Cancel culture IRL

[Emily's Cat]

At what point did we agree the phrase belongs solely to Fox News and their ilk?

"We" didn't. It's a definitional argument. If the term "cancel culture" is defined by an arguer to mean exclusively "right wing censoriousness on Fox News", then that allows them to dismiss any similar behavior from other sources, because it fails to meet the overly-specific definition that they are using.

It's transparently fallacious, but it doesn't seem to slow anybody down.

 

[dirtywick]

"We" didn't. It's a definitional argument. If the term "cancel culture" is defined by an arguer to mean exclusively "right wing censoriousness on Fox News", then that allows them to dismiss any similar behavior from other sources, because it fails to meet the overly-specific definition that they are using.

It's transparently fallacious, but it doesn't seem to slow anybody down.

I don't believe anyone's defined it that way, just that the hypocritical nature of "it's only a problem when the left does it and we'll happily endorse it when it's weaponized against our political enemies" selective outrage is notable and being used to manipulate their audience is more transparent than anything.

But I wouldn't want you to be slowed down by an aspect of the discussion you're not interested in. Just seems weird to be critical of those who are intersted in it.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't believe anyone's defined it that way, just that the hypocritical nature of "it's only a problem when the left does it and we'll happily endorse it when it's weaponized against our political enemies" selective outrage is notable and being used to manipulate their audience is more transparent than anything.

If anyone here were arguing "it's only a problem when the left does it" then this problem would be somewhat more relevant to our discussion. As it is, feels like something of a straw man to treat this as a problem which needs to be addressed here in this thread.

ETA: Let me explain this a bit further. You've got people like Nadine Strossen with an impressive background in law and policy, making an argument about when cancel culture becomes problematic in terms of Millian principles regarding free expression. You've also got people like Tucker Carlson talking about cancel culture in inflammatory and partisan terms. Is there any good reason to talk about the arguments and assumptions of the latter group rather than the former? The only reason that springs to my mind is that it's a huge time-saver, since we can just write off the partisans as hypocritical and call it a day.

 

[dirtywick]

If anyone here were arguing "it's only a problem when the left does it" then this problem would be somewhat more relevant to our discussion. As it is, feels like something of a straw man to pretend that's a problem which needs to be addressed here in this thread.

Emily’s Cat quoted you specifically criticizing people for talking about the Fox News right wing narrative and not wanting to stay within your preferred framework.

For me personally, it’s the only interesting aspect of the whole discussion. If you don’t feel like outside narratives are worth discussing that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s a straw man at all. It’s an important part of the bigger picture.

 

[Stout]

Yes, it's been said many times that cancel culture is something both the left and the right engage in. It's not a difficult concept, really.

A perfect example of the right going full cancel culture is the Faryha Salim issue.

I'd like to see the full 11 minute video on the student's cancel culture presentation rather than just having to put up with that edited clip. Did the student get an "A" in this course for proving that cancel culture is what it is by subjecting his teacher to it ?

 

[dirtywick]

I’m going to tell you why I believe the broader right wing narrative is the only interesting aspect of the discussion for me. My answer to every single example in the thread is that no one should issue threats on social media, and while I may or may not agree with this particular cancellation, all views expressed are valid and should be able to be expressed. Kroger Andy should be fired? should be able to say that on social media. Don’t want to watch Star Wars? Valid point of view, let people know. Professor is an idiot and shouldn’t teach? If that’s how you feel and want to put it out there, it’s your choice to make.

And if I disagree I can hop on there and tell you how awful your opinions are. So I don’t think there’s much to even discuss there. Even discussing specific examples is a tacit admission that cancel culture is a valid concept.

But the selective and deceptive nature of pundits using it as a political issue to manipulate and motivate viewers, now that’s interesting. That’s worth talking about. In my opinion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a rather strange one. She's complaining that the school failed to protect her and allowed racialized and gendered attacks where it looks like she should have been demanding a security team instead.

I have no idea why this professor would go down the road with the police officers are not heros thing rather than focusing on the student's examples of cancel culture not actually being cancel culture but if you're going to argue politics from a position of power within the student-teacher dynamic then expect some fallout.

Although I don't agree with the college's decision to axe her, I do feel she should have been more specific with what sort of protection she expected the school to offer her from forces outside the school.

Because the assignment was specifically and explicitly about persuasive speaking, which includes being able to handle antagonistic and hostile audience members. The professor played that role of hostile audience member, challenging the student's chosen position.

I've participated in this sort of training, both as the persuasive speaker and as the hostile audience. It's actually important that students in public speaking classes aren't treated with kid gloves when it comes to persuasive topics, especially if it's controversial. It's difficult to maintain one's cool when confronted by an antagonistic audience member, and learning how to defuse the situation, or at least maintain a calm demeanor for the benefit of other audience members is important.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't believe anyone's defined it that way, just that the hypocritical nature of "it's only a problem when the left does it and we'll happily endorse it when it's weaponized against our political enemies" selective outrage is notable and being used to manipulate their audience is more transparent than anything.

But I wouldn't want you to be slowed down by an aspect of the discussion you're not interested in. Just seems weird to be critical of those who are intersted in it.

I'm not seeing that trend though. With the exception of perhaps one or two people who are clearly out of norm, the majority of the participants in this thread who are on the "cancel culture / mob justice / coercive conformity is bad" side of the discussion are not right wingers, certainly not the partisan hacks that keep being mentioned, and the majority of us are concerned about the behavior as it affects ALL political perspectives, not just one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily’s Cat quoted you specifically criticizing people for talking about the Fox News right wing narrative and not wanting to stay within your preferred framework.

I believe you have misunderstood the nature of that interaction.

 

[dirtywick]

I'm not seeing that trend though. With the exception of perhaps one or two people who are clearly out of norm, the majority of the participants in this thread who are on the "cancel culture / mob justice / coercive conformity is bad" side of the discussion are not right wingers, certainly not the partisan hacks that keep being mentioned, and the majority of us are concerned about the behavior as it affects ALL political perspectives, not just one.

In my opinion you and damion are personalizing commentary aimed at a grander, national narrative.

 

[dirtywick]

I believe you have misunderstood the nature of that interaction.

Perhaps, if so I apologize.

 

[Stout]

Because the assignment was specifically and explicitly about persuasive speaking, which includes being able to handle antagonistic and hostile audience members. The professor played that role of hostile audience member, challenging the student's chosen position.

I've participated in this sort of training, both as the persuasive speaker and as the hostile audience. It's actually important that students in public speaking classes aren't treated with kid gloves when it comes to persuasive topics, especially if it's controversial. It's difficult to maintain one's cool when confronted by an antagonistic audience member, and learning how to defuse the situation, or at least maintain a calm demeanor for the benefit of other audience members is important.

Ah, OK, that makes sense then. If that's the way this session was supposed to play out then there's no choice but to send the alpha-hotel-award-of-the-week to the student if he's the one who edited and uploaded that video.

 

[d4m10n]

My answer to every single example in the thread is that no one should issue threats on social media, and while I may or may not agree with this particular cancellation, all views expressed are valid and should be able to be expressed. Kroger Andy should be fired? should be able to say that on social media.

I don't recall anyone arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to publicly call for other people to be fired. My argument was that it is unethical to try to get someone fired when you've been provided with very limited insight as to the facts on the ground (e.g. one or two tweets from a hostile party) and you've made no attempt to hear a defense from the person you're hoping to get fired. I also think it profoundly unethical for adults to convince children there is a lake of fire awaiting those of insufficient piety or faith, but that's not the same as trying to ban fundamentalism.

In my opinion you and damion are personalizing commentary aimed at a grander, national narrative.

I feel obligated to point out that the OP wasn't about a grand narrative at all, but a specific instance of online shaming.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't recall anyone arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to publicly call for other people to be fired. My argument was that it is unethical to try to get someone fired when you've been provided with very limited insight as to the facts on the ground (e.g. one or two tweets from a hostile party) and you've made no attempt to hear a defense from the person you're hoping to get fired. I also think it unethical for adults to convince children there is a lake of fire awaiting those of insufficient piety or faith, but that's not the same as trying to ban fundamentalism.

The point is it's unethical sometimes. Sometimes it's perfectly ethical. It's situational, therefore blanket judgements on cancel culture as a phenomenon aren't very useful, and you're left to discussing individual cases. Which isn't interesting.

I feel obligated to point out that the OP wasn't about a grand narrative at all, but a specific instance of online shaming.

Well that was 77 pages and over a year ago.

 

[d4m10n]

The point is it's unethical sometimes.

A point conceded at #110.

Well that was 77 pages and over a year ago.

If we're going to change the subject from specific instances to the broader picture of cancellation, I see no reason to limit ourselves to cancellations driven by the left or defer to the idea of "cancel culture" coming from the right.

 

[dirtywick]

A point conceded at #110.

OK great.

If we're going to change the subject to the broader picture of cancellation, I see no reason to limit ourselves to cancellations driven by the left or defer to the idea of "cancel culture" coming from the right.

My choice to focus on a particular aspect of the discussion I find interesting is not me trying to limit the discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In my opinion you and damion are personalizing commentary aimed at a grander, national narrative.

That's possible. It gets very difficult in discussion like this. For my part, it's a challenge because I see it as a problem for everyone, and I've provided examples on both the left and the right that I see as demonstrating the behavioral pattern that I object to. So when the responses tend to fall on the "oh it's the right wing's fault", it feels as though the topic is being hand-waved away by poisoning the well.

 

[dirtywick]

That's possible. It gets very difficult in discussion like this. For my part, it's a challenge because I see it as a problem for everyone, and I've provided examples on both the left and the right that I see as demonstrating the behavioral pattern that I object to. So when the responses tend to fall on the "oh it's the right wing's fault", it feels as though the topic is being hand-waved away by poisoning the well.

I agree it can be difficult and I think I may have been talking past people on numerous occasions in this thread. Again I apologize if I've misrepresented your opinions. Not my intention at all.

 

[d4m10n]

My choice to focus on a particular aspect of the discussion I find interesting is not me trying to limit the discussion.

Fox News' attempt to redefine "cancel culture" as a weaponized meme which only takes aim at the left may well be interesting, but it's not the same as what "cancel culture" means in the OP. I'm going to have to keep pointing this out, lest people make the mistake of conflating the two.

 

[dirtywick]

Fox News' attempt to redefine "cancel culture" as a weaponized meme which only takes aim at the left may well be interesting, but it's not the same as what "cancel culture" means in the OP. I'm going to have to keep pointing this out, lest people make the mistake of conflating the two.

That’s fine. Difficult to have a discussion when you don’t want to allow new information or changes in the overall context of the topic to be a part of it. I do t think it’s fair to expect anyone to follow suit either.