• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

respectfully but strongly

Darat said:
That avoids answering the rather simple question Lithrael asked.
Click to expand...
I disagree and suggest that you reread my answer. The author(s) of the petition were trying to decide not just for themselves not to attend, but to prevent others from attending by means of a third party.
 
Last edited:
Would it not be simpler to just say “I think petitions to cancel events (and presumably publications etc) are inappropriate. Because if successful such petitions would deprive the public of the choice to consume them or not.”

I think the ‘if successful’ is very important though. Petitions like the one against the opera are hardly binding. They’re no more than expression of opinion and those who oppose that opinion are free to take any number of actions about it. The pressured venue can ignore it, or defend their choice to host the opera, or decide not to host it. The production can start a counter-petition, or defend their position, etc.

If the petition isn’t successful then it simply serves as an illustration of where some peoples’ heads are at and in what numbers they are invested enough to want to sign a petition about it.

I would like it to be ‘ok’ if I wanted to sign a petition asking a publisher not to publish some upcoming fad diet book if I felt strongly about it. Even though, if successful, it would deprive people of the choice to consume the book (as presented by that publisher) or not.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I disagree and suggest that you reread my answer. The author(s) of the petition were trying to decide not just for themselves not to attend, but to prevent others from attending by means of a third party.
Click to expand...

The question was: "Again without taking a side in that argument, it’s how some people feel and they made a petition about it. Is that not appropriate?"

You are avoiding answering that for some reason.
 
Pretty funny how a few pages ago, the "agreed" definition of cancel culture was something like "ceasing to support someone and urging others to do the same (via social media)".
Suddenly it's also "creating a mere petition without even threatening to cease support".

(Which pretty much shows that cancel culture is whatever "conservatives" want it to be)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
The question was: "Again without taking a side in that argument, it’s how some people feel and they made a petition about it. Is that not appropriate?"
Click to expand...

Is there anybody really arguing that this type of behavior is In and of itself is inappropriate? We know it's existed since the dawn of time and likely isn't going away anytime soon so arguing against the idea that people need to stop complaining (in general) would be pretty fruitless. Sometimes the complaints transcend stupid though, and those are the ones that make this thread.
 
EaglePuncher said:
Pretty funny how a few pages ago, the "agreed" definition of cancel culture was something like "ceasing to support someone and urging others to do the same (via social media)".
Suddenly it's also "creating a mere petition without even threatening to cease support".

(Which pretty much shows that cancel culture is whatever "conservatives" want it to be)
Click to expand...

I know eh. Assistant principals getting fired for reading a book with the words butt and fart in it, a firefighter getting disciplined by his fire company for being an idiot on Twitter, internment of US citizens with Japanese heritage,slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, women's oppression, homosexual oppression...

Damn Conservatives
 
Stout said:
Is there anybody really arguing that this type of behavior is In and of itself is inappropriate? We know it's existed since the dawn of time and likely isn't going away anytime soon so arguing against the idea that people need to stop complaining (in general) would be pretty fruitless. Sometimes the complaints transcend stupid though, and those are the ones that make this thread.
Click to expand...

Quick follow-up question. Is “cancel culture” “normal behaviour motivated by opinions I think are really wrongheaded” or is it just that this thread (title aside) is for dishing the dirt on normal behavior motivated by opinions that posters think are really wrongheaded?

ETA: btw apologies for getting into the semantic weeds I just couldn’t resist
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
I know eh. Assistant principals getting fired for reading a book with the words butt and fart in it, a firefighter getting disciplined by his fire company for being an idiot on Twitter, internment of US citizens with Japanese heritage,slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, women's oppression, homosexual oppression...

Damn Conservatives
Click to expand...

How is that a response to my post? :confused::confused::confused:
 
Lithrael said:
Quick follow-up question. Is “cancel culture” “normal behaviour motivated by opinions I think are really wrongheaded” or is it just that this thread (title aside) is for dishing the dirt on normal behavior motivated by opinions that posters think are really wrongheaded?

ETA: btw apologies for getting into the semantic weeds I just couldn’t resist
Click to expand...

I dunno. It's normal behavior for sure it's just that with the social media component we get a look into masses of people losing their **** over things they probably wouldn't be losing their **** over had they not been part of that social media web.

I have no idea how this thread has lasted so long but it is wildly entertaining beating the semantics to death then doing it again when they arise as zombies. Cancel culture is just a new term and why some people are so invested in insisting that it doesn't exist is, to put it mildly, hilarious.

I suppose we could describe it as partisan politics with the more extreme elements making life difficult for us normal people.
 
Stout said:
we get a look into masses of people losing their **** over things they probably wouldn't be losing their **** over had they not been part of that social media web.
Click to expand...

So people react to something they would not have reacted to had they not known that certain something? That's very deep and analytical. :D:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
two distinct issues

Lithrael said:
Would it not be simpler to just say “I think petitions to cancel events (and presumably publications etc) are inappropriate. Because if successful such petitions would deprive the public of the choice to consume them or not.”

I think the ‘if successful’ is very important though. Petitions like the one against the opera are hardly binding. They’re no more than expression of opinion and those who oppose that opinion are free to take any number of actions about it. The pressured venue can ignore it, or defend their choice to host the opera, or decide not to host it. The production can start a counter-petition, or defend their position, etc.

If the petition isn’t successful then it simply serves as an illustration of where some peoples’ heads are at and in what numbers they are invested enough to want to sign a petition about it.

I would like it to be ‘ok’ if I wanted to sign a petition asking a publisher not to publish some upcoming fad diet book if I felt strongly about it. Even though, if successful, it would deprive people of the choice to consume the book (as presented by that publisher) or not.
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph is a good summary of one of the points I introduced in comment #1679.. A second issue from this comment was the one which the host of the blog to which I linked opened up for discussion, writing "But I’ve argued that the defining characteristic of cancel culture isn’t criticism, but the shift in direction away from the person, idea or thing being criticized to what’s akin to a secondary boycott in labor relations." I don't know enough about labor relations to understand this argument well enough to summarize it here; nevertheless, the question is worth considering IMO.

Regarding one of your other points, I would say that if one starts a petition to get a performance cancelled or to get someone fired from his or her job and it happens, then one owns a portion of that. In other words, I don't see it as a valid argument to say in effect, "Well, I am not the person who fired the employee."
EDT
Your example suggests that the person petitioning that a book not be published believes that he or she has sufficiently greater knowledge that the book is damaging than the would be buyers. I think it's debatable. Why is that a better solution than publishing a review pointing out the book's errors?
 
Last edited:
asked and answered

Darat said:
The question was: "Again without taking a side in that argument, it’s how some people feel and they made a petition about it. Is that not appropriate?"

You are avoiding answering that for some reason.
Click to expand...
I answered and expanded a bit on that answer in my most recent comment. If you think there is some portion of the question that I did not address, or if there is something that you don't understand, perhaps you could explain what that is.
 
a Loder link

SuburbanTurkey said:
Censorious fascists going 3/3 on losing lawsuits angainst Antifa super soldier Chad Loder:



https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1507151921273995285?cxt=HHwWqoCsof2rveopAAAA

Of course, no legal finding can make up for the deluge of death threats that came after Andy Ngo publicized that Loder had been disarmed as a result of the frivolous protection orders. Ngo's fanbase are notoriously violent, including one who is currently facing a murder charge and 4 attempted murder charges for opening fire into an unarmed protest crowd. Andy Ngo is now reporting that a close associate of the three previous frivolous litigants is now filing a defamation claim against Loder. Non-stop frivolous lawsuit attempts to silence a critic. Fortunately California has an aggressive SLAPP law that will likely mean this lawsuit ends the same as others, with fascists owing Loder money.

Pearl clutching "cancel culture" pundits don't seem too interested in the attempts of violent fascists to threaten their critics into silence, but in fact regularly hold up Ngo as some victim of cancel culture himself.
Click to expand...
There was not much information in the link that you provided, but this Intercept ariticle got me more nearly up to speed. I am sure that there are some interesting legal and social angles to this story, but I don't have the bandwidth to pursue every such story.
 
no agreement on a definition

EaglePuncher said:
Pretty funny how a few pages ago, the "agreed" definition of cancel culture was something like "ceasing to support someone and urging others to do the same (via social media)".
Suddenly it's also "creating a mere petition without even threatening to cease support".

(Which pretty much shows that cancel culture is whatever "conservatives" want it to be)
Click to expand...
There has never been agreement about what cancel culture is in this thread, as far as I can tell. In addition, my position is that social media facilitates cancel culture, but I question whether or not it is an essential element. I believe that I have said as much in previous comments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom