Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Darat]

The Depp/Heard case is complicated, and apparently, their both abusers. I had thought I could still use it to illustrate a point. (And I'd forgotten about the case Depp filed in the UK.) I'll withdraw that, but my point still stands:

What about when an innocent person is cancelled?
Is it right to cancel someone merely for association with a cancelled person?
Is a cancelled person allowed to have friends or family?

You are going to have to provide a definition for what you mean by "cancelled" - how you are using it seems to be with an almost "official" usage.

 

[smartcooky]

What should happen is that when an allegation is made, the company investigates and takes action if and only if the allegations are true. You (and smartcooky) are assuming that everyone who is boycotted is guilty and that the offense is so bad that their career and private lives should be destroyed.

Nope. What I am saying is when the offensive behavior is in plain sight, and/or publicly documented, there isn't any need for some official investigation for people to be upset and decide to pressure the offender's employer to sanction them or face boycotts. The examples I gave (and which you ignored) were Louis C.K. and Roseanne Barr.

Louis C.K. openly admitted to what he did - masturbate in front of female comedians.... slam dunk, no investigation needed, case closed!

Rosanne Barr's racists Tweets are a matter of public record.... slam dunk, no investigation needed, case closed!

They both copped consequences for their behavior.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned an article about cancelling going crazy at some high school. I actually searched for and read the article. Smartcooky dismissed it as being about a boy who had shared nude pictures of his girlfriend

Nope... You're 0 for 2

That was Stout!

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not advocating for restricting free speech. I'm advocating considering the consequences not just for yourself, but also for others if you turn out to be wrong.

Seems like an empty platitude, but sure, okay.

Is what happened to Natasha Tynes right? (Moderators: am I quoting too much of the article?)

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/canceled-destroyed-life-68311913

A woman of privilege used social media to try to get a transit employed fired, but the problem with this situation doesn't start until she got blowback for her actions, do I have that correct?

It's weird to see such passionate criticism of "cancel culture" and advocacy for the consideration of consequences only to then see a woman who clearly did not consider the consequences in her attempt to "cancel" someone get held up as example of why "cancel culture" is a problem.

 

[johnny karate]

The Depp/Heard case is complicated, and apparently, their both abusers. I had thought I could still use it to illustrate a point. (And I'd forgotten about the case Depp filed in the UK.) I'll withdraw that, but my point still stands:

What about when an innocent person is cancelled?
Is it right to cancel someone merely for association with a cancelled person?
Is a cancelled person allowed to have friends or family?

Are these real people? Or theoretical ones?

 

[TomB]

You are going to have to provide a definition for what you mean by "cancelled" - how you are using it seems to be with an almost "official" usage.

Not official. But it is vague.
Basically, public pressure on friends family and employers to cut ties with someone due to a perceived offense or transgression. Not an act of government. And, actually, I have some sympathy for companies who cut someone loose due to publicity issues.

For an example, I will refer back to my earlier post: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/canceled-destroyed-life-68311913
Natasha Tynes saw a metro worker, in uniform, eating on the train. The context is that metro does not allow eating on the trains and enforces this rule for riders. So she tweeted (with a picture):

"When you're on your morning commute & see @wmata employee in UNIFORM eating on the train. I thought we were not allowed to eat on the train. This is unacceptable. Hope @wmata responds. When I asked the employee about this, her response was, 'worry about yourself.'"

Natasha is a Jordanian-American writer. The metra employee in question was a black woman.

For whatever reason, someone on twitter decided that the tweet was because the woman was black, not because she was a metra employee doing something that they don't allow passengers to do. She lost her book deal, got death threats, etc. I think she even moved back to Jordan for a while.

How fast did this happen?
The tweet was The morning of May 10, 2019. Her publisher tweeted around 7:30 that same evening that they were cancelling her book.

I'll ask again, was justice served?

You can't have free speech and not have cancelling or other mob actions. At least not in the era of social media. (I think Black Mirror has sort of addressed this.) But at least we can acknowledge that sometimes the mob gets it wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

Not official. But it is vague.
Basically, public pressure on friends family and employers to cut ties with someone due to a perceived offense or transgression. Not an act of government. And, actually, I have some sympathy for companies who cut someone loose due to publicity issues.

For an example, I will refer back to my earlier post: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/canceled-destroyed-life-68311913
Natasha Tynes saw a metro worker, in uniform, eating on the train. The context is that metro does not allow eating on the trains and enforces this rule for riders. So she tweeted (with a picture):

Natasha is a Jordanian-American writer. The metra employee in question was a black woman.

For whatever reason, someone on twitter decided that the tweet was because the woman was black, not because she was a metra employee doing something that they don't allow passengers to do. She lost her book deal, got death threats, etc. I think she even moved back to Jordan for a while.

How fast did this happen?
The tweet was The morning of May 10, 2019. Her publisher tweeted around 7:30 that same evening that they were cancelling her book.

I'll ask again, was justice served?

You can't have free speech and not have cancelling or other mob actions. At least not in the era of social media. (I think Black Mirror has sort of addressed this.) But at least we can acknowledge that sometimes the mob gets it wrong.

So no problem here at all with Natasha Tynes attempting to weaponize social media to shame the transit employee and get them fired, right?

 

[d4m10n]

So no problem here at all with Natasha Tynes attempting to weaponize social media to shame the transit employee and get them fired, right?

Why not both?

 

[johnny karate]

Why not both?

Good question. So far it's only been a criticism of what happened to Natasha Tynes and no criticism of what she did. So yeah, who not both?

 

[johnny karate]

Why not both?

And let's take this question and apply it to the situation referenced in the OP. You lament the attempted "cancelling" of Kroger Andy, but express no remorse for the social media pile-on the woman who tried to "cancel" him received.

Why not both?

 

[TomB]

A woman of privilege used social media to try to get a transit employed fired, but the problem with this situation doesn't start until she got blowback for her actions, do I have that correct?

Why is she a woman of privilege?

Also, I don't think that she was trying to get anyone fired. It sounds like she was pointing out hypocrisy when it comes to a rule on the train. Just because you complain about an employee, doesn't mean you want them fired.

It's weird to see such passionate criticism of "cancel culture" and advocacy for the consideration of consequences only to then see a woman who clearly did not consider the consequences in her attempt to "cancel" someone get held up as example of why "cancel culture" is a problem.

LOL, I suppose this case could have gone either way. in a sense. Except the woman she tweeted about had actually and clearly violated a rule.

Also, I don't think she was trying to cancel the employee. I think she was frustrated at an employee doing something passengers are not allowed to do. I guess I see her motivations differently than you do.

I'm not passionately criticizing anything. I'm ambiguous about cancel culture. Don't mistake my arguments on here for a representation of my views. I try to look at issues from multiple angles, and will sometimes switch back and forth the side I'm arguing from. It's an exercise that allows better understanding.

My actual view?
Stay the hell off of social media. You aren't making an off-hand observation, comment, or joke to your friends and what you say may be morphed into a different meaning by those who don't know you or the context. (As, in my opinion, you just did in regards to Natasha's tweet.) Then you might pay the consequences, not just for what you said, but for what people think you said. (Applied to Natasha: her complaint was valid. Including the picture was a mistake

The corollary to that is to be careful when responding to social media. Verify context and meaning before passing judgment. Also, think proportionately.

 

[TomB]

So no problem here at all with Natasha Tynes attempting to weaponize social media to shame the transit employee and get them fired, right?

Like I said in another post, my interpretation of her motives and yours are different.

But, I'll also point out that she had removed the post within 35 minutes, apologised, and even contacted metra to make sure that the women wouldn't be punished. This was before her publisher cancelled her book. And she continued to receive hate mail, death threats and racist slurs after she took steps to correct her error.

Wait: Do you think death threats and racial slurs are appropriate? Is that what you are advocating?
Even after an immediate apology?

 

[johnny karate]

Why is she a woman of privilege?

She's a published author who writes for several major media outlets, so I'm going to go with "yes". Certainly at least compared to the transit employees she tried to get fired.

Also, I don't think that she was trying to get anyone fired. It sounds like she was pointing out hypocrisy when it comes to a rule on the train. Just because you complain about an employee, doesn't mean you want them fired.

She literally told on this woman to her employer. That's exactly what trying to get someone fired looks like.

LOL, I suppose this case could have gone either way. in a sense. Except the woman she tweeted about had actually and clearly violated a rule.

Also, I don't think she was trying to cancel the employee. I think she was frustrated at an employee doing something passengers are not allowed to do. I guess I see her motivations differently than you do.

I'm not passionately criticizing anything. I'm ambiguous about cancel culture. Don't mistake my arguments on here for a representation of my views. I try to look at issues from multiple angles, and will sometimes switch back and forth the side I'm arguing from. It's an exercise that allows better understanding.

My actual view?
Stay the hell off of social media. You aren't making an off-hand observation, comment, or joke to your friends and what you say may be morphed into a different meaning by those who don't know you or the context. (As, in my opinion, you just did in regards to Natasha's tweet.) Then you might pay the consequences, not just for what you said, but for what people think you said. (Applied to Natasha: her complaint was valid. Including the picture was a mistake

The corollary to that is to be careful when responding to social media. Verify context and meaning before passing judgment. Also, think proportionately.

Good: Using social media to shame transit employees and try to get them fired.

Bad: Facing the consequences of using social media to shame transit employees and try to get them fired.

 

[johnny karate]

Like I said in another post, my interpretation of her motives and yours are different.

But, I'll also point out that she had removed the post within 35 minutes, apologised, and even contacted metra to make sure that the women wouldn't be punished. This was before her publisher cancelled her book. And she continued to receive hate mail, death threats and racist slurs after she took steps to correct her error.

Wait: Do you think death threats and racial slurs are appropriate? Is that what you are advocating?
Even after an immediate apology?

Oh good, we've finally circled back around to equating "cancel culture" with death threats. I've been waiting for that canard to pop up again.

No one is advocating for death threats.

But as someone who advocates for personal responsibility, it's odd how far you bend over backwards to absolve Natasha Tynes of any.

 

[johnny karate]

This whole Natasha Tynes discussion is exactly why it's hard to view "cancel culture" hand-wringing as anything more than disingenuous virtue signaling.

A demand is made to examine the moral fairness of the consequences someone faces with zero concern for examining the morality of the actions they took that led to those consequences.

You either examine it all or you examine none of it. Neither exists in a void.

To pick and choose in a way that best serves your narrative is transparently dishonest and logically inconsistent.

 

[TomB]

This whole Natasha Tynes discussion is exactly why it's hard to view "cancel culture" hand-wringing as anything more than disingenuous virtue signaling.

A demand is made to examine the moral fairness of the consequences someone faces with zero concern for examining the morality of the actions they took that led to those consequences.

You either examine it all or you examine none of it. Neither exists in a void.

To pick and choose in a way that best serves your narrative is transparently dishonest and logically inconsistent.

Just to be complete, there are three points of responsibility and consequences:
The employee who was observed violating policy.

The busybody customer who brought attention to the policy.

The twitter mob who attacked the customer.

For the record, I think all three were wrong in some fashion. But I think the consequences for the only one who faced consequences (AFAIK) were out of proportion.

And that's why I advocate for responsibility on social media. Or better yet, don't post about anything other than kittens and puppies.

I have a friend who believes that forums like this one should not exist. Actually, it's not the forums he objects to, it's the avatars and pseudonyms. He doesn't think posters should have anonymity because it prevents them from suffering consequences (responsibility) in the real world.

I think that would prevent these conversations from happening. (I view them as conversations, not arguments. People with different opinions are not my enemies.)

 

[tyr_13]

Just to be complete, there are three points of responsibility and consequences:
The employee who was observed violating policy.

The busybody customer who brought attention to the policy.

The twitter mob who attacked the customer.

For the record, I think all three were wrong in some fashion. But I think the consequences for the only one who faced consequences (AFAIK) were out of proportion.

While I agree that the consequence was out of proportion, I disagree that it's either possible nor desirable to dictate some new social norm of not using one's free speech and association to make disagreement known nor of separating 'political' actions from the people doing them, or several of the other hinted at ideas here.

Far better would be to convince companies to grow the slightest of a spine. This case shows that two ways. Did you consider that many of the people mad at the writer and expressing displeasure with her actions were doing so to try to save the job of the worker? They know people in that kind of position get let go for the most trivial of reasons, so putting pressure on the company to not listen to the writer's complaint could (and expressly did) motivate their 'cancellation' of the writer. The publisher had next to zero reason to actually believe any meaningful number of people would even be in the market for the book in the first place, let alone remember to boycott the product. There was almost no actual risk in keeping her on.

The risk of innocent people, or relatively innocent people, getting 'cancelled' just isn't enough of a cost to stop when the sets of people who don't care about that anyway is so large and thus will never stop. And those sets tend to cancel people over things like their target 'having blue hair' or 'being a woman'.

EDIT: To make things clear, the absence of 'cancel culture' even in this case would have just left the transit worker fired instead of the writer, which isn't much of an improvement if it is one at all.

 

[wareyin]

Hey, I wasn't the one complaining about the lack of conservative cancellings. I'm here for the woke on woke action, because it's hilarious like watching Atheism Plus tear itself to shreds as they all tried to outwoke each other in a last man standing standing type of contest. In the end....there was nothing.

No, you were the one trying to get people to prove cancellings happen because you really really think that they do, and you use really really crappy examples to prove to yourself that they do. Just like people that believe in ghosts, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Stout]

No, you were the one trying to get people to prove cancellings happen because you really really think that they do, and you use really really crappy examples to prove to yourself that they do. Just like people that believe in ghosts, as I mentioned earlier.

Cancel culture is a process, not an end result.

 

[wareyin]

Cancel culture is a process, not an end result.

Yes, we already know that people who believe in cancel culture believe in cancel culture. And, as evidenced by this thread, these people do not feel the need to post convincing examples of cancel culture. Either that, or they post easily debunked examples because they either don't comprehend how easily debunked they are or because they themselves have so internalized their beliefs that they can't see how their examples aren't what they claim they are.


Like ghost believers telling you about how a bit of static proved a haunting, actually.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, we already know that people who believe in cancel culture believe in cancel culture. And, as evidenced by this thread, these people do not feel the need to post convincing examples of cancel culture. Either that, or they post easily debunked examples because they either don't comprehend how easily debunked they are or because they themselves have so internalized their beliefs that they can't see how their examples aren't what they claim they are.


Like ghost believers telling you about how a bit of static proved a haunting, actually.

Indeed.

Cancel Culture is nothing more than a catchphrase used (mostly, but not exclusively) by white conservatives and right-wingers to describe the holding to account of people who exhibit reprehensible behaviors. They are aggrieved they can no longer get away with those kinds of misogynistic, racist and bigoted actions - action they previously exhibited with impunity!