Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Let me ask more broadly. Is a lynch mob cancel culture?
Click to expand...

To me, yes. As are witch burnings, inquisitions, and McCarthyism.

Any extra-judicial actions that use fear and threat of harm to body or livelihood as a way to enforce subjective morality on others falls into the same braid category that is currently referred to as "cancel culture".

That's part of the danger with it: it relies on the beliefs of the actors with respect to what constitutes "evil". You may generally support these actions now, because the majority of those euphemistically burned at the stake fall into the very broad category of "racists" in your mind... but in the past the targets have been black people who want equal rights, female people who want equal rights, Jewish or Muslim people who want equal rights, and communists who want equal rights.

And there is no guarantee that in the future such behavior will always be used against those that you dislike. There's a pretty decent likelihood that it could just as easily be turned against you as anyone else.

Which is exactly why such behavior and tactics should not be encouraged, condoned, or excused.
 
Emily's Cat said:
To me, yes. As are witch burnings, inquisitions, and McCarthyism.

Any extra-judicial actions that use fear and threat of harm to body or livelihood as a way to enforce subjective morality on others falls into the same braid category that is currently referred to as "cancel culture".

That's part of the danger with it: it relies on the beliefs of the actors with respect to what constitutes "evil". You may generally support these actions now, because the majority of those euphemistically burned at the stake fall into the very broad category of "racists" in your mind... but in the past the targets have been black people who want equal rights, female people who want equal rights, Jewish or Muslim people who want equal rights, and communists who want equal rights.

And there is no guarantee that in the future such behavior will always be used against those that you dislike. There's a pretty decent likelihood that it could just as easily be turned against you as anyone else.

Which is exactly why such behavior and tactics should not be encouraged, condoned, or excused.
Click to expand...

Given the extreme range that this term seems to cover, does it really have much value as a descriptor?

Describing getting someone's book pulled because of sexist comments and a lynch mob stringing someone up from a lamp post with the same term strikes me as unbelievably absurd.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's the chilling effect.
Click to expand...

But there is no threat of legal action.


Think back to McCarthyism. It only took a handful of people being subjected to 'legal' action - being labeled commies, losing their jobs, being placed on watch lists, etc. Once those first round of people were 'made an example of', the 'example' hit home with everyone else. People were afraid to be even potentially viewed as having any beliefs that were within spitting distance of communism. It didn't matter if they were actual communists or not - if they said anything that even seemed like it could be interpreted as not being 100% opposed to communism, it could result in ostracism and social sanctions, including loss of livelihood.

The same thing is happening now, using predominantly social media as a venue for enforcement. People are afraid to even accidentally say something that can potentially be interpreted as falling into either racial or [the taboo topic]. People who are not racists, who have not actually done any racist things, have been ostracized, lost jobs, and been subjected to vicious harassment and threats... Thus, people are on edge for fear that it may happen to them. Enough so that harmless lines within a book get removed - not because there's anything wrong with those lines, but because the risk of someone deciding that this comment deserves punishment's is just too high.
Click to expand...

First of all, I think you're making some assumptions here without evidence, mainly that the author changed her book because she felt threatened and not because she felt the respectfully communicated criticism was valid.

I think there's better examples, such as the Big Lie cancel culture movement where there is actual threat of legal action, that closely compare to McCarthyism. But even then the differences are quite stark.

However, a few harmless lines in a book were removed due to a few harmless lines in a tweet. I'm sympathetic to your position on this, that it's not really fair to be subjected to death threats and harassment and I don't condone that type of behavior. But that didn't happen here. Unless you can point out where this author was threatened or coerced, I think people have as much right to express themselves on twitter as an author does in a novel.

Interestingly, the only people who seem to think that the term is so broad as to render the entire concept meaningless... happen to be the same people who consistently support and applaud such behavior.
Click to expand...

This is an unfair comment in a few ways, but I'll just point out that in the comment above you're calling out respectfully written, harassment free comments and putting it under the cancel culture umbrella. That's you broadening the term.
 
dirtywick said:
This is an unfair comment in a few ways, but I'll just point out that in the comment above you're calling out respectfully written, harassment free comments and putting it under the cancel culture umbrella.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing anything in the original definition which rules out a collection of respectfully written, harassment free comments politely asking for an individual to be sacked or otherwise sanctioned for something they did which happened to go viral.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm not seeing anything in the original definition which rules out a collection of respectfully written, harassment free comments politely asking for an individual to be sacked or otherwise sanctioned for something they did which happened to go viral.
Click to expand...

Did they ask that? From what I’ve seen it was limited to criticism of a passage.

-edit-

Also want to note EmilyCat’s criticism of cancel culture was limited to those elements. If I have misremembered then I apologize
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
But there is no threat of legal action.
Click to expand...
The entire second paragraph in the quote dealt with the effect outside of legal contexts:
Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example, the news headline "Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some home sales,"[3] and the abstract title of a two‐part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships: "The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships."
Click to expand...



dirtywick said:
First of all, I think you're making some assumptions here without evidence, mainly that the author changed her book because she felt threatened and not because she felt the respectfully communicated criticism was valid.

I think there's better examples, such as the Big Lie cancel culture movement where there is actual threat of legal action, that closely compare to McCarthyism. But even then the differences are quite stark.

However, a few harmless lines in a book were removed due to a few harmless lines in a tweet. I'm sympathetic to your position on this, that it's not really fair to be subjected to death threats and harassment and I don't condone that type of behavior. But that didn't happen here. Unless you can point out where this author was threatened or coerced, I think people have as much right to express themselves on twitter as an author does in a novel.
Click to expand...
Ehh... if this had happened completely in isolation of recent behavioral phenomenon, I'd completely agree with you that it's of no consequence. And of course, people have a right to express themselves on twitter as in a novel.

Given the propensity for twitter comments to escalate rapidly and vehemently, however, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the authors in these cases removed those passages pre-emptively - in other words, the chilling effect of prior twitter brigades has born fruit.

It could certainly be that it's not the case. But given the inoffensive nature of the passages that were called out, I'm inclined to think it is.


dirtywick said:
This is an unfair comment in a few ways, but I'll just point out that in the comment above you're calling out respectfully written, harassment free comments and putting it under the cancel culture umbrella. That's you broadening the term.
Click to expand...
I'm putting it under the chilling effect of cancel culture umbrella. Much as I might have put a female in the age of witch burning apologizing for having voiced an independent opinion when politely questioned about it by the local preacher. Sure, perhaps in that particular case, the preacher wasn't confrontational or pushy or cruel - he doesn't have to be. The female knows damn well that if they step out of line, all it takes is one person to label them a witch and it's off to the woodpile they go.
 
dirtywick said:
Also want to note EmilyCat’s criticism of cancel culture was limited to those elements. If I have misremembered then I apologize
Click to expand...

:D I believe you meant "wasn't" rather than "was". And no, my description isn't limited to social media firing requests. My view is broader, but like porn, I think it's also easier to recognize.

For reference...
Emily's Cat said:
Any extra-judicial actions that use fear and threat of harm to body or livelihood as a way to enforce subjective morality on others falls into the same braid category that is currently referred to as "cancel culture".
Click to expand...

It has gone by various names over the ages, but the phenomenon is not novel. It is, however, almost always harmful and unjust in retrospect.
 
abaddon said:
I shall be certain to cut off my son and have all of his peers ostracise him. I have an appointment with my lawyer to excise him from my last will and testament.

It is the godly thing to do.

Many thanks for opening my eyes.
Click to expand...

I am now very confused. I don't understand your post at all. It seems a complete non sequitur, so I assume I've missed some subtle point?
 
Emily's Cat said:
:D I believe you meant "wasn't" rather than "was". And no, my description isn't limited to social media firing requests. My view is broader, but like porn, I think it's also easier to recognize.

For reference...


It has gone by various names over the ages, but the phenomenon is not novel. It is, however, almost always harmful and unjust in retrospect.
Click to expand...

I meant I thought you were concerned about the death threats and harassment aspects. It’s something you had mentioned multiple times in this thread.

This particular incident is confusing to me though. There was no threat of harm, call to action, or any demand made at all. It reads to me like a fan who didn’t like a passage and said so, and the author responding. I think there’s room for debate on whether or not someone should speak their mind on an issue, but if even calm and reasonable commentary is too problematic I’m not sure where to go from there.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
I meant I thought you were concerned about the death threats and harassment aspects. It’s something you had mentioned multiple times in this thread.

This particular incident is confusing to me though. There was no threat of harm, call to action, or any demand made at all. It reads to me like a fan who didn’t like a passage and said so, and the author responding. I think there’s room for debate on whether or not someone should speak their mind on an issue, but if even calm and reasonable commentary is too problematic I’m not sure where to go from there.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if cancel culture is largely a moral panic that is ginned exactly to muddy the waters and tar the normal criticism that has always been part of public discourse as censorious tyranny.

There's nothing in EC's example that suggests undue influence. An author decided to make changes to their work to make it more acceptable to their audience. If they really wanted to make a stand on the issue they could have, but they not unreasonably decided making money and not alienating their target audience was the better approach.

"Pulp young-adult fiction writer makes minor changes to cater to audience" is a non-story. I'm sure reactionaries would prefer if more authors told their liberal audiences to go **** themselves and refuse to budge an inch when receiving petty criticisms, but most of these people just want to be popular and successful writers, not loud-mouthed contrarians.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think that these freakouts over cancel culture from the right are a bit insincere:


In his continued push against the “indoctrination” of students, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday signed legislation that will require public universities and colleges to survey students, faculty and staff about their beliefs and viewpoints to support “intellectual diversity.”

The survey will discern “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented” in public universities and colleges, and seeks to find whether students, faculty and staff “feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom,” according to the bill.
Click to expand...

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/06/22/state-university-faculty-students-to-be-surveyed-on-beliefs/?itm_source=parsely-api
 
Let's just wait for the Harper's letter signatories to cry about this too. Surely they'll be along any moment now to smack down this censorious behavior.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm starting to think that these freakouts over cancel culture from the right are a bit insincere:
Click to expand...

And this has what to do with cancel culture ? Why absolutely nothing of course. :thumbsup:

So why are these universities supposed to be so alarmed about "viewpoint diversity" ? Are the snowflakes going to melt and overwhelm the safe spaces and trauma counselled if they run across ideas that make them uncomfortable ?

Hopefully the libraries have been cleansed of J.K Rowling and Jordan Peterson books but there's always the possibility that a student may bring one of these works from off campus and lets hope these surveys help guide the university administration on how to act should such a horrific act occur.

And just wait until those religious home schooled kids find out that Adam can actually marry Steve.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm starting to think that these freakouts over cancel culture from the right are a bit insincere:




https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/06/22/state-university-faculty-students-to-be-surveyed-on-beliefs/?itm_source=parsely-api
Click to expand...


As a member of the faculty of the higher education places, I would LOVE to get this survey.

Come on, folks. Try me.

You'd find out I was a member of the kkk and the Illinois Nazi Party and the Pink Panthers, and that my religion was Druid, reformed.

You want to make a mockery of the system, ill cooperate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom