• 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.
autumn1971 said:
I certainly am.

“Oh no! A few people who I don’t know have completely not impacted my life! What to do!”

1) seek out every random criticism of something that didn’t affect you in order to become indignant

2) don’t look at twitter for a couple of days
Click to expand...

WE tried that with Melody Hensley. "Walk away from the Twitter" we said. "It's just a few bored randos" we told her. But oh no, she just had to look and well, you know what happened.
 
Stout said:
WE tried that with Melody Hensley. "Walk away from the Twitter" we said. "It's just a few bored randos" we told her. But oh no, she just had to look and well, you know what happened.
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t. It’s a long thread, but I’ll google it and form a response that may well be an admission that I’ve missed some things.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think you will find that putting the solution in the hands of the mob is not a real solution. You can accept the mob exists and study its dynamics (which you seem to be doing) or you can act like the mob doesn't exist (which is more my position). The mob does not care about you or me any more than the ocean cares about the sand on the beach.
Click to expand...

The mob comes into existence when required. Personally, I have half a dozen Twitter accounts that sit idle until the bat signal shines in the sky then it's simply a matter of picking the appropriate identity and raining righteous justice down upon the sinners in Internetland. ;)

It helps to think of cancel culture as a process. It's like climbing Everest. You might not make the summit but at least you showed up at base camp with all the gear and gave it that old college try. You'll still be able to point to a line of climbers ascending a ridge line and say "See, I was there, 147th in line, wearing the snazzy red parka".
 
Stout said:
WE tried that with Melody Hensley. "Walk away from the Twitter" we said. "It's just a few bored randos" we told her. But oh no, she just had to look and well, you know what happened.
Click to expand...

If she is a functional adult, then she needs to get away from social media platforms.
Really. Or use a better filter for what she sees on said platforms.
It. Is. Not. Difficult.

Begging people to punch you and then complaining of the bruise is unseemly.
 
d4m10n said:
And yet her attempt at assassination didn't work.

It would appear at least one of us is.
Click to expand...

I would think that the one who has vacillated between cancel culture being an attack that hurts people, and also that it includes any attempt to register disapproval may have the argument a little muddled.

I have been the object of customer complaints, was I cancelled? If it had worked and I had been fired would I have been cancelled? What if the customer complaint was entirely justified?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think you will find that putting the solution in the hands of the mob is not a real solution. You can accept the mob exists and study its dynamics (which you seem to be doing) or you can act like the mob doesn't exist (which is more my position). The mob does not care about you or me any more than the ocean cares about the sand on the beach.
Click to expand...

Social norms affect this sort of behavior. If it's deemed acceptable for hordes of strangers to pile on with calls for punishment and vilification, then it will continue to happen. If people ignore it (as you seem inclined to do), then it continues. It's only by pushing back against this sort of behavior that the tendency for mobs to be formed in the first place can be curbed.

When a kid is in the midst of a complete temper meltdown, yes, there's not anything you can do right then. But if you fail to address the meltdown afterwards, if you don't teach the kid that it is not acceptable to have a meltdown, it will continue to happen, and the child essentially learns that meltdowns are the way to do things.

You're kind of arguing that we just ignore the meltdown and pretend it doesn't exist. I'm arguing that we should probably address the kid and teach them that it's not acceptable to have a meltdown in the first place.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Social norms affect this sort of behavior. If it's deemed acceptable for hordes of strangers to pile on with calls for punishment and vilification, then it will continue to happen. If people ignore it (as you seem inclined to do), then it continues. It's only by pushing back against this sort of behavior that the tendency for mobs to be formed in the first place can be curbed.

When a kid is in the midst of a complete temper meltdown, yes, there's not anything you can do right then. But if you fail to address the meltdown afterwards, if you don't teach the kid that it is not acceptable to have a meltdown, it will continue to happen, and the child essentially learns that meltdowns are the way to do things.

You're kind of arguing that we just ignore the meltdown and pretend it doesn't exist. I'm arguing that we should probably address the kid and teach them that it's not acceptable to have a meltdown in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how?

Take the more extreme example, Gamergate. Behavior there went well beyond "cancellation" and into straight up criminal harassment. Even then, not much could really be done other than for people to wait out the misogynistic temper tantrum. As far as I see reported, nobody involved in all the death threats and digital stalking ever was named nor faced any meaningful consequences.

How do you chastise decentralized, mostly anonymous mobs?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Social norms affect this sort of behavior. If it's deemed acceptable for hordes of strangers to pile on with calls for punishment and vilification, then it will continue to happen. If people ignore it (as you seem inclined to do), then it continues. It's only by pushing back against this sort of behavior that the tendency for mobs to be formed in the first place can be curbed.

When a kid is in the midst of a complete temper meltdown, yes, there's not anything you can do right then. But if you fail to address the meltdown afterwards, if you don't teach the kid that it is not acceptable to have a meltdown, it will continue to happen, and the child essentially learns that meltdowns are the way to do things.

You're kind of arguing that we just ignore the meltdown and pretend it doesn't exist. I'm arguing that we should probably address the kid and teach them that it's not acceptable to have a meltdown in the first place.
Click to expand...

Here is what bugs me a bit about this whole conversation: It provides cover for actual bad actors by focusing on the occasional overreactions.

Societal shaming is a blunt tool. But, it is a tool that can sometimes be used effectively. In its blunt nature there is collateral damage. Typically, and I think every example that has been mentioned in this thread, the collateral damage is caught and corrected. The bad joke leads to a suspension, but int eh end the joker still has a job. The errant tweet leads to a boycott of a store, but int he end the store is supported by those who understand the situations and the store survives. The quarterback tries to be respectful and is blackballed, but the league ends up paying a settlement and the player pivots to another career. Yeah, the correction is not always enough, the correction is not always fair, it is not always a true correction, but it is another element of what is happening via social media. Social media is how these injustices are brought to light, it how crowdfunding kicks in to help those who have been targeted unfairly.

So, how are we to defang the mob of attackers without also defunding the mob of supporters?

By focusing solely on those fringe cases and providing a handy label that is so broad it can be applied to a brand who chooses to trim their back catalog or update their branding, you also get cover for actual bad actors. If Cosby had been better prepared to scream "CANCEL CULTURE" from the rafters on the air with Tucker he may have even cut off the #MeToo brigade that came after him. Gaetz still looks like he may survive by claiming this is all just Cancel Culture and who knows who will be next.

It is right in line with "Oh, is this font racist?" JAQing off. They may as well be early 2000 Trump out there complaining that the "cure is worse than the disease." "Stop telling me that everything is racist just because everything has been used by racists!!" simply misses the bigger picture that it is really hard to avoid racism in our country without actively being anti-racist. And being anti-racist is spilling over into social media. With that there will be blunt effects, and there will be corrections, but is there any way to combat systemic problems with blunt tools and not have that happen? I don't think so, but I'm open to suggestions.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yeah, but how?

Take the more extreme example, Gamergate. Behavior there went well beyond "cancellation" and into straight up criminal harassment. Even then, not much could really be done other than for people to wait out the misogynistic temper tantrum. As far as I see reported, nobody involved in all the death threats and digital stalking every was named nor faced any meaningful consequences.

How do you chastise decentralized, mostly anonymous mobs?
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
Here is what bugs me a bit about this whole conversation: It provides cover for actual bad actors by focusing on the occasional overreactions.

Societal shaming is a blunt tool. But, it is a tool that can sometimes be used effectively. In its blunt nature there is collateral damage. Typically, and I think every example that has been mentioned in this thread, the collateral damage is caught and corrected. The bad joke leads to a suspension, but int eh end the joker still has a job. The errant tweet leads to a boycott of a store, but int he end the store is supported by those who understand the situations and the store survives. The quarterback tries to be respectful and is blackballed, but the league ends up paying a settlement and the player pivots to another career. Yeah, the correction is not always enough, the correction is not always fair, it is not always a true correction, but it is another element of what is happening via social media. Social media is how these injustices are brought to light, it how crowdfunding kicks in to help those who have been targeted unfairly.

So, how are we to defang the mob of attackers without also defunding the mob of supporters?

By focusing solely on those fringe cases and providing a handy label that is so broad it can be applied to a brand who chooses to trim their back catalog or update their branding, you also get cover for actual bad actors. If Cosby had been better prepared to scream "CANCEL CULTURE" from the rafters on the air with Tucker he may have even cut off the #MeToo brigade that came after him. Gaetz still looks like he may survive by claiming this is all just Cancel Culture and who knows who will be next.

It is right in line with "Oh, is this font racist?" JAQing off. They may as well be early 2000 Trump out there complaining that the "cure is worse than the disease." "Stop telling me that everything is racist just because everything has been used by racists!!" simply misses the bigger picture that it is really hard to avoid racism in our country without actively being anti-racist. And being anti-racist is spilling over into social media. With that there will be blunt effects, and there will be corrections, but is there any way to combat systemic problems with blunt tools and not have that happen? I don't think so, but I'm open to suggestions.
Click to expand...

Do you think ISF "provides cover" for bad actors by requiring a modicum of civility in interactions? We have a few actual for-realsies racists here. Are they gaining support or being left unchecked?

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's quite a bit of discussion about the harms of the views presented, as well as calling out the racist views. And somehow... amazingly... we all manage to do that, and to discuss the impacts of racism... without doxxing, harassing, or threatening our fellow posters, and without starting campaigns to get them fired. It's amazing!

I don't have a sure-fire recipe for what will definitely work, but I have some ideas to start with.

I do, however, have a pretty good idea of what is guaranteed to NOT work: joining in the pile-ons, lauding the mob behavior as "deserved" or acceptable, and arguing that it's no big deal.

What could be done?
  • Add comments to the mob rush to point out that it's an overreaction and not helpful
  • Speak out AGAINST mob cancellations and harassment
  • Take a stand against BOTH the behavior being called out AND the mob response
 
autumn1971 said:
I would think that the one who has vacillated between cancel culture being an attack that hurts people, and also that it includes any attempt to register disapproval may have the argument a little muddled.
Click to expand...
If only there were some way to register disapproval directly to Kroger/Andy without trying to summon an unaccountable online mob (with little to no access to facts on the ground) to mete out consequences based on viral outrage.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you think ISF "provides cover" for bad actors by requiring a modicum of civility in interactions? We have a few actual for-realsies racists here. Are they gaining support or being left unchecked?

I don't think so. In fact, I think there's quite a bit of discussion about the harms of the views presented, as well as calling out the racist views. And somehow... amazingly... we all manage to do that, and to discuss the impacts of racism... without doxxing, harassing, or threatening our fellow posters, and without starting campaigns to get them fired. It's amazing!
Click to expand...

I agree that it is amazing and it is also tiny. Our volunteer mods are amazing and on the whole are the real soul of this site. But, my understanding is that the cost to provide our sort of high quality moderation across a site like twitter would be astronomical.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is as simple as cutting and pasting our MA.

I don't have a sure-fire recipe for what will definitely work, but I have some ideas to start with.

I do, however, have a pretty good idea of what is guaranteed to NOT work: joining in the pile-ons, lauding the mob behavior as "deserved" or acceptable, and arguing that it's no big deal.

What could be done?
  • Add comments to the mob rush to point out that it's an overreaction and not helpful
  • Speak out AGAINST mob cancellations and harassment
  • Take a stand against BOTH the behavior being called out AND the mob response
Click to expand...

OK.

But, I'm having a hard time not reading the articles that quote all the twitter burns that Cruz gets when he exposes that he is name searching on twitter like desperate tween.

Is that stuff just Cancel Culture, too?
 
You know, even here in contentious topics, and particularly in the CT subforum, an unpopular opinion can lead to a dog pile of skeptics firing off counter points and digging through post history to show hypocrisy. It's not that much different to me in anything but scale. I don't even think the process for dealing with harassment or other breaches of the MA is that different either. This is, again, just a matter of scale.

Regardless, I think the vast majority of cancel culture mob participants are already what's suggested. Doxxing, harassment, and calls to employers are a very small group of bad actors in a platform that hosts the opinions of tens of millions of users. Everyone else just picks a side or attempts to act as a moderating voice and put their opinions out there, and the chips fall as they may.
 
dirtywick said:
You know, even here in contentious topics, and particularly in the CT subforum, an unpopular opinion can lead to a dog pile of skeptics firing off counter points and digging through post history to show hypocrisy. It's not that much different to me in anything but scale. I don't even think the process for dealing with harassment or other breaches of the MA is that different either. This is, again, just a matter of scale.

Regardless, I think the vast majority of cancel culture mob participants are already what's suggested. Doxxing, harassment, and calls to employers are a very small group of bad actors in a platform that hosts the opinions of tens of millions of users. Everyone else just picks a side or attempts to act as a moderating voice and put their opinions out there, and the chips fall as they may.
Click to expand...

Bad actors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom