Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[lionking]

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.

Maybe in your part of the world, but many parts of Europe and my country have had laws against hate speech for years.

 

[Graham2001]

This is an interesting case, the Ernst Mayr award might be denamed for 'reasons', the motion states that he said some 'problematic' things but never specifies just what.

In the summer of 2020, the SSB Council began a discussion about potentially renaming the Ernst Mayr Award in Systematic Biology at the request of society members. Since then, the SSB leadership have been working in conjunction with the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee to learn more about the origin of named awards and their representation of the diverse membership within the society. Renaming the award is one step toward greater inclusivity within the society, as named awards often lead to feelings of exclusion among those who are members of underrepresented groups whose scientific contributions continue to remain unrecognized. At a council meeting following Virtual Evolution 2021, the Council voted to propose to all members an award name change, in conjunction with other actions intended to better recognize SSB’s history and legacy.

The SSB Council proposes to rename the Ernst Mayr Award in Systematic Biology to the Outstanding Student Presentation Award in Systematic Biology.

https://www.systbio.org/award-naming.html


Now this could be another case of Creationists exploiting the Woke as they did in the Huxley unpersoning, but there's no explicit evidence of that.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe in your part of the world, but many parts of Europe and my country have had laws against hate speech for years.

Fair enough, but my point stands.

 

[d4m10n]

Nothing is wrong with counseling restraint as long as you understand that not everyone is obligated to heed your counsel.

Why would I expect anyone to heed my counsel? I expect people will act in accordance with their own goals & values, given their own understanding of how best to further them.

 

[johnny karate]

Why would I expect anyone to heed my counsel? I expect people act in accordance with their own goals & values, given their own understanding of how best to further them.

Feels like that's the end of the thread, then.

 

[d4m10n]

1.) Is anything beyond the pale when it comes to public statements?

Beyond the pale as in (A) unethical or (B) illegal or (C) worthy of divestment/disemployment?

Perhaps some combination of these or other possibilities?

2.) Is it possible...to prevent people on Twitter and other social media platforms from expressing extreme displeasure at things that people might say in public settings.

Given Twitter's rules against targeted harassment, I assume that they believe it is possible and practicable to reign that specific behaviour in on their platform. Of course, that's just a small subset of the set of expressions of extreme displeasure, and they are relying on user reports.

Feels like that's the end of the thread, then.

Do you expect us to heed your counsel on this?

 

[johnny karate]

Do you expect us to heed your counsel on this?

Not offering counsel, but rather pointing out that we have a nebulous problem of dubious significance about which the people who claim it is a significant problem tell us there isn't anything we can or should do about it.

It again begs the question what the point of any of this is.

 

[dirtywick]

Why would I expect anyone to heed my counsel? I expect people will act in accordance with their own goals & values, given their own understanding of how best to further them.

Oh ok. I wish you would have opened with that lol

 

[d4m10n]

Not offering counsel, but rather pointing out that we have a nebulous problem of dubious significance about which the people who claim it is a significant problem tell us there isn't anything we can or should do about it..

There's plenty you can do about it. Next time someone passes on a viral meme well-adapted to stoke your own sense of outrage, decide whether to react in haste or with circumspection. Ask yourself, for example, whether you have enough facts to put the viral clip in context or not. Ask yourself whether the clip may turn out to have been misleading once the facts all come out, as was the case for both Gelato Andy and Kroger Andy (not to mention many far more famous public shamings).

 

[johnny karate]

There's plenty you can do about it. Next time someone passes on a viral meme well-adapted to stoke your own sense of outrage, decide whether to react in haste or with circumspection. Ask yourself, for example, whether you have enough facts to put the viral clip in context or not. Ask yourself whether the clip may turn out to have been misleading once the facts all come out, as was the case for both Gelato Andy and Kroger Andy (not to mention many far more famous public shamings).

Can I just continue not to give a **** about any of that and not involve myself with it in the first place?

Either way, I'm not sure how telling me not to do something I already wasn't doing solves the problem.

Also, I don't find suggestions about how I need to calibrate my behavior particularly compelling coming from someone who reserves the right for themselves to do and say what they want regardless of how other people feel about it.

 

[d4m10n]

Also, I don't find suggestions about how I need to calibrate my behavior particularly compelling coming from someone who reserves the right for themselves to do and say what they want regardless of how other people feel about it.

If you aren't actively resharing viral outrage (bully for you if you've managed to avoid this) then you don't need my suggestions at all. They only apply to those of us who are occasionally tempted to indulge in a bit of moral grandstanding.

 

[johnny karate]

If you aren't actively resharing viral outrage (bully for you if you've managed to avoid this) then you don't need my suggestions at all. They only apply to those of us who are occasionally tempted to indulge in a bit of moral grandstanding.

Two of the three bullet points at the top of that article warn against hurting other people’s feelings. You’re on record saying you don’t care about other people’s feelings. That leaves me confused about what my takeaway is supposed to be from you linking the article.

 

[d4m10n]

You’re on record saying you don’t care about other people’s feelings.

People being upset over symbolic violence done to a political effigy is no reason to change law, policy, or artistic norms. Even if some Trump fans were literally moved to tears, Griffin did nothing wrong.

 

[Darat]

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.

Which supports what I said - it apparently was never an issue until the wrong people started being able to use societal pressures that used to be the purview of only the economically/politically/religiously powerful.

I neither agree nor disagree with "cancelling", as has been shown this has always happened and I cannot see how it could be removed from how society operates as it emerges from basic human behaviours. Whether I agree with any specific example is based on what is being targeted and the goals of such pressure.

Perhaps if you have not been subject to such pressures by the economically/politically/religiously powerful it seems as if it is something new?

 

[lionking]

Which supports what I said - it apparently was never an issue until the wrong people started being able to use societal pressures that used to be the purview of only the economically/politically/religiously powerful.

I neither agree nor disagree with "cancelling", as has been shown this has always happened and I cannot see how it could be removed from how society operates as it emerges from basic human behaviours. Whether I agree with any specific example is based on what is being targeted and the goals of such pressure.

Perhaps if you have not been subject to such pressures by the economically/politically/religiously powerful it seems as if it is something new?

Utter nonsense. Your contention that it has always been happening as it it is now is wrong. Look at the examples in Ronson’s book.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And we're back to digging up a tweet from a C list comedian in order to have something to pretend proves it is something "both sides" do.

*Jerk off motion*

 

[lionking]

And we're back to digging up a tweet from a C list comedian in order to have something to pretend proves it is something "both sides" do.

*Jerk off motion*

Who’s the C list comedian?

 

[d4m10n]

And we're back to digging up a tweet from a C list comedian in order to have something to pretend proves it is something "both sides" do.

Most of the cancellations I've seen up close have been from the left (on account of violating the norms of the left) but that's only because my social networks are overwhelmingly left of center, apart from a few in-laws and school mates from way back. Occasionally I'll see an attempted cancellation from the right (e.g. Kristin Pitzen) because it breaks through to become a national story.

ETA: Ronson's book collects examples from both sides, and in the case of Pycon, both sides stemming from a single incident.

 

[johnny karate]

People being upset over symbolic violence done to a political effigy is no reason to change law, policy, or artistic norms. Even if some Trump fans were literally moved to tears, Griffin did nothing wrong.

You made a generalized statement. Here's the full quote in case you forgot:

"People being upset is not a reason to change anything, IMO. People get upset when I tell them Jesus was just another first century itinerant faith healer. Am I supposed to worry about their feelings?"

I'm still struggling to understand how we get to "cancel culture" being a problem if the starting point is not caring about other people's feelings.

 

[johnny karate]

Most of the cancellations I've seen up close have been from the left (on account of violating the norms of the left) but that's only because my social networks are overwhelmingly left of center, apart from a few in-laws and school mates from way back. Occasionally I'll see an attempted cancellation from the right (e.g. Kristin Pitzen) because it breaks through to become a national story.

ETA: Ronson's book collects examples from both sides, and in the case of Pycon, both sides stemming from a single incident.

No one has explained why the hundreds of election and public health officials being hounded out of their professions by right wing mobs doesn't count as "cancel culture". (Chris_Halkides kind of started to, but then bailed.)

I would argue that someone who doesn't take a full and complete look at a problem probably isn't really interested in the problem itself, but rather and only how the problem affects them. Which leads me to the conclusion that their concerns are disingenuous and not to be taken seriously.