• 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.
Emily's Cat said:
I don't know that the difference is material to the target.

On the one hand, yes, there are certainly malicious people who are manipulating information for their personal gain. Those people cause harm to their targets, because they care more about their benefit than they do about the effect on other people.

On the other hand, yes, there are certainely people who are genuinely offended (whether for themselves or on behalf of some archetype). Those people cause harm to their targets because they care more about voicing their opinions and being on the "right side" than they do about the effect on other people.

On the gripping hand... I rarely see any similar sort of grace being extended to the targets of such behavior. If there is a distinction being drawn between pile-on-ers who are genuinely offended and pile-on-ers who are doing it for their own gain... why is there not also a distinction to be drawn between people who express an opinion that intentionally hurts someone's feelings and someone who expresses an opinion that unintentionally hurts someone's feelings?

Let's add in a left foot here, just to round things out: Why is it acceptable that the targets, whether their expressions were intentionally hurtful or not, experience real harm - loss of livelihood, mental and emotional trauma from harassment, doxxing, threats, etc... But it is considered beyond the pale that some people might have their feelings rubbed wrong?
Click to expand...

I think there is frequently a distinction drawn from unintentional and intentional offense. It seems to be a pretty common defense in fact.

I also don’t know where you get the impression that it’s beyond the pale that people get their feelings rubbed wrong. I’m not even sure I understand what that’s in reference to. Something I said?
 
Another one bites the dust

Apple employees circulate petition demanding investigation into ‘misogynistic’ new hire
‘We demand an investigation into how his published views on women and people of color were missed or ignored’
Click to expand...

New hire at Apple was fired after a petition circulated among the current staff in opposition to misogynistic statements.

The world's gone mad, you can't even write an openly sexist book anymore without the SJWs coming for your scalp /s


An excerpt from the book "Chaos Monkeys"

Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of ****. They have their self- regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22432909/apple-petition-hiring-antonio-garcia-martinez-chaos-monkeys-facebook
 
Last edited:
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/the-elect-neoracists-posing-as-antiracists
I women was fired for writing:
I am writing to express my concern and condemnation of the recent (and past) acts of violence against people of color. Recent events recall a tragic history of racism and bias that continue to thrive in this country. I despair for our future as a nation if we do not stand up against violence against anyone. BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE’S LIFE MATTERS. No one should have to live in fear that they will be targeted for how they look or what they believe.”
Click to expand...
As McWhorter says:
A certain crowd decided to read Neal-Boylan as chiming in with those who resist the slogan Black Lives Matter by answering that All Lives Matter, as if BLM is somehow claiming that Black Lives Matter more. However, one could only read Neal-Boylan as meaning this via not reading well. She started out by acknowledging “a tragic history of racism and bias,” and no, she didn’t mean that it only existed in the past and that black people need to get over it, because she also wrote that the racism and bias “continue to thrive in this country.”
Click to expand...
What do you call that?
I might add the element of taking the worst possible interpretation of statements and events to my definition of cancel culture.

The JK Rowling kefluffle had that. She says that Trans-women don't have the same lived experience as biological women. The elect ignore the context and focus on "transwomen are not women".

The Sacco case had that in spades. A joke obviously at the expense of privileged white folks is taken as anti-black.

The Carano thing had it to. An obviously not anti-semitic comment is taken as anti-semitic. A less obviously not jibe an cis "allies" of trans folks is taken as anti-trans.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/the-elect-neoracists-posing-as-antiracists
I women was fired for writing:

As McWhorter says:

What do you call that?
I might add the element of taking the worst possible interpretation of statements and events to my definition of cancel culture.

The JK Rowling kefluffle had that. She says that Trans-women don't have the same lived experience as biological women. The elect ignore the context and focus on "transwomen are not women".

The Sacco case had that in spades. A joke obviously at the expense of privileged white folks is taken as anti-black.

The Carano thing had it to. An obviously not anti-semitic comment is taken as anti-semitic. A less obviously not jibe an cis "allies" of trans folks is taken as anti-trans.
Click to expand...

Who?
 
ahhell said:
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/the-elect-neoracists-posing-as-antiracists
I women was fired for writing:

As McWhorter says:

What do you call that?
I might add the element of taking the worst possible interpretation of statements and events to my definition of cancel culture.

The JK Rowling kefluffle had that. She says that Trans-women don't have the same lived experience as biological women. The elect ignore the context and focus on "transwomen are not women".

The Sacco case had that in spades. A joke obviously at the expense of privileged white folks is taken as anti-black.

The Carano thing had it to. An obviously not anti-semitic comment is taken as anti-semitic. A less obviously not jibe an cis "allies" of trans folks is taken as anti-trans.
Click to expand...
"I am not upset by these things, therefor anyone who claims to be is just trying to bilk others for pity concessions."
 
The Elect is John McWhorter's term, mentioned earlier I think. In his words, the mean woke. For him woke is acknowledging that racism is still a thing that still has negative consequences while the elect are the ones that think you basically have to agree with them about those consequences and the fixes and will call you names as a result.
 
ahhell said:
The Elect is John McWhorter's term, mentioned earlier I think. In his words, the mean woke. For him woke is acknowledging that racism is still a thing that still has negative consequences while the elect are the ones that think you basically have to agree with them about those consequences and the fixes and will call you names as a result.
Click to expand...

What a misleading term. They are not chosen, thus not elected. Parroting misleading terms does not improve your writing, even if you cite the source.
 
Dr. Keith said:
What a misleading term. They are not chosen, thus not elected. Parroting misleading terms does not improve your writing, even if you cite the source.
Click to expand...
One of his points is the way the Elect take simplistic view of language.

To elect means to choose, the have been chosen by themselves. Its a metaphor.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-elect

Less misleading than anti-racism.

It clearly doesn't matter what I call them. Folks will say they don't exist regardless or that they're just asking for politeness(leaving out that they do so mostly by yelling at the opposition or saying that those yellers are no true scotsmen). Woke doesn't work on account of that, the elect doesn't, some use woke scolds, that's not bad but I'm sure someone will find fault.
 
Last edited:
Faryha Salim is being canceled for encouraging students to debate both sides of cancel culture? Amazeballs and not in a good way.
 
Graham2001 said:
Just found an interesting case on TheFire.Org, in this case the person cancelled was a member of the Left...


https://www.thefire.org/fire-demands-answers-from-cypress-college-over-cancelled-professor/
Click to expand...

Let's all wait for the usual "cancel culture" pundits to come to the professor's defense. Surely it's not just a bad-faith tactic deployed by reactionaries cynically to shield their sacred cows from consequences.

I'm really failing to see how an institution taking the coward's path in response to a disruptive campaign of Fox News fascists sending violent threats fits the given definitions offered here.

Colleges trying to lay low and wait for the reactionary freak-out to subside is nothing new. Does the ever broadening to the point of meaningless definition of cancel culture now include the heckler's veto?

ETA:

Is this really the same phenomena? Right wing freaks engaging in a campaign of deliberate disruption of campus activities, largely by violent threats, is the same as some actor getting fired for embarrassing Disney and alienating a large portion of the intended audience of a popular TV show?

The example of Gamergate was given earlier. Seems to me that these incidents of reactionaries deliberately disrupting a community or institution is pretty different than other examples of "cancel culture", even when this term is broadly defined. The reactionaries seem to understand that their complaints will not actually be effective in swaying opinions, so they resort to the heckler's veto. Gamergate feminists weren't cancelled as their conduct wasn't really anything objectionable to the broader community or lead to ostracism. A campaign of harassment and threats of violence was instead employed because the reactionaries rightly understood that they did not have the power to "cancel" them for their alleged offenses. Likewise here, the professor wasn't cancelled because the college was embarrassed by her positions, they pulled her because they were afraid that continued reactionary attention would cause serious disruption, even violence.

The problem of the reactionary outrage cycle and the wielding of decentralized, violent harassment is very real. Institutions need to think in advance how they might respond to being featured on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour or other reactionary outlets and be prepared for the torrent of hostility that will surely follow. Concerns about safety are valid, but decisions must be made in concert with involved parties and the institution should be committed to back their people if they are willing (as they often are) to not be cowed by threats of reactionary violence.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Such as FIRE?

https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1393337326454063105
Click to expand...

FIRE is an single issue advocacy organization, not a reactionary pundit pissing their diaper every time some comedian loses a gig. They are effective because they keep their focus on something quite specific and not some nebulous, every growing "cancel culture".

Seems that it would be better to speak in specifics and not lump everything under the sun as "cancel culture".
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah but once you do that the entire concept falls apart and can't be used as a scare word.
Click to expand...

The only way out is through.

Army of God cancel cultured abortion doctors by following them around and gunning them down in church. Timothy McVeigh cancel cultured the feds by bombing the federal building. The KKK cancel cultured black voting rights. The Red Army cancel cultured the Third Reich at Stalingrad.

If you think about it, all of history is simply a series of cancellations.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Why should anyone care about what reactionary pundits have to say when there are competent single issue advocacy groups fighting to ensure academic freedom and viewpoint diversity in higher ed?
Click to expand...

The silence on issues that involve honest-to-god censorious activity speaks volumes. These "cancel culture" pundits only squawk when it's their sacred cows being criticized and are silent when their enemies are on the defensive. Perhaps one should examine their motives in light of such obvious selective outrage.

Perhaps the blatant hypocrisy should cause the public to pause when these same people are screaming from the rooftops about the great "Cancel Culture" emergency.
 
Last edited:
CNN journalist cancelled for supporting Hitler. When will the censorship end?

CNN has dropped freelance contributor Adeel Raja after it was revealed that he posted a series of anti-Semitic comments on social media and praised the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler on a number of occasions.

The Islamabad-based journalist on Sunday tweeted that "the world today needs a Hitler," and quickly removed the post when it sparked backlash.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-drops-freelancer-pro-hitler-anti-semitism-1591978

We really should be asking ourselves, does having exterminationist attitudes towards Jews really affect a freelance journalist's work? It's not really our place to say if such views don't impact his work product.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom