• 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.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
RolandRat said:
"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"
Click to expand...

So, tell em and if they refuse, do nothing. Great. :rolleyes: Luckily, not every store has policies like this one.
 
d4m10n said:
Even now RedStapler is making the case that the mob didn't go far enough in getting Andy sacked. Is that an instance of cancel culture?
Click to expand...

RedStapler can't get this person fired without support from a wider audience. Neither could the inciting internet weirdo.

The individual criticisms of internet strangers isn't cancel culture. If the behavior showcased isn't sufficiently reprehensible to enough people, nothing happens.

The internet mob managed to hold off lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks to figure out that Kroeger Andy wasn't at fault because Kroeger has bad policies that put him into an unwinnable situation as an employee.
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
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.
Click to expand...


Somehow I'll find a way to cope with your disappointment. And your failure to address the 'if so/if not so' part of my post.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The individual criticisms of internet strangers isn't cancel culture. If the behavior showcased isn't sufficiently reprehensible to enough people, nothing happens.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure those two sentences actually sit well together. The individual trees aren't the forest, but enough trees together...?

SuburbanTurkey said:
The internet mob managed to hold off lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks to figure out that Kroeger Andy wasn't at fault because Kroeger has bad policies that put him into an unwinnable situation as an employee.
Click to expand...
After at least half a dozen individuals (not counting RedStapler) publicly called for Andy to be sacked. These folks all leapt before they looked.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm not sure those two sentences actually sit well together. The individual trees aren't the forest, but enough trees together...?

After at least half a dozen individuals (not counting RedStapler) publicly called for Andy to be sacked. These folks all leapt before they looked.
Click to expand...

I can find half a dozen people willing to send death threats because someone made the wrong kind of fan fiction. The internet is littered with all kinds of bizarre, hair trigger loudmouths. The vast majority of the time, their deranged screeds don't amount to anything substantial.

Cherry picking internet nuts isn't proof of much of anything. Kroeger Andy was never cancelled.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
And yet we can usefully ask ourselves whether those attempting to cancel him were (1) doing something worthwhile and (2) motivated by culture.
Click to expand...

Why bother?

As far as I can tell, Kroeger Andy wasn't even close to being cancelled. Lunatics raving at the moon on Twitter don't interest me. Or, at least, not for anything beyond amusement.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
As far as I can tell, Kroeger Andy wasn't even close to being cancelled.
Click to expand...

I've no idea how many Twitter lunatics it takes to get someone sacked, but you must know that it sometimes happens. Do you think the individuals calling for Andy to be sacked were doing something worthwhile?
 
Last edited:
Can we take 6 people as the minimum required to be classed as a culture? And that calling for someone to be sacked is required to make something a cancellation attempt?

We're starting to get somewhere towards a definition, at least.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I've no idea how many Twitter lunatics it takes to get someone sacked, but you must know that it sometimes happens. Do you think the individuals calling for Andy to be sacked were doing something worthwhile?
Click to expand...

No, I think they were either very misguided or malicious. Luckily the overwhelming view was an outright rejection of the claim that Kroeger Andy should get canned.

Do you think it's worthwhile to wring your hands over the failed attempts of internet weirdos? There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on on the web, why does this incident merit attention?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
These seem like wildly different examples.
Click to expand...

I would hope that I could offer more and other obviously different environs to help flesh out the contours of my view. It's odd you'd say they were "wildly different examples"; I thought they were too similar, as each deals with somewhat sacred space.

Wouldn't the latter depend on what the material actually was? There's that footage of Kramer from Seinfeld "working out material in a club" by just repeatedly shouting "******! ******! ******! There's a ******! He's a ******!" at a black audience member. Was the negative reaction to that wrong because he was a comedian doing stand-up in a small club?
Click to expand...

I thought about addressing this incident, but determined it was obvious those comments were not material he was working out. They were a reaction to heckling. Richards didn't come to the stage that night to see how calling audience members ******* was going to play. His show unmistakably went off-script, he had a meltdown and reacted in an abusive way. Context matters.

That said, in cases of extemporaneous crowd interaction, I would allow for even more leeway precisely because the exchanges are (mostly) unscripted. As I recall, the first time he called his Black hecklers *******, some people laughed, but Richards (apparently) was not trying to be funny.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This is not a point about social media. This is a point about the crappy US healthcare system.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the US has crappy health-care because now we have social media to raise funds.

_______________________________________

ponderingturtle said:
It is someone investigating who is behind public racist speech, and using that information to get them fired. It is exactly cancel culture, and as such she is exactly who you should be defending. You know provided you think cancel culture is bad.
Click to expand...

You're straining so hard you might injure yourself. You said "white supremacists teaching middle school social studies," and now "racist public speech... to get them fired."

The person is not White, was not a social studies teacher (at least at the time), and the incident took place in high school (not middle school). More importantly, he was responding to an e-mail (not speaking in public), positing a weird epistemological position about not being able to say the Holocuast occurred (you infer racist), and he was not fired but reassigned. He sounds more incompetent than anything, and should not have been a principal.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
There is so much irrelevant nonsense going on on the web, why does this incident merit attention?
Click to expand...
A few reasons.

1) Online shaming leading to demonetization/deplatforming/disemployment are a broader cultural phenomenon worthy of consideration.

2) This is a pretty clear-cut example of an attempting shaming which backfired.

3) The orignal poster was someone I once met at a skeptic conference.

If you find these reasons insufficient, I'm sure there are other threads in the conceptual vicinity which could use your attention.
 
d4m10n said:
A few reasons.

1) Online shaming leading to demonetization/deplatforming/disemployment are a broader cultural phenomenon worthy of consideration.

2) This is a pretty clear-cut example of an attempting shaming which backfired.

3) The orignal poster was someone I once met at a skeptic conference.

If you find these reasons insufficient, I'm sure there are other threads in the conceptual vicinity which could use your attention.
Click to expand...

Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cancel culture isn't nearly as unreasonable and unhinged as some people seem to believe. They sussed out this nonsense quickly and rejected the attempt.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, this example pretty clearly illustrates that cancel culture isn't nearly as unreasonable and unhinged as some people seem to believe. They sussed out this nonsense quickly and rejected the attempt.
Click to expand...
They who? Most of the pushback I've been seeing has a certain ideological bent.
 
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um, no. I don't do it at all, to anyone, ever. End of story. I bet that the other posters in this thread who are opposed to this behavior also don't engage in it themselves.
 
Cain said:
I would hope that I could offer more and other obviously different environs to help flesh out the contours of my view. It's odd you'd say they were "wildly different examples"; I thought they were too similar, as each deals with somewhat sacred space.
Click to expand...

They're wildly different, because one is a professor reading out significant words as part of educating his students*, whereas the other is someone expressing their own opinions - or, perhaps, the opinions of a character they have created and are choosing to embody.

Context matters.
Click to expand...

That's what I said, wasn't it? That whether or not something a comedian said on stage was okay or not would depend on what, exactly, they said. They don't get an automatic pass on saying absolutely anything just because they're a comedian.

Or, to put it another way, offering up an example of "comics working out material in a club" as being different to "undsiguised racism" is rather ignoring the fact that it's entirely possible for "comics working out material in a club" to be racists saying racist things. There are, after all, no shortage of cruel, racist jokes in this world.

That said, in cases of extemporaneous crowd interaction, I would allow for even more leeway precisely because the exchanges are (mostly) unscripted.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that should get more leeway. True, you're more likely to misspeak when you're talking extemporaneously, but you're also less likely to censor your true feelings than if you're repeating something you've gone over and over and rehearsed to within an inch of your life. Or, to put it another way, you're more likely to say what you actually think.

It doesn't matter if the US has crappy health-care because now we have social media to raise funds.
Click to expand...

Then as well as being a problem with the crappy health-care system, it's also a problem with the US attitude towards money, and the US capitalist system. It's not the fault of the people helping out that the help is needed in the first place.

I think it's absolutely appalling that citizens of the richest country in the world have to beg to strangers for life-saving medical treatments to common ailments. But I don't blame the beggars,** or the people who give them something. I blame the system that requires them to beg.

*Which isn't to say that I necessarily agree with his decision to do so, as opposed to telling his class to read it, or implying the word in some way. I don't know enough about the case to form a strong opinion, and I'm not interested enough to research it.

**Unless they've actively campaigned against welfare/healthcare reform. In which case it's a bit leopards at my face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom