Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[johnny karate]

I posted examples of conservative cancel culture more than once, starting five years ago. From what I've seen, no one here cares to defend cancel culture unless it's done to defend progressive values.

Why on earth do you think anyone should bother bringing up examples—in a discussion forum—where everyone already agrees?

It’s not about progressive vs conservative or arguing for the sake of arguing. It’s about making arguments rooted in principle and defending those principles.

But thanks for confirming that you are not now or have ever been arguing from principle.

 

[d4m10n]

Groups such as FIRE argue against cancel culture on principle regardless of whether those cancellations come from the right or the left.

I support those groups and don't feel any particular need to hold myself accountable to pseudonymous randos on the www.

 

[johnny karate]

Groups such as FIRE argue against cancel culture on principle regardless of whether those cancellations come from the right or the left.

I support those groups and don't feel any particular need to hold myself accountable to pseudonymous randos on the www.

I don’t act out of principle but other people do and I am pointing at them now and also you’re poopy head!

 

[acbytesla]

This whole cancel culture nonsense is bull crap. People are free to express themselves. And others are free to express their dislike of that opinion. Period. They also have the right to not listen to or associate with or purchase from those that express positions they oppose. Usually those complaining about cancel culture only have a problem with their ideas and positions being canceled.

I'm not offended by pretty much anything. I don't find any activity or positions unworthy of being criticized or made fun of. But you have the right to walk away from someone whose opinions you disagree with. You are not, nor should you have to listen to them.

I disagree with those that boycotted Budweiser for running culturally inclusive television commercials. But those individuals have as much a right not to buy Budweiser as I do to buy it.

 

[johnny karate]

Well said.

It is and always has been a scam perpetrated by people who want just want to act like ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ free from consequence.

The fact that every principle that was supposedly underpinning all of this has been completely abandoned by those same people in the face of naked fascism is proof of this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This whole cancel culture nonsense is bull crap. People are free to express themselves. And others are free to express their dislike of that opinion. Period. They also have the right to not listen to or associate with or purchase from those that express positions they oppose. Usually those complaining about cancel culture only have a problem with their ideas and positions being canceled.

I'm not offended by pretty much anything. I don't find any activity or positions unworthy of being criticized or made fun of. But you have the right to walk away from someone whose opinions you disagree with. You are not, nor should you have to listen to them.

I disagree with those that boycotted Budweiser for running culturally inclusive television commercials. But those individuals have as much a right not to buy Budweiser as I do to buy it.

As a high level generality I agree with you.

Where I perhaps diverge is when mobs of people attack and harass a company and demand the firing of an employee because they disagree with opinions that said employee shared outside of their work environment, and which have no particular bearing on their work. Or when someone and their family are harassed and threatened and boycotted because of something that a child said on social media a decade prior.

It's not a clean line by any means. But there's still a difference between boycotting a company when that company takes a stance or position that you disagree with... and using harassment, threats, and intimidation to cause the firing of an individual for daring to hold a private opinion. I mean, yeah, we can't necessarily draw a perfect line that divides yellow from green or green from blue. But we sure as hell can tell that yellow is not blue.

 

[d4m10n]

I don’t act out of principle...

How is this anything other than a pointless personal attack?

The fact that every principle that was supposedly underpinning all of this has been completely abandoned by those same people

I just gave you an excellent counterexample and it seems you've already forgotten it.

 

[acbytesla]

As a high level generality I agree with you.

Where I perhaps diverge is when mobs of people attack and harass a company and demand the firing of an employee because they disagree with opinions that said employee shared outside of their work environment, and which have no particular bearing on their work. Or when someone and their family are harassed and threatened and boycotted because of something that a child said on social media a decade prior.

It's not a clean line by any means. But there's still a difference between boycotting a company when that company takes a stance or position that you disagree with... and using harassment, threats, and intimidation to cause the firing of an individual for daring to hold a private opinion. I mean, yeah, we can't necessarily draw a perfect line that divides yellow from green or green from blue. But we sure as hell can tell that yellow is not blue.

No, the line isn't clean. And for the most part I agree with that. I don't think anyone should take anything out on someone's family. Ever! And I'm a strong believer that people should be able to have their own opinions. But when those opinions involve denying others their rights, why should others protect those people?

 

[johnny karate]

As a high level generality I agree with you.

Where I perhaps diverge is when mobs of people attack and harass a company and demand the firing of an employee because they disagree with opinions that said employee shared outside of their work environment, and which have no particular bearing on their work. Or when someone and their family are harassed and threatened and boycotted because of something that a child said on social media a decade prior.

It's not a clean line by any means. But there's still a difference between boycotting a company when that company takes a stance or position that you disagree with... and using harassment, threats, and intimidation to cause the firing of an individual for daring to hold a private opinion. I mean, yeah, we can't necessarily draw a perfect line that divides yellow from green or green from blue. But we sure as hell can tell that yellow is not blue.

Claiming without evidence that “mobs of people attack and harass a company” is the reason a company decides to fire someone or even occurred as described is a hallmark of fake “cancel culture” outrage.

 

[johnny karate]

How is this anything other than a pointless personal attack?

Perceiving it as a personal attack is your choice, but the point is crystal clear.

I just gave you an excellent counterexample and it seems you've already forgotten it.

That you take umbrage with a statement that neither mentioned you or was directed at you speaks volumes.

 

[d4m10n]

Perceiving it as a personal attack is your choice, but the point is crystal clear.

It's an attack on my character with nothing remotely on topic to redeem it. We're done here.

 

[johnny karate]

It's an attack on my character with nothing remotely on topic to redeem it. We're done here.

Cool.

My thesis remains unchanged: The fake “cancel culture” outrage was a grift from the beginning and anyone who was up in arms about actors getting fired from TV shows and podcasts getting cancelled but yawns in the face of much worse abuses by the Trump administration were part of the grift.

 

[dirtywick]

i mean, i think there was definitely some psychos going overboard on social media. but there was absolutely a huge grift by a bunch of celebs and influencers, particularly when it came to distracting from some scandal or even at times a crime they committed. and many of them turned out to be huge hypocrites as soon as a bigger bag came their way.

if you're going to be dependant on a third party for hosting your content, and dependant on a third party for being paid, then you're going to have to play ball with those guys. they're trying to make being kicked off the gravy train for violating a site's terms of service isn't a free speech issue and never was

 

[johnny karate]

There are few better examples of this hypocrisy and the facade of “cancel culture” than in Bari Weiss and her using it to protect an associate of a known sex trafficker.

I can only imagine the humiliation of those falling for this grift, at least for the ones with enough self-awareness and integrity to feel shame.

Fake culture wars like this are a big reason we’ve arrived at this place and every single person who participates owes the rest of us an apology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, the line isn't clean. And for the most part I agree with that. I don't think anyone should take anything out on someone's family. Ever! And I'm a strong believer that people should be able to have their own opinions. But when those opinions involve denying others their rights, why should others protect those people?

What opinions deny other people's rights?

One example I have in mind is from several years ago and I can't find the details. A restaurant owner and their family were harassed and threatened online and IRL until the owner had to fire their own child... because something like 5 years prior to that, the child had made a social media post that was considered racist when they were 13 years old. That child's post would certainly be in poor taste, and very reasonable made people angry. But their opinion didn't deny anyone their rights, as a 13 year old has no power to affect other people's rights. A post on social media doesn't affect other people's rights, no matter how disgusting it might be. Yet the parents were harassed and intimidated into firing their own child for something that had happened years ago.

Another example was from either Oregon or Washington, probably a decade ago at this point (time flies when you're getting old). The school had historically done a "day of absence" where black students voluntarily absented themselves from campus, in order to demonstrate how valuable black people are to society as a means of addressing racism. One year, the black student club that organized the event went the other direction, and instead of voluntarily choosing to be absent, they instead required that white students weren't allowed on campus that day. One of the professors wrote a letter to the group and the school administrators, sharing the opinion that these two actions were not comparable - that there's a very real and meaningful difference between a person making a choice for themselves in order to make a point, versus a person making a demand of everyone else - that choosing to be absent is different from prohibiting other people to be present. That teacher was subjected to harassment, intimidation, and death threats until they quit in part because the school couldn't ensure their safety. Their opinion didn't deny anyone's rights.

At the end of the day, opinions cannot deny someone's rights. Hell, I could hold the opinion that you personally should not have the right to post on ISF. I can shout it from the rooftops, I can gather other people to take up the banner with me... but at no point would my opinion actually remove your right to post here. I have no authority over you.

 

[dirtywick]

At the end of the day, opinions cannot deny someone's rights. Hell, I could hold the opinion that you personally should not have the right to post on ISF. I can shout it from the rooftops, I can gather other people to take up the banner with me... but at no point would my opinion actually remove your right to post here. I have no authority over you.

it sounds as if you're saying these mobs of people taking up the banner and shouting from the rooftops that someone should be cancelled don't actually have authority over anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

it sounds as if you're saying these mobs of people taking up the banner and shouting from the rooftops that someone should be cancelled don't actually have authority over anything.

If the staff here were to be so intimidated by the uproar that they banned acbytesla in response to my hooliganism, there's an effect. But *my* opinion doesn't have authority of its own. And if staff were to hold their ground, there's really nothing I can do about it except be a pain. Luckily staff doesn't kowtow to the feelings and opinions of members, and usually sticks to administering the rules.

 

[dirtywick]

If the staff here were to be so intimidated by the uproar that they banned acbytesla in response to my hooliganism, there's an effect. But *my* opinion doesn't have authority of its own. And if staff were to hold their ground, there's really nothing I can do about it except be a pain. Luckily staff doesn't kowtow to the feelings and opinions of members, and usually sticks to administering the rules.

now you seem to be kind of back and forth about whether or not it’s ok to try and cancel someone. typically a random person in the mob can’t do anything but be a pain and, to borrow some woke pronounism, their opinions don’t hold authority on their own, so no harm done. very similar to what you’re describing here

sounds like cancel culture is fine

 

[acbytesla]

What opinions deny other people's rights?

One example I have in mind is from several years ago and I can't find the details. A restaurant owner and their family were harassed and threatened online and IRL until the owner had to fire their own child... because something like 5 years prior to that, the child had made a social media post that was considered racist when they were 13 years old. That child's post would certainly be in poor taste, and very reasonable made people angry. But their opinion didn't deny anyone their rights, as a 13 year old has no power to affect other people's rights. A post on social media doesn't affect other people's rights, no matter how disgusting it might be. Yet the parents were harassed and intimidated into firing their own child for something that had happened years ago.

Another example was from either Oregon or Washington, probably a decade ago at this point (time flies when you're getting old). The school had historically done a "day of absence" where black students voluntarily absented themselves from campus, in order to demonstrate how valuable black people are to society as a means of addressing racism. One year, the black student club that organized the event went the other direction, and instead of voluntarily choosing to be absent, they instead required that white students weren't allowed on campus that day. One of the professors wrote a letter to the group and the school administrators, sharing the opinion that these two actions were not comparable - that there's a very real and meaningful difference between a person making a choice for themselves in order to make a point, versus a person making a demand of everyone else - that choosing to be absent is different from prohibiting other people to be present. That teacher was subjected to harassment, intimidation, and death threats until they quit in part because the school couldn't ensure their safety. Their opinion didn't deny anyone's rights.

At the end of the day, opinions cannot deny someone's rights. Hell, I could hold the opinion that you personally should not have the right to post on ISF. I can shout it from the rooftops, I can gather other people to take up the banner with me... but at no point would my opinion actually remove your right to post here. I have no authority over you.

You just presented stories. Not evidence. No names or any specific details makes this meaningless. It's like Donald saying "some or most people say" when it's just as likely he pulled it out of his ass. Not saying you are doing the same. But with nothing to review, these stories offer little to consider.

 

[Emily's Cat]

now you seem to be kind of back and forth about whether or not it’s ok to try and cancel someone. typically a random person in the mob can’t do anything but be a pain and, to borrow some woke pronounism, their opinions don’t hold authority on their own, so no harm done. very similar to what you’re describing here

sounds like cancel culture is fine

The scenarios I called out involve harassing, threatening, and intimidating *third parties* so as to induce those *third parties* to take punitive action against the target of the complainer's ire.

Do you actually think that's fine?

Do you actually think that if for some completely insane reason I decided you shouldn't be allowed to post here... it would be perfectly fine for me to harass and threaten Darat, Zoot, etc. until they feel so attacked that they punish YOU in order to appease ME?

Because I don't think that's at all fine.