (metaphorically) stands on the street corner shouting 2+2=4 and another employee who (metaphorically) stands on the street corner shouting 2+2=Jewish Space Lasers I'm not treating those employees the same.

You can hide the same pearl clutching routine behind whatever new variation of "*GASPS* So you're saying people should be punished for just having different opinions?!" you'll make up next, but none of this new, none of it needs a new name, none of it is shocking, and none of it is a problem to be solved and for the last 43 pages we've been asking what problem needs to be solved and haven't gotten an answer despite the amount of noise we've gotten.

You "lost me" when you moved away from reason in favor of hyperbole and tribalism.

If ten people send out (legal) social media posts, and one is fired, it becomes apparent that the content of the posts is the reason for the firing.
If the content can be the reason for the firing, it follows that the person/organization has a standard of ideological expression that must be conformed to.

However you wish to charachterise/mischarachterize the content of the opinions expressed, denying that as the reason for the firing defies logic.

 

[Cavemonster]

It is not public expression. It is the ideology of the expression.
Other actors send out twits, make Facebook posts, etc... without penalty.

Thought experiment:

If she had instead posted "I consider myself a conservative" would she have experienced the same backlash and consquences?

Other actors are conservatives and they tweet about it, but they don't get fired.

 

[lobosrul5]

On Morning Consult?

Did you miss the bit about how they are weighting the sample?



We should look into how they got the 1,991 registered voters in the first place, but it is not true to say the results necessarily reflect bias based on age rather than some other factor (e.g. willingness to answer online polls).

It may well be that Morning Consult abandons their usual safeguards when conducting polling on behalf of Politico, but I've yet to see some evidence which would lead me to conclude this is happening.

FYI the detail to the cancel culture section starts at pg 244.

741 boomers answered as compared to 461 millennials. It was only 184 "Gen Z". Also 503 Gen X.

On pg 248 you can see only 55% of boomers thought cancel culture was somewhat or very negative to society. GenX drops to 48%, while millennials drop down to 41%.

There is of course "cognitive dissonance" going on here. As an example, my dad is a boomer, he hates "cancel culture", but he stopped watching the NFL because of "kneelers" to send them a message. But thats not cancel culture to him for some reason.

 

[d4m10n]

Should we also be thoughtful and careful before making “cancel culture” and “ideological conformity” accusations?

If one probable outcome of such accusations is that an individual will be deplatformed or disemployed or otherwise sanctioned...yes!

(Of course.)