Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
The crowd of people surrounding the lady appear to be a more credible threat with a clearer case of intentional intimidation than the guy on the train.

If we were to remove race from the situation, and look solely at the dynamics involved, I think almost anyone would feel that the lady surrounded by the crowd would likely feel more threatened than the three folks on the train would.

Racism is a definite problem, and it most certainly needs to be rectified. But at the end of the day, someone saying mean things is not a more credible threat than a person being surrounded by a crowd yelling at them for not doing what the crowd insists that she must do.

One person yelling at a few rich guys, calling them filthy capitalist pigs who has virtually raped all of their wage slaves is rude, and I could understand the target of such abuse being angry. But one rich guy being surrounded by a crowd yelling at him to give them his money is something else entirely.

One person yelling at a few women that they're evil sluts who belong in the kitchen is execrable, and the target of such language would rightly be offended and angry. One woman being surrounded by an angry crowd yelling at her to go make babies like she's supposed to is a very different situation.

Of course, neither of those analogies is really a great fit. But the dynamic remains. In the tube case, it's one guy saying very cruel racist things to three people, all of whom had room to move away from him and had the option to exit by a different door and avoid any confrontation. I completely understand them being angry, it seems appropriate that they should be angry. One of them, however, decided to knock the racist yeller out... and was lauded for it and had permanent brain damage wished upon him.

In this case, one woman is minding her own business when a crowd of protesters surrounds her, and insists that she raise her fist. Her lack of action leads an entire group of people to get in her face, in a clearly intimidating fashion, yell directly at her, and block her in. She has no escape. And this is brushed off as no big deal, just a slight inconvenience really.

The stark contrast in the perception of moral high ground between these two events is appalling.
Click to expand...

You’re offering a lot of detail about the events surrounding that video.

What is your source?
 
Emily's Cat said:
The crowd of people surrounding the lady appear to be a more credible threat with a clearer case of intentional intimidation than the guy on the train.

If we were to remove race from the situation, and look solely at the dynamics involved, I think almost anyone would feel that the lady surrounded by the crowd would likely feel more threatened than the three folks on the train would.

Racism is a definite problem, and it most certainly needs to be rectified. But at the end of the day, someone saying mean things is not a more credible threat than a person being surrounded by a crowd yelling at them for not doing what the crowd insists that she must do.

One person yelling at a few rich guys, calling them filthy capitalist pigs who has virtually raped all of their wage slaves is rude, and I could understand the target of such abuse being angry. But one rich guy being surrounded by a crowd yelling at him to give them his money is something else entirely.

One person yelling at a few women that they're evil sluts who belong in the kitchen is execrable, and the target of such language would rightly be offended and angry. One woman being surrounded by an angry crowd yelling at her to go make babies like she's supposed to is a very different situation.

Of course, neither of those analogies is really a great fit. But the dynamic remains. In the tube case, it's one guy saying very cruel racist things to three people, all of whom had room to move away from him and had the option to exit by a different door and avoid any confrontation. I completely understand them being angry, it seems appropriate that they should be angry. One of them, however, decided to knock the racist yeller out... and was lauded for it and had permanent brain damage wished upon him.

In this case, one woman is minding her own business when a crowd of protesters surrounds her, and insists that she raise her fist. Her lack of action leads an entire group of people to get in her face, in a clearly intimidating fashion, yell directly at her, and block her in. She has no escape. And this is brushed off as no big deal, just a slight inconvenience really.

The stark contrast in the perception of moral high ground between these two events is appalling.
Click to expand...

Does this crime have a name?
 
Emily's Cat said:
In this case, one woman is minding her own business when a crowd of protesters surrounds her, and insists that she raise her fist. Her lack of action leads an entire group of people to get in her face, in a clearly intimidating fashion, yell directly at her, and block her in. She has no escape. And this is brushed off as no big deal, just a slight inconvenience really.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to imagine what it's like to have so much [white/male] privilege that one doesn't see the above scenario as profoundly problematic. Despite having read every Hugo Award winning novel (and having enjoyed most of them) my imagination is falling short of the task.

I Am The Scum said:
Does this crime have a name?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about crime?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'll be more specific, if that helps.

Who affirmatively claimed that a specific crime (within a given jurisdiction) was actually committed?
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat implied that SuburbanTurkey missed something when he said he didn't see a crime committed by the shouters. I inquired as to what might have been missed, and Emily's Cat went on to describe behavior of the shouters that is not criminal.

I don't know why you're asking me to summarize posts that are clearly visible to you.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The crowd of people surrounding the lady appear to be a more credible threat with a clearer case of intentional intimidation than the guy on the train.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd rather face a loud group of people from an avowedly nonviolent movement (and since the group, while remarkably white for a BLM DC protest group, don't appear to be breaking windows and starting fires like the pseudo-anarchists do, they're likely safe) than a belligerent, racially hostile drunk *anywhere*. The former might make you feel bad emotionally, and can ruin a nice brunch. They look like a bunch of college kids that don't know how to protest effectively - well meaning, but annoying.

The latter might cut you, or pull a gun and start blasting wildly.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I don't know why you're asking me to summarize posts that are clearly visible to you.
Click to expand...
Possibly because no one specified any crime...but then you already knew this.

Mumbles said:
Personally, I'd rather face a loud group of people from an avowedly nonviolent movement...
Click to expand...
How can you tell which specific movement the crowd is avowedly aligned with in that moment?

How could anyone be confident, in the moment, that the mob was not going to escalate from mere shouting in their face (not a minor matter in the days of COVID) to something even worse?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
How can you tell which specific movement the crowd is avowedly aligned with in that moment?

How could anyone be confident, in the moment, that the mob was not going to escalate from mere shouting in their face (not a minor matter in the days of COVID) to something even worse?
Click to expand...

First, most protesters don't just suddenly start beating people. Second, these kids are obviously mimicking BLM, but without much in the way of guidance, not dangerous, but not helpful either. That's likely why the woman wasn't afraid at all.

A random, belligerent drunk in the wild, however, is never good.
 
d4m10n said:
Among other differences, the woman in the pink blouse is vastly outnumbered by a crowd of people accusing her of complicity in white supremacist violence.

https://twitter.com/MikeNayna/status/1298449483500404738

https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status/1298467900756496387

I cannot know if Billy Steele had violence on his mind, but we can know that this crowd of (BLM?) protesters did.
Click to expand...

If they had violence on the mind, they would have committed violence. Nothing was stopping them, no one intervened before they could act out any violence.

What kind of mind reading is this? We'll never know what Billy Steele had in mind because he was decked out cold. Any plans he had were derailed when he took a surprise nap on the subway.

I don't see any information about how this incident ended. What happened after the video stops? Did the group leave? Were they chased off by cops, foiling a violent plot? Did they attack the woman, thus realizing their violent plans?

Seems like this video is direct evidence they didn't have violence in mind, because the video shows them not using violence when presented with the opportunity.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
If they had violence on the mind, they would have committed violence.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me. They were talking about violence therefore we can infer they were thinking about it as well. Unless you're willing to say their chanting was utterly mindless, that is.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I was asking Emily's Cat to specify the crime she was stating SuburbanTurkey had missed.
Click to expand...

I wasn't stating a specific crime. Mostly noting that Suburban Turkey pretty much seems to think there's nothing at all wrong with the situation, it's just a minor inconvenience.

If you want me to pick a crime, I would say intimidation or threatening. Not major crimes, but still.

If the woman involved had been a minority, do you think this would be brushed off as no big deal and just a minor inconvenience?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I wasn't stating a specific crime. Mostly noting that Suburban Turkey pretty much seems to think there's nothing at all wrong with the situation, it's just a minor inconvenience.

If you want me to pick a crime, I would say intimidation or threatening. Not major crimes, but still.

If the woman involved had been a minority, do you think this would be brushed off as no big deal and just a minor inconvenience?
Click to expand...

In a pandemic, I'd say it should be a crime to surround someone with a group and yell at them in close proximity. That can kill (mask or no mask) I see no ability to get fresh air to breathe in that video.

So if it was anyone in a higher risk group, especially older or overweight, or with some current medical condition, it could be very very serious.

Kids dont care! No justice, no peace, right? Yell it loud in ALL their noncompliant faces!!!

In a normal world it may just be harassment, unlawful assembly, or disturbing the peace
 
Last edited:
A bit of a tangent... I'm really dissatisfied with the narrative of "White Silence is Violence". It ends up describing literally not doing anything as being "violence". And frankly, that's dumb.
 
Emily's Cat said:
A bit of a tangent... I'm really dissatisfied with the narrative of "White Silence is Violence". It ends up describing literally not doing anything as being "violence". And frankly, that's dumb.
Click to expand...

the silver lining, if there can be one with such a belief, is that it exists mainly in the plane of the media and internet at this point for most of us. All of the riot areas with their social mandates, all put together would not make much of a tiny blip for all the territory we cover here as a population.

It has not yet hit me in real life, at ALL. I dont see any of this stuff as I go about my day. Not in my friends, not at the store, nowhere.
(and I am in a very mixed population. But if it does come, the black Texan 3 doors down is my 'bug out' place because he told me not to worry...he has has guns and freezers of bbq meat! ;). Gotta love those Texans.)
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
the silver lining, if there can be one with such a belief, is that it exists mainly in the plane of the media and internet at this point for most of us. All of the riot areas with their social mandates, all put together would not make much of a tiny blip for all the territory we cover here as a population.

It has not yet hit me in real life, at ALL. I dont see any of this stuff as I go about my day. Not in my friends, not at the store, nowhere.
(and I am in a very mixed population. But if it does come, the black Texan 3 doors down is my 'bug out' place because he told me not to worry...he has has guns and freezers of bbq meat! ;). Gotta love those Texans.)
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't see it in the real world. The people I know who actually live in/near Seattle & Portland give very mixed reports... but anyone who lives fare enough away from downtown just doesn't see any of it. I definitely don't see any of it here in AZ. We had a few nights of very nicely organized protests, and then continuing conversation. We also had a spree of looting and vandalism those first couple of nights, that were clearly unrelated to the protests - bored kids in Scottsdale raiding malls and such.

The first night of protests, there was a LOT of social media exaggeration and amplification of things that were just straight up untrue. We ended up with our neighbor and her daughter hanging out at our house for most of the night, because they were so freaked out and worried about the "rampant violence" that their friends were spouting through text and twitter... even though it just wasn't true. And they're both very liberal people.

My spouse and I are also pretty liberal across the board (with the exception of gun rights). But neither of us were worried... because we're already convinced that twitter is full of twits, and because we can look outside and see that there's nothing going on. We also don't watch much news. I get leads on things to look into from here, and then I go do my own research for topics that seem interesting. But I pretty much go into it with the assumption that the news is full of half-truths and sensationalism, and is NOT giving me an unbiased objective view of the world. Media is trying to sell me an experience based on the manufacture of outrage and a constant state of near-panic. I'm just not buying what they're selling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom