Cancel culture IRL

[johnny karate]

Have to agree with Burnett. It takes some kind of ******* to try to get someone fired for tweeting out an opinion they find objectionable.

And Leach is truly a scumbag for claiming to be in favor of free speech while attempting to cause material harm to someone exercising that speech.

Kudos, also, to the school for not firing Bennett for expressing an opinion (even if that opinion was -ironically- that someone else needed to "shut his mouth")
Good point.

A government official using the power of their office to try to get someone fired is entirely different from private citizens trying to get other private citizens fired. For one thing, the former is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Edit: What dirtywick said.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"He was fired for expressing an opinion!" is the absolute most intentionally dishonest way of phrasing what happened.

 

[Butter!]

I just can't believe what a craphound my girl Cara Dune turned out to be IRL.

It's like the day I found out Woody Harrelson was a truther. I feel much emptier than I did before.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't understand. Someone owns an ice cream shop and writes a sign saying he won't serve someone (who? I don't think he says in his "classy" apology, so he is not referencing the specific action he took)

Skepticon^WP.

Is this really "cancel culture"?

I'd say that the (semi-coordinated) online ratings bombing was obviously an attempt to ruin Andy's business well beyond that weekend. Call it what you will, I suppose.

The really funny thing about all this is that the same people who were upset and trying to get the likes of Colin Kaepernick fired for taking a knee in protest...

Was it wrong for those people to freely express themselves as they did? Was it an example of cancel culture?

(I'd say yes to both.)

After 33 pages I'm still not getting what the issue we're supposed to be solving here is.

I gave you a handful of examples at #1262. In each one, online mobs went overboard to make someone unemployable for a relatively small transgression. Colin Kaepernick strikes me as an excellent example as well, not least because he literally did nothing wrong. Mike Pesca doesn't strike me as a good example, because his alleged transgressions were actually relevant to his day job.

Examples aside, the issue has been summed up thusly: "[A]n intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

 

[dirtywick]

Was it wrong for those people to freely express themselves as they did? Was it an example of cancel culture?

(I'd say yes to both.)

I think you’re close to asking the right question here. It’s not whether or not it was wrong in my opinion. It’s whether or not being wrong about it is so detrimental to society that people should voluntarily never voice disagreement or opposition to someone else’s public point of view lest they accidentally “cancel” someone that doesn’t “deserve” it.

I like Kaepernick. He was a good QB and I respect that he used his platform to speak his mind. is it wrong for people to disagree with Kaepernick and say that out loud? Boycott the league? Organize and share their opinion with others? Of course not.

Political opinions aren’t only for the rich and elite. Regular people can use their platforms too.

I gave you a handful of examples at #1262. In each one, online mobs went overboard to make someone unemployable for a relatively small transgression. Colin Kaepernick strikes me as an excellent example as well, not least because he literally did nothing wrong. Mike Pesca doesn't strike me as a good example, because his alleged transgressions were actually relevant to his day job.

Colin Kaepernick is a great example. Mostly because he was in a union and the NFL owners violated their contract, a prominent federal government official used his office to attempt to get him and anyone that agreed with him removed feom the league, and it was actually a political opinion that he voices that was the issue and not some nonsense dressed up as one.

Amazing what employee protections can get you.

 

[johnny karate]

Examples aside, the issue has been summed up thusly: "[A]n intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

The critical response to the letter you’re quoting:

Detractors pointed out that many of those who signed the letter, as one person put it, have “bigger platforms and more resources than most other humans” and are not at risk of being silenced. Others called attention to the letter’s more controversial supporters, like Rowling, who has recently faced public condemnation for comments widely deemed to be anti-transgender.

“I would take that Harper’s letter seriously were it not for the fact that at least some of those signatories have quite recently engaged in the same toxic behavior they supposedly stand against in the letter,” a critic tweeted.

If we’re letting a bunch of privileged people whose primary interest is protecting their privilege define “cancel culture” for us, I’ll just go ahead and continue to not take it seriously.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The Association of Constitution Understanders has released a document

In First Amendment news: Every Tennessee GOP senator has signed a letter that encourages chancellors and presidents of the state's universities to punish student athletes who protest while at sporting events. #tnleg

https://twitter.com/SergioMarBel/status/1364291894822461442

Blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Finally someone is asking the important questions, like "why don't football man stand up?".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I gave you a handful of examples at #1262. In each one, online mobs went overboard to make someone unemployable for a relatively small transgression. Colin Kaepernick strikes me as an excellent example as well, not least because he literally did nothing wrong. Mike Pesca doesn't strike me as a good example, because his alleged transgressions were actually relevant to his day job.

No you gave me examples of people doing something, other people not liking it, and those people responding to it.

In other words you gave me examples of all societal interactions ever of all time, not some new scary thing that needs a new name the Boomers can clutch their rosary beads over everytime a racist suffers some negative consequence for being racists.

"Cancel Culture" is just a scare word used to describe the wrong people deciding they don't want to tolerate other people's negative behavior anymore.

We went through a goddamn century of black people having to drink out of seperate water fountains and nobody during all that time decided to call that cancel culture so pardon me if I assume a negative ulterior motive to deciding anything happening now needs a new term.

 

[mumblethrax]

I like Kaepernick. He was a good QB and I respect that he used his platform to speak his mind. is it wrong for people to disagree with Kaepernick and say that out loud? Boycott the league? Organize and share their opinion with others? Of course not.

Doesn't seem obvious to me that people weren't wrong to proxy boycott Kaepernick. No one ever identified any specific harm that followed from his protest, so it looked to me like a straight-forward attempt to silence reasonable political expression via economic coercion, and thus should not have been done in the interest of maintaining a culture of free expression.

Political opinions aren’t only for the rich and elite. Regular people can use their platforms too.

Ought implies can; can does not imply ought. Regular people can boycott Jewish businesses simply because they are Jewish, but they ought not to. That goes for the rich and powerful, too.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again we're in a discussion that is showing the inherent dishonesty and... icky subtext with "Oh all we're worried about is people.... going too far *scare chord*!" crowd.

- Enslave black people for centuries. Nothing.
- Keep women as second class citizens. Silence.
- Demonization of homosexuals. Crickets.
- "Cancels" a doucheturd on Twitter. *Pouring out of the wordwork* "OH LORDY LORDY HAVE YOU STOPPED TO CONSIDER THE HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS WENT TOO FAR! WHERE DOES IT END! WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE! THOUGHT POLICE!"

 

[Cavemonster]

The Association of Constitution Understanders has released a document



https://twitter.com/SergioMarBel/status/1364291894822461442

Blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Finally someone is asking the important questions, like "why don't football man stand up?".

Emily's Cat is going to be PISSED about this.
In that other thread, members of congress asking questions was seen as a dangerous infringement on the first amendment. Surely an actual demand for punitive action is more alarming.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The critical response to the letter you’re quoting:



If we’re letting a bunch of privileged people whose primary interest is protecting their privilege define “cancel culture” for us, I’ll just go ahead and continue to not take it seriously.

d4am10n is fully on board with Rowling and her transphobia, so you're on to a loser with your chosen quote.

 

[johnny karate]

The Association of Constitution Understanders has released a document



https://twitter.com/SergioMarBel/status/1364291894822461442

Blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Finally someone is asking the important questions, like "why don't football man stand up?".

Another glaring example of what this is really all about: The powerful and privileged using their power and privilege to silence those without either.

It’s only “cancel culture” when the powerful and privileged realize the system they’ve abused for so long can finally be used to hold them accountable.

JoeMorgue and others have made this argument more eloquently than I have, but I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[dirtywick]

Doesn't seem obvious to me that people weren't wrong to proxy boycott Kaepernick. No one ever identified any specific harm that followed from his protest, so it looked to me like a straight-forward attempt to silence reasonable political expression via economic coercion, and thus should not have been done in the interest of maintaining a culture of free expression.

Yeah, I personally agree. But I’m not trying to be the arbiter on right and wrong. I think those individuals felt they were right and expressed themselves freely and I respect their ability to do so.

Ought implies can; can does not imply ought. Regular people can boycott Jewish businesses simply because they are Jewish, but they ought not to. That goes for the rich and powerful, too.

Sure I agree. I’d never support that boycott

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again nobody has to agree or disagree on any one particular example of someone being cancelled. That's a personal judgement call that can be discussed on an individual basis.

The claim is that "Cancel Culture" is some new (or particularly noteworthy) example of people disagreeing that we need to worry about or somehow more of a threat to society, discourse, civility, etc, etc. That claim remains undefended.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Again nobody has to agree or disagree on any one particular example of someone being cancelled. That's a personal judgement call that can be discussed on an individual basis.

The claim is that "Cancel Culture" is some new (or particularly noteworthy) example of people disagreeing that we need to worry about or somehow more of a threat to society, discourse, civility, etc, etc. That claim remains undefended.

I'm not even sure that is the claim. It is more a Seinfeld monologue: So, cancel culture, what's up with that? Crazy, am I right?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not even sure that is the claim. It is more a Seinfeld monologue: So, cancel culture, what's up with that? Crazy, am I right?

That's why I keep asking over and over what exactly are talking about and all I get is either a list of examples that are functionally just describing the basic concept of a social interaction with a new scary name or a long form "Old Man Yells At Cloud" rant about some broader philosophical worry about free speech without any indication of why that's any more or a problem now then it was 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago.

The only things even of note are:

- "Cancel Culture" tends to be online.
- "Cancel Culture" tends to be what it is called when disenfranchised people use social pressure instead of having it used against them.

And nobody will admit that is the actual problem they are worried about. The "little" people can now effect the "big" people and that's just not how things should go.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's why I keep asking over and over what exactly are talking about and all I get is either a list of examples that are functionally just describing the basic concept of a social interaction or a long form "Old Man Yells At Cloud" rant about some broader philosophical worry about free speech without any indication of why that's any more or a problem now then it was 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago.

The only things even of note are:

- "Cancel Culture" tends to be online.
- "Cancel Culture" tends to be what it is called when disenfranchised people use social pressure instead of having it used against them.

And nobody will admit that is the actual problem they are worried about. The "little" people can now effect the "big" people and that's just not how things should go.

We agree, you are the problem. Now, what are we going to do about it?

/s just in case.

 

[Mumbles]

He is a rapper, isn't he?

That's why I keep asking over and over what exactly are talking about and all I get is either a list of examples that are functionally just describing the basic concept of a social interaction or a long form "Old Man Yells At Cloud" rant about some broader philosophical worry about free speech without any indication of why that's any more or a problem now then it was 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago.

The only things even of note are:

- "Cancel Culture" tends to be online.
- "Cancel Culture" tends to be what it is called when disenfranchised people use social pressure instead of having it used against them.

And nobody will admit that is the actual problem they are worried about. The "little" people can now effect the "big" people and that's just not how things should go.

I pointed out in one of the many cases of some maladjusted muppet screaming racial slurs in public that, in the old days, saying the wrong thing while having the wrong race/gender/etc could be a very fast way to be tortured, raped, murdered, and having your corpse mangled and extremities parts kept as souvenirs - and the perpetrators simply going home and going about their business afterwards.

This still seems to apply to transgendered people to a degree, even in much of the US.

Being ostracized is relatively benign, particularly since being quiet for a while is usually a cure unlrss one is really far out of line.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yeah, I personally agree. But I’m not trying to be the arbiter on right and wrong. I think those individuals felt they were right and expressed themselves freely and I respect their ability to do so.

If you're trying not to be an arbiter on right and wrong, you probably shouldn't say things like "Is it wrong? Of course not."

Sure I agree. I’d never support that boycott

Would you say that people who did support such a boycott believed themselves to be right and expressed themselves freely and that you respect their ability to do so?