• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
As far as I know, the person in question is still moderating one or more subreddits they probably shouldn't be. I don't think the cancellation has been entirely successful yet.
Click to expand...

Aimee's mod account (bpwpb) was deleted when they were hired, but it is the current mod (and the third in Aimee's poly relationship, so not the infamous husband) nekosune that is the true cancer.

The moderator connected to Aimee has been removed.

Mod Announcement

Due to substantiated allegations that the user is connected to Aimee Challenor, the moderator has been removed from the moderation team.

We will be seeking new moderators soon, as now I am the only active one.

EDIT: This user is a moderator on other prominent LGBT subreddits.

I don't believe they will be removed. They are the head moderator on other subreddits like r/lgbt. ON that subreddit, you can see that all other moderators were added one month ago.
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderteens/comments/mcl85m/the_moderator_connected_to_aimee_has_been_removed/
 
Mumbles said:
It doesn’t help that we aren’t merely discussing teens, but also teen on 2011-era Twitter, before it became an organizing tool for violence. Pretty much anything went at that point - including mass harassment campaigns like Gamergate, white supremacist criminals spewing slurs openly, and so forth. This was *befoe* 4channers were using generic avatars of black people to push pseudo-feminist nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yeah. One of the writers from Robot Chicken just got fired for pretty much the same thing--****** racist tweets from 2011 or so, when she was a teenager. I just don't see any good reason why that should happen. Teenagers say stupid ****, and then (ideally) they grow up.

But like I said, there was a strong whiff of “I deserve that job” in play in this particular case, which can turn ugly fast.
Click to expand...
Seems plausible, especially since she hadn't even started yet.
 
d4m10n said:
I do, at least until some justification is given beyond internet furor.
Click to expand...

The base justification is why Aimee left the Greens and Lib Dems (and Stonewall and the UK), which is on the wiki, and then Reddit censoring any mention of it, before backing down.

There is a lot more to the story, which can be found in seedier parts of the web that don't care about doxing people.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The base justification is why Aimee left the Greens and Lib Dems (and Stonewall and the UK), which is on the wiki, and then Reddit censoring any mention of it, before backing down.

There is a lot more to the story, which can be found in seedier parts of the web that don't care about doxing people.
Click to expand...

It's all disturbing, what little I've seen.

In a nutshell: She is supportive of people close to her who are pedophiles.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The base justification is why Aimee left the Greens and Lib Dems (and Stonewall and the UK), which is on the wiki, and then Reddit censoring any mention of it, before backing down.

There is a lot more to the story, which can be found in seedier parts of the web that don't care about doxing people.
Click to expand...

I'm lost though. Is it cancel culture to try to get this woman, who by all available evidence seems awfully cozy with pedophilia, fired from the admin job, or would it have been cancel culture to not hire her in the first place for unrelated free speech off the job? Is it cancel culture for the mobs of reddit to keep bringing up the issue in an attempt to get her fired, or is it cancel culture for reddit to nuke all mentions of her name on the site?

It's almost as if "cancel culture", as a concept, is total bunk, but maybe that's just me.

I would agree Reddit has committed an unforced error and put themselves into a tough spot by hiring someone with such a checkered past.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm lost though. Is it cancel culture to try to get this woman, who by all available evidence seems awfully cozy with pedophilia, fired from the admin job, or would it have been cancel culture to not hire her in the first place for unrelated free speech off the job? Is it cancel culture for the mobs of reddit to keep bringing up the issue in an attempt to get her fired, or is it cancel culture for reddit to nuke all mentions of her name on the site?
Click to expand...

I mean, given that "cancelling" referred to literally removing mention of one serial rapist, and one prolific child sex abuser, this is one of few times where we're getting close to the actual usage...

(Unless you count, like, "Cancel Colbert", which nobody liked and received such massive blowback that even Colbert told people to lay off...)
 
mumblethrax said:
For any number of reasons. Interpersonal conflicts in the workplace are a thing.
Click to expand...

Right. They have interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.

So why focus on tweets she made when she was a teen? Clearly, there are current issues involved.
 
pgwenthold said:
Right. They have interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.

So why focus on tweets she made when she was a teen? Clearly, there are current issues involved.
Click to expand...

Because that lets it all seem petty. I also wonder about the whole "OMG this college is taking posts literally from months ago praising Hitler against someone in determining who can attend their school"
 
theprestige said:
As far as I know, the person in question is still moderating one or more subreddits they probably shouldn't be. I don't think the cancellation has been entirely successful yet.
Click to expand...

Sure, but mods aren't employees of reddit. I very much doubt the reddit mobs are going to insist that she be removed from a mod team, because many of them are of extremely questionable character themselves. i imagine a good bit a still bemoaning the removal of toxic waste dumps like r/jailbait, r/fatpeoplehate, or some of the other less pleasant subreddits.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Aimee's mod account (bpwpb) was deleted when they were hired, but it is the current mod (and the third in Aimee's poly relationship, so not the infamous husband) nekosune that is the true cancer.



https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderteens/comments/mcl85m/the_moderator_connected_to_aimee_has_been_removed/
Click to expand...

This is one of these things that demonstrate how some people become wrapped up in their very small world and forget that most of us don’t know the ins and outs.

Can you summarise what all this hullabaloo is about?
 
Is it an outrage that a publication that espouses an intersectionalist, progressive ideology might have hiring standards more strict than the general public?

I don't see anyone claiming that the editor with a history of racist tweets is completely unemployable, but perhaps she's not the right choice for an outwardly anti-racist publication like teen vogue.

A side point, the reporting in teen vogue slaps. What a strange world we live in when trenchant social analysis comes from beauty mags, but here we are.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is it an outrage that a publication that espouses an intersectionalist, progressive ideology might have hiring standards more strict than the general public?
Click to expand...
They don't have hiring standards more strict than the general public. She was hired (and I'm sure they combed her social media account), and then she was fired.

But these aren't "more strict" standards, they're crazy, unworkable standards. People simply shouldn't be fired for the things they said ten years ago, when they were teenagers. Teenagers don't even have the same ability to mitigate bad consequences that adults do. It's just insanely, irrationally punitive.
 
mumblethrax said:
They don't have hiring standards more strict than the general public. She was hired (and I'm sure they combed her social media account), and then she was fired.

But these aren't "more strict" standards, they're crazy, unworkable standards. People simply shouldn't be fired for the things they said ten years ago, when they were teenagers. Teenagers don't even have the same ability to mitigate bad consequences that adults do. It's just insanely, irrationally punitive.
Click to expand...

Conde Nast probably could have saved themselves some embarrassment had they involved the staff more in the hiring process. They tried to call the staff's bluff and lost bad. Sucks for them.
 
mumblethrax said:
They don't have hiring standards more strict than the general public. She was hired (and I'm sure they combed her social media account), and then she was fired.

But these aren't "more strict" standards, they're crazy, unworkable standards. People simply shouldn't be fired for the things they said ten years ago, when they were teenagers. Teenagers don't even have the same ability to mitigate bad consequences that adults do. It's just insanely, irrationally punitive.
Click to expand...

That's close to my initial reaction to this story.
I think to the extent that creating consequences makes us a better society, we do need to allow people to change and become better. And stupid things said as a teenager that are later apologized for and rejected as a current view should show the kind of positive growth we want to see.

But all of that said, I also have an awareness that the way things like this look from the outside is not always the full picture. Media accounts like to focus on the OMG drama aspect and what gets their readers riled up, and the real nuance may not be available to us.

I'm thinking of the other recent case where a student accepted to a presetigious university had their admission recinded when a classmate released a photo of her using the n word.

My initial reaction to the story of that incident was similar. But then I saw the initial video, it was a little harsher than the story made it sound. And I found in another article an account of the student who released it. He was a black student who found himself surrounded by a group that used that word, mocked him for objecting and an administration who wouldn't address it.

And colleges in their admission practice are SUPPOSED to judge you by what you did in high school.

Diving a little deeper, I found less that was objectionable in that case. So I have to wonder if there isn't more to this story as well. It's been my experience that in the large majority of "OMG it's PC culture gone crazy!" kind of stories, the initial headlines and articles often mischaracterize or are missing some key things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom