Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[d4m10n]

So you would admit that there's nothing novel about "cancel culture"?

See post #490

 

[Upchurch]

See post #490

Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.

 

[d4m10n]

I would argue that it is the same as all free speech. Free speech, itself, is neither ethical nor unethical.

You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Suppose someone wants to lecture on the virtues of homeopathy at your local speaker's corner. Such a speech is clearly unethical since it causes people to seek out remedies which don't work. At the same time, such speech is legally protected.

 

[d4m10n]

Which has less to do with capitalism or free speech as it does with the time scale. Which is to say, not much at all.

I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.

 

[Upchurch]

You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to be unconstrained by law?

Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

 

[Upchurch]

I never agreed that we should constrain our analysis to either capitalism or free speech.

But that is all that "cancel culture" is.

 

[Upchurch]

You honestly cannot think of any speech which is unethical but ought to remain unconstrained by law?

Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

I feel I should elaborate. I am saying that free speech is merely the protected right to speak. It is neither ethical nor unethical. What one chooses to speak about can be either ethical or unethical (or neutral, I suppose).

MLK Jr.'s use of speech: ethical.
Hitler's use of speech: unethical.

Speaking out against MLK's use of speech: unethical.
Speaking out against Hitler's use of speech: ethical.

Removing ethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: unethical or neutral
Removing unethical speech from one's platform because it hurt's one's profits*: ethical or neutral

"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical. Like most things, it depends on the context. Is it unethical to remove ethical speech from one's platform, if it means that the platform can no longer afford to operate and, thus, can't show any content at all?

I also feel like these are not so much a SI&CE issue as it is a R&P issue.


* the actual "canceling"

 

[smartcooky]

Well, that isn't what I said at all. You need to read the next sentence after the ones you quoted.

First you will have to teach d4m10n not to quote you while removing the words and sentences that give context to what you wrote (so that he can twist what you said into something other that what you meant).

Good luck with that!

 

[Matthew Best]

Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease

A new production of Into The Woods, set to be co-directed by Monty Python star Terry Gilliam, will no longer be staged at the Old Vic.

...ndustry publication The Stage has reported some staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the actor.

Some members of the Old Vic 12, a group of young writers, producers and directors who work on projects for the theatre, have referred to the cancellation of Gilliam's show on social media.

"This should have been scrapped over a year ago, but it's taken them this long to do something right for ONCE," tweeted Nassy Konan.

https://twitter.com/nasikonan/status/1453716675342127108

and there are some replies to that Tweet.

 

[d4m10n]

But that is all that "cancel culture" is.

The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader. [emoji14]

"Canceling" is not inherently ethical or unethical.

I've said this over and over upthread.

Like most things, it depends on the context.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Upchurch]

The proof of this assertion is left as an argument for the reader. [emoji14]

I’m all ears. What else is it?

 

[angrysoba]

Agreed [emoji106]

Notice, for example, that the "Fire Kathleen Stock" movement explicitly called out student fees.

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211102/eb8d7a1e07682af666708b425b6c59ff.jpg[/qimg]​

I'd hope we can agree that it was unethical for them to do do.

I don’t think we can chalk this up to capitalism, per se. universities in the UK are public ones so all universities charge the same amount. And recently those fees have become ridiculously high.

 

[d4m10n]

I’m all ears. What else is it?

Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.

Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.

 

[Upchurch]

Let's step back just a minute, since I'm not sure if we're talking about the same phenomenon.

I defined "cancel culture" upthread as follows:

[C]ancel culture is the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.

Notice that there is no mention of capitalism or free speech, though it may reasonably be claimed that performance on social media is an exercise of free speech (at least in the parts of the world where speech is relatively free) and that canceling public figures doesn't really work in non-capitalist frameworks. I'm not terribly confident of either of those claims, and I'm at least somewhat skeptical of the latter one.

How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies? Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them? That is only a means to an end and that end is buying a product or a service, or providing a view that they can charge others for. People withdraw support by withholding their money. Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech. The same kind of speech that may be curated or dismissed by distributers, but not by the government. It's free speech through a different channel.

"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback. Just like always. The only difference is the media, which isn't that different, just faster.

Your definition only supports my point.

 

[d4m10n]

How does one withdraw support from public figures or companies?

By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.

Do you think companies care if you remove social media likes or stop following them?

I don't care to speculate on this.

People withdraw support by withholding their money.

Among other methods, yes.

Boycotts are about withholding money. It's all capitalism.

Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott^WP?

Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech.

Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

"Cancel culture" is a capitalist decision based the rise or fall of profits due to public opinion informed by free speech feedback.

Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Latest example that free speech is a hollow promise for True Christians out there working hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna4335

 

[Checkmite]

This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.

 

[Darat]

This entire thread, and I'm still solidly convinced that "canceling" is just boycotting and only looks different because the picketing happens online.

And who can now "do" the cancelling - it used to be a privileged few who had the means, now all of us plebs can "do it" to those privileged folks.

 

[Upchurch]

By any number of ways. One could, for example, ask that the municipal and school libraries avoid platforming authors whom you find objectionable.

Which does what, exactly? What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever? (Hint: follow the money)

I don't care to speculate on this.

I’m not at all surprised, but in case I’m wrong, why not?

Do you happen to recall the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott^WP?

Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here. Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech? Was the USSR the one “cancelled” in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled? Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?

How is this similar to what we’re talking, other than in name?

Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media.

That’s exactly what I said. Each new technology expanded the reach of people’s speech. Each time, it became faster, cheaper, and more accessible.

Some of the time, this is true. On other occasions the decision is made by political party leaders who are primarily concerned with (re)electability, university bureaucrats mostly worried about public relations, or even non-profit leaders expressly concerned with keeping people safe.

This is, perhaps, the best counter argument you could make. You probably should have led with this.

I don’t know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right? As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views. Further, and I’m sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.


You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isn’t just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism. There may be other factors to flavor that interaction, but nothing that fundamentally changes the core nature of it.

The internet is a faster, broader communication method, but it doesn’t fundamentally change how communication works. We still have to articulate our ideas and style our delivery in order to persuade others.

 

[d4m10n]

What is the risk of allowing the objectionable author to perform/speak/whatever?

I wasn't talking about speaking, but about (de)shelving books. (Sorry that wasn't clear.)

Playing a little fast and loose with definitions, here.

You said "Boycotts are about withholding money," I provided a fairly clear counterexample.

Are you saying competing in games is a form of speech?

I would say that ostentatiously refusing to compete is a form of speech, intended to convey a specific message.

Was the USSR the one “cancelled” in this scenario, even though they would have cancelled themselves, or was some other country being cancelled?

I wasn't making a point about cancellation, but about the scope of what people call boycotts.

Are you saying individuals are equivalent to nations in the kind of power they wield, especially when it comes to the ability to enact and enforce removing someone from a platform?

No.

How is this similar to what we’re talking, other than in name?

It is similar in that it is also a boycott.

I don’t know anything about this situation, but it sounds as if this person was a credible physical threat to people, right?

Allegedly, but (IMO) probably not.

As such, their deplatforming of them is based not on their speech or views.

I suppose that hinges in part on whether spoken sexual advances count as speech, but I think it's fair to say that he never spoke about his dating predilections from the podium.

Further, and I’m sure the organizers have genuine concern for the well-being of their attendees, there is still a financial concern over possible lawsuits if they were to let this person attend and someone were to get hurt.

I don't believe Carrier physically hurt anyone. If he had done so, that would be a solid reason to have him cancelled.

You have yet to come up with an argument about how cancel culture isn’t just a new phrase for labeling one aspect of the interplay between free speech and capitalism.

You have yet to come up with an argument that cancellation via public shaming is an unknown phenomenon in pre- or post-capitalist societies. Which ones should we be looking at?