Cancel culture IRL

[Darat]

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

You mean the “The controversy over Lauren Wolfe’s possibly tweet-related firing, explained”

Why are you sure of the facts?

 

[johnny karate]

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

Again, when you can only come up with a handful of examples, you have not defined a culture.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

It would add a barrier between private life and work life. Your employer doesn't really have the right to dictate what you do in your off-hours.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Racist and race-based jokes have been around for a long time too, and they also cut both ways. Wouldn't that imply that someone making a race-based joke outside of work should not be punished at work for it?

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.

The difference here is actually embedded in your post, ST. Behaviors and comments made while at work are definitely within the province of the employer's HR policies. Behaviors outside of work are not.

When we're talking about "cancel culture", we're not talking about things that people said at work. These are things that people say as private citizens... and that other private citizens campaign about to their employer, and hence get them fired for things they did not do at work.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I dunno. I haven't seen mass online mobs doxxing people for making a sex-based joke or tweet, then harassing their employer to fire that person for something they did in their private lives. Perhaps I've simply been missing all of those cases?

 

[johnny karate]

It would add a barrier between private life and work life. Your employer doesn't really have the right to dictate what you do in your off-hours.

Exactly. We should force businesses to keep employees who publicly exhibit objectionable behavior and make the business look bad because that’s how freedom works.

 

[mumblethrax]

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

Companies cannot establish policies contrary to the law.

And even if this wasn’t the case, your proposal robs these companies of their right to freedom of association.

So do anti-discrimination statutes. This isn't a serious concern.

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.

It would probably depend on the employee's role. I don't particularly see any good reason why the janitor's "racist proclamations" matter, provided he doesn't bring it to work.

But is anyone going to argue that getting fired for making a joke that no one could honestly interpret as a threat is akin to racist proclamations in any case? Or more often, showing up to work with a pro-Biden bumper sticker on your car? These employee tribunals (or whatever) would be over fast.

 

[Darat]

It would add a barrier between private life and work life. Your employer doesn't really have the right to dictate what you do in your off-hours.

Surely that depends on your employment contract? In the UK you can’t by signing an employment contract lose your statutory and human rights but you can sign up to anything else.

 

[johnny karate]

Companies cannot establish policies contrary to the law.

That is correct and I don’t think anyone is arguing the contrary.

So do anti-discrimination statutes.

Except that we have agreed as a society that those statutes are beneficial and there is no reasonable case to be made that disallowing businesses from being bigoted is harmful to them.

This isn't a serious concern.

But somehow “cancel culture” as a threat to free speech is?

It would probably depend on the employee's role. I don't particularly see any good reason why the janitor's "racist proclamations" matter, provided he doesn't bring it to work.

But is anyone going to argue that getting fired for making a joke that no one could honestly interpret as a threat is akin to racist proclamations in any case? Or more often, showing up to work with a pro-Biden bumper sticker on your car? These employee tribunals (or whatever) would be over fast.

And when any of these theoretical marginal cases actually manifest themselves in reality on a pervasive scale, you might have a point.

But slippery slope wankery isn’t particularly compelling argumentation, especially when you are so quick to dismiss any concerns about mandating a hands-off approach for how much private businesses are allowed to regulate the conduct of their employees.

 

[mumblethrax]

That is correct and I don’t think anyone is arguing the contrary.

You seemed to be. If we move towards just-cause employment, violation of a company's policies are not necessarily sufficient to establish cause for termination. I mean, that's what at-will employment is. You can't then say "Well, if someone is violating the company policy...." as if this were sufficient grounds for termination. You're not taking onboard the effect that this shift would have on employment. Whatever the state considers minimum just cause for termination would then supersede a company's policies.

Except that we have agreed as a society that those statutes are beneficial and there is no reasonable case to be made that disallowing businesses from being bigoted is harmful to them.

Earlier you were arguing that employers would be "robbed of their right to freedom of association." Now you want to say that we as a society decided that those statutes are beneficial (what happened to the right to freedom of association?) A reasonable case could be made that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to business, and the argument would go something like this: it increases the cost of doing business. Creating and enforcing anti-discrimination policies isn't free. Which is precisely how employers would argue against just-cause employment.

The proper response here is just to note that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of workers, and move on.

And when any of these theoretical marginal cases actually manifest themselves in reality on a pervasive scale, you might have a point.

You don't need a "pervasive scale" to remedy an unjust situation.

But slippery slope wankery isn’t particularly compelling argumentation, especially when you are so quick to dismiss any concerns about mandating a hands-off approach for how much private businesses are allowed to regulate the conduct of their employees.

What slippery slope? These are real injustices that happen in the real world.

Meanwhile, I'm quick to dismiss these "concerns" because they're swivel-eyed nonsense. We don't have a hands-off approach for how employers treat their employees, that's been true for more than a century, and it's a better world because of it.

 

[johnny karate]

You seemed to be. If we move towards just-cause employment, violation of a company's policies are not necessarily sufficient to establish cause for termination. I mean, that's what at-will employment is. You can't then say "Well, if someone is violating the company policy...." as if this were sufficient grounds for termination. You're not taking onboard the effect that this shift would have on employment. Whatever the state considers minimum just cause for termination would then supersede a company's policies.

No, violation of a company policy isn’t necessarily grounds for a just-cause termination, but it certainly can be, particularly when the violation is egregious.

Look, I’m not arguing against just-cause employment. I’m only pointing out that it is not a shield for employees who violate company policies.

Earlier you were arguing that employers would be "robbed of their right to freedom of association." Now you want to say that we as a society decided that those statutes are beneficial (what happened to the right to freedom of association?) A reasonable case could be made that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to business, and the argument would go something like this: it increases the cost of doing business. Creating and enforcing anti-discrimination policies isn't free. Which is precisely how employers would argue against just-cause employment.

The proper response here is just to note that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of workers, and move on.

If we can’t acknowledge the obvious distinction between firing someone for being black or gay and firing someone for offensive conduct that violates company policy, and we just pretend it’s all just some indefinable gray area, I’m not sure how constructive this discussion can be.

You don't need a "pervasive scale" to remedy an unjust situation.

No, you don’t. But if you’re going to pretend that it’s a threat to the concept of free speech itself, you kind of do.

What slippery slope? These are real injustices that happen in the real world.

And yet here we are, dealing in hypotheticals.

Meanwhile, I'm quick to dismiss these "concerns" because they're swivel-eyed nonsense. We don't have a hands-off approach for how employers treat their employees, that's been true for more than a century, and it's a better world because of it.

“Swivel-eyed nonsense” is also how I see the pearl-clutching over the state of free speech every time someone gets fired for a dumb thing they declared to the world on Twitter.

 

[mumblethrax]

Look, I’m not arguing against just-cause employment. I’m only pointing out that it is not a shield for employees who violate company policies.

That's precisely what it is. Otherwise, it would have no effect.

If we can’t acknowledge the obvious distinction between firing someone for being black or gay and firing someone for offensive conduct that violates company policy, and we just pretend it’s all just some indefinable gray area, I’m not sure how constructive this discussion can be.

Pointing to vague "differences" isn't sufficient to establish that just-cause employment burdens freedom of association. The fact that just-cause employment laws already exist in the US should give you pause when pursuing this argument.

No, you don’t. But if you’re going to pretend that it’s a threat to the concept of free speech itself, you kind of do.

I don't need to pretend anything. Again, these things really happen, and it is a threat, not to the concept of free speech, but to the actual practice.

And yet here we are, dealing in hypotheticals.

We're not.

“Swivel-eyed nonsense” is also how I see the pearl-clutching over the state of free speech every time someone gets fired for a dumb thing they declared to the world on Twitter.

How about when people get fired for the not dumb things they say on Twitter? Or for showing up to work with the wrong political campaign's bumper sticker on your car? (This, too, is non-hypothetical).

 

[dirtywick]

Racist and race-based jokes have been around for a long time too, and they also cut both ways. Wouldn't that imply that someone making a race-based joke outside of work should not be punished at work for it?



The difference here is actually embedded in your post, ST. Behaviors and comments made while at work are definitely within the province of the employer's HR policies. Behaviors outside of work are not.

When we're talking about "cancel culture", we're not talking about things that people said at work. These are things that people say as private citizens... and that other private citizens campaign about to their employer, and hence get them fired for things they did not do at work.

if you harass a co worker outside of work you can be fired for it

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.



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?

Can we break this into a timeline:

Bigotry is widely accepted.
Bigotry effectively silences a minority of the population.
Bigotry becomes less popular.
Bigotry has a negative impact on the bottom line.
Bigotry is made illegal.
Bigotry enthusiasts complain that now they are being effectively silenced.
Bigotry is still unpopular.
Bigotry enthusiasts are confused by all the tiny violins.

Fighting against cancel culture is just like the civil rights movement except . . . everything.

 

[Cain]

Can we break this into a timeline:

Bigotry is widely accepted.
Bigotry effectively silences a minority of the population.
Bigotry becomes less popular.
Bigotry has a negative impact on the bottom line.
Bigotry is made illegal.
Bigotry enthusiasts complain that now they are being effectively silenced.
Bigotry is still unpopular.
Bigotry enthusiasts are confused by all the tiny violins.

Fighting against cancel culture is just like the civil rights movement except . . . everything.

I guess we're going to break into the timeline by completely dropping the context: Johnny drafted an abstract scenario and said it presented "no threat to free speech"; the real-world situation is consistent with those conditions... and rather clearly a threat to speech. Defending a Nazi's right to speak doesn't mean I think he's Galileo.

It's also important to note that freedom of expression is instrumental to social change, as freedom of speech is inextricably linked to freedom of thought. People are unable to re-think traditional oppressive structures (anti-gay bigotry, for example) if others cannot speak the truth.

What's interesting here is that it imagines bigotry is made illegal (it's not obvious if this is a mistake about the present or an aspiration for the future). It also says bigotry enthusiasts are being silenced, so it's not entirely clear if free speech was ever important at all.

Protecting (unpopular) political speech outside the workplace is a civil rights issue, and predates contemporary cancel culture.

 

[dirtywick]

Protecting (unpopular) political speech outside the workplace is a civil rights issue, and predates contemporary cancel culture.

ok so the lead singer of trapt spends his summer going viral spreading COVID conspiracies online and his album sells poorly because he’s making all his fans mad because of his political speech in his off hours

is the band obligated to keep him, venues obligated to continue to book them, and fans obligated to continue to buy their music, tickets, and merchandise? is he entitled to anything? does he even get to complain about “cancel culture”?

a guy who owns a grocery chain goes to the capitol and breaks in and posts a selfie online, people decide they don’t like that. can’t they tell their friends not to shop there? do they have to keep shopping there?

I’m at a bar and a co worker calls is filmed calling someone a towel head. can I tell my manager I don’t want to work with a racist? a customer sees and it wants to cancel their business, how many accounts should be an acceptable number to lose?

it’s “cancel culture” and I don’t see a problem with it

 

[Cain]

ok so the lead singer of trapt spends his summer going viral spreading COVID conspiracies online and his album sells poorly because he’s making all his fans mad because of his political speech in his off hours

is the band obligated to keep him, venues obligated to continue to book them, and fans obligated to continue to buy their music, tickets, and merchandise? is he entitled to anything? does he even get to complain about “cancel culture”?

I heard about this recently. The lead singer strikes me as headstrong, but consistently on-brand. If people do not want to buy his crappy album, then they shouldn't buy his crappy album, especially if they were initially drawn to the band for its views on epidemiology. It gets dicer if detractors want the label to drop the band, radio stations to stop playing their one hit or prevent venues from hosting the band's sold-out show.

I’m at a bar and a co worker calls is filmed calling someone a towel head. can I tell my manager I don’t want to work with a racist? a customer sees and it wants to cancel their business, how many accounts should be an acceptable number to lose?

First off, you sound drunk; you should sober up before deciding anything. Second, maybe this other dude is also drunk, and maybe that is a mitigating factor. Third, why is the impulse to go after this guy's job? He's going to have to work somewhere, right? Fourth: This punitive instinct strikes me as right-wing and puritanical. Someone says or does something stupid, can you try speaking to them first? Y'know, education/rehabilitation rather than retribution. No? OK, Karen, go talk to the manager. Or, even better, go tell Twitter/The Internet. This "culture" part of what seems to be happening is that people are so socially maladjusted that they can't sort these issues out for themselves.

That said, when it comes to something like racism, adults at this time should know better. Most racists know that they're not welcome to spout racist language among strangers. I say this as a point of comparison with the singer's COVID freakout, which is more understandable (even if perpetuating myths about the deadly pathogen is more materially harmful).

Circling back to Wilkinson: Even if he had said anything wrong, the response is insanely disproportionate.

a guy who owns a grocery chain goes to the capitol and breaks in and posts a selfie online, people decide they don’t like that. can’t they tell their friends not to shop there? do they have to keep shopping there?

I dunno, yeah, what the ****, do it.

 

[lionking]

Again, when you can only come up with a handful of examples, you have not defined a culture.

It remains a very bad and indefensible example though. It might not define a culture, but it typified a trend approaching a culture.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Marylin Manson has been named by Evan Rachel Wood as someone who groomed her as a teenager and horrifically tortured and abused her for years. This is abuse she's testified to Congress about twice (and it goes way beyond the majority of #MeToo stories, including Harvey Weinstein), but this is the first time she's named the perpetrator. In response, at least 3 other women have also named Manson as having done the same to them.

As a result, his record label have dropped him, Starz are looking at how to edit him out of series 3 of American Gods, episodes featuring him have been dropped from another TV show he was to appear on, and his management have released a statement saying that they are assessing the situation with a mind to drop him.

Is this cancel culture? Will anybody argue that it was wrong for those commercial entities to drop him over this because how he behaved with his former girlfriend/financeé is unrelated to his music and acting careers?

I suppose you could argue that they're making moral judgements spontaneously, but since Wood's accounts previously included her age when these events occurred and theirs was a public relationship, it can't actually have been a surprise to anybody involved that he was the person she was referring to - just as Melissa Benoist didn't name her abuser, but the details of her story made it obvious that she was referring to ex-husband Blake Jenner. The difference here is that her accusation went viral.

 

[Emily's Cat]

ok so the lead singer of trapt spends his summer going viral spreading COVID conspiracies online and his album sells poorly because he’s making all his fans mad because of his political speech in his off hours

is the band obligated to keep him, venues obligated to continue to book them, and fans obligated to continue to buy their music, tickets, and merchandise? is he entitled to anything? does he even get to complain about “cancel culture”?

a guy who owns a grocery chain goes to the capitol and breaks in and posts a selfie online, people decide they don’t like that. can’t they tell their friends not to shop there? do they have to keep shopping there?

I’m at a bar and a co worker calls is filmed calling someone a towel head. can I tell my manager I don’t want to work with a racist? a customer sees and it wants to cancel their business, how many accounts should be an acceptable number to lose?

it’s “cancel culture” and I don’t see a problem with it

That's not quite cancel culture though.

There's a nuance here that seems to keep getting lost.

On one end, there's "I don't like what this company did, therefore I don't want to support this company". This is the case with the band you mentioned, since the singer is an integral part of that band. A person's individual choice to stop supporting that band because of the actions of the singer is a matter of that individual's agency.

On the other end, there's "I am offended by what person X said/did outside of work, therefore person X is evil... and any person or company that defends X in any way at all is also evil... Therefore I will rally everyone I know to get outraged and I will threaten person X with violence and I will flood person X's employer with hate mail and threats and I will go online and I will paint person X's employer as evil unless they fire person X immediately and I will make it a PR nightmare for the employer because I am offended". This scenario ends up not being a case of free agency, it's a case of threat and coercion being enacted upon the employer. The employer ends up being forced to fire someone, even if the thing that person X said/did was borderline or even benign (like a tasteless joke).

One one end of that range is free agency and individual choice. On the other end of that range is threat and coercion. If you can't see a distinction between those ends, I don't really know what to say.

There's plenty of gray area, it's not a bright line. Somewhere in the middle is petitioning an picketing and boycotting.

For me, the tipping point is when threats and coercion come into play. Because those are crimes. But they're being committed by people hiding behind internet anonymity, who can't be positively identified, and thus can't be prosecuted for their crimes.