Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Failing a drug test is cancel culture

Bob Baffert blamed "cancel culture" after his horse, Medina Spirit, who won the Kentucky Derby, failed its post-race drug test.

"We live in a different world now. This America's different."
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1391765065179746306

Race horse owner on Fox News complaining about cancel culture after his Kentucky Derby win was invalidated after the horse, Medina Spirit, failed a post-race drug test.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Different from what? Cheating at your profession is generally frowned upon.
Click to expand...

Sounds like mob rule to me. Does it matter that cheating is objectionable to the general public, who are we to say?

One thing I've learned from this thread is that it's really impossible to expect any kind of behavior from others, and it's certainly beyond the pale for anyone to suffer consequences for any perceived breach of such expectations.
 
Last edited:
Hating "Cancel Culture" does always seem to boil down to "Moral relativism for me, moral absolutism for you."

"When you're wrong, you're wrong. When I'm wrong STOP EVERYTHING AND HAVE A DEEP NEVER ENDING INFINITE HAIRPSLIT PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VERY CONCEPT OF WRONG, WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT, AND EVERY POSSIBLE PARALLEL DISCUSSION!"
 
d4m10n said:
The mob that went after Sacco is somehow comparable to being disqualified for doping in violation of stated rules?

If you say so, Joe.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what pe

You're fine with "a mob" going after someone as long as the mob is a position of power going after a position of lower power. You just pitch a hissy fit when it goes the other way because that's not how it's supposed to work.

Again your problem, the problem every who whines about cancel culture, is the wrong people getting canceled.
 
Samson said:
Interesting.
The world would seem poorer were either creative endeavour to be expunged.
Click to expand...

Nobody much is trying to expunge Huck Finn. The entire argument from the Woke Left for not teaching it is just that to do so makes it harder on the kids who are affected on that level by the language, than it is for the kids who are not affected. The normal everyday argument is that it puts teachers in the babysitting role when they have to deal with troll children using it as an excuse to intentionally upset other students under the guise of discussing the novel’s language. Like a lot of things, it’s more that it’s a hassle, than anything else.

Not that I’m happy about whenever someone takes it out just because it’s easier that way, but. It’s still in the library and online and it’s still a highly recommended read. And there are plenty of resources for discussing it, too, besides the grade school classroom.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Hating "Cancel Culture" does always seem to boil down to "Moral relativism for me, moral absolutism for you."

"When you're wrong, you're wrong. When I'm wrong STOP EVERYTHING AND HAVE A DEEP NEVER ENDING INFINITE HAIRPSLIT PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VERY CONCEPT OF WRONG, WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT, AND EVERY POSSIBLE PARALLEL DISCUSSION!"
Click to expand...

Basically, attribution biasWP.

"I commit atrocities because the world is complex and morality is difficult to navigate, and I chose the option with the least harm. So really, I'm a hero. No, no need for a parade, I'm too humble. Well maybe a small parade.

Where were we.. Oh, yes. Now, when you do the same thing, it's because you're a bad person."
 
blutoski said:
Basically, attribution biasWP.

"I commit atrocities because the world is complex and morality is difficult to navigate, and I chose the option with the least harm. So really, I'm a hero. No, no need for a parade, I'm too humble. Well maybe a small parade.

Where were we.. Oh, yes. Now, when you do the same thing, it's because you're a bad person."
Click to expand...

The world has always been extremely punitive towards some subset of social offenders while extremely forgiving of others. Over time who that applies to has shifted.

Reactionaries are blowing their stacks because the type of behavior that used to be commonly accepted or, at worst, punished with a wrist slap is becoming something that is no longer tolerated.

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss individual people and incidents and even quibble about whether or not certain reactions are proportionate or justifiable, but hand-waving the entire thing away as cancel culture is only a defense measure by those that are accustomed to impunity.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's perfectly reasonable to discuss individual people and incidents and even quibble about whether or not certain reactions are proportionate or justifiable...
Click to expand...
Excellent. :thumbsup:

...but hand-waving the entire thing away as cancel culture is only a defense measure by those that are accustomed to impunity.
Click to expand...
Who here is doing that?
 
d4m10n said:
Excellent. :thumbsup:

Who here is doing that?
Click to expand...

I am still failing to see how Gamergate and the Sacco firing/rehiring are at all closely related.

Was Quinn ever "cancelled"? Seems to me she became the target of a decentralized criminal harassment campaign which was absolutely disastrous for her personally, but doesn't really fit even your overly broad definition of "cancel culture".

Gamergate was such obviously bad faith that "it's about ethics in game journalism" became a punchline because of how transparently pretextual it all was. Quinn wasn't cancelled, she was menaced by a bunch of incel type freaks who were mad that a feminist might enter their troll cave.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sounds like mob rule to me. Does it matter that cheating is objectionable to the general public, who are we to say?

One thing I've learned from this thread is that it's really impossible to expect any kind of behavior from others, and it's certainly beyond the pale for anyone to suffer consequences for any perceived breach of such expectations.
Click to expand...

This is absurd.

This is a case of a person literally breaking clearly defined rules in a specific context, and facing the consequences of having broken those rules.

On the other hand, we have had multiple examples of people 1) having their actions or statements taken out of context and intentionally misconstrued or 2) expressing a personal belief or opinion... and then having a pile of complete strangers doxx them, send them death threats, wishes of harm, harassing them, and demanding that they be fired and ostracized.

To conflate the two as if you can't tell the difference is disingenuous in the extreme.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
TReactionaries are blowing their stacks because the type of behavior that used to be commonly accepted or, at worst, punished with a wrist slap is becoming something that is no longer tolerated.
Click to expand...

Please allow me to translate your overly-hyperbolic rhetoric into something that more closely resembles reality.

Moderate liberals are concerned because the cornerstone of our rights - freedom of belief and freedom of speech - that used to be commonly accepted and defended by most citizens are becoming something that is now subject to mob justice in the form of disorganized harassment, threats, doxxing, and attempts to ruin peoples lives.

But I know that if you just call people "reactionaries" and paint them as being overly emotional, and you downplay the actual situation to some kind of hur-dee-hur minor incident, you can manage to sweep the issue under the rug while simultaneously engaging in ad hominem instead of actual discussion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom