Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

d4m10n said:
To be clear, my position is that it was wrong to fire the adjuct prof (since she did nothing wrong) and also wrong to call for the firing of the university president. In both cases, these women ought to be given the chance to keep working and learn from their mistakes.
Click to expand...

I agree with these two statements of yours, but for completely different reasons from you.

(although you have rather contradicted yourself with "did nothing wrong" and "learn from their mistakes.")

d4m10n said:
Those of you calling for their respective terminations are the embodiment of "cancel culture," going straight for the harshest punishment available because someone has different values than you do.
Click to expand...

Who are you referring to here? I have yet to see anyone in this thread advocating for their firing!
 
d4m10n said:
To be clear, my position is that it was wrong to fire the adjuct prof (since she did nothing wrong) and also wrong to call for the firing of the university president, given the manifest weakness of the reasons enumerated in the faculty statement. In both cases, these women ought to be given the chance to keep working and learn from their mistakes. Those of you calling for their respective terminations are the embodiment of "cancel culture," going straight for the harshest punishment available because someone has different values than you do.

Sent from my AGM-086B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you think that losing your job because of the public mistakes you made is "the harshest punishment available", then you've led a very sheltered life indeed.

Most people aren't guaranteed jobs. The vast majority of American workers can be fired for no damn reason at all, and making a major public **** up while on the job is almost a guaranteed loss of that job.
 
d4m10n said:
To be clear, my position is that it was wrong to fire the adjuct prof (since she did nothing wrong) and also wrong to call for the firing of the university president, given the manifest weakness of the reasons enumerated in the faculty statement. In both cases, these women ought to be given the chance to keep working and learn from their mistakes. Those of you calling for their respective terminations are the embodiment of "cancel culture," going straight for the harshest punishment available because someone has different values than you do.
Click to expand...

Again, expressing that you think something is “wrong” absent any objective basis for why you think it’s wrong is not remotely compelling argumentation. That objective basis is the substance your arguments lack. No one cares about your subjective personal preferences.

Furthermore, I’m not aware that anyone in this thread has called for anyone to be fired. And even if a handful of random people on an insignificant internet forum expressed an opinion that someone should be fired, calling that “cancel culture” is a wildly stupid take and exhibit 4,237 establishing why no one should take any of this seriously.
 
wareyin said:
If you think that losing your job because of the public mistakes you made is "the harshest punishment available", then you've led a very sheltered life indeed.

Most people aren't guaranteed jobs. The vast majority of American workers can be fired for no damn reason at all, and making a major public **** up while on the job is almost a guaranteed loss of that job.
Click to expand...

Careful, I think you might have just done a “cancel culture”.
 
johnny karate said:
Again, expressing that you think something is “wrong” absent any objective basis for why you think it’s wrong is not remotely compelling argumentation.
Click to expand...
Objective morality? Pull the other one.

johnny karate said:
No one cares about your subjective personal preferences.
Click to expand...
That's just fine, I'm not in contact with Hamline U. on this matter anyhow.

johnny karate said:
Furthermore, I’m not aware that anyone in this thread has called for anyone to be fired.
Click to expand...
Kudos for that!

I think we ought to refrain from calling for people to be fired unless there are fairly compelling reasons to do so. The most compelling reason in this case is that the university president erred against academic freedom in favor of avoiding religious offense. This is an easy mistake to make, though, considering that these values are inherently in tension.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not condone any pile-on, but much of it happened after the OP was posted here at ISF.

Muscato was wrong to leverage her social media following in an attempt to punish Andy, who wasn't in a good position to act as she demanded or reply in kind.

The blowback may have crossed several lines as well, especially if they called for serious sanctions against Muscato such as disemployment or deplatforming.

Two wrongs don't make any of this right.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Objective morality? Pull the other one.
Click to expand...

There should be a rationale behind it. Otherwise anyone can just declare anything “moral” or “immoral”, and it becomes meaningless. It also needs to be consistently applied, and not just in certain circumstances.

Randomly-applied, vaguely-defined morals aren’t morals at all. They’re just posturing.

I think we ought to refrain from calling for people to be fired unless there are fairly compelling reasons to do so. The most compelling reason in this case is that the university president erred against academic freedom in favor of avoiding religious offense. This is an easy mistake to make, though, considering that these values are inherently in tension.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on the matter - vague as it is - has been noted. The question remaining is why anyone else should care about your opinion.
 
d4m10n said:
I do not condone any pile-on, but much of it happened after the OP was posted here at ISF.

Muscato was wrong to leverage her social media following in an attempt to punish Andy, who wasn't in a good position to act as she demanded or reply in kind.

The blowback may have crossed several lines as well, especially if they called for serious sanctions against Muscato such as disemployment or deplatforming.

Two wrongs don't make any of this right.
Click to expand...

Weird that it took me pointing this out to make you realize it. See my previous post about inconsistently applied morals.
 
d4m10n said:
I do not condone any pile-on, but much of it happened after the OP was posted here at ISF.

Muscato was wrong to leverage her social media following in an attempt to punish Andy, who wasn't in a good position to act as she demanded or reply in kind.

The blowback may have crossed several lines as well, especially if they called for serious sanctions against Muscato such as disemployment or deplatforming.

Two wrongs don't make any of this right.
Click to expand...

What's this, Muscato day or something? Muscato decided to take the fight public on Twitter and it was a fight he lost. Live by the Twitter, die by the Twitter.

Muscato is now trying to cancel his parents. Like I said over on that other thread, goo look at his Twitter it's a total gong show. Check this out.
 
Well, here's something that I'm hard pressed to find anything "good" about, in any school of ethics philosophy: recently one of the biggest names in streaming in Germany caused an internet $#°& storm from the local chapter of the wailing woke wankers (yeah, it's spreading like disease outside of the USA too), like he was personally murdering the trans or something. Try to guess what heinous statement he made to cause that reaction.

Actually all he said was that he's not interested in J. K. Rowling either way, he just plays games. That's it. He just didn't want his channel to be about the political posturing around Hogwarts Legacy. Note that he wasn't even streaming playing it or anything, since it's not out yet. Just didn't want that flame war on his channel.

So... yeah... while it's fun to pretend it only happens to actual nazis or whatnot, we've apparently moved well past that point. Nowadays even just not being actively on their side is enough to get the brainless braying buffoon brigade to do their thing. You don't even have to be actively against them. Just not being on their side already makes you the enemy.

I'm sorry, but this is just about as much about either "morality" or "accountability" as it was when the brown shirts were doing the same schtick more up-close and personal in the 30's. Because yeah, THAT was the last time around here that a political side tried to use the mob and intimidation to silence everyone else. The only difference is that now everyone can do it on the internet, from the safety of their mom's basement.


And yes, I know, freedom of speech, people just expressing their opinion, can't stop them, etc. Sure, but then it goes both ways. I'm also free to have a very low opinion of them.

At this point, let's just say, if an flat-earther in a MAGA hat and one of these 'woke' activists were drowning and I couldn't save more than one... well, I'd probably let them both drown. But if I HAD to, I'd probably save the former. Those seem to be actually less likely to try to ruin your life for just not taking either side. If you told one of those "dude, the only planet whose shape I'm interested in is Azeroth, and the only immigration I deal with is Night Elves running straight to Stormwind like someone made an Islamic state in their own country :p" (the World Of Warcraft) they wouldn't take it as your being some kind of short-stache goose-stepping card-carrying literal nazi to save the world from.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, here's something that I'm hard pressed to find anything "good" about, in any school of ethics philosophy: recently one of the biggest names in streaming in Germany caused an internet $#°& storm from the local chapter of the wailing woke wankers (yeah, it's spreading like disease outside of the USA too), like he was personally murdering the trans or something. Try to guess what heinous statement he made to cause that reaction.

Actually all he said was that he's not interested in J. K. Rowling either way, he just plays games. That's it. He just didn't want his channel to be about the political posturing around Hogwarts Legacy. Note that he wasn't even streaming playing it or anything, since it's not out yet. Just didn't want that flame war on his channel.

So... yeah... while it's fun to pretend it only happens to actual nazis or whatnot, we've apparently moved well past that point. Nowadays even just not being actively on their side is enough to get the brainless braying buffoon brigade to do their thing. You don't even have to be actively against them. Just not being on their side already makes you the enemy.

I'm sorry, but this is just about as much about either "morality" or "accountability" as it was when the brown shirts were doing the same schtick more up-close and personal in the 30's. Because yeah, THAT was the last time around here that a political side tried to use the mob and intimidation to silence everyone else. The only difference is that now everyone can do it on the internet, from the safety of their mom's basement.


And yes, I know, freedom of speech, people just expressing their opinion, can't stop them, etc. Sure, but then it goes both ways. I'm also free to have a very low opinion of them.

At this point, let's just say, if an flat-earther in a MAGA hat and one of these 'woke' activists were drowning and I couldn't save more than one... well, I'd probably let them both drown. But if I HAD to, I'd probably save the former. Those seem to be actually less likely to try to ruin your life for just not taking either side. If you told one of those "dude, the only planet whose shape I'm interested in is Azeroth, and the only immigration I deal with is Night Elves running straight to Stormwind like someone made an Islamic state in their own country :p" (the World Of Warcraft) they wouldn't take it as your being some kind of short-stache goose-stepping card-carrying literal nazi to save the world from.
Click to expand...

Any link which details the actual events which lead to this screed?

And no right wing scandal rags, please. Outlets which get facts right only.
 
Not hard to find, really. Just search for J. K. Rowling on Google these days and (at least here) at the top you have just articles about Gronkh's $#!& storm. Bit hard to believe that everyone, including the front page of Microsoft's Bing (which had the story too) are all some alt-right scandal rags. (Much as I see why one would want to rationalize that surely only those would mention something like that.)

E.g.,

https://mein-mmo.de/twitch-gronkh-hogwarts-legacy-schlechter-mensch/

Which also mentions literally what he said: "[Ich habe eine Mail bekommen, wo jemand] Argumente nicht gegen J.K. Rowling, sondern für [sie aufgelistet hat] – Und da ist eine ganze Liste mit Punkten, was sie wohl gesagt hat … Und es ist … es ist mir einfach egal. Darf es mir egal sein? Bin ich dann ein schlechter Mensch, wenn mir J.K. Rowling egal ist? Muss sie eine Rolle in meinem Leben spielen? Ist das wichtig für mich? Und schickt mir doch bitte keine E-Mails deswegen."

("I received an email where someone listed arguments not AGAINST J. K. Rowling, but for her. And there's a whole list of points that she said. And I'm... I'm not interested either way. May I not be interested? Am I a bad person when I'm not interested in J. K. Rowling either way? Must it play a role in my life? Is it important for me? And please don't send me emails about it.")

You'd think it would be a reasonable enough position, especially since what he's dismissing are arguments in J. K. Rowling's favour, no? Nope, apparently for some people just not being interested is already transphobic.

https://www.rnd.de/medien/nach-auss...rf-kritisiert-4CMOXBERZFEJZISSWYFG2TEFFM.html

Note the answers like, "Gronkh handelt transfeindlich, indem er offen sagt, dass JKR ihm egal ist." ("Gronkh is a transphobe, when he says he's not interested in JKR either way.")

https://www.watson.de/unterhaltung/...e-ueber-j-k-rowling-fuer-heftige-diskussionen

Etc.
 
HansMustermann said:
Not hard to find, really. Just search for J. K. Rowling on Google these days and (at least here) at the top you have just articles about Gronkh's $#!& storm. Bit hard to believe that everyone, including the front page of Microsoft's Bing (which had the story too) are all some alt-right scandal rags. (Much as I see why one would want to rationalize that surely only those would mention something like that.)

E.g.,

https://mein-mmo.de/twitch-gronkh-hogwarts-legacy-schlechter-mensch/

Which also mentions literally what he said: "[Ich habe eine Mail bekommen, wo jemand] Argumente nicht gegen J.K. Rowling, sondern für [sie aufgelistet hat] – Und da ist eine ganze Liste mit Punkten, was sie wohl gesagt hat … Und es ist … es ist mir einfach egal. Darf es mir egal sein? Bin ich dann ein schlechter Mensch, wenn mir J.K. Rowling egal ist? Muss sie eine Rolle in meinem Leben spielen? Ist das wichtig für mich? Und schickt mir doch bitte keine E-Mails deswegen."

("I received an email where someone listed arguments not AGAINST J. K. Rowling, but for her. And there's a whole list of points that she said. And I'm... I'm not interested either way. May I not be interested? Am I a bad person when I'm not interested in J. K. Rowling either way? Must it play a role in my life? Is it important for me? And please don't send me emails about it.")

You'd think it would be a reasonable enough position, especially since what he's dismissing are arguments in J. K. Rowling's favour, no? Nope, apparently for some people just not being interested is already transphobic.

https://www.rnd.de/medien/nach-auss...rf-kritisiert-4CMOXBERZFEJZISSWYFG2TEFFM.html

Note the answers like, "Gronkh handelt transfeindlich, indem er offen sagt, dass JKR ihm egal ist." ("Gronkh is a transphobe, when he says he's not interested in JKR either way.")

https://www.watson.de/unterhaltung/...e-ueber-j-k-rowling-fuer-heftige-diskussionen

Etc.
Click to expand...

OK, so I've Googled 'JK Rowling Gronkh', and I can't find anything other that some English translations of Twitter rantings that refer to some whining over Dumbledore being gay (or something). Certainly not seeing any kind of "cancel culture" going on here.

Maybe something gets lost in the translation from German to English.
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom