• 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.
Mumbles said:
The phrase "Cancel Culture" is designed to be tough and fearful. "There's a Culture that they (you know who they are) have where they crush...kill...Cancel those unlike them!"

Great for a moral panic, but in the end, all you see standard left wingers doing is saying "WWait, why isn't Trump 'cancelling" sports leagues, sugary drinks, and the like? And how are we "canceling" things we never even said anything about, much less organized against?" And the answer is, as I said, it's not a coherently defined term.

ETA: there's no *massive* disagreement that, say, sometimes people are fired unfairly for a social media post, some people who get attacked on Youtube for screaming and howling in public are really just having a mental illness episode and need help - although where these lines are drawn, exactly, is debatable. But adding "culture" to what moves it away from any individual boycott, and into the horrifying idea that there's some unspecified, but clearly *implied* mob that just goes around seeking revenge for petty offenses, something like a volcano god or dragon that can only be appeased through sacrifices or slaughtered - an ascribing of ill will to what are, rally, events that are effectively unrelated when you examine them.
Click to expand...
Who remembers Jim Zumbo?
 
pgwenthold said:
In Arkansas, the governor has taken heat for vetoing a bill that prohibits transgender care for young people. He says that it is "government overreach." Which it is, among it's other flaws.

Republican legislators are whining that he caved in to the woke-crowd and is a coward.
Click to expand...
The Republican controlled legislature has now over-ruled his veto. Yah, small, unintrusive government.....
:rolleyes:
 
catsmate said:
Who remembers Jim Zumbo?
Click to expand...
I didn't, but the end of his career strikes me as a textbook example of cancel culture:

The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves. You will find only a handful of postings suggesting cautiously that the overnight destruction of a man’s career might not be the proudest moment for the advocates of gun rights. One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first.
Click to expand...

Probably one the the early warning signs that internet-enabled rage-fueled mobs would rather cancel an individual than refute an argument.
 
The only guy I know that hunts prairie dogs, and much like coyotes it’s eliminating pests, seemed to genuinely enjoy getting the biggest gun he could and absolutely vaporizing the things with them. If you don’t believe it, check out how many YouTube videos there are of highlights of people blasting prairie dogs in slow motion with high powered rifles. Honestly it’s a little perverse in my opinion.

Although I agree there’s a lot of wisdom in separating hunting from assault rifles when it comes to public opinions on guns, the guy clearly didn’t know his audience and paid for it.
 
d4m10n said:
I didn't, but the end of his career strikes me as a textbook example of cancel culture:



Probably one the the early warning signs that internet-enabled rage-fueled mobs would rather cancel an individual than refute an argument.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how a guy who's career is based on having a cheering audience is "cancelled" by saying something that alienated said audience.

Taking a position adverse to the interests of your fanbase seems like a great way to lose that base, but I wouldn't call that cancel culture.

There's really nothing surprising about what happened to this guy. The term "Fudd" is used as a derogative for this exact type of "only my hunting guns are good" type of gun rights supporters. Fudds are not popular in gun circles.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
I agree that a handful of tech companies controlling too much of the information flow is bad. Propagandization of news, and the increasing polarization of news, is also a major problem.

The biggest problem though, is how to reconcile all of those things at once. Obviously ensuring news sources are factual, or at least transparent about not being factual, and that foreign and domestic sources aren't abusing social media to that end, but then also thinking that neither tech companies or the government should be moderating any of it, doesn't leave you with a lot of solutions.

-edit-

I also think there's an interesting tie in to cancel culture here also. These big tech companies have too much control, but being removed from their platform is quickly becoming one of the worst things that can happen to a person. If it's that critical to some people, may removing it from our lives isn't so bad.
Click to expand...

Personally, I lean more toward a different angle on the problem. Take the tech giants on with monopoly and anti-trust regulations, potentially even economic collusion.

For the news... that's tougher. I'd like to see the "big" sources fractured under approaches similar to monopolies... but they really aren't monopolies so I can't come up with an honest argument for that to happen. I think we need to reinstitute the FCC Fairness doctrine, or something similar to it. It definitely wasn't a perfect solution, but I think it's removal has made things significantly worse. Beyond that, I think we need to include some stringently enforced professional standards of practice for journalists and news sites, with some focus on factual accuracy, and separating opinion-based commentary and speculation from what we consider news. I'm not sure how exactly to go about that though.

My field has a governing body that sets professionalism standards, and I'm subject to disciplinary measures if I violate those standards of practice. I can, essentially, be completely kicked out of my entire field if I don't adhere to our professionalism standards. And since my field isn't all that big to begin with, that's a pretty motivating factor for keeping actuaries on the up & up. It's not government regulated though. It's an oversight body, which is deemed necessary for public trust, because the majority of people would not be able to tell whether an actuary was performing their duties appropriately or not... and a significant breach of ethics of standards by an actuary could have far-reaching financial consequences.

Something like that for journalists and news agencies would probably help. Just like the AMA or the Bar Association, it ends up presenting a barrier to entry to the field... but it also protects the public and ensures common best practice within the field.
 
dirtywick said:
The only guy I know that hunts prairie dogs, and much like coyotes it’s eliminating pests, seemed to genuinely enjoy getting the biggest gun he could and absolutely vaporizing the things with them. If you don’t believe it, check out how many YouTube videos there are of highlights of people blasting prairie dogs in slow motion with high powered rifles. Honestly it’s a little perverse in my opinion.

Although I agree there’s a lot of wisdom in separating hunting from assault rifles when it comes to public opinions on guns, the guy clearly didn’t know his audience and paid for it.
Click to expand...

I'm rather more fond of vaporizing apples and watermelons. They make a nice colorful explosion, and all the critters in the area are happy about the free food.
 
d4m10n said:
Looking for some archive stuff about what went down w/ her re: CFI, happened across this collection of high-profile skeptics who were publicly shamed and vilified back in the day. In retrospect, some of them probably had it coming, some not so much.
Click to expand...

I can't get anymore than the linked page to load.

Fun fact about Shermer. He pretty much ignored the accusations against him and had his publicist deal with them when needed. He had way more important things to worry about like religious whack jobs showing up at his house.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I fail to see how a guy who's career is based on having a cheering audience is "cancelled" by saying something that alienated said audience..
Click to expand...
Okay, but that's literally what "cancelled" means.

:shrug:
Stout said:
Fun fact about Shermer. He pretty much ignored the accusations against him and had his publicist deal with them when needed.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to get into that quagmire here, there's a whole other thread.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Okay, but that's literally what "cancelled" means.

:shrug:
I'm not going to get into that quagmire here, there's a whole other thread.
Click to expand...

I thought "cancel culture" was about people getting fired for saying things unrelated to their job.

An writer about the outdoors losing popularity because he reveals himself to be anti-gun is pretty directly related to his job performance.

Next time I have a negative job performance review I'm going to accuse my boss of "cancelling" me.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I thought "cancel culture" was about people getting fired for saying things unrelated to their job.

An writer about the outdoors losing popularity because he reveals himself to be anti-gun is pretty directly related to his job performance.

Next time I have a negative job performance review I'm going to accuse my boss of "cancelling" me.
Click to expand...

No, cancel culture can be anything we want, because there is no harm in labeling something cancel culture. Falsely labeling groups of concerned consumers has no negative consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom