Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[I Am The Scum]

Imagine Little Debbie sponsoring legislation to outlaw Hostess snack cakes because they're unhealthy. If you go along with that because Hostess treats have a lot of sugar in them, then you've been conned. You haven't made the grocery store selection healthier; you've just given a monopoly on the thing you oppose to one specific corporation, consolidating their control over it.

The exact same thing is true when one goes along with the creator of professor lists or the deporters of Israel critics because it is technically true that some people yelled on Twitter a few times.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you doubt whether free speech groups like FIRE (and the most notable spokespeople for those groups) wrote polemics against the rise of cancel culture? Can we assume their arguments were incorrect because they were also supported by the sort of hypocrites who failed to apply them when conservatives took power? I don't think it makes any sense to argue that cancelling public figures for airing controversial opinions is just fine because The Free Press & co. have failed to call out both sides when they suppress opposing views, just as I don't think it makes any sense to pretend that only conservatives are tempted to suppress opposing views.

"Canceling" isn't really a thing. It's a buzzword used a euphemism for what used to be considered social consequences for bad behavior.

And when the people who weaponized this buzzword under the guise of "free speech" fail to call out actual instances of speech suppression, it not only makes them raging hypocrites but calls into question the entire enterprise.

I'll put it to you this way: You tried to convince us that the Star Wars lady getting fired and your favorite podcast getting cancelled was a Very Serious Problem, but have said nothing in this thread about the 600 people who were fired because of their comments about Charlie Kirk. This, by the way, is a much larger number than any accounting of people fired because of "cancel culture".

So why should anyone take anything you have to say on this subject seriously?

 

[arthwollipot]

APSU to pay $500,000 to professor fired, then reinstated over Charlie Kirk post - ClarksvilleNow.com

Austin Peay State University will pay one of its professors $500,000 after initially firing him for a social media post in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death.

clarksvillenow.com

 

[Helen]

Plato is cancelled..

Texas A&M to philosophy professor: Nix Plato or be reassigned

Texas A&M philosophy professor Martin Peterson has a choice: Drop readings related to race and gender — including ones by Plato — from his course, or face reassignment.

www.thefire.org

 

[Darat]

They should leave post it notes on the desks of these troublesome teachers, "Remember Socrates".

 

[d4m10n]

"Canceling" isn't really a thing. It's a buzzword used a euphemism for what used to be considered social consequences for bad behavior.

If "social consequences for bad behavior" are really a thing, it's downright magical that they would disappear from reality when shortened to just a single word.

Abracadabra!

 

[johnny karate]

If "social consequences for bad behavior" are really a thing, it's downright magical that they would disappear from reality when shortened to just a single word.

Abracadabra!

What a weird, nonsensical response... but not entirely surprising. It's difficult to defend a position when it is unsupported by anything resembling principle.

 

[d4m10n]

It's difficult to defend a position when it is unsupported by anything resembling principle.

Not sure what principles you are affirming when you claim that "canceling isn't really a thing" despite the fact that we know what it means for someone to be canceled.

You tried to convince us that the Star Wars lady getting fired and your favorite podcast getting cancelled was a Very Serious Problem

I don't recall saying it was very serious; I do recall saying that the cancelled show would have been a good watch.

You...have said nothing in this thread about the 600 people who were fired because of their comments about Charlie Kirk

At least we can agree that those people weren't canceled since that "isn't really a thing."

 

[autumn1971]

Not sure what principles you are affirming when you claim that "canceling isn't really a thing" despite the fact that we know what it means for someone to be canceled.

I don't recall saying it was very serious; I do recall saying that the cancelled show would have been a good watch.

At least we can agree that those people weren't canceled since that "isn't really a thing."

“Cancelled” means someone did something the free-market was unhappy enough with to stop buying that person’s product.

Full stop
New Coke wasn’t cancelled because of politics, the market rejected it
Being fired without the market rejecting it by a government entity responding to government orders is fascism, or an important facet of it

 

[Ron Obvious]

“Cancelled” means someone did something the free-market was unhappy enough with to stop buying that person’s product.

Full stop
New Coke wasn’t cancelled because of politics, the market rejected it
Being fired without the market rejecting it by a government entity responding to government orders is fascism, or an important facet of it

Maybe I missed it, but I never heard anyone claiming New Coke was "cancelled". As I recall, it was made with corn syrup instead of cane sugar, and sadly, the returning "classic Coke" was also made with corn syrup and never tasted quite right. I don't remember anyone saying they liked New Coke.

 

[johnny karate]

Not sure what principles you are affirming when you claim that "canceling isn't really a thing" despite the fact that we know what it means for someone to be canceled.

We don't actually, because the definition has remained purposely amorphous. It means whatever the people who have adopted the term want it to mean in the moment they are using it.

I don't recall saying it was very serious; I do recall saying that the cancelled show would have been a good watch.

It was serious enough to merit dozens of posts from you expressing your concern. Considerably more, I might add, than your post count expressing concern about the ~600 people fired over their comments about Charlie Kirk, which remains at zero.

At least we can agree that those people weren't canceled since that "isn't really a thing."

Right, which is why I didn't say they were "cancelled".

But considering the standards used to claim other people were "cancelled", it is strikingly odd that those making these "cancellation" claims aren't expressing at least as much concern as they did over the Star Wars lady getting "cancelled".

If you can think of a reason for this other than those people were full of ◊◊◊◊ from the beginning, I'd love to hear it.

 

[jt512]

Maybe I missed it, but I never heard anyone claiming New Coke was "cancelled". As I recall, it was made with corn syrup instead of cane sugar, and sadly, the returning "classic Coke" was also made with corn syrup and never tasted quite right. I don't remember anyone saying they liked New Coke.

OT, but interesting. New Coke consistently beat the old Coke in blind taste tests; objectively, it tasted better. New Coke failed because customers were emotionally attached to the old product.

 

[Puppycow]

OT, but interesting. New Coke consistently beat the old Coke in blind taste tests; objectively, it tasted better. New Coke failed because customers were emotionally attached to the old product.

So did Pepsi though. In fact, I think the reason they came up with New Coke in the first place is because those taste tests spooked them.

I think Pepsi and New Coke both had more sugar in them than old Coke and were therefore sweeter, and when you taste them side by side blind, people notice the difference and when asked to choose one, they tend to pick the sweeter one. In everyday life though, people are not usually tasting them side by side and Coke was plenty sweet enough. Besides, it "went better with" food like burgers than the sweeter Pepsi.

Yes, Pepsi is generally considered sweeter than Coke, often testing sweeter in blind sips due to slightly more sugar and a citrusy burst from citric acid, while Coke offers a more vanilla/raisin profile with higher sodium, affecting perception. Pepsi's sweetness can be more prominent initially in sip tests, but Coke's sharpness and fizz might be preferred in full consumption.
Key Differences:

• Sweetness: Pepsi usually has a slightly higher sugar content (e.g., 2 more grams per can) and a flavor profile that many find sweeter and citrusy.
• Flavor Profile: Coke leans towards vanilla and raisin notes, while Pepsi has a citrusy flavor burst due to citric acid, which it contains and Coke doesn't.
• Sodium: Coke has significantly more sodium than Pepsi, which can affect perceived sweetness and taste.
• Carbonation: Coke tends to be more carbonated, giving it a sharper fizz, while Pepsi is often described as smoother and less fizzy.

Why the Difference?

• Sip Tests vs. Full Consumption: Pepsi often wins blind "sip tests" (like the Pepsi Challenge) because its initial sweetness and citrus burst are appealing in small sips. However, in home tests where people drink a whole can, Coke's balance and sharper taste might be preferred as Pepsi's sweetness can become overpowering.
• Ingredients: The addition of citric acid in Pepsi and higher sodium in Coke play major roles in their distinct tastes, notes Sporked.

In short, Pepsi's flavor is sweeter and more citrus-forward, while Coke is often described as smoother, more complex with vanilla notes, and has a sharper fizz, says VinePair.