johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,554
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.)
I don't disagree with the thesis of this post, but your initial intent in mentioning this incident was to specifically highlight what happened to Natasha Tynes - while conveniently omitting her own questionable actions - to paint her as a victim of injustice, thereby proving "cancel culture" is a destructive force.
When the truth of the matter was fully revealed, what we ended up with was one person who tried to hurt another person and ended up getting hurt herself. Probably not the most sympathetic person to use as the face of a "cancel culture is bad" campaign.
Now we've retreated to this nebulous "Everyone should be nicer to each other and consider the consequences of their actions" space that, while giving us all the warm fuzzies, tells us nothing useful about "cancel culture", the parameters that define it, or how to address it.
Last edited: