• 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.
d4m10n said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one denies that. It’s the part where it doesn’t go beyond the effort that runs contrary to your definition.
 
Stout said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I need explained is how the corporations to which “public pressure” is being applied are being “pressured”.

You admit there is no coercion.

So where’s the “pressure”?

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.
Click to expand...

Cool. Who’s making these judgements?
 
Cavemonster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well this does somewhat depend on the nature of the dictionary, for example the french academy and their fight against English loan words for example.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well this does somewhat depend on the nature of the dictionary, for example the french academy and their fight against English loan words for example.
Click to expand...

You're correct that some dictionaries do come from a more prescriptivist model.
But even those don't really funtionally determine contemporary use and connotation.

And as interesting as that is, it's a tangent from this discussion of argument by dictionary in the English language for a neologism.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd like to see more left and center writers reclaiming the phrase back from the right-wing, or at least coming up with a similarly concise way to refer to the far-right tendency to deplatform and otherwise sanction authors and performers whom they find deeply offensive.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about deplatforming. Particularly, let's talk about people protesting a scheduled and legal speaking event with enough vehemence that police were concerned about violence, and the venue cancelled the engagement as a result of protest and threats against the location and the speaker.

I know there have been some in the last decade. But none of the ones I can come up with are cases of "right wing" folks deplatforming someone. I don't care about the partisanship involved. I'm actually pretty damned sick of the desperate need of some people to always make any topic about "the other side" and how evil and bad they are. I really wish we could step past that and discuss the phenomenon itself and it's impact.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's talk about deplatforming. Particularly, let's talk about people protesting a scheduled and legal speaking event with enough vehemence that police were concerned about violence, and the venue cancelled the engagement as a result of protest and threats against the location and the speaker.

I know there have been some in the last decade. But none of the ones I can come up with are cases of "right wing" folks deplatforming someone. I don't care about the partisanship involved. I'm actually pretty damned sick of the desperate need of some people to always make any topic about "the other side" and how evil and bad they are. I really wish we could step past that and discuss the phenomenon itself and it's impact.
Click to expand...

“I don’t care about the partisanship involved” immediately following a partisan comment is always a good sign that an argument has been made in good faith.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's talk about deplatforming. Particularly, let's talk about people protesting a scheduled and legal speaking event with enough vehemence that police were concerned about violence, and the venue cancelled the engagement as a result of protest and threats against the location and the speaker.

I know there have been some in the last decade. But none of the ones I can come up with are cases of "right wing" folks deplatforming someone. I don't care about the partisanship involved. I'm actually pretty damned sick of the desperate need of some people to always make any topic about "the other side" and how evil and bad they are. I really wish we could step past that and discuss the phenomenon itself and it's impact.
Click to expand...

Try Anita Sarkesian.

https://www.usu.edu/today/story/update-sarkeesian-event-canceled

But yes lets worry more about the ones who's supporters take pot shots at protestors like Richard Spencer and his glorious abuse of free speech at Florida University?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's talk about deplatforming. Particularly, let's talk about people protesting a scheduled and legal speaking event with enough vehemence that police were concerned about violence, and the venue cancelled the engagement as a result of protest and threats against the location and the speaker.

I know there have been some in the last decade. But none of the ones I can come up with are cases of "right wing" folks deplatforming someone. I don't care about the partisanship involved. I'm actually pretty damned sick of the desperate need of some people to always make any topic about "the other side" and how evil and bad they are. I really wish we could step past that and discuss the phenomenon itself and it's impact.
Click to expand...

I work at a public university. We have, on occasion, invited speakers to come to speak at a symposium. However, when they gave us their expected travel costs, we decided it was too expensive for them to visit and did not let them come.

Were they deplatformed?

"I'm sorry, we are going to have to cancel because we can't afford to have you speak."

Not letting someone come to visit because it costs to much to host them is something that happens all the time. Usually we don't even bother extending an invitation, but there are times when we try.

When I was in college, I invited Mr. Wizard to speak at our school. It would have cost too much so we didn't go through with it. I guess I deplatformed Mr. Wizard.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think we all just need to go ahead and recognize the fallacy involved in the "No True Cancel Culture" arguments.
Click to expand...

If you claim something is “cancel culture” and it doesn’t meet the definition of “cancel culture” that you provided, that isn’t a No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Let's talk about deplatforming. Particularly, let's talk about people protesting a scheduled and legal speaking event with enough vehemence that police were concerned about violence, and the venue cancelled the engagement as a result of protest and threats against the location and the speaker.

I know there have been some in the last decade. But none of the ones I can come up with are cases of "right wing" folks deplatforming someone. I don't care about the partisanship involved. I'm actually pretty damned sick of the desperate need of some people to always make any topic about "the other side" and how evil and bad they are. I really wish we could step past that and discuss the phenomenon itself and it's impact.
Click to expand...

Haven't we been discussing "deplatforming" at length... hasn't everyone here agreed that at least sometimes its bad or at least unfair. So.... given that, I'll ask again, what are your solutions to prevent "deplatforming"?
 
It should be interesting to see what happens here:

Staffers at Teen Vogue on Monday publicly blasted their newly hired editor in chief Alexi McCammond, particularly taking aim at parent company Condé Nast’s hiring process along with some of the new editor’s past tweets that deployed harmful Asian stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Pretty standard issues here; the tweets were from when she was in college (she's 27 now), she has previously expressed regret for them. Here are the ones that were published:

"Now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes…” she wrote in one of the tweets. “Give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don’t explain what i did wrong...thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. you’re great,” read another social-media post.
Click to expand...
 
well I'm not a teen vogue reader so you'll have to let me know how it turns out
 
Brainster said:
It should be interesting to see what happens here:

Pretty standard issues here; the tweets were from when she was in college (she's 27 now), she has previously expressed regret for them. Here are the ones that were published:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s a real bummer when the stupid, bigoted things you broadcast to the world come back to bite you in the ass.
 
johnny karate said:
It’s the part where it doesn’t go beyond the effort that runs contrary to your definition.
Click to expand...
First off, the definition I've been using is not mine.

Secondly, the effort described by the lexicographers who put together the entry is a "perform[ance] on social media in the form of group shaming." That's it, that's all the effort that "cancel culture" requires. Whether or not the group shaming has the desired results is not discussed.

Finally, that effort was clearly made in the cases discussed above, including Gelato/Andy and Kroger/Andy. I've already shown you the receipts.
 
d4m10n said:
First off, the definition I've been using is not mine.

Secondly, the effort described by the lexicographers who put together the entry is a "perform[ance] on social media in the form of group shaming." That's it, that's all the effort that "cancel culture" requires. Whether or not the group shaming has the desired results is not discussed.

Finally, that effort was clearly made in the cases discussed above, including Gelato/Andy and Kroger/Andy. I've already shown you the receipts.
Click to expand...

Your definition requires a “cancelling” to occur in order to qualify as “cancel culture”.

You’ve already admitted that Kroger Andy wasn’t “cancelled”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom