Cancel culture IRL

[d4m10n]

I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that.

As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are.

Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit?

 

[BobTheCoward]

All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.

The things you describe though are not really punishments. A breakup of a mutual relationship is not a punishment.

 

[RedStapler]

As I said earlier, some cancellations are warranted and others are not. It wouldn't be particularly logical to reason that all of them must be warranted b/c some of them clearly are.

Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place? Should more of us follow suit?

What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't.

I live in Germany, I've seen plenty of people getting kicked out of stores because they refused to wear a mask. So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me.

 

[Darat]

The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend.

TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too.

You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too.

And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal.

Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group.

And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back.

This really does seem to be a fair summary (albeit of course it's a generalisation with the limitations of that).

Been in a few threads like this and so far the ones who claim this is all new and terrible and want "it" to stop don't have any ideas on how to make it stop.

Much of what they bring up in the threads as the issues they have will be about behaviour that is already illegal in many countries, for example vandalism, harassment and assault.

So what else do they want to be made illegal to stop this new "cancel culture"?

Many of the examples that have been brought up as egregious examples involve people losing their job (which all agree is not a good thing for the person) so one would expect those against the new cancel culture would want to see employers being prevented from sacking people who are targeted by a cancel-culture-campaign.

We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on. There are also some areas where you can be sacked for "disreputable" behaviour but these grounds for dismissal are usually arising from terms in the employment contract rather than statutory rights. (Please note doing something illegal outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign".

 

[pgwenthold]

We know this can work as in the UK and quite a few other countries that are signed up to the ECHR it is not legal to sack someone simply because they expressed political views outside the workplace, or attended a protest and so on.

Interesting. What would the law say about firing someone who led a KKK rally?

 

[RolandRat]

illegal[/B] outside the workplace can be grounds for being sacked even if not directly connected to your employer.) I would suggest those in the USA wanting to stop the new cancel culture should look to getting USA employment laws changed to something similar, this would remove one of the most serious consequences of someone being targeted by a "cancel culture campaign".

According to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/fired-for-political-views-harry-freedman

You can be fired in the UK for political views.

"It came as a surprise to me that one can be dismissed for one's political views. But the employment legislation clearly outlines certain discriminatory reasons for dismissal, against which an employee has statutory grounds for appeal.

These include sexual or racial discrimination, or discrimination on the grounds of disability, sexual orientation religion or belief. If your employer discriminates against you because of your political beliefs you do not have a statutory right of appeal."

This was in 2009 though, has there been amendments made to the legislation?

 

[d4m10n]

What a ridiculous strawman. Can you show where the highlighted is claimed? Of course you can't.

Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided.

So if you refused to kick someone out that means you can't do your job and then you are fired, easy as that. If it takes public shaming, that's allright with me.

Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons?

The things you describe though are not really punishments.

Losing a job is not comparable to prison or flogging, to be sure.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.

It is apparently against the rules to cross-post things that people have said in other threads, so I will instead just say that about a week ago you made a post in another thread in which you linked to a twitter pile-on, while not even knowing if the claims in that twitter thread were true, or if the individual the thread was inviting a pile-on of was perpetrating a hoax. I don't think you're as concerned with "hav[ing] a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on" as you would like people to believe.

 

[RedStapler]

Why would I need to do so? I was asking a question about the morality of actions taken by specific individuals, examples of which have already been provided.

No, you were asking "Do you think the people calling for Kroger Andy to be fired were actually making the world a better place?"

I asked you why you brought up the "better place" part. All I can see right now is you giving distracting non-answers.

Do you think Andy ought to be fired for failing to forcibly remove Kroger patrons?

I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer?

 

[d4m10n]

I answered that already in the post you quoted. Were you unable to read and understand two sentences? Says a lot. Actually, your quote is the actual answer...why did you ask me a question while quoting the answer?

I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

 

[RedStapler]

I'm going to assume that's a yes, you do believe that the individual in question should lose his job. Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted. If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired.

 

[Joe Random]

I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO.

US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that.

Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really ****** up one.

 

[RedStapler]

I can't find a link now, but I recall reading a source a few days back which said that Kroger location had a written policy from corporate of non-confrontation/non-removal of people without masks by any store employee, including the manager. If true then Andy was in fact acting as he was instructed. If not, then termination over a single incident would still be excessively harsh, IMO.

US employment laws screw workers over enough as it is. We really don't need the Twatter mob adding to that.

Edit just to add emphasis : the notion that a single offense which isn't in the category of theft or assault deserves a firing is a really ****** up one.

You don't have a browser history?

Sorry, but these "I can't find it right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" posts are really ****** up.

 

[d4m10n]

I gave you my reasoning in the post you quoted. If you refuse to show a Covidiot the door, you are not doing your job and should be fired.

Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

 

[RedStapler]

Did you form your opinion after consulting more sources than just the tweet at the top of this thread?

Yes, I did. Why are you asking?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I fail to see how "Kroeger Andy" is an example of cancel culture gone too far when the response to the twitter post is mostly mockery and dismissal. Andy never really seemed to be in danger of being fired, has not been fired, and is largely seen as the unfortunate target of some internet weirdo.

If anything, Kroeger Andy is an example of the self-imposed restraints of cancel culture. It's actually not that easy to whip up a false mob.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, I did. Why are you asking?

Did those sources happen to say whether Andy was authorized by policy to do anything more than just talk to non-compliant customers? Did the sources relate the facts of the incident from Andy's POV? From another third party?

 

[RolandRat]

You don't have a browser history?

Sorry, but these "I can't find it right now but I'm sure I read it somewhere" posts are really ****** up.

This is from the twitter thread in the OP:

https://twitter.com/obtusenosemoose/status/1292190636846850048

It was posted by someone who said he currently works for the company.

The important part is probably the underlined and bolded part:

"Under no circumstances should a customer be forcibly removed and instead reminded in accordance to the mandate they are forbidden to shop without a facial covering"

 

[d4m10n]

I fail to see how "Kroeger Andy" is an example of cancel culture gone too far when the response to the twitter post is mostly mockery and dismissal.

Even now RedStapler is making the case that the mob didn't go far enough re: getting Andy sacked. Is that an instance of cancel culture?

ETA: Did you just justify mockery and dismissal as the appropriate response to at least some attempted cancellations?

 

[RedStapler]

Did those sources happen to say whether Andy was authorized by policy to do anything more than just talk to non-compliant customers? Did the sources relate the facts of the incident from Andy's POV? From another third party?

Ah. here's the cheap gotcha I've been waiting for.

Yes, the policy was "Don't throw people out if they don't wear a mask". The general, nationwide policy is "Wear a mask or you don't come in".

Now, of course, everything is fine with you. After all, it was a store policy and he just followed orders,lol.