The Real problem with cancel culture

[Jacob]

I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself...

Yeah, probably the reason why Zoupa and Tyr post what they post is because secretly they know that you're right and they're wrong

[Zoupa]

While I sympathize with the sentiment, we cannot simply remove America.

I once nuked the entire Eastern seaboard in HOI2. Don't tell me what to do.

[The Brain]

While I sympathize with the sentiment, we cannot simply remove America.

I once nuked the entire Eastern seaboard in HOI2. Don't tell me what to do.

I need some tissue.

[Berkut]

You disagree with any ideology because you think the reasoning is flawed or the conclusions unwarranted.  Does that mean that calling someone progressive, or a centrist, or a free marketer, or whatever, is also an insult?  I don't think so.

I would go so far as to say the reason Squeeze feels being called woke is an insult is because he himself is aware of the shortcomings of wokism.  I see people like Squeeze and Zoupa as not being card carrying members but more like fellow travelers: the general principles are great, a lot of stupid stuff is said, but they have to defend the stupid stuff too because it's your team.  And they certainly can't say the stupid stuff is stupid.

I think removing the rock is silly for the same reasons Berkut mentioned. 

I don't defend the stupid stuff.
Rather I see it as dumb but ultimately irrelevant. Those people have zero influence in the real world.
What does have a very real and negative impact on the world however, is their opposite number. The reactionary "Anti woke" ideology is being used to great success by the populist right - pretend anything in the vaguest left of centre is absolutely the same as a random raging lunatic on twitter demanding mandatory self flagelafion for white people and castration of cis males and boom, instant outrage to drag regular people over to the hard right.
The goal is to Paint it that the left are the unreasonable ones on the attack (got to claim the victim position. This is vital) and the far right isn't actually that right wing it's just the centre is in a crazy far left place.

Basically I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good. I find the entire idea its a problem to be one part laughable and one part painful and dangerous.
It's not that I'm playing the same game and merely supporting the other side (there can only be two sides) , a common problem in the world view of those too wrapped up in an ideology. The way I view the world is just fundamentally different. This isn't a game of football, its a rock concert.

I don't disagree with any of that, other then the claim that only the far right, and not the far left, is actually relevant or dangerous. I think that is some very careful special pleading.

They most certainly DO have power. There are many, many examples of them exercising that power. They don't have the same kind of power, because their radicalism is of a different kind, or at least the flavor that is in vogue at this particular moment.

I think your argument that the "woke" left can be safely ignored is driven by your need to have an argument against the right's inevitable leveraging of the left craziness. You want them to be powerless so you can safely ignore the debate.

Do you not see, however, that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the right of doing?

You say they are trying to label ALL progressive ideas in the same bucket as the most radical leftist ideas, so they can dismiss them as a whole. (That is true, btw, they most definitely do that).

But YOU are doing the *exact same thing*. You are labelling ALL arguments against this "woke left" as the same as right wing arguments against all progressive issues, so you can dismiss all these discussions as the figment of the "anti-woke cult" of the right!

I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good either. The reason I don't think it is good is that it encourages shutting down conversation, and it is counter productive to actually getting things done. Among other reasons is that it does give bad actors on the right easy ammunition to attack progressives, especially when progressives are completely unwilling to take a stand against their own radicals. It is hard to argue that the radicals are "raging lunatics" and have "zero influence in the real world" when you apparently cannot even mildly chuckle at them getting rocks moved without being called a cultist.

[Josquius]

]

I don't disagree with any of that, other then the claim that only the far right, and not the far left, is actually relevant or dangerous. I think that is some very careful special pleading.

They most certainly DO have power. There are many, many examples of them exercising that power. They don't have the same kind of power, because their radicalism is of a different kind, or at least the flavor that is in vogue at this particular moment.

I think your argument that the "woke" left can be safely ignored is driven by your need to have an argument against the right's inevitable leveraging of the left craziness. You want them to be powerless so you can safely ignore the debate.

Do you not see, however, that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the right of doing?

You say they are trying to label ALL progressive ideas in the same bucket as the most radical leftist ideas, so they can dismiss them as a whole. (That is true, btw, they most definitely do that).

But YOU are doing the *exact same thing*. You are labelling ALL arguments against this "woke left" as the same as right wing arguments against all progressive issues, so you can dismiss all these discussions as the figment of the "anti-woke cult" of the right!

I don't think "woke" and "cancel culture" and any of that stuff is good either. The reason I don't think it is good is that it encourages shutting down conversation, and it is counter productive to actually getting things done. Among other reasons is that it does give bad actors on the right easy ammunition to attack progressives, especially when progressives are completely unwilling to take a stand against their own radicals. It is hard to argue that the radicals are "raging lunatics" and have "zero influence in the real world" when you apparently cannot even mildly chuckle at them getting rocks moved without being called a cultist.

The far right have a increasingly strong grip on one of americas political parties. In Britain they've really got the ear of the government. Elsewhere too they're pushing forward.
They have a recent record of murdering people and trying to overthrow democracy. They're a danger.

The far left are largely a bunch of people arguing on twitter about whether it's racist to call black people black and other nonsense. Its only a problem because the right have adopted tactics based on identity politics and kicking up culture wars.
Cutting off this feed to the right would be lovely... But it isn't going to happen by joining the war. People are always going to have daft views about everything under the sun. We need to get back to a place where that's all they remain.
Playing the right at their own game is a trap the left keeps falling into. We shouldn't be so stupid. Who cares about this woke stuff - whilst they're whinging about how some students decided they don't want a statue in their dorm anymore how about we instead focus on all that childhood poverty out there?

On this rock it's notable that you brought it up. It's some university spending a pittance in the grand scale to slightly alter its landscaping. How is that news worthy? Even if it was my local University I'd fail to care too much.
Some people pointed out it has some racism around it so they did the sensible thing and moved it to a less prominent place - everyone is happy. It is still there to be seen by those who want to see it and its easy to avoid by those who might be offended. Whatever.
If it was somebody posting out of nowhere about the rock to rant about how bad it is then the problem would be "woke" but that's not what happened here. That's not what happens in most circumstances. More than 9 times out of 10 when I see a story about something like this it's the anti woke cult making a lovely lefty bashing stick out of nothing.

If you want a serious discussion about this stuff then each point should be approached on its own merits rather than clumped into the standard issue culture war sides.
It's rarely as simple as "omg removing statues is erasing history" or "if a guy probably had a slave the statue should go". Each case depends on a lot of things and really its something for local communities to decide for themselves.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know the specifics of that particular symbol in that particular place.

My point of view is to inherently empathize/put myself in the shoes of people saying "this is fucked up and it shouldn't be here. It makes us feel like shit".

Who am I to say different or mock what they're saying?

And that is the crux of the debate.  Are historically oppressed groups always right in voicing grievances, or can they be wrong?

[PDH]

And that is the crux of the debate.  Are historically oppressed groups always right in voicing grievances, or can they be wrong?

I'm not sure that is what is being debated.  Historically oppressed groups are saying the symbols being used now continue an oppression that is ingrained.  The group in power has some saying "no they don't."

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not sure that is what is being debated.  Historically oppressed groups are saying the symbols being used now continue an oppression that is ingrained.  The group in power has some saying "no they don't."

That sounds to me a lot like what I just wrote.  What distinction are you making?

[PDH]

You brought in right and wrong.  I was speaking about how symbols affect groups in the minority differently than groups who make up the majority.  Much of the derision of cancel culture is much in the vein of how Berkut phrased it "racist rock" belittling the group who felt impacted by a rock that historically had been called by a racial epithet. 

It isn't a question of right and wrong, but of symbols and misunderstanding how they impact groups in the present and historically.

That said, as with any human endeavor, anything can be taken to illogical extremes.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

You brought in right and wrong.  I was speaking about how symbols affect groups in the minority differently than groups who make up the majority.  Much of the derision of cancel culture is much in the vein of how Berkut phrased it "racist rock" belittling the group who felt impacted by a rock that historically had been called by a racial epithet. 

It isn't a question of right and wrong, but of symbols and misunderstanding how they impact groups in the present and historically.

That said, as with any human endeavor, anything can be taken to illogical extremes.

That seems like an argument in the debate I framed rather than a separate argument.

[grumbler]

I don't get why anyone is up in arms about the fact that some private donors paid to have a rock moved some thousands of feet because the people involved thought that that was a good idea.  I am not outraged that I don't know the specifics and therefor feel entitled to be outraged; I just giggle a little bit at those who are so worked up over the movement of a rock they've never seen and never even heard of.

Save the outrage for things that are outrageous.  You won't have to wait long.

[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.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't get why anyone is up in arms about the fact that some private donors paid to have a rock moved some thousands of feet because the people involved thought that that was a good idea.  I am not outraged that I don't know the specifics and therefor feel entitled to be outraged; I just giggle a little bit at those who are so worked up over the movement of a rock they've never seen and never even heard of.

Save the outrage for things that are outrageous.  You won't have to wait long.

Did they pay specifically to have the rock moved, or was it a general fund for the University? Article didn't make that clear.

[Jacob]

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.

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.