Cancel culture IRL

[Darat]

The problem with the cancel culture is that the further one goes with censorship, the closer one gets to the kind of dictatorial behaviour that most of us would hope to avoid.

It's far better to debate than cancel.

??

 

[ponderingturtle]

How many episodes should the writers have been forced to write in Cara Dune into on season 3?

 

[Max_mang]

Mate, if there were any other task -- say, doing something on the computer -- that you still got wrong at all after many years of doing it, and having all the incentive in the world to get it right, I'm sorry, but nobody would call it easy.

He said three times in three years. I've made more mistakes than that at my job, but they still pay me a bunch of money to do it.

But more importantly, no matter how big or small the effort, you don't get to decide for me that I MUST care about your pet issue. Out of all the issues -- ranging from world hunger, to global warming, to Apple vs Microsoft vs Linux, to whatever -- that I might devote my limited time and mental capacity to, you have unilaterally decided that YOUR issue is THE one I MUST have in the top X that I actually care about and devote an effort to.

Sorry, but... what in Lucifer Morningstar's good name do you think gives you that right? Do you think you're royalty, or...?

I don't even care if it's a big or small effort. You don't get to unilaterally decide that I need to do it.

Wow, leave some straw for other people.

Jesus F Christ. Forget "cancel culture" or whatever, THIS is the real problem of the modern age: people thinking they're entitled to tell you that THEIR pet issue -- be it gender, Apple vs Microsoft vs Linux, saving the polar bears, or whatever -- is THE one you should have at the top of your list to care about. And taking it as some kind of hostility if you don't actually care about what they tell you to.

Asking someone to be kind and considerate of others is bad now. Got it.

And anyone who thinks that refusing to let them dictate what I should care about is no different from actual hostility... yeah, well, that's exactly the kind of entitlement I was talking about.

A person who asks politely is a hostile, entitled dictator. Got it.

Nobody personally owes you anything, much less to let you write the list of what they should care about.

One thing is a list. Got it.

But nobody owes you any care or effort towards whatever your issue is.

No one owes you anything, and asking folks to be nice is evil. Got it.

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, so an actor says some stuff that people object to on Twitter.

1. She says the objectionable stuff.
2. People on Twitter say they object.
3. Some other people maybe contact her employer directly and call for her to be fired because of objectionable stuff.
4. Her employers fire her.

Which of these four things do we have a problem with, and how can we remedy those things to maybe stop it happening again?

1. Maybe stop her from saying the objectionable stuff? Apparently some people wouldn't like any intervention there.
2. Stop people on Twitter from objecting? Is that either feasible or desirable? If not, there is no point complaining that people are complaining.
3. Should people be prevented from calling someone's employer? Well, it may not be a nice thing to do, but how do you prevent it in a feasible and desirable way?
4. Maybe we can prevent employer's from firing their staff without very good reason. Personally, I hope that the US would improve its labour laws and get something other than "at will" hiring. Perhaps if the actor is a member of a labour union, they can get the union to get on the employer's case about it.

So, yes, I hope her union has something to say about it. Maybe she can get all her conservative friends to rally round labour unions and get them to put pressure on these capitalist pig-dogs who would frankly sell their own grandmothers if it earned them a buck.

 

[dirtywick]

she's a celebrity, nobody needed to contact disney. this was unearthed from decades ago or something private, she put it out there on her social media. proud to do it, actually.

 

[Darat]

she's a celebrity, nobody needed to contact disney. this was unearthed from decades ago or something private, she put it out there on her social media. proud to do it, actually.

???

 

[HansMustermann]

Wow, leave some straw for other people.

Take your own advice? Because everything you wrote in this message was a gross distortion.

 

[HansMustermann]

???

I can't speak for him, but the way I can understand what he's trying to say, it's that basically Disney (as well as most corporations) are quite conscious about their image. In fact, they pay dozens of people whose only job is to make sure the image they present is the best it can be. It's the whole reason to exist of, say, the PR department in a corporation. If you create a crap-storm and are famous enough (even just by virtue of the crap-storm) and associated with their brand, nobody needs to call them. They'll act anyway.

 

[Max_mang]

Take your own advice? Because everything you wrote in this message was a gross distortion.

Good one.

 

[HansMustermann]

Good one.

Do you even have a point you're trying to make, or is it just browbeating attempts from here on?

 

[dirtywick]

I can't speak for him, but the way I can understand what he's trying to say, it's that basically Disney (as well as most corporations) are quite conscious about their image. In fact, they pay dozens of people whose only job is to make sure the image they present is the best it can be. It's the whole reason to exist of, say, the PR department in a corporation. If you create a crap-storm and are famous enough (even just by virtue of the crap-storm) and associated with their brand, nobody needs to call them. They'll act anyway.

That’s true.

Also, it’s not like people are contacting her employer like they’re not monitoring her Twitter already or pulling out recordings of private private statements or a misrepresentation or distortion of her. These were public statements to millions of people, including her employer.

 

[Darat]

That’s true.

Also, it’s not like people are contacting her employer like they’re not monitoring her Twitter already or pulling out recordings of private private statements or a misrepresentation or distortion of her. These were public statements to millions of people, including her employer.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[angrysoba]

she's a celebrity, nobody needed to contact disney. this was unearthed from decades ago or something private, she put it out there on her social media. proud to do it, actually.

???

I can't speak for him, but the way I can understand what he's trying to say, it's that basically Disney (as well as most corporations) are quite conscious about their image. In fact, they pay dozens of people whose only job is to make sure the image they present is the best it can be. It's the whole reason to exist of, say, the PR department in a corporation. If you create a crap-storm and are famous enough (even just by virtue of the crap-storm) and associated with their brand, nobody needs to call them. They'll act anyway.

That’s true.

Also, it’s not like people are contacting her employer like they’re not monitoring her Twitter already or pulling out recordings of private private statements or a misrepresentation or distortion of her. These were public statements to millions of people, including her employer.

It doesn't really matter. Number 3 was qualified anyway...

Okay, so an actor says some stuff that people object to on Twitter.

1. She says the objectionable stuff.
2. People on Twitter say they object.
3. Some other people maybe contact her employer directly and call for her to be fired because of objectionable stuff.
4. Her employers fire her.

Which of these four things do we have a problem with, and how can we remedy those things to maybe stop it happening again?

1. Maybe stop her from saying the objectionable stuff? Apparently some people wouldn't like any intervention there.
2. Stop people on Twitter from objecting? Is that either feasible or desirable? If not, there is no point complaining that people are complaining.
3. Should people be prevented from calling someone's employer? Well, it may not be a nice thing to do, but how do you prevent it in a feasible and desirable way?
4. Maybe we can prevent employer's from firing their staff without very good reason. Personally, I hope that the US would improve its labour laws and get something other than "at will" hiring. Perhaps if the actor is a member of a labour union, they can get the union to get on the employer's case about it.

So, yes, I hope her union has something to say about it. Maybe she can get all her conservative friends to rally round labour unions and get them to put pressure on these capitalist pig-dogs who would frankly sell their own grandmothers if it earned them a buck.

But the question remains. If you want to complain about "x culture" what are you going to do about it?

What should be done?

I think it has been established fairly well that this is not a new thing. I remember when Glenn Hoddle got fired from his job as England football manager because he said that disabled people are being punished for what they did in a former life. His employers did not want to be associated with that. Maybe some people complained, and maybe people contacted his employers.

 

[HansMustermann]

Dunno about US improving labour laws to that extent. Even the most unionized countries don't really protect against everything. E.g., here are the rules for Germany, a country which is as unionized and social-economy as it gets: https://www.winheller.com/en/busine...tion-of-employment/reasons-for-dismissal.html

They quite explicitly involve stuff like "offensive comments, including on social networks, against the employer or work colleagues." So is basically breach of just about any enforceable clause in your contract. Among other good reasons.

You may be entitled to a written warning for the first offense, but after that, your ass is fair game.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Dunno about US improving labour laws to that extent. Even the most unionized countries don't really protect against everything. E.g., here are the rules for Germany, a country which is as unionized and social-economy as it gets: https://www.winheller.com/en/busine...tion-of-employment/reasons-for-dismissal.html

They quite explicitly involve stuff like "offensive comments, including on social networks, against the employer or work colleagues." So is basically breach of just about any enforceable clause in your contract. Among other good reasons.

You may be entitled to a written warning for the first offense, but after that, your ass is fair game.

The comments Carano made were not against her employer or work colleagues.

 

[angrysoba]

Dunno about US improving labour laws to that extent. Even the most unionized countries don't really protect against everything. E.g., here are the rules for Germany, a country which is as unionized and social-economy as it gets: https://www.winheller.com/en/busine...tion-of-employment/reasons-for-dismissal.html

They quite explicitly involve stuff like "offensive comments, including on social networks, against the employer or work colleagues." So is basically breach of just about any enforceable clause in your contract. Among other good reasons.

You may be entitled to a written warning for the first offense, but after that, your ass is fair game.

Hmmm... we're running out of avenues. What can we do?

 

[Darat]

Hmmm... we're running out of avenues. What can we do?

Drop talking about this new fangled “cancel culture” since it doesn’t exist?

 

[Mumbles]

The problem with the cancel culture is that the further one goes with censorship, the closer one gets to the kind of dictatorial behaviour that most of us would hope to avoid.

It's far better to debate than cancel.

In keeping with this, I would like to debate my scientific proposition that Airfix is actually subhuman and animal-like, has no actual sense morality or sympathy, and thus does not deserve to be treated as a full human in the eyes of the law, which means it's perfectly fine if Airfix is killed by police for no apparent reason. I think that this is a worthy subject of a friendly debate, doesn't everyone else? I suggest we begin with a series of photographs of Airfix, so that we may fully examine the specimen. Does everyone agree that this is acceptable?

...

For reference, the correct answer is "No, that's a revolting idea."

And the trick is, if you do debate, I will begin with the assumption that Airfix is subhuman, and find reasons to justify it.

I'm going to add this link discussing how what Andrew Sullivan saw as a "friendly debate" was, to Ta-Nehisi Coates, an ugly and deeply offensive discussion in an outright oppressive setting.. When we're discussing basic human dignities, this is the actual subject at hand - and on the subject, exposes the nonsense of ideas like "Social Justice Warriors" and "Cancel Culture". Those who refuse to grant that their opponent are fully human are not owed anything above legal tolerance at most - and even then, keep a close eye on them, lest they put their disgusting ideas into practice.

 

[Mumbles]

If anyone genuinely can't distinguish between the very different stances of:

1. Being against you doing X, and
2. Not caring either way about whether you do X or not,

well, then they're an entitled idiot, and I don't care what they think about me.

Okay then, Hansine.

I mean, let's try it for any other X

1. person A is against Mexicans in their neighbourhood, while
2. person B doesn't care if they have Mexican neighbours or not.

...and also is not at all concerned about the Mexican couple who moved out because people kept screaming "Go back to where you came from spics!" at them, threw rocks through their windows, left threatening messages in their mailbox...all while the police shrugged and said "Nothing we can do."

1. person A is against hiring blacks, while
2. person B doesn't care if there are blacks or not among his coworkers.

And no matter if there's a bunch of racist crap hung up on the walls, and the conservatives complained about "those other n...um, liberals" who took the day off when Obama was inaugurated, to the only black person who went to work and listened on his headphones instead (note: actually happened to me)

Sorry, but anyone who genuinely finds position 2 indistinguishable from position 1, isn't some kind of progressive. That's some entitled twit who thinks the whole world owes him to champion his cause and help him get what he wants.

It's in fact, exactly the kind of entitlement delusions that produce the incels, among others. Those too think that everyone who isn't actively championing their right to get laid is the enemy.

Hey, you're the one throwing a fit about how awful it is to refer to people as they please, Hansine, not me. This is, whether you like it or not, a pretty good sign.

 

[Max_mang]

Do you even have a point you're trying to make, or is it just browbeating attempts from here on?

Pretend, pivot and deflect all you like - my point was very clear.