Identity culture, echo chambers, and call-out culture

[DragonLady]

I believe people are going to hold views that are extremely hurtful to other people, no matter what the subject or the context.

If snoozling is frowned upon, the snoozlers have to hide their desire to snoozle (let alone the actual act of snoozling), and the anti-snoozlers will use the snoozlers as examples of terrible people.

It doesn't matter what the subject is, what the context is, what the emotional fallout is; the two groups will always exist, and they will always antagonize each other at best.

But at the end of the day, the left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird, and they must work together if civilization is gonna fly.

So, how do we figure out where to draw the lines? How far back into someone's past should we dig looking for evidence of holding the 'wrong' views? How much fallout is realistic for someone who holds an unpopular opinion today? How much reparation will that person be due if the culture shifts and those previously unpopular views become trendy again?

I guess the overarching question -the crux of the matter- is : How much weight should the blather posted on the internet carry when it starts bringing real world consequences to those who hold unpopular views?

Bear in mind: humans do not change in the span of a few lifetimes. While individuals can change their minds about issues, the rebellious nature of humans doesn't change. As I said in an earlier post 'round here somewhere, we colonized the world by standing up to things we didn't like, moving out, and starting our own new social order elsewhere. But we can't do that any more. Now, instead of being able to take our views 'cross the mountains where we can live as we choose, the only real estate available is online.

A person might say truly damaging things (for any of a variety of reasons) online and be haunted forever because their words get shared and reshared and reshared again.... Worse, sometimes those with more current views takes it upon themselves to make sure it reaches the ears of the person's employer, family, schoolmates...etc.

Then, even if somewhere deep inside he wishes he could take back those words, he can't. He's bought 'em, and any effort to change them later just looks pathetic. Apologizing has never worked, and I'm not sure anyone should be forced to change their names and leave the country because they've changed their minds.

TL;DR: Should there be a statute of limitations on someone's past words or social media posts, just like we have for many -or most- crimes?

 

[Checkmite]

Actions and behavior have social consequences. This isn't a new thing; what people are now trying to portray as a new development called "cancel culture" is merely what people have already for decades known as "boycotting". The consequences are somewhat swifter and more far-reaching now thanks to the internet, but then so are all consequences. When you take a public position, you don't have any control over the public response.

If somebody does something I think is repugnant, I have a right to choose not to associate with that person. I am free to decide that in practice this can include for instance refusing to give any of my business to whatever company they work for; and freedom of speech allows me to publicly explain the reason why I'm doing that, and even express encouragement for people who agree with me to do the same. It is true that if enough people agree with me and do likewise, it can impact the business's profitability, which will lead them to take corrective measures that might include firing the person who is leading so many people to shun their business (this is a predictable consequence of a free market effect that is known as "the invisible hand", and is widely promoted by conservative economists as an inherently good thing and superior and preferable to government regulation in almost any scenario). If setting that chain of causation into motion was my intent it's called a "boycott"; but it could also play out that way even if it wasn't necessarily my intention.

To prevent this sequence of events, you only have a few options:

1. Abolish my freedom of association - make it illegal for me to choose not to patronize a business for personal reasons. This seems to be unenforceable even in theory because if I never vocalize my reasons for not doing business with Company X then my not walking through the door because I dislike one of their employees is indistinguishable from me not walking through the door because I think Company Y's pizza tastes better.

2. Abolish my freedom of speech - make it illegal for me to either say publicly why I'm not patronizing the business, or to encourage other people to do what I'm doing, or both. Choosing this option at some point for some class of their citizens is ubiquitous among authoritarian governments, and it works - but, well, freedom of speech is abolished.

3. Forbid businesses via regulation from responding to free-market forces by firing employees. This might "work" on paper; but in practice it simply dooms the business to fail which leads to the same result, as can be seen from the fate of self-owned small businesses when their owners get boycotted. Obviously they can't fire themselves or that one family member they employ, so they bravely take a stand and then go out of business.

 

[DragonLady]

2. Abolish my freedom of speech - make it illegal for me to either say publicly why I'm not patronizing the business, or to encourage other people to do what I'm doing, or both. Choosing this option at some point for some class of their citizens is ubiquitous among authoritarian governments, and it works - but, well, freedom of speech is abolished.

This is one of my biggest fears. I may hate what some people have to say, but I am very much in favor of their right to say it.

Speech has always carried consequences regardless of the forum, but now I suspect the consequences are taking on lives of their own, and blowing up far beyond what is reasonable in some cases.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I never found it acceptable to harass gay people or women, or to send them hate mail. I don't find it acceptable to harass non-gay people or men either, nor to send them hate mail.

I never claimed you did?

 

[Distracted1]

Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!

If the goal is not to put an end to lynching- and is instead simply to change the victims from "you" to "me", you will understand of course, when I decline to get with the program.

 

[EHocking]

It's an interesting and important topic, but the lack of focus makes it hard to post my opinion(s).

I'll give the thread a bit of time to mature.

You’ll be waiting a long time.
If other threads of this nature here are anything to go by, maturity seems to be the first thing to get thrown out.

 

[bruto]

I'm quite sure there are many instances where utterances that should have been allowed to slide have resulted in excessive repercussions. We all have seen plenty of examples on all sides of the aisle of stupid people reacting to trivial or poorly thought-out statements with venom and death threats and so forth. It's too bad when it happens, whether it's a stupid self-entitled liar from Central Park or a left-leaning congresswoman. Venomous and hateful jibes and death threats are always wrong. So I do have to say with Safe-Keeper that I wish people would stay in proportion, leave the poor girl alone, and not be ******** about it.

But I have to say I'm also struck by the irony here, since this person's opinion was essentially that Floyd should have appreciated and expected disproportionately dire and fatal consequences for his misbehavior, and should have stopped to think before he did stuff. Whether or not that was a wise thing to say, one can't help but wonder why similar rules don't apply here. Before you pass a phony bill, stop and think "I might die for this." Before you hit the enter button on the next mean-tempered tweet, stop and think "I might get in trouble for this."

She stated that if a person commits a transgression he is to blame even for outstandingly disproportionate consequences, and has thereby become an unwitting object lesson for her own opinion.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm quite sure there are many instances where utterances that should have been allowed to slide have resulted in excessive repercussions. We all have seen plenty of examples on all sides of the aisle of stupid people reacting to trivial or poorly thought-out statements with venom and death threats and so forth. It's too bad when it happens, whether it's a stupid self-entitled liar from Central Park or a left-leaning congresswoman. Venomous and hateful jibes and death threats are always wrong. So I do have to say with Safe-Keeper that I wish people would stay in proportion, leave the poor girl alone, and not be ******** about it.

But I have to say I'm also struck by the irony here, since this person's opinion was essentially that Floyd should have appreciated and expected disproportionately dire and fatal consequences for his misbehavior, and should have stopped to think before he did stuff. Whether or not that was a wise thing to say, one can't help but wonder why similar rules don't apply here. Before you pass a phony bill, stop and think "I might die for this." Before you hit the enter button on the next mean-tempered tweet, stop and think "I might get in trouble for this."

She stated that if a person commits a transgression he is to blame even for outstandingly disproportionate consequences, and has thereby become an unwitting object lesson for her own opinion.

And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed! Let's talk about canceling Richard Carrier in particular. Or Ben Radford. Or Michael Shermer. Or Neil Tyson. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or Linda Bellos. (Etc. & so forth...)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

No idea what you are on about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

As for gay pride parades I'm against those entirely, for three reasons: 1) parades are horrible, 2) gay pride has become commercialized and thereby robbed of its point, and 3) these events are sanitized, Disneyfied versions of queerness meant to appeal to straight people's acceptability. Respectability politics, in other words, which I regard with contempt. And also the participants are seriously at risk of skin cancer.

Wow, where do you live?

Certainly not like that here in Seattle. And I haven't noticed this happening elsewhere.

Not that I don't think you have legit insight. It just hasn't been my experience.

 

[d4m10n]

No idea what you are on about.

In the words of the OP, I'm talking about "Call-out culture, and campaigns to punish, or 'cancel' dissenting voices..." who've (allegedly) gone beyond the bounds of acceptable deviation from the norm. Those are just the first few names to spring to mind from skeptic and freethinking social circles; my point was merely that we've seen all this before.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[tyr_13]

And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"

She was slowly murdered over eight minutes in broad daylight while people pleaded with her murders to stop?

No, certainly not the exact same irony.

On the topic in general, it's pretty amusing to see so many skeptics argue for general heuristics/legalism over such a gargantuan topic as 'justice'. Cases should be evaluated on their merits. Some consequences are not proportional and there are a universe of factors that could come into play.

In the example from the OP? Death threats are not just, getting kicked from college for violating their good rules is just. People will come to different conclusions, but if you're going to compare, make the comparisons to roughly equivalent things.

You know what absolutely in no valid way equivalent? Existing. Immutable personal characteristics being equivocated with the action of expressing vile beliefs lacks intellectual merit. 'Existing as a gay person' or 'being black' isn't the same as 'expressing that gay people should be attacked' or 'excessive force up to and including murder that disproportionately effect black people is just the best'. Not even 'being a racist' is the same because, well, it's a belief and not part of your being.

The harms being examined as equivalent, like in the post I just quoted, are plain not the same either. Facts and evidence matters. The harms caused by 'being a black person' or 'expressing an unpopular but harmless opinion' are not the same as 'calling into question the moral/intellectual integrity of an organization' or 'supporting ongoing lynchings'.

Justice also doesn't stop being justice just by putting 'social' in front of it, but it certainly appears to make quite a few people turn the rationalization dial to eleven and break off the knob.

 

[Checkmite]

In the words of the OP, I'm talking about "Call-out culture, and campaigns to punish, or 'cancel' dissenting voices..." who've (allegedly) gone beyond the bounds of acceptable deviation from the norm. Those are just the first few names to spring to mind from skeptic and freethinking social circles; my point was merely that we've seen all this before.

None of these individuals besides Hirsi Ali have been "cancelled" for their opinions, in the sort of way being discussed here.

 

[Distracted1]

She was slowly murdered over eight minutes in broad daylight while people pleaded with her murders to stop?

No, certainly not the exact same irony.

On the topic in general, it's pretty amusing to see so many skeptics argue for general heuristics/legalism over such a gargantuan topic as 'justice'. Cases should be evaluated on their merits. Some consequences are not proportional and there are a universe of factors that could come into play.

In the example from the OP? Death threats are not just, getting kicked from college for violating their good rules is just. People will come to different conclusions, but if you're going to compare, make the comparisons to roughly equivalent things.

You know what absolutely in no valid way equivalent? Existing. Immutable personal characteristics being equivocated with the action of expressing vile beliefs lacks intellectual merit. 'Existing as a gay person' or 'being black' isn't the same as 'expressing that gay people should be attacked' or 'excessive force up to and including murder that disproportionately effect black people is just the best'. Not even 'being a racist' is the same because, well, it's a belief and not part of your being.

The harms being examined as equivalent, like in the post I just quoted, are plain not the same either. Facts and evidence matters. The harms caused by 'being a black person' or 'expressing an unpopular but harmless opinion' are not the same as 'calling into question the moral/intellectual integrity of an organization' or 'supporting ongoing lynchings'.

Justice also doesn't stop being justice just by putting 'social' in front of it, but it certainly appears to make quite a few people turn the rationalization dial to eleven and break off the knob.

Sometimes, when replying to a post that is itself a reply to another post, it behooves one to read the original post for contextual clues to the underlying meaning of the reply post.

 

[bruto]

And those who would destroy her life for that opinion are exemplars of the exact same irony.
"People like George Floyd should not pay drastic consequences for their deliberate mistakes- but people who don't agree should pay drastic consequences for the mistake of deliberately disagreeing"

Indeed they're wrong too, and it goes round and round, but it's not quite exactly the same irony - at least we certainly should hope not - as our posted example has not actually been murdered.

 

[Meadmaker]

Funny how when racism and homophobia was culturally acceptable there was no concern about protecting the minority viewpoint, but now that the tides have turned we must suddenly worry about protecting people from the wicked mob. I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence!

I don't think this is a correct reading of history. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there was an awful lot of concern for protecting the minority viewpoint. Anything that smacked of McCarthyism was decried. Blacklisting was considered a terrible thing.

Sadly, we have entered a new era of blacklisting, and it is not a good thing at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, he could have left. If unpleasant scenes erupt one can depart. That is one way --frequently the most sensible way-- to defuse a situation.

Yes, he could have left, but why would he?

The problem wasn't Nick Sandmann, and the problem wasn't really even Nathan Phillips. Sandmann was there, waiting for a bus, doing nothing at all wrong. Nothing. Nathan Phillips misunderstood a situation, and got into a bad situation through that misunderstanding but, really, it was no big deal. He banged a drum in a kid's face. There are a lot worse things he could do. No violence. No real harm done to either party.

The problem was the internet mob, ironically including the mainstream media who reported on the subject after it went viral. They are the "mainstream" media, but these days they often follow in the footsteps of twitter or facebook. They basically accepted the reports. Suddenly there was a mob insulting Sandmann, demanding he be thrown out of school, apologizing on his behalf, making anonymous death threats. It was pretty bad stuff.

And that's the problem. The mob's reaction. Attack first, ask questions later. Jump to conclusions. Take things out of context. Exaggerate problems. Turn an insignificant statement into the embodiment of a great social evil. Before you know it the mob is demanding retribution against a seventeen year old girl for repeating something she undoubtedly heard at home or in her own social media echo chamber. Horror of horrors, instead of taking a careful look at the situation, she gave a knee jerk repetition of a common meme, that the police only attack bad people. For this, she cannot be allowed to attend a university and receive an education. How's that for irony? Her beliefs are so ignorant that we will refuse to educate her.

 

[psionl0]

Because it's common sense and up to the individual to decide. And gamble on.

I find it scary that not only is "keep your mouth shut for fear of reprisals" the norm but that you think that it should be the norm. That anything you say or have ever said could at any time be used as a weapon against you.

This sort of mentality creates a climate of fear where everybody distrusts their neighbour. That has been the hall mark of totalitarian societies throughout history. A free society is dead as a concept.

 

[dann]

One of the things I've come across when discussing antivax in Norway is a certain kind of... sub-culture of antivaxxer trolls who will harrass and try to sabotage the lives of particularly outspoken people who disagree with them. They will send them hateful messages, carry out smear campaigns, often trying to paint them as bullies or even more horrible things like pedophiles, and, call their employers to try to sabotage their careers. I always considered the latter a particularly vile tactic, and it's come to be something I associate with trolls with no scrouples.

15 years ago, three of the most active skeptics in Denmark were exposed to that kind of harassment. It is particularly disturbing when you are a teacher and they make you out to be a pedophile.

The campaign started at the beginning of the summer holidays when a newspaper published an article by a high-school teacher describing how his female students came on to him. The newspaper asked his principal and the leader of the students council to comment on it and published without ever bothering to find out if the article was real. Which it wasn't.
The article was disavowed in the paper the next day, but for a year copies of the article were shared online on woo message boards.

At this point, I got involved and tried to find the organizers of the campaign. As soon as I started, I, also a high-school teacher, was subjected to the same kind of harassment online. They even made a false profile, using my address and my photo from my school's website, and had 'me' ask teenagers to meet me at a café next door to where I live.
I immediately told my school, my neighbors and even the owner of the café what was going on and asked them to tell me if anybody tried to contact them. Apparently, nobody ever did.

A couple of years later, one of the organizers of the campaign who had now become a successful psychic was exposed as a fraud by an investigative TV show. They set him up, using fake websites to commemorate (imaginary) dead people. It put an immediate stop to his career as a psychic, and the public reaction when he appeared as a magician in a talent show was also a blow to his ambitions in that field. He has changed names a couple of times, and his latest attempt to earn money with little effort was an Amazon Kindle scam, also rather unsuccessful, I think.

On another occasion, a group of satanists sent a letter to my principal accusing me of harassing them. Since they didn't include any examples of my alleged harassment, it was pretty easy to convince him that the woman who signed the letter was a crazy. What had actually happened was that her satanist husband had confused me with somebody else online and got awfully offended when it was pointed out to him. He actually closed down the whole (pretend skeptic) message board two days after having banned me because he couldn't cope with having been proved wrong.

These things happen. There are two ways to deal with them:
1) You can remain anonymous online.
2) You can be open about who you are.
I belong to the second category and never considered anonymity.

If your online activities consist of being a nazi, I can see why you would want to remain anonymous. But the real problem is that you are a nazi - and not that people found out about it.
If you fight nazis (or psychics, or astrologers, or ...) online, you have the upper hand in any debate, which is why they tend to resort to other tools than arguments. Many of them are actual psychopaths, and it is probably wise to consider taking some kind of precautions against them.

Since these groups are more or less impervious to reason, I can see why some antifas think it's a good idea to dox them to make them realize that their hate mongering or cons may have unpleasant consequences not just for the people they harass but for themselves as well.

It is a pretty safe way to dominate them, as Trump would say. It would be interesting to know how many of the actually learn from the experience.

 

[Darat]

I hate to say it but I don't think it's a 'trend' that mobs have suddenly discovered mob justice - I think we're just seeing ancient human behavior that used to be occult, because online communities are more visible.

Or maybe, it's arguably a trend that it's becoming more visible, I'll agree to that.



ETA: and the reason I'm kinda confused is that Skeptics have quite the history of Johnny Letter Writing. "Hey, I'll bet the university doesn't know that professor does unethical things as a side business, we should tell them," goes back to the first call to action for CSICOP in the 1970s. If trying to get somebody fired by writing their boss, or getting them booted from a degree program is unethical, Skeptics are guilty as charged.

Just a specific datapoint, Dr. Polevoy was absolutely trying to dox "Adam Dreamhealer" when he heard he was in a premed program. The idea being that somebody who hid his past as a fraudulent faith healer should probably not be enrolled in medical school.

I agree with you not seeing anything new. This is basic human behaviour that has always occurred. The use of social media and our now greater ease of communication does mean it can happen faster than ever.

I remember reading stories here on the forum years ago about the consequences for teachers being “outed” to their communities and losing their jobs, and outed not for being homosexual but for being an atheist.

I do wonder if it seems to be different to some people because of who tends to be on the receiving end these days? But even then my suspicions are that is more to do with which stories are deemed “newsworthy” than a real shift.