Cancel culture IRL

[Mumbles]

Don't you think the discussion of cancel culture would be more interesting if we picked the hard cases (where it's not obvious someone deserves or deserved to be sacked) rather than the easy ones?

I mean, he's one of two we know of - for a really off-color joke, and one that would get many immediately kicked off Twitter to boot (I've seen people suspended for saying that Harris would "pound Mike Pence when they debate", not to mention their way-off suicide prevention tools).

The other is a NYT writer who showed a picture of Biden's plane landing in DC and wrote "I got chills", which got Greenwald and thus his followers into a lather about how she's a bootlicker and blah blah blah.

I'd con sider the latter to be far more egregious in terms of penalties for something innocent than a joke about hanging Pence shortly after a lynch mob chanted the same while putting up a gallows and smashing into Capitol Hill. The latter, at least, is worth discussing, the former is absurd even if you want reporters to appear neutral (also, just tell them to never use social media in that overbearing case).

But really, discussing either being fired as "Cancel Culture" is useless. Neither is incredibly powerful in any real sense, and neither is especially motivated by anger from and broad lefty group - the two groups that supposedly wield/are felled by "cancel culture".

 

[Cain]

You’re hinting at what seems to be at the heart of most “cancel culture” claims: That “mobs” are somehow coercing corporations and businesses into firing people.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support such an implication.

We can disagree over loaded language -- "cancel culture," "mobs," "coercing" -- but you can't really say it isn't happening. The stronger argument is, "It happens, it's not new, and it's actually OK." Boycotts predate social media.

The reality is more along the lines of: Person who works for a business or corporation says or does something that the business or corporation finds objectionable, said business or corporation terminates their relationship with said person.

There is no threat to free speech anywhere in that scenario.

Terminology again matters, especially if we conflate "free speech" with "the government's not doing it."

Let's try to imagine a time and place where an employee in good-standing is seen kissing another man on the weekend. A righteous, God-fearing witness to the smooch finds out where the man works and stages a protest in front of the office building. Gossip rips through the breakroom. Co-workers say they no longer feel safe in the man's presence. His homosexuality has become a distraction that undermines productivity and saps morale. Such deviant behavior runs contrary to the good, traditional Christian-American values the company claims to embody, so they fire him.

If such attitudes pervade the culture, there's no threat to freedom of expression?

 

[dirtywick]

what happens when instead of "mob" we say "consumers" and instead of "cancel culture" we say "responding to market pressure"

Terminology again matters, especially if we conflate "free speech" with "the government's not doing it."

Let's try to imagine a time and place where an employee in good-standing is seen kissing another man on the weekend. A righteous, God-fearing witness to the smooch finds out where the man works and stages a protest in front of the office building. Gossip rips through the breakroom. Co-workers say they no longer feel safe in the man's presence. His homosexuality has become a distraction that undermines productivity and saps morale. Such deviant behavior runs contrary to the good, traditional Christian-American values the company claims to embody, so they fire him.

If such attitudes pervade the culture, there's no threat to freedom of expression?

whether they fire him or not or they lose or gain business in the aftermath, they're "responding to market pressure" from "consumers"

business decisions like that aren't driving cultural change, they're a response to it. if a business doesn't represent my values, i'll go to a competitor that does, as is my right. this is a free market solution to a problem they want the government to solve, as opponents to cancel culture are fighting the invisible hand of the market. and they'll lose unless the government intervenes and decides that everyone has a right to a living wage and basic health care and enact laws to protect that.

the irony of course is obvious

 

[johnny karate]

We can disagree over loaded language -- "cancel culture," "mobs," "coercing" -- but you can't really say it isn't happening. The stronger argument is, "It happens, it's not new, and it's actually OK." Boycotts predate social media.

The fact that boycotts existed before social media and no one really had a problem with them pretty much proves my point.

Terminology again matters, especially if we conflate "free speech" with "the government's not doing it."

Let's try to imagine a time and place where an employee in good-standing is seen kissing another man on the weekend. A righteous, God-fearing witness to the smooch finds out where the man works and stages a protest in front of the office building. Gossip rips through the breakroom. Co-workers say they no longer feel safe in the man's presence. His homosexuality has become a distraction that undermines productivity and saps morale. Such deviant behavior runs contrary to the good, traditional Christian-American values the company claims to embody, so they fire him.

Well, things like that did happen. And now we have laws to prevent that from happening because as a society we agreed that was wrong.

I’m not sure a similar course of action will be forthcoming for people who say dumb or offensive things.

And I don’t think conflating oppressive bigotry with someone’s right to make crude jokes is constructive.

If such attitudes pervade the culture, there's no threat to freedom of expression?

If we pretend that those attitudes are pervasive without context and that there is this slippery slope we are teetering treacherously upon, I suppose it would seem that way.

But we’re not really. These are mostly all distinct cases in which it’s fairly easy to see what happened and why.

And once again, the only threat to free speech I see is from those who wish to silence anyone who dares complain about conduct which they find offensive. I’m not sure how shutting that down is at all conducive to free speech.

 

[johnny karate]

No, I'm saying that mobs getting people fired for no good reason is a problem. Sometimes people point to that and say "cancel culture". I don't think "cancel culture" is a unified or specific phenomenon, but to the extent that we're talking about ginning up false outrage to get people fired for doing innocuous things, there's a problem there. It's a mistake to handwave it just because someone called it "cancel culture".

Okay then, what’s the solution?

These “mobs” have a right to free speech, too. So what’s to be done about them?

 

[johnny karate]

Don't you think the discussion of cancel culture would be more interesting if we picked the hard cases (where it's not obvious someone deserves or deserved to be sacked) rather than the easy ones?

If you could come up with enough of these examples that would justify calling this thing a “culture”, yes.

But a handful of outliers does not a culture make.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Like they have for my entire memory?

Yes, all the oodles and oodles of men publicly shamed and doxxed across the internet, with hordes of anonymous people calling for their immediate firing because they used the phrase "that's what she said" at work...

 

[Cain]

business decisions like that aren't driving cultural change, they're a response to it.

You didn't answer my question, and this bit right here isn't completely true. "Responding" to such "market pressure" encourages more "market pressure." (I also have to say that I am using "market pressure" under protest.)

and they'll lose unless the government intervenes and decides that everyone has a right to a living wage and basic health care and enact laws to protect that.

Yeah, woke capitalism can save us. How wonderful it is that free-ridership/collective action problems aren't, like, a thing.

The fact that boycotts existed before social media and no one really had a problem with them pretty much proves my point.

Your point being... "Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support such an implication"??

Well, things like that did happen. And now we have laws to prevent that from happening because as a society we agreed that was wrong.

I’m not sure a similar course of action will be forthcoming for people who say dumb or offensive things.

And I don’t think conflating oppressive bigotry with someone’s right to make crude jokes is constructive.

Well, I think the comparisons are instructive. The gay man's co-workers need to **** off and mind their own business.

If we pretend that those attitudes are pervasive without context and that there is this slippery slope we are teetering treacherously upon, I suppose it would seem that way.

But we’re not really. These are mostly all distinct cases in which it’s fairly easy to see what happened and why.

And once again, the only threat to free speech I see is from those who wish to silence anyone who dares complain about conduct which they find offensive. I’m not sure how shutting that down is at all conducive to free speech.

It's not about shutting it down. Like toddlers, you let them tantrum to exhaustion.

 

[mumblethrax]

Okay then, what’s the solution?

These “mobs” have a right to free speech, too. So what’s to be done about them?

Shift from at-will to just-cause employment.

 

[johnny karate]

Shift from at-will to just-cause employment.

What does that have to do with “cancel culture”? If you work for a company with a policy that specifically forbids certain types of behavior and rhetoric, how would the terms of your employment help you if you violated that policy?

 

[johnny karate]

It's not about shutting it down. Like toddlers, you let them tantrum to exhaustion.

What does this mean exactly?

 

[dirtywick]

You didn't answer my question, and this bit right here isn't completely true. "Responding" to such "market pressure" encourages more "market pressure." (I also have to say that I am using "market pressure" under protest.)

you don’t have to use the term

Regardless it’s not the markets function, or for that matter a businesses function, to encourage or discourage any type of behavior. worker protection and government policy are all of the sudden kind of relevant to the people who have been fighting to take them away. I’m curious to see how they will reconcile that.

Yeah, woke capitalism can save us. How wonderful it is that free-ridership/collective action problems aren't, like, a thing.

Oh it certainly won’t.

 

[mumblethrax]

What does that have to do with “cancel culture”?

You asked me what to do about mobs exercising their free speech. I'm telling you: blunt their knives. Acknowledge that this is tactical free speech, and prevent them from being able to achieve their aims. They can still say whatever they want, it just won't work as a punitive measure anymore.

If you work for a company with a policy that specifically forbids certain types of behavior and rhetoric, how would the terms of your employment help you if you violated that policy?

I've never worked for a company that 'specifically forbids certain types of rhetoric', outside of the bounds of employment, and I hope I never will.

 

[smartcooky]

I wonder how quickly the tolerance for outrage driven campaigns to get people fired would change if women started taking men to task for sexist and sex-based jokes.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ! Wake up and smell the bloody coffee!

Sexist and sex-based jokes have been around since the birth of comedy, and guess what, it cuts both ways. Women make sexist jokes about men all . the . time.

Get a life and get over it!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Don't you think the discussion of cancel culture would be more interesting if we picked the hard cases (where it's not obvious someone deserves or deserved to be sacked) rather than the easy ones?

I reject the premise of "cancel culture" entirely. It's just the latest iteration of complaints about "political correctness", which is just an attempt by the right wing to deflect criticisms about their abhorrent ideology and put their liberal opponents on their back heels by turning the whole thing into some tedious meta-conversation.

 

[Darat]

Yes, all the oodles and oodles of men publicly shamed and doxxed across the internet, with hordes of anonymous people calling for their immediate firing because they used the phrase "that's what she said" at work...

Moving the goalposts I see.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, all the oodles and oodles of men publicly shamed and doxxed across the internet, with hordes of anonymous people calling for their immediate firing because they used the phrase "that's what she said" at work...

Every corporate HR slide deck about workplace harassment is quite clear to point out that sexist jokes and comments absolutely can and has lead to successful litigation. Sexist men absolutely can and do get cancelled for sexually harassing women in this country, and this goes back decades before the current conversation on cancel culture.

This isn't to say such harassment isn't routine, even though it has been explicitly illegal for many years. Misogynists will keep creating hostile workplaces for women until the heat death of the universe, much to the chagrin of HR departments across the globe.

The complaints made by "cancel culture" warriors is the exact kind of hand-waving crap gross men have always made to explain how their bad behavior is just a joke, or that their victims need to lighten up.

I really don't understand your point here at all. Sexual harassment in the workplace is one of the textbook definitions commonly used for activity that will get you "cancelled" out of a job and destroy (rightly) a professional reputation. Not only is the individual expected to not do this kind of behavior at work, the employer has a duty to make sure it's not happening.

 

[Darat]

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ! Wake up and smell the bloody coffee!

Sexist and sex-based jokes have been around since the birth of comedy, and guess what, it cuts both ways. Women make sexist jokes about men all . the . time.

Get a life and get over it!

It certainly did used to be the case that humour pretty much went one way in regards to sexist humour but lots of complaining and campaigning did change that*. What EC was sarcastically meaning doesn’t happen, actually happened decades ago and is still happening.



*”perfect is the enemy of the good”, plus of course the sexism of the man being stupid and needing to be controlled by the wife was a mainstay of many sitcoms for a long time.

 

[johnny karate]

You asked me what to do about mobs exercising their free speech. I'm telling you: blunt their knives. Acknowledge that this is tactical free speech, and prevent them from being able to achieve their aims. They can still say whatever they want, it just won't work as a punitive measure anymore.

It will if the conduct being reported violates a company’s policies.

I've never worked for a company that 'specifically forbids certain types of rhetoric', outside of the bounds of employment, and I hope I never will.

Most companies have no-tolerance policies for conduct that can be perceived as threatening violence, sexist, racist, etc.

I’m not sure that it makes a difference if you’re not technically “at work” when you exhibit this conduct. If you broadcast it to the world and sign your name to it, you have most likely violated this policy.

And even if this wasn’t the case, your proposal robs these companies of their right to freedom of association. They would not be allowed to fire or discipline an employee who spent their free time making racist proclamations on Twitter and potentially damaging the reputation of the company in the process.

 

[d4m10n]

The other is a NYT writer who showed a picture of Biden's plane landing in DC and wrote "I got chills", which got Greenwald and thus his followers into a lather about how she's a bootlicker and blah blah blah.

The online campaign against Lauren Wolfe strikes me as an excellent example of cancel culture run amok.