• 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.
Cavemonster said:
When you meet a bad phrase, you don't have a duty to transform it into a better one. You can just leave it by the side of the road where you found it.
Click to expand...
We are going to have to disagree on whether we need a reasonably concise phrase to describe the process of public shaming followed by deplatforming/divesting etc.
 
Stout said:
I'm not claiming that people "forced" Disney into cancelling Carano, I'm saying that, based on available evidence, that pressure had a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

How? Please be specific. And by the way, “pressure” implies coercion.

You really need to get in touch with Disney execs and ask them directly to get the answers to your other questions.
Click to expand...

Why would I ask Disney execs to validate your premise?

It is your claim that “public pressure” can make a corporation capitulate to one’s demands. And yet we see failed attempts at that all the time. If your claim is true, then why does it sometimes not work?
 
d4m10n said:
We are going to have to disagree on whether we need a reasonably concise phrase to describe the process of public shaming followed by deplatforming/divesting etc.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether such a phrase is needed, that's not how the phrase is currently used.

You are, of course, free to aspire to change the meaning, but that will (as it has in this thread) generally do the opposite of adding concision or clarity to your communication.

If you deeply believe that this particular concept needs a phrase, and that you're the one person to make that happen, using an existing phrase with a politically loaded meaning is the walking against the wind way to do it.

And simply using it that way, as though it were the accepted meaning, in discussion spaces, that's again going to lead to more miscommunication than clarity.

If you really want to create a redefinition, then I'd suggest writing an academic paper, going on the TED talk circuit, starting a hashtag movement, something like that.
 
Cavemonster said:
You are, of course, free to aspire to change the meaning, but that will (as it has in this thread) generally do the opposite of adding concision or clarity to your communication.
Click to expand...
Change the meaning from what exactly? I'm literally using the lexical definitionWP and have been the entire time.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
How? Please be specific. And by the way, “pressure” implies coercion.



Why would I ask Disney execs to validate your premise?

It is your claim that “public pressure” can make a corporation capitulate to one’s demands. And yet we see failed attempts at that all the time. If your claim is true, then why does it sometimes not work?
Click to expand...

The problem here is not what I'm saying but what you think or wish what I was saying. I've given you a Forbes article that outlines social media's role in Carano's firing so your issue is with the author of the article, not me.

Likewise the quest for the "magic formula" on how to successfully cancel someone is your query that only words from the horse's mouth will satisfy.

We're back to cancel culture only means successful cancellations again ? It's a process that sometimes works, sometimes fails and sometimes backfires.
 
Cavemonster said:
Regardless of whether such a phrase is needed, that's not how the phrase is currently used.

You are, of course, free to aspire to change the meaning, but that will (as it has in this thread) generally do the opposite of adding concision or clarity to your communication.

If you deeply believe that this particular concept needs a phrase, and that you're the one person to make that happen, using an existing phrase with a politically loaded meaning is the walking against the wind way to do it.

And simply using it that way, as though it were the accepted meaning, in discussion spaces, that's again going to lead to more miscommunication than clarity.

If you really want to create a redefinition, then I'd suggest writing an academic paper, going on the TED talk circuit, starting a hashtag movement, something like that.
Click to expand...

We work with what we've got. Nobody here created the term or how it's used and if it's to "politically loaded" for your tastes then well, oh well. You can either go with the supplied dictionary/Wikipedia definition or the News definition where cancel culture means pretty much whatever they say it does.

You could use the term Call Out Culture, but that's so 2017.

ETA: We could always go with the time honored Kangaroo Court
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
We work with what we've got.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood my post and dre4mon's position.
He is trying to entirely transform the meaning of the word from the meaning that everyone using and seeing it understands.

That's not working with what you've got. That's working AGAINST what you've got.
 
Cavemonster said:
He is trying to entirely transform the meaning of the word from the meaning that everyone using and seeing it understands.
Click to expand...
The entire point of citing to a lexical definition is to come up with an unbiased and non-polemical version of what "everyone using and seeing" a given word or phrase seem to agree upon when using it to convey meaning. I've done that, you haven't. There may be some reason to prefer your narrower meaning (which can only be applied to the left doing lefty stuff) over the one in the dictionary, but so far you haven't said what that is.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
The problem here is not what I'm saying but what you think or wish what I was saying. I've given you a Forbes article that outlines social media's role in Carano's firing so your issue is with the author of the article, not me.

Likewise the quest for the "magic formula" on how to successfully cancel someone is your query that only words from the horse's mouth will satisfy.

We're back to cancel culture only means successful cancellations again ? It's a process that sometimes works, sometimes fails and sometimes backfires.
Click to expand...

You still haven’t explained how “public pressure” works or even what it means in regard to corporations responding to it.

All we’re left with is a group of people expressing an opinion and a private business agreeing with that opinion.

I’m unclear where the problem is in that.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The entire point of citing to a lexical definition is to come up with an unbiased and non-polemical version of what "everyone using and seeing" a given word or phrase seem to agree upon when using it to convey meaning. I've done that, you haven't.
Click to expand...

Yes, you’ve done that. It’s a shame that your very first example in this thread doesn’t meet that definition.
 
johnny karate said:
Yes, you’ve done that. It’s a shame that your very first example in this thread doesn’t meet that definition.
Click to expand...
Cancel culture, once again, is when people make an effort to publicly shame and sanction an individual or group. You are free to deny that this happened to Kroger & Andy if you so choose, but I doubt you'll convince anyone who actually saw what went down.
 
d4m10n said:
Cancel culture, once again, is when people make an effort to publicly shame and sanction an individual or group. You are free to deny that this happened to Kroger & Andy if you so choose, but I doubt you'll convince anyone who actually saw what went down.
Click to expand...

The definition that you provided disagrees.
 
johnny karate said:
The definition that you provided disagrees.
Click to expand...
Withdrawing support from any given person or group requires conscious effort. In the case of Kroger, people who used to shop there would have to consciously change their shopping habits in order to follow the advice of any given moral entrepreneurWP who made the effort to publicly extol the notion that we ought to #BoycottKroger in the first place.
 
johnny karate said:
You still haven’t explained how “public pressure” works or even what it means in regard to corporations responding to it.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to explain how public pressure applied to corporations works ? No, of course not but if you're unclear on the topic I suggest you do a little research.

All we’re left with is a group of people expressing an opinion and a private business agreeing with that opinion.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah !

I’m unclear where the problem is in that.
Click to expand...

It can be a good thing, or a bad thing depending on how it's applied. Directed at a corporation for evil ? Then it's a good thing. Directed at a person on small business for imagined evil, then it's a bad thing. Pretty simple, really.
 
d4m10n said:
The entire point of citing to a lexical definition is to come up with an unbiased and non-polemical version of what "everyone using and seeing" a given word or phrase seem to agree upon when using it to convey meaning. I've done that, you haven't. There may be some reason to prefer your narrower meaning (which can only be applied to the left doing lefty stuff) over the one in the dictionary, but so far you haven't said what that is.
Click to expand...

Dictionaries are preceded by public use, and they offer a rough and necessarily incomplete pointer to that use for the uninitiated. They have no prescriptive power and that goes doubly so for neologisms.

I invited you to consider useage and provide counterexamples. You seemed at that point to agree with me, but now you're doubling back.

The narrower use is near ubiquitous, it is how the term is used and understood.

Argument from dictionary is a fallacy for a reason.
 
Cavemonster said:
I invited you to consider usage and provide counterexamples. You seemed at that point to agree with me, but now you're doubling back.
Click to expand...
I agreed with you about who is using the term (presumably in the lexical sense) against whom. That may or may not alter the meaning of the phrase itself.

By way of analogy, I tend to see the term "blasphemy" used by Christians against non-Christians, but the meaning is surely generalizable to any desacralization of something considered sacred by someone else.
Cavemonster said:
Argument from dictionary is a fallacy for a reason.
Click to expand...
Between the dictionary and a random poster on ISF, I'm going with the dictionary.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I agreed with you about who is using the term (presumably in the lexical sense) against whom. That may or may not alter the meaning of the phrase itself.

By way of analogy, I tend to see the term "blasphemy" used by Christians against non-Christians, but the meaning is surely generalizable to any desacralization of something considered sacred by someone else.Between the dictionary and a random poster on ISF, I'm going with the dictionary.
Click to expand...

Different applications of "blasphemy" can be understood by context.

Your attempts to use cancel culture outside of the way it is broadly used and understood have only created confusion.

If your language use isn't creating clarity, then you're just playing a game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom