Cancel culture IRL

[Darat]

What is "Black Twitter"?

 

[d4m10n]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black...a_community,particularly_in_the_United_States.

 

[Darat]

And to me this is the nearest we have to the alleged "cancel culture" these days: https://www.propublica.org/article/...-of-turkey-to-prevent-a-hit-to-their-business

 

[Darat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black...a_community,particularly_in_the_United_States.

Thanks - may be missing something but isn't that simply describing how Twitter has self organised groupings?

 

[d4m10n]

Thanks - may be missing something but isn't that simply describing how Twitter has self organised groupings?

I suppose so. Probably one could do a network analysis on the nodes/connections to see how tightly knit the community really is, compared to other spontaneous groupings based on shared interests e.g. "Skeptic Twitter."

 

[HansMustermann]

I suppose so. Probably one could do a network analysis on the nodes/connections to see how tightly knit the community really is, compared to other spontaneous groupings based on shared interests e.g. "Skeptic Twitter."

Probably someone COULD, but until one actually does such a study, there is no real reason to assume it's any different from the average group.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again "the disenfranchised groups can now form social movements to the same degree as other groups" is not a problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again "the disenfranchised groups can now form social movements to the same degree as other groups" is not a problem.

Your point about the traditional gate keepers is what I keep thinking about the most in regards to this topic.

These seem to be the people howling the most about "cancel culture", and it's exactly like you say. These positions used to have unique power to shape the public narrative. Editors at newspapers, columnists, talking heads on TV, tenured professors at elite institutions, and so on, all used to be the gatekeepers of social norms and public discourse.

The advent of social media is challenging that. They go on twitter and some no-name account calls them a moron and there's nothing they can do about it. All the social capital they have accumulated amounts to little when it comes to dealing with the non-elite masses, and if enough of the unwashed rubes make a ruckus, it can cause them real problems and undermine their pseudo-authority. There's a much more free-wheeling discussion and inconvenient narratives can no longer be swept under the rug.

The public discourse now seems much more spontaneous, rising from the masses rather than being handed down from the top.

The polite deference that used to exist within the exclusive club of gatekeepers is being corroded. Uppity outsiders can now get their voices heard, and, horror of horrors, sometimes they even get listened to.

 

[d4m10n]

Probably someone COULD, but until one actually does such a study, there is no real reason to assume it's any different from the average group.

Why does this matter, though? I think it's interesting that the phrase "cancel culture" appears to have been originally popularized within a particular subculture, but it doesn't actually tell us too much.

Again "the disenfranchised groups can now form social movements to the same degree as other groups" is not a problem.

Like, never? I thought it fairly problematic when a (relatively marginalized) group of unbelievers formed a heat-of-the-moment movement to drive a specific gelatiere out of business. Just because they were marginalized in the Bible Belt doesn't justify the collective action of driving online reviews down to one star based on a single short-lived incident.

 

[johnny karate]

Not really. Mob mentality is the root of cancel culture, and death threats are frequently a mob's calling card. Also, I'm not sure just how clear we are in defining cancelling. It's convenient to accept light cancelling (why, we just don't allow his kind on facebook) while downplaying the darker side.

If you insist on using death threats to define “cancel culture”, a lot of things previously considered “cancel culture” will stop being “cancel culture” and a lot of things not previously considered “cancel culture” now are.

Free speech? Not really. More like a targeted harassment, which doesn't enjoy much 1A protection.

You’ll need to cite some case law to support your contention that calling for someone to be fired isn’t protected speech.

I think expressing goofy or hateful ideas and opinions is one thing, and pressuring someone to take away someone else's livelihood is another. Try it on for size: would you accept being fired because some rando didn't like your tweets?

I’m not sure what you mean by “accept”, but I probably wouldn’t like it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t protected speech, which means in a free society I have to tolerate it. Just like I have to tolerate other types of free speech that I personally dislike.

 

[Cavemonster]

Your point about the traditional gate keepers is what I keep thinking about the most in regards to this topic.

These seem to be the people howling the most about "cancel culture", and it's exactly like you say. These positions used to have unique power to shape the public narrative. Editors at newspapers, columnists, talking heads on TV, tenured professors at elite institutions, and so on, all used to be the gatekeepers of social norms and public discourse.

The advent of social media is challenging that. They go on twitter and some no-name account calls them a moron and there's nothing they can do about it. All the social capital they have accumulated amounts to little when it comes to dealing with the non-elite masses, and if enough of the unwashed rubes make a ruckus, it can cause them real problems and undermine their pseudo-authority. There's a much more free-wheeling discussion and inconvenient narratives can no longer be swept under the rug.

The public discourse now seems much more spontaneous, rising from the masses rather than being handed down from the top.

The polite deference that used to exist within the exclusive club of gatekeepers is being corroded. Uppity outsiders can now get their voices heard, and, horror of horrors, sometimes they even get listened to.

I think now you and Joe may be overstating the difference of "cancel culture" from past accountability.

d4m10n made the point, and I agree, that for the most part, these "cancellings" aren't really the broadly grassroots as you're representing here.

Hundreds of thousands of people aren't randomly, organically stumbling across things and disseminating them tweet by tweet to their 20 followers at a time. AFAIK, the majority of these cancellings are still going through some gatekeepers, people or organizations playing a media role with large followings at some point in their viral journey.

Yes, the volume of the complaints are random regular folks, but that's not really a new thing. The little old ladies writing into the TV stations when they heard a word they didn't like were regular folks too, and they had an impact as well.

I don't see modern trends in accountability as a victory of the people over the gatekeepers. I think that's a narrative that makes people feel very good about themselves for participating.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your point about the traditional gate keepers is what I keep thinking about the most in regards to this topic.

These seem to be the people howling the most about "cancel culture", and it's exactly like you say. These positions used to have unique power to shape the public narrative. Editors at newspapers, columnists, talking heads on TV, tenured professors at elite institutions, and so on, all used to be the gatekeepers of social norms and public discourse.

Indeed.

Again nothing being complained about here is new or noteworthy in the slightest outside of who's using their opinions and influence to change society.

Old people writing "Letters to the Editor" aren't cancel culture but young people doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter are. And as you say the only difference is one person using an "official" gatekeeping method and the other isn't.

That's why the people complaining have to keep referring to "The Mob" and "Mob Mentality" as if Twitter is somehow more driven by that then an HOA or a Political Party or literally anything else.

But this is what the Proudly Wrong always do.

When their house is burning down, the discussion is about how to put out the fire at their house.

When anyone else's house is burning down the discussion they demand we have is a broad philosophical debate about the what degree society is responsible for putting out house fires, or a sea-lioning "Oh I'm sorry when did we prove the fires were objectively bad?," or a hand wringing "Oh but if we let fire fighters just start pouring water on houses willy-nilly they could flood a house out if they go too far...." or some other parallel meta discussion designed to keep us as far away from putting out the other people's fire as possible.

And when called on it their response is always either a faux-innocent or huffy "Oh I can't talk about whatever I like."

"Cancel Culture" has not wielded its power to influence society any more (or less) responsibly then any other. It's not worth a new term, it's not worth becoming a society boogeyman.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Like, never?

D4m10n: "We should arrest all left handed people."
Me: "Why?"
D4m10n: "Oh so you're saying left handed people never commit crimes?"

 

[johnny karate]

People had a legal right to express their negative feelings about Kaepernick, but that didn't make it morally right for them to do so.

Is not caring how your behavior affects other people morally or ethically right?

Because you seem to want to preach morality and ethics to police other people’s behavior but grant yourself wide latitude for you own behavior. Seems... inconsistent.

 

[johnny karate]

Indeed.

Again nothing being complained about here is new or noteworthy in the slightest outside of who's using their opinions and influence to change society.

Old people writing "Letters to the Editor" aren't cancel culture but young people doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter are. And as you say the only difference is one person using an "official" gatekeeping method and the other isn't.

That's why the people complaining have to keep referring to "The Mob" and "Mob Mentality" as if Twitter is somehow more driven by that then an HOA or a Political Party or literally anything else.

But this is what the Proudly Wrong always do.

When their house is burning down, the discussion is about how to put out the fire at their house.

When anyone else's house is burning down the discussion they demand we have is a broad philosophical debate about the what degree society is responsible for putting out house fires, or a sea-lioning "Oh I'm sorry when did we prove the fires were objectively bad?," or a hand wringing "Oh but if we let fire fighters just start pouring water on houses willy-nilly they could flood a house out if they go too far...." or some other parallel meta discussion designed to keep us as far away from putting out the other people's fire as possible.

And when called on it their response is always either a faux-innocent or huffy "Oh I can't talk about whatever I like."

"Cancel Culture" has not wielded its power to influence society any more (or less) responsibly then any other. It's not worth a new term, it's not worth becoming a society boogeyman.

Particularly when so much of what gets defined as “cancel culture” can be avoided by simply not behaving like a jack ass in public.

 

[Thermal]

If you insist on using death threats to define “cancel culture”, a lot of things previously considered “cancel culture” will stop being “cancel culture” and a lot of things not previously considered “cancel culture” now are.

Actually I don't define it as such, so non sequitur.

You’ll need to cite some case law to support your contention that calling for someone to be fired isn’t protected speech.

Actually I don't need to do anything. You asked if I thought public harassment was 1A protected. I think not necessarily.

I’m not sure what you mean by “accept”, but I probably wouldn’t like it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t protected speech, which means in a free society I have to tolerate it. Just like I have to tolerate other types of free speech that I personally dislike.

Holup: are you pulling paradox of tolerance now, and implying that hate speech and Nazis have to be tolerated as 1A protected? The vaccillation is making me dizzy.

Cancel culture, to me, means mob disenfranchisement, pure and simple. I don't think that's a great idea, because a mob can always be assembled to disenfranchise any speaker with any viewpoint.

So again: say your posts here got public attention. Someone made a clever tweet about your above assertion about the P of T and framed you as a Nazi apologist, and it went viral. You ok with being fired over that because of the negative attention you inadvertently brought to your employer, who doesn't care if it is true or not, but just wants no waves created in his business? That's cancel culture on the hoof.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is not caring how your behavior affects other people morally or ethically right?

Because you seem to want to preach morality and ethics to police other people’s behavior but grant yourself wide latitude for you own behavior. Seems... inconsistent.

Exactly they gays are all about equal rights and to not be offended but their mere existence offends so many, total hypocrisy in that. The blacks are the same.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually I don't define it as such, so non sequitur.

Cool. Then we can drop the whole “death threats” canard.

Actually I don't need to do anything. You asked if I thought public harassment was 1A protected. I think not necessarily.

I didn’t ask you that. Feel free to take another look at my post to see what I did ask you.

Holup: are you pulling paradox of tolerance now, and implying that hate speech and Nazis have to be tolerated as 1A protected? The vaccillation is making me dizzy.

You have this habit of claiming I said things that I didn’t actually say. Please stop.

My point is that protected speech can be deemed offensive, but it’s still protected. How any of us personally feels about that speech is immaterial to its protected status.

Cancel culture, to me, means mob disenfranchisement, pure and simple. I don't think that's a great idea, because a mob can always be assembled to disenfranchise any speaker with any viewpoint.

No, it can’t, actually. The “mob” doesn’t have magical powers that grant them the ability to disenfranchise. We see failed attempts at this all the time. The Almighty Mob is another fantasy wokescolds use to prop up their dubious narrative.

So again: say your posts here got public attention. Someone made a clever tweet about your above assertion about the P of T and framed you as a Nazi apologist, and it went viral. You ok with being fired over that because of the negative attention you inadvertently brought to your employer, who doesn't care if it is true or not, but just wants no waves created in his business? That's cancel culture on the hoof.

Granted, it would be weird to get fired for Nazi apologism based on a post in which I don’t mention or reference Nazis, but I think in the end, I’d be happy to no longer work for someone so incredibly stupid and would be looking forward to the results of my unlawful termination lawsuit.

Is this farcical and wildly unrealistic scenario the best you can do to try to demonstrate how “cancel culture” might someday come for me? Because I remain unconcerned.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And how exactly a bunch of young people talking on the internet to promote a progressive value is any more or less of a "Mob" than a bunch of old people writing letters to the editor to promote a conservative value just aggressively remains unanswered.

 

[d4m10n]

D4m10n: "We should arrest all left handed people."

The analogous statement re: cancel culture would be something like "Cancellations facilitated by online shaming gone viral are invariably immoral." Since I've never made anything even approaching such a claim, it’s rather odd that you'd attribute such an analogous claim to me in particular.

And how exactly a bunch of young people talking on the internet to promote a progressive value is any more or less of a "Mob" than a bunch of old people writing letters to the editor to promote a conservative value just aggressively remains unanswered.

I'd say these are analogous cases in most ways, but the interpostion of editorial gatekeepers seems likely to prevent virality in the more traditional print media scenario.