Cancel culture IRL

[angrysoba]

Did you? Seemed like you were just throwing it out there.

I asked what is the argument?

So... what is the argument?

Do you have one?

Do you have any proposals?

If not, what are we doing with this thread?

 

[d4m10n]

My argument would be that the studios needn't bother vetting employees for personal political ideology (e.g. MPAA blacklists) since they already have direct control over the scripts produced.

Is there some argument that corporate oversight will prove necessary or even beneficent?

 

[angrysoba]

My argument would be that the studios needn't bother vetting employees for personal political ideology (e.g. MPAA blacklists) since they already have direct control over the scripts produced.

Is there some argument that corporate oversight will prove necessary or even beneficent?

Maybe. What if one of the actors went on Twitter and said they hated working with the [insert ethnic group here]?

If they did that, wouldn’t the company have to weigh up whether such a person can be expected to work well with the rest of the cast and crew?

 

[Mumbles]

Heh. Seriously? Your Baldrick-class cunning plan is to show what misgendering feels like to... someone who grew up being both genders? Like, really? Being a different gender based on which adults I was with was the only normal I knew. (Short story: mom wanted a boy and got one, grandma wanted a girl... and got one too. I was both.) You seriously think that calling me a girl name is even going to do anything?

Plus, when your best contribution is to invent nicknames for your opponent...(Which, no, I wasn't proposing to do; this is all you.) Yeah, that's... intellectual rock bottom.

Actually, it's the very topic under discussion - do you get angry by people who request to call them a particular thing, or not? You're veering from one to the other wildly here.

But, hey, suit yourself. I don't mind. I'm certainly not going to stop you from continuing the debate at the kind of intellectual level that you CAN

Again: that's entirely voluntary on my part, whether I want to care about specifically that or not. You don't get to decide that I have some duty to pick that specific fight or not.

But generally, the problem still remains: the idea that you can find
A. someone just not actively fighting the mob
completely indistinguishable from
B. the actual bigots doing the screaming and throwing rocks,
is just pure nonsense. It's just finding some easier to rationalize "us vs them" tribalism, where everyone who's not "us" is the enemy, but ultimately the same tribalism that drives them too.

It's not that simple - yet again, you've openly decided to be offended by people who say "please refer to me in this way, not that one". That's not "neutral", it's outright picking one side. It's similar to defending the "free speech" of the racist, over that of the people being targeted for racist attacks. DOn't be shoicked if people immediately conclude that you're more concerned with the "rights" of the open bigot, over those of the targets of the bigotry, since that's exactly what your repeatedly stated position is.

In fact, since you mention those conservatives, you just demonstrate the same "if you're not actively with us, you're the enemy" mentality that motivates their hostility too. Just doing for the opposite political party, isn't making it anything else than the exact same kind of dumb tribalism that motivates them too.

If so-called "conservatives", by which you actually mean "anti-black racists" identify me as their enemy...well, they're correct, I am necessarily an enemy to those who think my skin color makes me an enemy. And sticking my head in the sand has inevitably led to disaster for myself, since they eventually find some irrational reason to attack.

And if you're actively aiding them, well...yeah, stop doing that, and we can be friendly. Until then, I have to treat you as someone that'll side with the bigots when the chips are down, because you've insisted that this is exactly what you will do.

 

[d4m10n]

If they did that, wouldn’t the company have to weigh up whether such a person can be expected to work well with the rest of the cast and crew?

To be honest, I sometimes hate working with people who believe and openly proclaim that unbelievers like myself deserve to be tortured by fire forever for not believing as they do. (Funnily enough, some of the theists seem to believe that about each other because they've got different holy books or even different editions of the same one.) That said, we somehow put our mututal hatred aside for 40 hours a week.

All that said, I'm looking forward to your argument.

 

[angrysoba]

To be honest, I sometimes hate working with people who believe and openly proclaim that unbelievers like myself deserve to be tortured by fire forever for not believing as they do. (Funnily enough, some of the theists seem to believe that about each other because they've got different holy books or even different editions of the same one.) That said, we somehow put our mututal hatred aside for 40 hours a week.

Good for you. Now, are you saying that because this is what you do, everyone else has to?

All that said, I'm looking forward to your argument.

I don't have one. I haven't really thought that much about it. But then, I don't exactly need one. I am not trying to persuade you of anything. You are the one who is supposed to be making the persuasive argument. Just saying, "well what about the Communist blacklists, huh?" doesn't cut it. First of all, you may need to make the case against those, if you feel the bar is lower on that one, then explain why some things happening today are analogous to those.

 

[dirtywick]

To be honest, I sometimes hate working with people who believe and openly proclaim that unbelievers like myself deserve to be tortured by fire forever for not believing as they do. (Funnily enough, some of the theists seem to believe that about each other because they've got different holy books or even different editions of the same one.) That said, we somehow put our mututal hatred aside for 40 hours a week.

All that said, I'm looking forward to your argument.

You put in a 40 hour work week with them because if you want to keep your job you don't have a choice. It wasn't long ago that racism or sexual harassment were accepted in the work place and they didn't have a choice either. Things are different for them, maybe someday for you too.

And when they are you can comment on how tolerant you are.

 

[Frank Newgent]

If anyone asks me to use particular pronouns, they're thinking they're so special that I should make a special effort to remember that just for that one person. Like, I may forget yesterday I thought I need to buy milk today, but elder gods help us all if I forget that some guy I talked to two times in the last month total wants me to use some special pronoun just for him. I don't know what kind of entitlement delusion that might spawn from, but my answer would be: sorry, you're not royalty, you don't actually warrant more effort on my part than everyone else. And if being treated equally to everyone else makes you sad, boo-hoo, cry me a river.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually care if they identify as a man, woman, cat, or attack helicopter. Good for them. But those are the operative words: I don't actually care. I'm not going to put in any extra effort to comply with whatever idiotic entitlements they may come up with.

I can only say again - please use peoples' pronouns correctly. It really isn't that hard, and being misgendered can be extremely painful. It doesn't matter if you forget once or twice and need to be corrected. No-one except the real divas will care about that.

One of the children I raised, who is now an adult, is nonbinary and uses they/them. I forget occasionally, though I am much better at it now. A dear friend recently identified as transgender and requested that we use they/them until they settle into their identity. I know people from across the transgender and nonbinary spectrum, and one thing they all say is that remembering and using someone's pronouns is literally the least that you can do to recognise their basic identity.

Please use the correct pronouns.

Is there a 1st person plural pronoun?

 

[HansMustermann]

It's not that simple - yet again, you've openly decided to be offended by people who say "please refer to me in this way, not that one".

And there comes the motte-and-bailey. What's being thrown around is at a level that's a bit past just "please do X", isn't it?

The other fellow was finding it downright a personal insult to him and his family if I don't do what he asks. You were finding it indistinguishable from bigotry if I don't.

There's a world of difference between the first one of these (which in itself may or may not be an unreasonable request) and the other two:
1. please drive me to the railway station.
2. I'm personally insulted if you don't drive me to the railway station.
3. You're a racist if you don't drive me to the railway station.

Sorry, if it's at the level of "I'm personally insulted if you don't do X" or "you're a bigot if you don't do X", that's something completely different. That means that in some people's mind I have some kind of DUTY to put in the extra effort to do X for them and them alone. And that's plain old entitlement.

That's not "neutral", it's outright picking one side.

Which is still part of that regularly scheduled motte-and-bailey.

Picking a side on... WHAT? Because what is demanded is putting in some extra effort to do what someone thinks they're entitled to, but when attacked invariably it retreats into "their right to self identify as something else." Well, the two are not the same. The latter is just about what YOU do, in which case knock yourself out, the former is what you demand that OTHER people do for you. It's not even remotely the same proposition.

It's similar to defending the "free speech" of the racist, over that of the people being targeted for racist attacks. DOn't be shoicked if people immediately conclude that you're more concerned with the "rights" of the open bigot, over those of the targets of the bigotry, since that's exactly what your repeatedly stated position is.

Except it's not, because that's a false analogy, as is usually the case. Someone being black in your neighbourhood isn't demanding any extra rights or effort on your part. They're not asking you to drive their kids to school, they don't ask to pay even 1% less property tax, or anything because they're black.

Since the key attribute isn't shared, that analogy is worthless. It's just a thinly veiled appeal to emotion.

You know what it's more analogous to, by virtue of actually sharing the attributes of thinking they entitled to more than everyone else? Race supremacists, actually, not their black targets. Yeah, it's the supremacists not their victims that think they're entitled to something more than everyone else.

You know what other analogy actually shares that attribute of actually thinking someone else owes them to do all the effort and take all the inconvenience of giving them what they want? Incels.

So, yeah, nice try but no banana

If so-called "conservatives", by which you actually mean "anti-black racists" identify me as their enemy...well, they're correct, I am necessarily an enemy to those who think my skin color makes me an enemy. And sticking my head in the sand has inevitably led to disaster for myself, since they eventually find some irrational reason to attack.

Nice strawman, but no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that YOU are doing the same us-vs-them idiocy they do.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think it's one of the growing collections of "when liberals do it" buzzwords.

Caring about the words you use that might offend or hurt people is propriety or decency when conservatives do it. It's "political correctness when liberals do it.

When Trump spporters threatened to boycott the NFL because of athletes kneeling, that was standing up for their values and the free market. When liberals do it, it's "cancel culture".

Repeat for SJW, identity politics, and so on and so on.

There were tonnes of tweets saying that they'd cancelled Disney+ in protest at cancel culture...

 

[ponderingturtle]

My argument would be that the studios needn't bother vetting employees for personal political ideology (e.g. MPAA blacklists) since they already have direct control over the scripts produced.

Is there some argument that corporate oversight will prove necessary or even beneficent?

It just goes to show how badly Mel Gibson was treated.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, it's the very topic under discussion - do you get angry by people who request to call them a particular thing, or not? You're veering from one to the other wildly here.

Hey it is as crazy as having to learn a persons name, no one really thinks only being called hey you is in anyway bothersome right?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

demand[/i] that anyone else does.

If someone legally changed their name - perhaps because they didn't like their old one, perhaps because they got married, or whatever - would you put in the extra effort required to remember to call them by their new name? Or would you just keep using their old one?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Except it's not, because that's a false analogy, as is usually the case. Someone being black in your neighbourhood isn't demanding any extra rights or effort on your part. They're not asking you to drive their kids to school, they don't ask to pay even 1% less property tax, or anything because they're black.

But they are driving down my property values. I mean look how much being black can depress home value.

https://www.insider.com/black-couple-lowballed-on-home-price-because-of-race-2021-2

They had a white friend fake owning it and the value went up 50%. This is why people don't want blacks in their neighborhood nothing racist about it, it is simply the effects on my property value. I mean what happens to the value of my house when they find out my neighbor is black?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If someone legally changed their name - perhaps because they didn't like their old one, perhaps because they got married, or whatever - would you put in the extra effort required to remember to call them by their new name? Or would you just keep using their old one?

Why bother to learn their name in the first place? If you think they look like a Garry just call them Garry.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, they sometimes come up with "ideas" if such a concept can be talked about in the broadest sense of the term, such as ending Section 230.

I think Ted Cruz's argument is like this:

"Steven Crowder was demonetized just for being a conservative!"

[Insert meme/Joe Morgue's Q&A here: "What, you mean just for calling for lower taxes, small government, Sunday meals with the family, going to church, saying you're English...etc...?"]

"No, he just got banned for using hate speech, calling another user of You Tube a "lispy queer" and that violated and that, apparently, crazily violates Terms and Conditions even though it is perfectly protected by the 1st Amendment or whatever..."

Is that what the kids are calling conservatism these days?

"Yeah, repeal Section 230, and then You Tube will have no right to take down hate speech or have their own Terms and Conditions and all protected speech will have to stay up. You Tube will be obliged to keep it up!"

I think some of them think (again, using the term broadly) or at the very least try to persuade their followers that this is a thing they can make happen. Some of them really believe that You Tube will be obliged to post self-proclaimed traditonal conservative views (AKA wanton misogyny, racism, homophobia and presumably porn - those conservatives can really surprise you!).

It's tricky in the internet age. The Mueller, She Wrote podcast used to have a segment called "Republicans Can't Tech". An example (although I don't know whether this was on the actual podast) was when Mark Zuckerberg had to testify to Congress, and the Republicans were asking questions that revealed that they had absolutely zero knowledge about any of it. Like there was one who simply couldn't understand how Zuckerberg wasn't responsible for google search results not favouring Republican viewpoints. Just couldn't grasp the concept that google and Facebook were different things owned by different companies.

So, yeah, it's entirely possible that Republicans will try to sincerely pass legislation based on not understanding what the internet is or how it works.

 

[Darat]

To be honest, I sometimes hate working with people ^{who believe and openly proclaim that unbelievers like myself deserve to be tortured by fire forever for not believing as they do.} (Funnily enough, some of the theists seem to believe that about each other because they've got different holy books or even different editions of the same one.) That said, we somehow put our mututal hatred aside for 40 hours a week.

All that said, I'm looking forward to your argument.

I know it will depend on the size of the company you work for, but assuming it is of a size to have one, what has HR said when you’ve complained? Certainly in the UK those people would face (potentially) disciplinary action for such behaviour in the work place.

 

[d4m10n]

Just saying, "well what about the Communist blacklists, huh?" doesn't cut it. First of all, you may need to make the case against those...

See above, at #1002.

Certainly in the UK those people would face (potentially) disciplinary action for such behaviour in the work place.

Wait, are we talking about behaviour inside the workplace? I thought we were talking about offensive things people proclaim in public but outside of work, e.g. on social media.

 

[Distracted1]

If someone legally changed their name - perhaps because they didn't like their old one, perhaps because they got married, or whatever - would you put in the extra effort required to remember to call them by their new name? Or would you just keep using their old one?

The difference between a name and a pronoun has been pretty extensively discussed in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346777

Although, I guess it is relavent in this thread too, owing to the actresses under discussions response to continued harassment for not playing along.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wait, are we talking about behaviour inside the workplace? I thought we were talking about offensive things people proclaim in public but outside of work, e.g. on social media.

So should these officers get to keep their job or not?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/wilmington-police-officers-fired.html

They were not offending anyone by their simple speech after all.

How about this one?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/us/police-officer-fired-kkk-memorabilia-report/index.html

So a cop is in the KKK not something anyone should be concerned over, that is all outside of work stripping those of their rights.