The Real problem with cancel culture

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean by an offense being legitimate?

The way you mention "claims of being offended" makes it sound like you believe that the offense is not genuinely felt but rather simulated for various other reasons (presumably political influence and/ or the thrill of exercising power by people who otherwise have little such opportunity). Is that correct? Because I think that's a very hard thing to determine with any degree of objectivity, and any attempts to do so is just - as you say - going to generate further offense.

Or by legitimate do you mean whether a reasonable objective party (however we define that) decides what range of responses are appropriate to the offense, independently of whether it's genuinely felt? I.e. around here, it's broadly agreed that someone's feeling offended because they can't go to the bar unvaccinated generally warrants a shrug, independently of whether it's genuinely felt or performative.

You didn't ask me but I'll BUTT RIGHT IN.

It's the same thing everyone means when they say "oh, just lighten up."  You're spazzing out over nothing. 

There's also a dynamic that I've mentioned before, in that PC/woke culture has set up a system whereby those who express grievance gain status.  You can see it plainly in the description of woke in the article crazy canuck linked before.  Something along the lines of "awareness of systematic etc etc, of not being blind."  In other words, people who express grievance are better than those who do not because they're more aware.  Not bamboozled by Teh Man's lies and propaganda.

[Josquius]

]

You didn't ask me but I'll BUTT RIGHT IN.

It's the same thing everyone means when they say "oh, just lighten up."  You're spazzing out over nothing. 

There's also a dynamic that I've mentioned before, in that PC/woke culture has set up a system whereby those who express grievance gain status.  You can see it plainly in the description of woke in the article crazy canuck linked before.  Something along the lines of "awareness of systematic etc etc, of not being blind."  In other words, people who express grievance are better than those who do not because they're more aware.  Not bamboozled by Teh Man's lies and propaganda.

There you're referring to the original meaning of woke. Which is pretty alright really and it's perfectly legitimate to see being woke as better than not being woke.
Meanings of words change with time and with different groups however and the way woke is used today, is primarily as an attack line from the right as a general purpose dismissal of things with a whiff of the left ala social justice warrior, political correctness gone mad, virtue signaller, etc...
Expressing any complaint about racism in their eyes automatically makes you woke whether it's saying baa baa black sheep is a racist song and should be banned (many seem to believe the left think this) or stuff that even the right are forced to agree on such as that you shouldn't be routinely calling black people the n word and Asians the p word and so on.
This bit about gaining status for expressing a grievance sounds to me like it's coming from the same place as prager us bizzare take on intersectionality. That you somehow win respect for having the most oppression points. That's not how the left views things.
It's not about giving  status to those who have grievances rather its about being open minded to people with experiences other than your own. If a group of black people is saying something is offensive to black people then non black people should probably trust that they know what they're talking about rather than just going "haha no. Woke."

[Admiral Yi]

I don't really care that much how the right uses the word.  Why should anyone else?

I obviously disagree about grievance and status.

[Josquius]

I don't really care that much how the right uses the word.  Why should anyone else?

I obviously disagree about grievance and status.

Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.

[The Brain]

Do you think the rock has been slur-free for 96 years? Or do you think the nickname was used after 1925?

https://d1t7dpw65z19lw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/11/20_1112-CPC-MTG-Draft-Minutes.pdf

There does not appear to be any evidence of any offensive words being used in relation to the rock other than the 1925 article.

According to Berkut's article, "The derogatory nickname was commonly used at the time to refer to any large, dark rock".  As there are likely many such offending rocks across America, it appears the work is just beginning.

Interesting link.

The rock is a symbol of the injustice students of color face on campus daily.

Seems that the university is a hotbed of racism. That's interesting context.

[Admiral Yi]

Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.

And so what?

Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?

[Josquius]

Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.

And so what?

Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?

It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).

[garbon]

Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.

And so what?

Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?

It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).

I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.

[grumbler]

I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is.  And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things.  What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination.  If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.

Luckily, your argument is a strawman argument and therefor irrelevant.  No one is arguing that "claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination."

[grumbler]

I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.

Students in my school (not just black students) claim it proudly (often erroneously, perhaps).  They are delighted that it makes the far right go nuts.

It's another example of British English vs American English.

[DGuller]

I don't think outrage is the right word, bemusement is.  And it's not really about the toilet seat, I mean about the rock, it's more about the approach to things.  What seems to be the case, which is what I think Yi is alluding to, is that claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination.  If offense is claimed, then it is legitimate and even the mere thought of examining it for reasonability is just a further offense.

Luckily, your argument is a strawman argument and therefor irrelevant.  No one is arguing that "claims of being offended are absolute and not subject to any kind of examination."

No, of course no one is arguing that, because when you say it clearly like that, it does sound ridiculous.  The problem seems to be that people are acting like this is the case, without putting it openly the way that I did.

[Syt]

Cancel culture gone mad! From the statement of the Gas Exporting Countries forum after COP26:

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/GECF__cop26cmp16cma3_HLS.pdf.pdf

Notwithstanding the ongoing reductionism and cancel culture on hydrocarbons, the GECF aspires to present a balanced energy-transition roadmap for a constructive debate that will enable policymakers to instigate and, perhaps, lead a realistic energy transition.

[Razgovory]

Because that's the dominant usage of the word in 2021.

And so what?

Are you warning those of us here who are critiquing wokism that we run the risk of being mistaken for far right nutters?

It's not about criticising or supporting "wokism". Seeing the world in those terms and throwing around the word "woke" is exclusively the domain of the critics who are arguing with a fictional foe.
"Woke" hasn't been much used as a positive term for progressive thinking for a decade. (I blame burger King. Or probably not but that's where I last possibly saw it several years ago. Even then they were likely ironic).

I think you might be overgeneralizing. I know black Americans who use it as a positive term.

You know black Americans?

[garbon]

[The Brain]

He hasn't gone full Madonna, Raz.