Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[TurkeysGhost]

It's bad when the bad people do it.

Enlightened centrists can't discern between good or bad things, news at 11.

Yes, it's bad when bad people do it. This isn't really controversial for anyone who hasn't twisted themselves into a nonsensical position that places aesthetics over substance.

 

[dirtywick]

It's bad when the bad people do it.

it's not me who has a problem with any of this.

 

[d4m10n]

Telling people to attack Target pride displays, threaten their employees and boycott it because "Target hired a satanist to convert YOUR children into their sex cult." when Target did no such thing and only sold things designed for people you hate for not a single valid reason, is completely unjustified.

What if some customers decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

it's not me who has a problem with any of this.

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over store displays, actions which go well beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What if people decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over displays, even if that's a fair bit beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

I think I'll sooner leap over the empire state building than suburbanites will stop shopping at Target.

 

[dirtywick]

I think we should all have a problem with threatening store employees and knocking over store displays, actions which go well beyond "cancellation" in the usual sense.

oh, good point. you were right, it is worse when bad people do it.

 

[d4m10n]

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Probably because an act of violence can be done unilaterally, meanwhile reputational harm depends on others agreeing with the insult being levied. Kroger Andy came out his scrape as the generally more sympathetic figure, and Muscato's attempts largely backfired in her being perceived as the villain.

 

[dirtywick]

Typically we can recognize that once the mob has resorted to threats or violence, they have gone too far. It's a bit subtler when they want to ruin an individual's career, as in the responses to Muscato when she put Andy on blast.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

so have we settled in on violence and threats is too far, saying what you think about other people on the internet is fine?

 

[d4m10n]

so have we settled in on violence and threats is too far, saying what you think about other people on the internet is fine?

Saying what you think about them is fine, unless you are lying or mistaken. The people calling for Andy to be sacked by Kroger did so based on woefully insufficient information, having only heard from a single Karen person who complained to the internet.

Muscato's attempts largely backfired in her being perceived as the villain.

This doesn't excuse her actions, or those of the would-be cancellers who played along.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This doesn't excuse her actions, or those of the would-be cancellers who played along.

Her actions were objectionable because her judgement of the situation was poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with publicly shaming people who engage in bad behavior. She was herself subjected to a bit of public flogging that strikes me as appropriate for her bad behavior.

And we're back to "it's bad when bad people do it" again, which is absolutely true.

 

[dirtywick]

Saying what you think about them is fine, unless you are lying or mistaken. The people calling for Andy to be sacked by Kroger did so based on woefully insufficient information, having only heard from a single Karen person who complained to the internet.

alright, you're allowed to say whatever you want about other people as long as you're pretty sure you're right

 

[d4m10n]

There's nothing inherently wrong with publicly shaming people who engage in bad behavior.

If you are talking about viral outrage posts on sites like Twitter and Facebook, there is no process in place to gather facts and determine whether any given shaming is actually warranted or not. Playing along with any given public shaming campaign runs a serious risk of targeting the wrong person or spreading disinformation about the right person. It's not like we've never seen a campaign of online shaming end in retraction.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Excluding voices is often a useful and necessary part of expression. The right to association also means a right not to associate, and like minded people are often justified to exclude those that don't share similar attitudes.

I'm not really seeing how this squares with the "cancel culture" crowd who act like these basic truths are some affront to liberal values.

Right to association means that you can exclude people you dislike from your PRIVATE interactions. Seeking to exile them from PUBLIC interactions is something altogether different.

Targeted intentional harassment shouldn't be glossed over just because you agree with the bullies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can't argue with results

I'll make you down as supporting inquisition and witch hunts then.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Enlightened centrists can't discern between good or bad things, news at 11.

Yes, it's bad when bad people do it. This isn't really controversial for anyone who hasn't twisted themselves into a nonsensical position that places aesthetics over substance.

You seem to be missing that it's bad when the good people do it as well.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You seem to be missing that it's bad when the good people do it as well.

Is it? Public shame strikes me as an excellent tool for enforcing social norms, and it's nice to have a response that exists between doing nothing and throwing people in prison.

the public shame that the Central Park Karen got hit with, for example, seems like a perfect use case for non-carceral punishment of outrageously anti-social behavior.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Right to association means that you can exclude people you dislike from your PRIVATE interactions. Seeking to exile them from PUBLIC interactions is something altogether different.



Targeted intentional harassment shouldn't be glossed over just because you agree with the bullies.

I don't believe TurkeysGhost made any mention of harassment or bullies.

Harassing an individual and coordinating with others (not the individual in question) towards a common goal are entirely different things.

Withdrawing interaction is an entirely different social tool than confrontation and aggression. The former, by definition, precludes the latter!

Similar to how those "silent protests" where people just line a sidewalk and quietly stare, no words, no chanting, no heckling, just total stoney silence, are far more effective at times than loud protests and black-clad tweeners with spray paint cans and clubs.

 

[tyr_13]

What if some customers decide to boycott Target because of the actual pride displays and actual merchandise? Is that blameworthy, in your view?

Your question is if it is wrong to be stupid bigoted crybabies.

Yes, that's blameworthy. There is no world in which the merits of the case don't matter for withdrawing support and trying to convince others to do the same.

 

[d4m10n]

There is no world in which the merits of the case don't matter for withdrawing support and trying to convince others to do the same.

Boycotts and cancellations are good when they uphold your values, but not those of "stupid bigoted crybabies" like the people boycotting Target.

 

[mumblethrax]

Boycotts and cancellations are good when they uphold your values, but not those of "stupid bigoted crybabies" like the people boycotting Target.

Obviously. That’s what it means to have values. If I thought somebody else’s values were just as good as mine, holding my values, rather than theirs, would be arbitrary.