Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Chris_Halkides]

some differences vs. cancel culture

People are being driven out of their livelihoods by mobs of angry people. Seems to check a lot of boxes.

What's the missing ingredient?

Certain speech is a true threat* and is therefore a criminal matter for police and prosecutors. Some of what I read at your link went way beyond depriving people of their livelihood. IIRC there were threats to kill someone or to kill their children. The accusations were also different: treason at your link vs. noncriminal behavior in a cancel culture incident.
*I did poorly on the Reuters quiz about whether something was a true threat or was protected speech--fortunately, law is not my profession.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

right topic but wrong thread

It's not the other side doing it to his side.

That's literally it. That's all it is.

He'll hem and and how and gruff and huff and get indignant and complaint and bluster a lot about it not being his side, but that's all it is.

If I were a mod, I would have split out posts that covered threats of murder and created a new thread or threads. Not because it is unimportant, but rather because it is off-topic in this thread, in my judgment.

 

[johnny karate]

Certain speech is a true threat* and is therefore a criminal matter for police and prosecutors. Some of what I read at your link went way beyond depriving people of their livelihood. IIRC there were threats to kill someone or to kill their children. The accusations were also different: treason at your link vs. noncriminal behavior in a cancel culture incident.
*I did poorly on the Reuters quiz about whether something was a true threat or was protected speech--fortunately, law is not my profession.

I'm confused. Are you saying that if death threats are involved, that it excludes it from being "cancel culture"? Because "cancel culture" critics constantly bring up death threats as being part of the problem. Emily's Cat did it just a few posts ago. It almost seems like there's a concerted effort to specifically link "cancel culture" with death threats.

Also, I'm not sure why motivation matters. If students campaign to get a professor fired because they erroneously think that he committed treason or some other crime, then that's not "cancel culture"?

 

[johnny karate]

If I were a mod, I would have split out posts that covered threats of murder and created a new thread or threads. Not because it is unimportant, but rather because it is off-topic in this thread, in my judgment.

A lot of those posts are by people specifically connecting death threats to "cancel culture".

It's a real news flash for me that all of a sudden "cancel culture" is exclusionary of death threats.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cancel culture

I will not be able to give this topic the time that it deserves for a while. However one problem that I perceive in this thread is in the lack of an agreed upon definition of cancel culture. I found this study from the Pew Research Center to be helpful.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Being dead is about as canceled as you can get.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I will not be able to give this topic the time that it deserves for a while. However one problem that I perceive in this thread is in the lack of an agreed upon definition of cancel culture.

.
..
...
.... because it's a made up B.S. term that doesn't have a real meaning. We've covered this. Multiple times.

It just means "The 'wrong' people are using socialital pressure instead of having it used against them and that makes me irrationally angry."

 

[Darat]

.
..
...
.... because it's a made up B.S. term that doesn't have a real meaning. We've covered this. Multiple times.

It just means "The 'wrong' people are using socialital pressure instead of having it used against them and that makes me irrationally angry."

I couldn't agree with you more. I started in these threads wondering what it was, then the descriptions given were behaviour we have seen for all recorded human history. The only difference is indeed that the "wrong" people can now participate in this behaviour and even lead it.

 

[tyr_13]

EDIT: In short; is there a reason to limit the set to your examples that isn't cherry picking?

I will not be able to give this topic the time that it deserves for a while. However one problem that I perceive in this thread is in the lack of an agreed upon definition of cancel culture. I found this study from the Pew Research Center to be helpful.

That's a 'no' then.

 

[d4m10n]

The only difference is indeed that the "wrong" people can now participate in this behaviour and even lead it.

The rapidity by which online shaming snowballs strikes me as a more salient difference between traditional shaming and modern "cancel culture," one pointed out in this thread and exemplfied by the various examples from Jon Ronson's book.

 

[lionking]

The rapidity by which online shaming snowballs strikes me as a more salient difference between traditional shaming and modern "cancel culture," one pointed out in this thread and exemplfied by the various examples from Jon Ronson's book.

That book gives excellent examples of people being cancelled and losing their jobs over trivial incidents. It will be therefore dismissed by many in this thread.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That book gives excellent examples of people being cancelled and losing their jobs over trivial incidents. It will be therefore dismissed by many in this thread.

How good of a sample do you think it represents of all the people in that time frame who lost their jobs over trivial incidents? I mean, we don’t want to just look at a bunch of cherry picked instances to form an overall view of the state of affairs.

 

[lionking]

How good of a sample do you think it represents of all the people in that time frame who lost their jobs over trivial incidents? I mean, we don’t want to just look at a bunch of cherry picked instances to form an overall view of the state of affairs.

Why don’t you read the book? It didn’t set out to be a statistical analysis, but it did cover real events.

But what are you really saying? That real examples of people being cancelled are meaningless?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why don’t you read the book? It didn’t set out to be a statistical analysis, but it did cover real events.

But what are you really saying? That real examples of people being cancelled are meaningless?

I’m saying no one here is trying to make any coherent point so they aren’t doing any coherent analysis. Just “things are bad that I don’t like” and “people react without due consideration” as if either of those things have any meaning.

This entire thread is the whipped cream of debate: looks good but adds up to not much of substance.

(Do I get a dollar if theprestige asks if I wasn’t referring to the entire forum?)

 

[dirtywick]

I agree that social media has had a drastic effect on the speed and reach of perceptions and social consequences, for better and worse. I think if you have to throw out the death threats and threats of violence from the equation. Those are never appropriate, are illegal, and universally condemned. But more relevant is that they’re not typically driving force behind social consequences anyway, it’s the reach and volume of peoples rightful expression of speech.

If you allow that people have a right to express negative opinions of others, they must as individuals be given the latitude to determine when it’s appropriate to do so. At that point the opposition to cancel culture comes down to they shouldn’t have said that in this case which is a pretty flat argument given specifics at times, let alone a general argument against the idea.

 

[d4m10n]

If you allow that people have a right to express negative opinions of others, they must as individuals be given the latitude to determine when it’s appropriate to do so.

Of course, given the obvious exceptions for malicious libel and believable threats.

(ETA: Forgot to mention targeted harassment.)

At that point the opposition to cancel culture comes down to they shouldn’t have said that in this case which is a pretty flat argument given specifics at times, let alone a general argument against the idea.

If people are sometimes far too hasty to call for individuals to be sacked and businesses to be ruined, what's wrong with counseling self-restraint in the face of outrage gone viral? This seems like the best approach, especially since online shaming so often outpaces the methodical gathering of facts.

 

[lionking]

I’m saying no one here is trying to make any coherent point so they aren’t doing any coherent analysis. Just “things are bad that I don’t like” and “people react without due consideration” as if either of those things have any meaning.

This entire thread is the whipped cream of debate: looks good but adds up to not much of substance.

(Do I get a dollar if theprestige asks if I wasn’t referring to the entire forum?)

You’ve described the forum.

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, if we are talking about cancel culture being public shaming, and that shaming having an adverse affect on career and livelihood, then I think there are two questions that we need to resolve.

1.) Is anything beyond the pale when it comes to public statements? I assume most people would argue that some things are always going to be beyond the pale. In that case we are haggling over the price.

2.) Is it possible, or even desirable, to prevent people on Twitter and other social media platforms from expressing extreme displeasure at things that people might say in public settings. I think there have been some suggested laws that will make dog-piling illegal. I am not sure how that is enforcable, or if it would end up leading to worse consequences. [FIRE: "Professor of Philosophy is prosecuted for telling Joe58273957 that he ought to be ashamed."]

As I have said before, I think some of the changes that can be made are strengthening of unions, or if you feel especially impassioned, writing directly to the universities or companies involved and demanding that they do not fire or discipline the employees involved.

 

[dirtywick]

Of course, given the obvious exceptions for malicious libel and believable threats.

(ETA: Forgot to mention targeted harassment.)

If people are sometimes far too hasty to call for individuals to be sacked and businesses to be ruined, what's wrong with counseling self-restraint in the face of outrage gone viral? This seems like the best approach, especially since online shaming so often outpaces the methodical gathering of facts.

Nothing is wrong with counseling restraint as long as you understand that not everyone is obligated to heed your counsel. The discussion of whether or not restraint is warranted is part of the cancel culture process in my opinion.

 

[johnny karate]

It seems that right up until this moment in history, free speech was so sancrosanct that we needed to tolerate the most vile and offensive hate speech to protect it, no matter the harm that hate speech might cause.

But then some college professors and Gina Carano got fired and now we need to have a discussion about policing speech.