Cancel culture IRL

[Stout]

If, after all this time we're still trying to figure out what cancel culture is, I vote we go with anything we want it to be until it's not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The more I try to figure this out and come up with a way to express it... the more I end up being exposed to Critical Theory and Postmodern Philosophy.

I've decided that they're both completely awful offal, and idiotic beyond measure.

Here's an article discussing some of the dynamics around the whole Bret Weinstein thing at Evergreen (my first exposure to what I would call cancel culture) with some good commentary on why it happened in the first place.

Teaching to Transgress: Rage and Entitlement at Evergreen College

A few things that resonated with me:

The ideology they define was pushed upon the faculty and students of Evergreen, as Nayna shows, by guilt-laden repetitions of articles of antiracist faith, such as The question is not Did racism take place? but rather How did racism manifest in that situation? (One might recognize the similarity of this cognitive shift to the age-old question-begging trap, Have you stopped beating your wife?)

...

Evidence for these accusations was rarely examined. It was enough that the tribe had identified a dangerous moral contaminant in their sense of righteous unity.

...

More shocking still, to ask for evidence of this systemic and universal racism of white people is itself problematic. As the students of Evergreen shout at Bret, they don’t need evidence of racism because they live it every day—thus, a request for evidence denies the reality of their lived experience and is construed as further racism. If he were to accept their claims instead and then ask them to share this lived experience with him, however, he would commit what Nora Berenstein calls epistemic exploitation. This occurs any time oppressed people are oppressed again by being expected to explain and justify their experiences of oppression, which is believed to benefit primarily the dominant.

...

Worse, the accusation that all white people are racist has been engineered into a kind of trap, in which any attempt to deny or avoid the accusation is reinterpreted as proof of the charge.

...

Therefore, according to the ideological theory that came to rule Evergreen’s culture, to have sent emails advising against having compelled antiracist self-struggle sessions being filed as part of the formal evaluation documentation for faculty, to have refused to get on the Equity Canoe depicted in Part One, and to have refused on principle to participate in the modified Day of Absence—a day in which white people were to be excluded from campus—could only have been interpreted as the epitome of white fragility, white complicity, and privilege-preserving epistemic pushback. In asking students of color for dialogue, Weinstein also sought to commit epistemic exploitation.

This article focuses on racial relationships as indoctrinated by critical theory, but the same essential concepts are prevalent throughout a lot of topics. They rely on some cohort being designated as the "oppressed" and then interpreting any objection to an assertion by (or on behalf of) that oppressed cohort as evidence of further intentional oppression. I see it a LOT in discussions on ISF, and I know that I've been guilty of it as well in some cases.

At the end of the day, I think the entire premise of critical theory, and its application in the real world, is abysmally harmful to a functioning society. It's also incredibly authoritarian, illiberal, and produces results that are indistinguishable from religious zealotry.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The more I try to figure this out and come up with a way to express it... the more I end up being exposed to Critical Theory and Postmodern Philosophy.

I've decided that they're both completely awful offal, and idiotic beyond measure.

Here's an article discussing some of the dynamics around the whole Bret Weinstein thing at Evergreen (my first exposure to what I would call cancel culture) with some good commentary on why it happened in the first place.

Teaching to Transgress: Rage and Entitlement at Evergreen College

A few things that resonated with me:


This article focuses on racial relationships as indoctrinated by critical theory, but the same essential concepts are prevalent throughout a lot of topics. They rely on some cohort being designated as the "oppressed" and then interpreting any objection to an assertion by (or on behalf of) that oppressed cohort as evidence of further intentional oppression. I see it a LOT in discussions on ISF, and I know that I've been guilty of it as well in some cases.

At the end of the day, I think the entire premise of critical theory, and its application in the real world, is abysmally harmful to a functioning society. It's also incredibly authoritarian, illiberal, and produces results that are indistinguishable from religious zealotry.

Is there any evidence showing that fringe theories at small liberal arts colleges have much impact on... anything at all in broader society?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is there any evidence showing that fringe theories at small liberal arts colleges have much impact on... anything at all in broader society?

It's not exactly fringe, and it's evident in most universities, and is working its way into primary and secondary schools as well.

I'm inclined to say that it certainly has broader societal impacts. The majority of your argumentation follows the critical theory playbook.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If, after all this time we're still trying to figure out what cancel culture is, I vote we go with anything we want it to be until it's not.

I can't decide whether I want to join you in this or cancel you for proposing it. Well, the general thrust of this whole thread is "don't be hasty when canceling" so I'll give it the weekend before I make a decision. Take care.

 

[d4m10n]

I thought "cancel culture" was about people getting fired for saying things unrelated to their job.

Not according to the definition I posted earlier. Heck, I'd go so far as to say Kaep was cancelled for speech which he performed while on the job. All that said, cancellation for on the job speech seems significantly more defensible than cancellation for what people do outside the workplace.

 

[dirtywick]

Kaep wasn’t talking football though. This guy was a gun guy giving an unpopular opinion about guns to gun enthusiasts

 

[dirtywick]

Celebrities saying unpopular things and becoming unpopular celebrities will almost never fit any reasonable definition of cancellation in my opinion. Likewise, a gun author that writes articles people don’t want to read because of his positions on gun control will probably never meet the same definition a gifted athlete still able to perform their job that’s forced out of a league for political speech does.

 

[d4m10n]

Kaep wasn’t talking football though. This guy was a gun guy giving an unpopular opinion about guns to gun enthusiasts

So? Still fits the definition I'm trying to stick by here.

(Feel free to formulate your own, though.)

 

[dirtywick]

So? Still fits the definition I'm trying to stick by here.

(Feel free to formulate your own, though.)

Do you not feel your definition needs revision if it’s including people being let go for being bad at their jobs? Like, this guy wrote articles about guns and lost his audience due to the content of the articles.

I have sympathy for the difficulty people face when targeted by large groups of people online, whether I feel they’re deserving or not. But celebrities and entertainers that can’t pull in an audience, what’s the recourse there?

 

[d4m10n]

Do you not feel your definition needs revision if it’s including people being let go for being bad at their jobs?

Not really, no, so long as the public shaming aspect remains in play.

(Also, it's not mine, it's from professional lexicographers.)

Like, this guy wrote articles about guns and lost his audience due to the content of the articles.

Have you survey data on point here? Looks to me like he angered a handful of assault rifle activists who were (at the time) a vocal minority among hunting enthusiasts.

 

[dirtywick]

No I don’t have any data. Luckily it’s not relevant if you don’t consider job performance as a mitigating factor.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Do you not feel your definition needs revision if it’s including people being let go for being bad at their jobs? Like, this guy wrote articles about guns and lost his audience due to the content of the articles.

I have sympathy for the difficulty people face when targeted by large groups of people online, whether I feel they’re deserving or not. But celebrities and entertainers that can’t pull in an audience, what’s the recourse there?

You have to remember that he isn't actually against canceling, he just wants to make sure that we are careful and take our time before deciding to cancel someone.

Once you reach that level then it really doesn't matter that the employee was bad at their job and got fired. It is still cancel culture, so we can still question those who tweeted about it and whether they were careful enough before doing so.

 

[dirtywick]

That’s true, but it makes things tough. If reading an article online and then carefully disagreeing with the content of the article is an acceptable cancellation, I guess all that’s left is to define how much care is careful enough. Certainly must be easier than defining cancellation itself.

Although I have a feeling it’ll come down to if you don’t agree with me you haven’t thought about it enough.

 

[mumblethrax]

Do you not feel your definition needs revision if it’s including people being let go for being bad at their jobs? Like, this guy wrote articles about guns and lost his audience due to the content of the articles.

Probably more like he didn't exactly understand what his job was. He thought he was writing articles for an audience of hunters; in reality, he was also expected to write propaganda for gun manufacturers. Unless someone actually told him the true nature of his job, I have trouble accepting that he was bad at it.

I have sympathy for the difficulty people face when targeted by large groups of people online, whether I feel they’re deserving or not. But celebrities and entertainers that can’t pull in an audience, what’s the recourse there?

Well, the first step would be to actually check whether it's true that they can't pull in an audience. Since Zumbo's TV show started up again after a few months, it seems unlikely that he had no audience left.

The reality is that it's more likely he pissed off some of his advertisers. The recourse there is to find new sponsors, or try to win back the ones who left (which probably involves some groveling).

 

[dirtywick]

Probably more like he didn't exactly understand what his job was. He thought he was writing articles for an audience of hunters; in reality, he was also expected to write propaganda for gun manufacturers. Unless someone actually told him the true nature of his job, I have trouble accepting that he was bad at it.

Ok that’s a fair take I suppose even if it’s as speculative as my take. It’s undeniable that he wrote an article that generated enough negative feedback that he was let go. This wasn’t outside of work or for opinions or subjects outside of his expertise. This was him at work doing his job.

Well, the first step would be to actually check whether it's true that they can't pull in an audience. Since Zumbo's TV show started up again after a few months, it seems unlikely that he had no audience left.

The reality is that it's more likely he pissed off some of his advertisers. The recourse there is to find new sponsors, or try to win back the ones who left (which probably involves some groveling).

No audience, diminished audience, maybe he gained viewers, I can’t say. Pissed off advertisers, yeah probably that too. I think that’s also as fair consideration as maintaining an audience. A website can’t be expected to continue to pay and publish articles that are losing readers and advertisers can they?

 

[mumblethrax]

A website can’t be expected to continue to pay and publish articles that are losing readers and advertisers can they?

Depends on the nature of the site, I suppose.

 

[Mumbles]

It's not exactly fringe, and it's evident in most universities, and is working its way into primary and secondary schools as well.

I'm inclined to say that it certainly has broader societal impacts. The majority of your argumentation follows the critical theory playbook.

To be very blunt, the link you show seems to describe the usual massive distilling of ideas into flat-out misstatements that should be a first-grader's understanding.

Examples I've seen include "Here's a history of black barbershops, how they evolved, why women cutting men's hair is highly uncommon, and the associated culture involved in many black barbershops." response" I can't believe you're saying haircutting is racist!!!"

Another: "Let's discuss how insufficient inputs, algorithms, and the like lead to Artificial Intelligence disparities - for example, why a false positive rate for black orAsian faces in this example is ten times that for white faces or higher." "Haha, stupid SJWs think computers are white supremacists!"

Third example, see any discussion of COVID mortality rates, vaccine rollout disparities (despite white Americans being the most likely racial group to reject vaccination when offered) summarized as "black people hate health care!", or education disparities explained by the "acting white" myth, despite black and Latino Americans consistently placing higher value on education than white Americans do.

(I'll also note that Bret Weinstein's view of his time at Evergreen is, by most third party accounts, very hyperbolic, almost to the point of Jordan Peterson's strange obsession with the notion that he could be imprisoned for accidentally misgendering someone).

Is the use of "objective" measures to justify bigotry both a real concern, *and* a suitable subject of ethical studies? Um, yes, clearly. Is it required in a math class? That's a bit less obvious - much like "real-world" questions are strictly not mathematical theory, so much as application (the classic being a shipping problem that ends with "you need 3.5 trucks to ship the apples". 3.5 being incorrect, because a half-truck is nonsense, you'll need 4 trucks.

ETA: What does this have to do with "cancelling" overt bigots, rapists, and the like? Uh...nothing, actually.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

To be very blunt, the link you show seems to describe the usual massive distilling of ideas into flat-out misstatements that should be a first-grader's understanding.

Examples I've seen include "Here's a history of black barbershops, how they evolved, why women cutting men's hair is highly uncommon, and the associated culture involved in many black barbershops." response" I can't believe you're saying haircutting is racist!!!"

Another: "Let's discuss how insufficient inputs, algorithms, and the like lead to Artificial Intelligence disparities - for example, why a false positive rate for black orAsian faces in this example is ten times that for white faces or higher." "Haha, stupid SJWs think computers are white supremacists!"

Third example, see any discussion of COVID mortality rates, vaccine rollout disparities (despite white Americans being the most likely racial group to reject vaccination when offered) summarized as "black people hate health care!", or education disparities explained by the "acting white" myth, despite black and Latino Americans consistently placing higher value on education than white Americans do.

(I'll also note that Bret Weinstein's view of his time at Evergreen is, by most third party accounts, very hyperbolic, almost to the point of Jordan Peterson's strange obsession with the notion that he could be imprisoned for accidentally misgendering someone).
Is the use of "objective" measures to justify bigotry both a real concern, *and* a suitable subject of ethical studies? Um, yes, clearly. Is it required in a math class? That's a bit less obvious - much like "real-world" questions are strictly not mathematical theory, so much as application (the classic being a shipping problem that ends with "you need 3.5 trucks to ship the apples". 3.5 being incorrect, because a half-truck is nonsense, you'll need 4 trucks.

ETA: What does this have to do with "cancelling" overt bigots, rapists, and the like? Uh...nothing, actually.

Brett Weinstein's version of events is so at odds with the facts, it's fair to call it a deliberate fraud.

Weinstein purports that his email in protest to the "day of abscence" was the cause of protests that ultimately led to his firing. This is blatantly untrue.

The protests at Evergreen were related to the arrest of black students. Weinstein inserted himself into this event, and later appeared on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour to hawk his fraudulent narrative, leading to right wing freaks making terroristic threats against the school that prompted the college to close campus for a few days.

Weinstein's dismissal from the college was the result of a deliberate campaign by Weinstein to fraudulently paint himself as a victim that resulted in the worst elements of society targeting the campus for threats of violence. Seems like a firing offense to me, or at least behavior that would make a college willing to pay off this toad to go away.

Weinstein is a grifter that is pandering to right wing reactionaries, peddling a false story about how liberal colleges are run by SJW's run wild. He's made a nice career out of being the "cancelled" guy.

https://psmag.com/education/the-real-free-speech-story-at-evergreen-college

 

[d4m10n]

Certainly must be easier than defining cancellation itself.

I linked to a definition. Did you?