The Real problem with cancel culture

[Admiral Yi]

Are there many examples of people's freedom to speak being majorly impacted by "cancellations"? I have yet to see anyone forced to censor themselves unless they really want to use racist rhetoric without consequences. Heck, many of those "cancelled" are ranting about it in major national media - doesn't seem their freedom of speech was impacted at all.

The same could be said of someone who had been beaten up for voicing an unpopular opinion, or imprisoned, or made to pay a fine.  They would still have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we can't object to their treatment.

[The Brain]

If I were to be ostracized for opinions that I have expressed then that would be bad, but possibly something I could risk. But being ostracized for opinions that are 180 degrees different from what I have expressed is extremely unattractive to me. I have tasted it in a very small and limited way, and I did not care for it at all. That risk makes me very reluctant to engage in public discourse.

To some people, like me, a society where people can voice their opinions without fear is a positive thing. To many people it is a negative thing. There is no mystery here, and both positions are as valid as the other. It's just a difference in values.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure if this is really "cancel culture" but watching the latest US media controversy and it's like a teenage drama. Everything playing out on Twitter with multi-day, multi-directional intersecting pile-ones from people who are, ostensibly, colleagues.

Not sure it's a great look and you can hardly blame the average punter for thinking the whole paper's turned into a madhouse.

Much as it pains me to say - I feel like this is the sort of issue that should have been solved by a semi-competent HR department. The whole thing is mad.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure if this is really "cancel culture" but watching the latest US media controversy and it's like a teenage drama. Everything playing out on Twitter with multi-day, multi-directional intersecting pile-ones from people who are, ostensibly, colleagues.

Not sure it's a great look and you can hardly blame the average punter for thinking the whole paper's turned into a madhouse.

Much as it pains me to say - I feel like this is the sort of issue that should have been solved by a semi-competent HR department. The whole thing is mad.

Is this the WaPo brouhaha?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again

[Razgovory]

The fundamental problem with the debate about the chilling effect of cancel culture is that it's very hard for one side to make their point.  I myself censor myself here and on Internet in general on certain topics, and just let people say things I have very good professional reasons to believe are false.

The conversation will go something like:

"What are you self-censoring yourself about?"
"The things I don't want to discuss?"
"Which things you don't want to discuss?"
"The things that I think are too dangerous to discuss."
"Like what?"
"Like the things I don't want to talk about."

I'm going to throw this out there:  if people themselves feel like they're being forced to self-censor to an unreasonable degree, then maybe that alone is all the proof you need.

I wonder what DG is self-censoring. 

[Barrister]

Yeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again

Yeah, I didn't even understand what the original "sin" was of the one writer.

But the paper itself has posted basically "hey, if you have an issue with a colleague take it right to that colleague", with one of the complainants then replying 'I don't know how speaking up about sexism, discrimination and unequal treatment happening here in our newsroom is wrong".

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1534574217718648832

[Sheilbh]

He retweeted this and then his colleague commented:


Which is bad (by him). I think it probably needed to go as far as complaining to HR/his boss, him getting a bollocking and un-retweeting it.

I'm not sure it's needed a week of discourse, him getting suspended without pay, think pieces or two mutually hostile camps forming on broadly predictable camps. That it's unfolded this way all messily and on Twitter with people on both sides dragging in and piling on others.

Edit: I think it's fair for her to call it out publicly and complain to his boss/HR.

[FunkMonk]

Yeah. I keep on trying to ignore it and then it, somehow, flares up again

The Conservative Twittersphere has been feasting this week.

The whole thing is mad high school drama.

[Sheilbh]

The Conservative Twittersphere has been feasting this week.

The whole thing is mad high school drama.

British media Twitter has also been watching agog

It really is - mixed with an opportunity for the media to report on the media. I always quite like the Washington Post because it isn't anywhere near as self-involved as the New York Times. But this feels very much approaching the level of NYT - or BBC commenting on themselves.

Though I do always love watching a BBC host of a BBC news programme follow up a report on a BBC scandal by noting that "the BBC were approached for comment and has not responded"

[grumbler]

Yeah, I didn't even understand what the original "sin" was of the one writer.

But the paper itself has posted basically "hey, if you have an issue with a colleague take it right to that colleague", with one of the complainants then replying 'I don't know how speaking up about sexism, discrimination and unequal treatment happening here in our newsroom is wrong".

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1534574217718648832

The original sin was that a post writer reposted (on his own account and is own time) a joke that was, frankly, kinda funny.  The complainer took the issue public.  The reposter deleted the repost and apologized, but that wasn't enough and eventually he was suspended for a month without pay. It has now turned into a controversy over whether or not Post reporters should launch nuclear weapons as the first resort and/or whether the Post would have taken any action had the first complainer not gone nuclear.

[Barrister]

He retweeted this and then his colleague commented:


Which is bad (by him). I think it probably needed to go as far as complaining to HR/his boss, him getting a bollocking and un-retweeting it.

I'm not sure it's needed a week of discourse, him getting suspended without pay, think pieces or two mutually hostile camps forming on broadly predictable camps. That it's unfolded this way all messily and on Twitter with people on both sides dragging in and piling on others.

Edit: I think it's fair for her to call it out publicly and complain to his boss/HR.

Oh yes - I did see that.  I remember thinking "meh - joke is in poor taste" but yeah absolutely - should have ended with deleting the retweet and a brief apology.

[Berkut]

Nope, there is no problem at all with cancel culture. Gosh no.

I mean, retweeting a joke is surely grounds for reasonable people to have someone fired.

And as far as I can tell, there is no evidence at all that something like this would have a chilling effect on anyone else considering whether or not to post jokes on their personal twitter account, so we should assume that there is no such effect.

Also, has anyone noticed that the people who mostly complain about this stuff are white? Of course, the people who mostly try to get people cancelled are white as well, but that's not nearly as interesting, I am sure...

[Admiral Yi]

I have noticed most of the people complaining about comedians during the show are women.

[Eddie Teach]

The fundamental problem with the debate about the chilling effect of cancel culture is that it's very hard for one side to make their point.  I myself censor myself here and on Internet in general on certain topics, and just let people say things I have very good professional reasons to believe are false.

The conversation will go something like:

"What are you self-censoring yourself about?"
"The things I don't want to discuss?"
"Which things you don't want to discuss?"
"The things that I think are too dangerous to discuss."
"Like what?"
"Like the things I don't want to talk about."

I'm going to throw this out there:  if people themselves feel like they're being forced to self-censor to an unreasonable degree, then maybe that alone is all the proof you need.

I wonder what DG is self-censoring.

If he's innocent, he has nothing to hide?