Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Chris_Halkides]

A rock too far

Literally nobody calls that Cancel Culture.

This bit where you and others find real, actual censorship and go "iS ThiS CaNCeL CuLTURE!?" got old a while ago and just further proves my point that you (nor anyone else) has an actual point to make, just a troll routine someone else thought of that you are now parroting.

Jason Kilborn was mentioned in this thread before Conor Friedersdorf's article came out. Please try to keep up. The harm done regarding Jason Kilborn extends in several directions, some of which I have already mentioned, but this is a good time to . Someone else had to teach his class; that either added to another professor's workload unnecessarily, or UIC had to hire an additional person, which costs real money. A similar argument holds for Bright Sheng. The harm done at UW-Madison was worse than taking $42,000 in cash and burning it. The inability of some posters here to admit the obvious, namely that certain actions we have discussed were irrational and harmful rather than helpful is wearisome.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chicago Tribune on Jason Kilborn and Mary DeVoto

The Chicago Tribune editorial board wrote, "The Kilborn case is, on its face, ridiculous. In arguments about speech, intent must matter. It’s one thing to use an offensive term in ordinary or even pedagogical conversation. It’s another to use such a word to teach students how to deal with its use in a professional situation. Any reasonable person can see this. No healthy society should be banning words based on their abstract linguistic property."

 

[JoeMorgue]

With your ability to data dump massive paragraphs of information nobody asked for and has nothing to do with the discussion while remaining totally unwilling to answer the most basic and simple questions as to your actual stance you'll prove immortality using Bayesian statistics in no time at this rate.

 

[johnny karate]

A given head of state may claim that something is "fake news" to cover his or her transgressions, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as fake news. The same principle applies to cancel culture. However, I beginning to come to the conclusion that the term "cancel culture" is so overused as to have lost much of its meaning (that may be something Suburban Turkey implied in a recent comment). If I found myself agreeing with someone one the right (which I have on occasion), I would consider it to be a coincidence of opinion, nothing more.

If I wanted to distinguish myself from the reprehensible people who share my beliefs, I would very clearly state my case and point out the specific reasons why I found the issue problematic beyond what the hucksters and propagandists are shilling.

If I wanted to muddy the waters and keep my true agenda hidden, I would just spam-post a bunch of drivel without making an attempt to tie it all together with something resembling a point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

par for the course

Literally nobody calls that Cancel Culture.

The Kilborn case has been discussed in this thread for two and a half months, and you are just now deciding that no one calls it cancel culture? That is an absurd argument coming from you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That was then, this is now

Why the **** are "free speech" advocates always so goddamn obsessed with white people not being able to use the n-word?

This is such a complete and deliberate mischaracterization of the incident involving Professor Kilborn that I find myself...not surprised in the slightest. Here is what John McWhorter said about the case: "Jason Kilborn, law professor, had his classes cancelled, is barred from campus and is on admin leave - for using the N and B words in EXPURGATED form on an exam. This isn't social justice. It's punitive piety capitulated to by cowards."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

at the risk of being redundant

With your ability to data dump massive paragraphs of information nobody asked for and has nothing to do with the discussion while remaining totally unwilling to answer the most basic and simple questions as to your actual stance you'll prove immortality using Bayesian statistics in no time at this rate.

This is another one of your lies. I said exactly what my stance was.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You are drawing a helpful distinction; however, both the pianist and the soprano were asked to make certain statements regarding the war (and were judged not to have gone far enough). I believe that we are in agreement that for a definition of cancel culture to be useful, it must have limits. I am inclined to put the criminal and civil justice system outside of cancel cultural on that basis. However, I recognize a grey area with respect to public colleges and universities sanctioning their employees or students.

Was it a twitter campaign or Facebook?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure

Was it a twitter campaign or Facebook?

I don't know with certainty, but I don't believe so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a good starting point

If I wanted to muddy the waters and keep my true agenda hidden, I would just spam-post a bunch of drivel without making an attempt to tie it all together with something resembling a point.

This presupposes an agenda. I suggest that you check your premises.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't know with certainty, but I don't believe so.

Then not cancel culture.

 

[EaglePuncher]

This is such a complete and deliberate mischaracterization of the incident involving Professor Kilborn that I find myself...not surprised in the slightest. Here is what John McWhorter said about the case: "Jason Kilborn, law professor, had his classes cancelled, is barred from campus and is on admin leave - for using the N and B words in EXPURGATED form on an exam. This isn't social justice. It's punitive piety capitulated to by cowards."

If only there was a way to describe a situation in which someone is insulted without using the actual insults...

 

[ponderingturtle]

When they go after One Million Moms with all the vehemence they have about an orchestra changing what music it plans to play they will start to be slightly self consistent.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

An interesting perspective on "cancel culture". It's hard to argue this isn't almost an entirely news-pundit generated non-controversy.

There have been 70 NYT opinion pieces that have included the words "cancel culture" in the past year. Each one somehow lazier than the last.

GOP-led states are devoting loads of resources to banning books that dare to mention that LGBTQ people exist or suggest that slavery was bad, but narcissists still feel entitled to have their "I don't write what I think because people might get mad at me" pieces published.

Yes, people might get mad at you if you write something they disagree with. That's just... that's just one of the things that all writers have to deal with. No amount of stomping around and crying because people might disagree with your dog-**** opinion will change that.

The issue is that outlets like NYT specifically seek out the same view over and over and over to run. When I pitched a counter-example about the time right-wing freakout got a movie's release *literally* canceled, I got a 1 sentence rejection. Haven't pitched them since.

The truth is that mainstream outlets seek out the same story over and over and over. They're not just publishing whatever gets sent to them. When they publish the latest "campus speech" freak out piece, know that they've time and again rejected the other side of it.

...


The truth is that mainstream outlets seek out the same story over and over and over. They're not just publishing whatever gets sent to them. When they publish the latest "campus speech" freak out piece, know that they've time and again rejected the other side of it.

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1503044972915875846?cxt=HHwWjICzwY_c8dspAAAA

It's wild that supposed "papers of record" like the NYTimes are still flogging this stupid crap long after it has run out of gas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's wild that supposed "papers of record" like the NYTimes are still flogging this stupid crap long after it has run out of gas.

//Guess// The press is the one traditionally "Left" institute that actually has (or thinks it has) a vested interest in promoting outlandish "They are trying to silence group X.... *dramatic pause* YOU COULD BE NEXT* style outrage pieces.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

//Guess// The press is the one traditionally "Left" institute that actually has (or thinks it has) a vested interest in promoting outlandish "They are trying to silence group X.... *dramatic pause* YOU COULD BE NEXT* style outrage pieces.

I really doubt "the left" has much to do with it. I'm guessing the senior editorial staff at these papers that have such control are more pandering to a centrist neoliberal ideology.

People like Bari Weiss have complicated politics I would imagine but I wouldn't call it "left" by any means. If anything it's a reaction to more progressive/lefty attitudes that is likely being introduced to the news industry by up-and-coming younger journalists that challenges the supremacy of the "reasonable centrist" pundit class.

ETA: I wonder how much of this is just the NYTimes pandering to an aging readership that is increasingly out of touch with younger generations and fears changes they don't understand. Who even subscribes to newspapers anymore besides bewildered boomers? This cancel culture dreck is right in the wheelhouse for such people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I meant "Traditionally seen as Left." I wasn't arguing any sort of "Well ackshually technically according to Polysci 101" definition.

I mean as in general, man on the street level the Press as an industry is seen as pretty far to the left of say McDonnel Douglas or Exxon.

But as you say it probably just sells well to their aging boomer audience. And since "Cancel Culture" is seen as such a tool on online/new media (i.e the thing that is totally taking their place) I'd wager they see it as a jab in that direction as well.

ETA: Or even more basic than that maybe the NYTimes still lives in that "all 'big issues' are a noble debate of semi-equals because come on if an idea is popular among ~40% of the population it has to have some validity" fantasy world and not the real world where it's been proven a lot of people can just be completely wrong.

 

[Stout]

A given head of state may claim that something is "fake news" to cover his or her transgressions, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as fake news. The same principle applies to cancel culture. However, I beginning to come to the conclusion that the term "cancel culture" is so overused as to have lost much of its meaning (that may be something Suburban Turkey implied in a recent comment). If I found myself agreeing with someone one the right (which I have on occasion), I would consider it to be a coincidence of opinion, nothing more.

We've had a working definition of cancel culture since this thread's inception however here we are, two years later, still fielding the same question over and over "what is cancel culture". Why this term is so confusing completely eludes me. It's pretty simple concept really, there's not a lot of words in the definition but we're still dealing with a chorus of "I don't get it". It's almost like it's willful with almost being a qualifier because we can't realistically rule out Teh STooPid.

At this stage of the game this thread is a pretty much an anything goes thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We've asked for a meaningful definition of Cancel Culture, not just a "useful" one.

"My side is now losing so make the part of a normal functioning society where people don't just voluntarily interact with things which are openly insulting them somehow sound really scary and ominous with a new scare term" is not that.

 

[Stout]

ETA: I wonder how much of this is just the NYTimes pandering to an aging readership that is increasingly out of touch with younger generations and fears changes they don't understand. Who even subscribes to newspapers anymore besides bewildered boomers? This cancel culture dreck is right in the wheelhouse for such people.

I know eh? Tell me about it. Those boomers with their newspapers and journalists and reporters it's so last century. Anybody who's hip and with it these days gets all their information from randos on social media. I mean with all these AIs and bots doing the fact checking there's no way something false or misleading could ever end up on Facebook or Twitter amirite?