• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument is that the topic may better be discussed in the thread devoted to it. I responded to your post in particular out of convenience, it could have been a response to any of us who were going off on the "pronoun" tangent. I apologize if it seemed like I was singling you out for the derail.

There are many good arguments made in the other thread regarding the topic. If you wish to post there regarding pronouns, I would likely reply there.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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?
Click to expand...

ponderingturtle beat me to it, but basically even people's names most of us only learn if we've interacted with them long and often enough to have a reason to remember it at all. I mean even if they didn't change it. Otherwise it's generally considered perfectly ok to refer to someone as, say "the guy from Stark Industries requested that feature."

Nobody (normal) would say it's painful and/or personally insulting if you didn't immediately make it your top priority to memorize what they're called.

But if you're interested in me personally, I follow the words a wiser man than me, who once said:

"I once worked with a guy for three years and never learned his name. Best friend I ever had. We still never talk sometimes."
-- Ron Swanson​

Seriously, it's funny what you can get away with if you tell people you're just naturally bad at associating names with faces. Throw in some quip like, how I wish everyone just had a nameplate above their head like in MMOs, and it's smoothed over every time :p

But that brings me back to the difference. In the case of names, most people will just assume you're just absent-minded, or even not wired right in the head in one way or another, and not think much about it past that. Hell, even IF they conclude that it means I don't care about them, by the age puberty most people have come to terms with the idea that most strangers don't care all that much about them. In the case of some of the guys we got derailed into discussing, it's apparently already "painful", "insulting" or "bigoted" that you even used "guy" and "he" in a quote like the above. Instead of properly remembering to use "helicopter" and "boop" or whatever.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
ponderingturtle beat me to it, but basically even people's names most of us only learn if we've interacted with them long and often enough to have a reason to remember it at all. I mean even if they didn't change it. Otherwise it's generally considered perfectly ok to refer to someone as, say "the guy from Stark Industries requested that feature."
Click to expand...

Yes and if we make a point about not remembering a persons name or missnaming them regularly they legitimately get insulted. So if someone can be bothered to say have their name recorded and use it as a reference for interacting with them so you don't just say "hey you" why should pronoun be different?

A friend of mine got tired of being misgendered by the staff while getting cancer treatment, so they decided to insist on instead of being called he or mister, going by the gender neutral doctor which their phd from MIT entitles them to.

Just in case you wondered I was actually trying to undermine your position and disagreeing with you not in agreement.

Though all my gender queer friends seem to be fine with they instead of xi or other genderless pronouns.
 
d4m10n said:
Sounds to me like they were talking about how they intended to perform their duties as police officers. Is that really comparable to, say, screen actors sharing right- or left-wing memes?
Click to expand...

How is memorabilia and a framed application in ones own home about actions on duty? I mean this is mere membership in private organizations like the KKK. Nothing to do with their performance on the job.
 
It's steelman time.

Mostly I think that the term "cancel culture" is politicized fearmongering over accountability. But it's not drawn completely out of thin air.

The kind of accountability we're witnessing in the last few years has its own qualities, and it's not 100% crazy to want to be thoughtful about these trends.

Social media does two things (at least) that haven't been part of our social world for very long.

1) Tons of people are broadcasting their thoughts, values and jokes to the whole world all the time.

And all of those things are permanently recorded accessible to literally everyone. Go back in time 15-20 years and the vast majority of people almost never made public facing recorded statements. Things that a lot of people would read and see would be mostly limited to media interactions, much more local, and much less unexpected. Most people were never in the news. And even public figures would mostly be in media when they make a deliberate effort to do so, with the exception of when they're stalked by paprazzi, which most people dismissed as trash journalism.

2) The extension of that is that everyone can have a megaphone.

Anyone can start a viral post that gets shared around the world. It can happen with a speed that it never did historically and importantly, with a lack of vetting, editorial thought or critical evaluation. I'm thinking of the woman who made a joke in bad taste getting on an airplane and was a hashtag before she landed. Or the guy that reddit thought might be the Boston Marathon Bomber. (He wasn't).

We haven't as a society metabolized how very different social media is from the ways we've shared information for most of history.

Yes, most people being "cancelled" are reaping the results of their behavior. For most of history, behavior wasn't being scrutinized so closely by the whole world. You can say that people should know they're broadcasting to the world and be responsible. However:

A) Not all the behavior getting people "cancelled" is their social media posts. Take the dongle joke guy. He was overheard making a joke to a friend. Yes it was in a public space, but social media tools amplified it in a way it wouldn't have been otherwise. Aziz Ansari was on a date with one person. I'm not saying that there's something wrong with judging these behaviors, but at least we should acknowledge that bringing the hammer of the world down is something VERY new and mgiht deserve some scrutiny. Even if every single public case of this we might discuss could be said to have "deserved" it. This is a jury with no oversight, no laws and a level and swiftness of power that public opinion hasn't held so lightly before.


B) Even for people who get "cancelled" for what they post on social media. I have a level of sympathy that it's hard to think of it as permanent and public in the way it is. Especially for young people with less formed prefrontal cortexes. To them, they're sharing things with their very small group of followers. The interface and interaction reads like something between chatting with a small group of friends and writing in a diary. Until it doesn't.

I don't know if this form of accountability serves the kind of ends I think accountability should serve all of the time. Does it change the values of the person targetted? Does it limit their negative influence? Does it reaffirm positive social values by publicly committing to no room for negative ones?

So what's the solution?

As people in this thread have said, each step of "cancel culture" is something we can't get rid of and can't argue against in the broadest sense.

It's fine to complain about behavior you don't like. It's fine to do so publicly, through social media and to companies. Those are freedom of expression. It's fine for companines to consider public opnion in who they want to do business with. That's freedom of association and commerce.

I think the best solutions we can have are to foster a "call in culture" as a counterpoint. That doesn't mean that every foul view needs to be given a platform, or that no one should be "cancelled". But I think an awareness that most people's worst moments have not always been historically on blast from the whole world and that people have been able to learn and grow without career ending consequences under the panopticon.

I see more of a backlash effect than I see people changing from being cancelled.

And as a small aside, I don't think whatever neurotransmitter boost people get from jumping on a twitter mob is healthy for the folks on that side either.

As these tools continue to grow in power, a culture of restraint and charity, might not be the worst thing to foster.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Latest person canceled for harmless social media posts.

I mean come on what else did people expect from a republican in texas? He just was articulating the core value of personal responsibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/texas-mayor-tom-boyd-quits-storm-sink-or-swim
Click to expand...

There's actually a slight turn of phrase in the incident that caught my attention.

When he resigned as mayor Tim Boyd commented that he "never meant to speak for the city" but only as a "private citizen."

There's actually the germ of maybe something to consider in there.

Is John Doe and "John Doe: Official Title Speaking in an Official Position" the same person when we're talking social standards?

*Note: Speaking only in general, not of this particular incident*
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yes and if we make a point about not remembering a persons name or missnaming them regularly they legitimately get insulted.
Click to expand...

Eventually, and only if you have regular enough interactions with them, for it to warrant remembering their name.

But as I was saying, even then, you'd be surprised how long you can get away with it, if you claim to have a neurological problem :p

ponderingturtle said:
So if someone can be bothered to say have their name recorded and use it as a reference for interacting with them so you don't just say "hey you"
Click to expand...

Sounds like you'd be surprised how much you can talk to someone without needing to say their name. In fact, I didn't count, but I'm pretty sure the grand total number of times I've needed to say the name of the guy I was answering to in this thread is a big fat zero.

On the other hand, especially in a group setting, going without pronouns is a MUCH harder proposition.

ponderingturtle said:
why should pronoun be different?
Click to expand...

Even skipping past all else, the problem with "if you're ok with doing X, then why not ALSO do Y?" is in the keyword "also". It's one extra thing, and in this case one which nobody else asks me to do for them.

I mean, if you obviously don't mind the effort to answer my messages, why not also forward me the weather report for Berlin once a day while you're at it. I mean, come on, it's not a big effort, right? What's the difference, even? You still just do a few clicks and a little typing, right? Well, it would seem to me like it still doesn't change the fact that I'm asking you to do an extra effort. Which you're well within your rights to refuse, if we're not that good friends or anything.

Now let's take it a step forward, and assume I start acting as if you have a DUTY to do it. I mean, it's not a big effort or anything, what reason would you have to not do it for me? I might even feel INSULTED if you don't do it. Hell, I might even start assuming you're some kind of BIGOT if you don't. I mean, what other reason could you have not to do me such an easy favour? Surely, it just shows you're hating me for some kind of attribute of mine, if you don't.
Would you not say I'm being awfully entitled and I should grow up and out of such ideas? :p

ponderingturtle said:
A friend of mine got tired of being misgendered by the staff while getting cancer treatment, so they decided to insist on instead of being called he or mister, going by the gender neutral doctor which their phd from MIT entitles them to.
Click to expand...

Right. Well, I fancy I'm an experienced and creative ass hole myself, but I'm not too proud to admit when I'm being outclassed. Thumbs up to your friend, then.

I mean, all you're telling me is that your friend just found another way to act like an entitled ass hole to some medical staff which are already under stress as it is. Turns out that regularly having patients dying, and doubly so of cancer, is a HUGE source of stress. So yeah, OF COURSE what they need is to also be stressed by some guy abusing them over pronouns.

Still, hats off and kudos from one ass hole to another, but (other than taking notes for future ideas for how to be an ass hole) I'm at a loss as to what I should learn from that :p

ponderingturtle said:
Just in case you wondered I was actually trying to undermine your position and disagreeing with you not in agreement.
Click to expand...

Oh, I figured as much out. I don't actually care, but I figured it out :p
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'd say at least half of them, unless they bring back Tano.
Click to expand...

Ahsoka Tano will have her own series. I would think such a dedicated Star Wars fan as yourself would know that.

And speaking of your love of all things Star Wars and your desire to see it focus more on strong women, what about the other strong female characters on the show?

Why must we pretend that Cara Dune was the sole representative of a strong female character in Star Wars?
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's actually a slight turn of phrase in the incident that caught my attention.

When he resigned as mayor Tim Boyd commented that he "never meant to speak for the city" but only as a "private citizen."

There's actually the germ of maybe something to consider in there.

Is John Doe and "John Doe: Official Title Speaking in an Official Position" the same person when we're talking social standards?

*Note: Speaking only in general, not of this particular incident*
Click to expand...


Same idea, I asked further up this page if there were a 1st person plural pronoun.
 
Distracted1 said:
The argument is that the topic may better be discussed in the thread devoted to it. I responded to your post in particular out of convenience, it could have been a response to any of us who were going off on the "pronoun" tangent. I apologize if it seemed like I was singling you out for the derail.

There are many good arguments made in the other thread regarding the topic. If you wish to post there regarding pronouns, I would likely reply there.
Click to expand...

Threads overlap. It happens. If you feel a discussion is off-topic, feel free to report it. In the meantime I'll take moderation from the mods.
 
HansMustermann said:
Nobody (normal) would say it's painful and/or personally insulting if you didn't immediately make it your top priority to memorize what they're called.
Click to expand...

I actually think that people generally do find it insulting if you refer to them by the wrong name.

You are at least consistent, though, in saying that you're also too lazy to bother to remember what the people in your life are called.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's actually a slight turn of phrase in the incident that caught my attention.

When he resigned as mayor Tim Boyd commented that he "never meant to speak for the city" but only as a "private citizen."

There's actually the germ of maybe something to consider in there.

Is John Doe and "John Doe: Official Title Speaking in an Official Position" the same person when we're talking social standards?

*Note: Speaking only in general, not of this particular incident*
Click to expand...

I think the same kinds of statements or behavior that tend to bring out judgement like this fairly frequently also tends to cast doubt about that individual's ability to separate their personal feelings from their work.

I also think the public will generally see personal statements from politicians a reflection of the values they take to their job. And a failure to anticipate and appreciate that might be disqualifying for a politician by itself in terms of evidence for their ability to understand and judge situations.
 
Cavemonster said:
I think the same kinds of statements or behavior that tend to bring out judgement like this fairly frequently also tends to cast doubt about that individual's ability to separate their personal feelings from their work.

I also think the public will generally see personal statements from politicians a reflection of the values they take to their job. And a failure to anticipate and appreciate that might be disqualifying for a politician by itself in terms of evidence for their ability to understand and judge situations.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
But, is there anyone who- while under stress- has not gone on a rant about their "entitled, lazy, stupid..etc...etc..." Customers/ Clients/ Patients/ Students/ Children/ Patrons etc... ?

I suspect that if I sought out only those who have never complained of the idiocy of their customers to provide a service, I would never get that service provided.
 
HansMustermann said:
Right. Well, I fancy I'm an experienced and creative ass hole myself, but I'm not too proud to admit when I'm being outclassed. Thumbs up to your friend, then.

I mean, all you're telling me is that your friend just found another way to act like an entitled ass hole to some medical staff which are already under stress as it is. Turns out that regularly having patients dying, and doubly so of cancer, is a HUGE source of stress. So yeah, OF COURSE what they need is to also be stressed by some guy abusing them over pronouns.
Click to expand...

Yea nothing is relaxing like having terminal cancer, far easier than those who chose a career in caring for them. That is the problem with dying people trying to always make their dying about them!
 
HansMustermann said:
I mean, all you're telling me is that your friend just found another way to act like an entitled ass hole to some medical staff which are already under stress as it is. Turns out that regularly having patients dying, and doubly so of cancer, is a HUGE source of stress. So yeah, OF COURSE what they need is to also be stressed by some guy abusing them over pronouns.
Click to expand...

Do you want to know two other things which are also HUGE sources of stress? Having cancer and being misgendered.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Do you want to know two other things which are also HUGE sources of stress? Having cancer and being misgendered.
Click to expand...

I'll even grant that. But... are those nurses and doctors the ones that gave him cancer? So how do they deserve to be given extra stress?

The idea that being under stress yourself is a perfectly good reason and excuse for giving someone else an additional helping of hard time... well, let's just say that whenever you hear that kind of reasoning, it should be your first indication that someone really IS an ass hole, and just rationalizing why it's ok to be one.

Take it as first hand expertise from an actual ass hole :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom