Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[d4m10n]

Too much free speech, too much free market, or maybe a little too much of both?

This is what logicians call a false dilemma^WP.

If we practiced a reasonable amount of self-restraint, we wouldn't need to limit either form of freedom in order to prevent gratuitous harm.

 

[johnny karate]

This is what logicians call a false dilemma^WP.

If we practiced a reasonable amount of self-restraint, we wouldn't need to limit either form of freedom in order to prevent gratuitous harm.

Who is deciding to what degree "self-restraint" is exercised? And what should happen when this predetermined amount of "self-restraint" is exceeded?

Also, does this apply to all parties in the situation? For instance, should Gina Carano have used a little more "self-restraint"? Or do these restrictions on expression only apply to people responding to the Gina Caranos of the world, while the likes of Gina Carano are free to do do and say what they want with no calls for "self-restraint"?

 

[Upchurch]

This is what logicians call a false dilemma^WP.

If we practiced a reasonable amount of self-restraint, we wouldn't need to limit either form of freedom in order to prevent gratuitous harm.

You aren't talking about self-restraint. You talking about others being restrained.

 

[Upchurch]

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the idea is. Free speech already has limits on it because people cannot restrain themselves. If they could, we never would have had to consider whether or not yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech.

You might as well say this wouldn't be a problem if only we had unicorns.

 

[smartcooky]

What exactly was insulting about exposing students to historically significant artwork made by Muslims for other Muslims?

Was it?

Do you understand that Muslims find ANY depiction of Mohammad offensive, right?

 

[smartcooky]

This is what logicians call a false dilemma^WP.

If we practiced a reasonable amount of self-restraint, we wouldn't need to limit either form of freedom in order to prevent gratuitous harm.

Perhaps the professor could have practiced some of this self-restraint that you speak of, before displaying an image that she MUST have known would be offensive to her Muslim students?

 

[wareyin]

Hey remember when Christians got all butthurt about Piss Christ and tried to get it cancelled? They shrieked Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Offensive! and we all laughed and said, "stupid Christians" then lectured them of freedom of speech and expression and we told them we had no need for their fairy stories of Big Daddy, Junior, and The Spook.

In this imaginary timeline where you did all that stuff (because to get "we" you have to be including yourself) how well did your lectures go? I ask because based on your posts here I can't even imagine a coherent lecture.

Then one day some professor showed an image to a student and...

The wokesters jumped in with Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Offensive! and we had to do the same thing all over again.

Which just goes to show whether they be conservatives or wokeis what we're dealing with are your bog standard control freaks and moral scolds and both need to gently reminded that it's time to take your butthurt and piss off.

"Wokeis"? Wookies?

Anyway, as you are attempting to scold people over their morality in this very post of yours, will you be taking your own advice? Or is this more of the "rules for thee, not for me" conservative mantra stuff?

 

[johnny karate]

Who is deciding to what degree "self-restraint" is exercised? And what should happen when this predetermined amount of "self-restraint" is exceeded?

Also, does this apply to all parties in the situation? For instance, should Gina Carano have used a little more "self-restraint"? Or do these restrictions on expression only apply to people responding to the Gina Caranos of the world, while the likes of Gina Carano are free to do do and say what they want with no calls for "self-restraint"?

As a follow-up to these questions for d4m10n (which I’m sure will go unaddressed), when you attack someone else’s religious beliefs, should you exercise “self-restraint”? Or is “self-restraint” only for the rest of us?

 

[d4m10n]

As a follow-up to these questions for d4m10n (which I’m sure will go unaddressed), when you attack someone else’s religious beliefs, should you exercise “self-restraint”?

If you've some reason to believe attacking false beliefs might cause significant harm, then yes. Otherwise, I'd say free and open discussion of philosophical and religious ideas is just fine, even ideas held quite dear.

Did you really mean to compare hurting someone's feelings to taking away their livelihood?

 

[d4m10n]

You aren't talking about self-restraint. You talking about others being restrained.

I specifically mentioned a case in which I regretfully failed to exercise a sufficient amount of self-restraint upthread. Search for "Gelato Andy" for details.

 

[wareyin]

If you've some reason to believe attacking false beliefs might cause significant harm, then yes. Otherwise, I'd say free and open discussion of philosophical and religious ideas is just fine, even ideas held quite dear.

Did you really mean to compare hurting someone's feelings to taking away their livelihood?

I continue to wonder at the apparent disconnect between your beliefs about the sanctity of one's employment status being guaranteed no matter what and the reality that the overwhelming majority of us live with. What job do you hold that you believe you cannot or should not be fired for making your company look bad in public?

 

[Upchurch]

I specifically mentioned a case in which I regretfully failed to exercise a sufficient amount of self-restraint upthread. Search for "Gelato Andy" for details.

Are you not suggesting that the problem with cancel culture are that other people are not exhibiting the kind of self-restraint you feel they ought to be?

ETA: I mean, of course, you are. It's a "cancel culture". One person does not make a culture.

If you are decrying the self-restraint of other people, you are no longer talking about self-restraint. You are simply saying that other people are not restrained enough. The question is, as I've already asked, how do you wish the people in cancel culture to be restrained? Should some forms of their speech not be protected because it impinges on commerce? Should people not be allowed to choose which products and services they consume based on their opinions of the companies and people behind those products and services?

 

[johnny karate]

If you've some reason to believe attacking false beliefs might cause significant harm, then yes. Otherwise, I'd say free and open discussion of philosophical and religious ideas is just fine, even ideas held quite dear.

Did you really mean to compare hurting someone's feelings to taking away their livelihood?

Couple of things: 1) We're talking about "self-restraint", and more specifically, your feeling that others should practice more of it. However, you seem to exempt yourself from that. Your position seems to be: "I can say and do what I want, and if it upsets someone else, too bad. No self-restraint required". As Upchurch already point out, you're not actually talking about "self-restraint", you're talking about other people restraining themselves to your liking.

2) This myth that saying you think someone else should be fired automatically gets them fired really should be put to rest. It doesn't at all work that way. It's a lame and worn-out conflation, and it's embarrassing how much you lean on it. So no, I'm not comparing hurting someone's feelings to taking away their livelihood. I'm comparing saying something that someone else might not like with another example of that, and asking why one requires "self-restraint" but the other doesn't.

 

[d4m10n]

Couple of things: 1) We're talking about "self-restraint", and more specifically, your feeling that others should practice more of it.

Everyone who has ever been tempted to mete out punishment when part of an excited mob needs to exercise self-restraint. That includes me.

However, you seem to exempt yourself from that.

Not at all. I still regret what we did to Gelato Andy and I'm thankful that Skepticon worked to set things right.

Your position seems to be: "I can say and do what I want, and if it upsets someone else, too bad. No self-restraint required".

Can you see a distinction between upsetting someone by offending their sensibilities and upsetting someone by trying to put them out of a job?

As Upchurch already point out, you're not actually talking about "self-restraint", you're talking about other people restraining themselves to your liking.

As I already pointed out to Upchurch, I've already mentioned a case in which I was (quite regrettably) part of the cancel mob and ought to have practiced more self-restraint.

2) This myth that saying you think someone else should be fired automatically gets them fired really should be put to rest.

If you ask a corporation or a university to fire someone, you should accept the consequences that follow.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you not suggesting that the problem with cancel culture are that other people are not exhibiting the kind of self-restraint you feel they ought to be?

Self-restraint should be used whenever you find yourself tempted to mete out punishment as part of an excited mob. This isn't an other people problem, it is an everyone problem.

 

[d4m10n]

What job do you hold that you believe you cannot or should not be fired for making your company look bad in public?

If you want personal details, send a PM.

 

[Upchurch]

Self-restraint should be used whenever you find yourself tempted to mete out punishment as part of an excited mob. This isn't an other people problem, it is an everyone problem.

And how would you suggest handling everyone’s lack of restraint?


ETA: We can dance around the topic all you like, but either cancel culture isn’t actually a problem or you don’t want to admit that the only way to avoid it is to either limit free speech or free market.

 

[d4m10n]

And how would you suggest handling everyone’s lack of restraint?

Advocating for more restraint, and (if possible) leading by example.

We can dance around the topic all you like, but either cancel culture isn’t actually a problem or you don’t want to admit that the only way to avoid it is to either limit free speech or free market.

You keep going back to this false dilemma, when you must realize those are not the only two options.

Let me provide an analogy. Some people advocate for alt med treatments which haven't been scientifically shown to outperform placebo. The only way to get them to stop is to either put them in jail or else persuade social media platforms to ban them for sharing alt med content. There is literally no other option, certainly not educational efforts, we have to find some way to limit their freedom.

 

[johnny karate]

Everyone who has ever been tempted to mete out punishment when part of an excited mob needs to exercise self-restraint. That includes me.

The idea that everyone should exercise self-restraint is a vague platitude and offers nothing useful to the conversation. And I'm not sure what you mean by "excited mob" but in most of these cases, there's nothing approaching a "mob" involved, excited or otherwise.

Not at all. I still regret what we did to Gelato Andy and I'm thankful that Skepticon worked to set things right.

But if you want to criticize someone else's religious beliefs and it upsets them, that's just too bad for them. No need for you to exercise self-restraint in that scenario.

Can you see a distinction between upsetting someone by offending their sensibilities and upsetting someone by trying to put them out of a job?

I see that you're trying to make it a distinction so you can thread the needle between excusing your own behavior and criticizing others without appearing hypocritical. It's all just a free expression of speech. Either speech has the power to hurt, or it doesn't. You can't just label some speech worse than others in a manner that conveniently gives you a pass on the hurtful things you say.

As I already pointed out to Upchurch, I've already mentioned a case in which I was (quite regrettably) part of the cancel mob and ought to have practiced more self-restraint.

But no regrets for the people you might upset when you criticize their religious beliefs, right? All of this would be a lot more convincing if you were advocating for people to just be nicer to each other in general. When someone who proudly proclaims their right to act like a jerk tells me that I need to exercise more self-restraint, you'll excuse me if I don't take it very seriously.

If you ask a corporation or a university to fire someone, you should accept the consequences that follow.

You're arguing that sometimes the things we say have consequences, and that we must accept those consequences as a condition of saying those things, is that correct?

 

[Upchurch]

Advocating for more restraint, and (if possible) leading by example.

Okay, so no solutions, just complaining.

You keep going back to this false dilemma, when you must realize those are not the only two options.

Let me provide an analogy. Some people advocate for alt med treatments which haven't been scientifically shown to outperform placebo. The only way to get them to stop is to either put them in jail or else persuade social media platforms to ban them for sharing alt med content. There is literally no other option, certainly not educational efforts, we have to find some way to limit their freedom.

You do realize that we live in a world where some people believe the Earth is flat, right?

It’s not a false dichotomy. “Cancel culture” is a direct result of free speech and a free market. Most people just call it “consequences” or “bad PR’, but whatever. If you value stopping cancel culture over people having their own opinions and making their own decisions, you have to limit their ability to do so.