Cancel Culture Conversation Not Cancelled

[garbon]

Who decides what is defensible? Large swathes of the US population would have no problem with people who say terrible things about gays and blacks. And in fact, many still in positions to deny jobs to people use their freedom of speech to note that they are gay.

Simultaneously, they cry of cancel culture.

Tons of people who are cancelled have no objectionable views at all, or they had them in the past and have evolved. They made a dumb joke or were being edgy and just got the wrong people's attention.

If somebody is actively doing malevolent things to oppressed groups and action is being taken that is a different deal. As I said I recognize that plenty of "cancelling" is principled and done to protect people and apply pressure.

How many people are we talking about in group one that we are justified spending so much digital ink on the topic?

[Admiral Yi]

I think you might mean terrible as I didn't say they are indefensible.

But I'd say the general consensus on that is changing all the time.

I meant indefensible.  It's the obverse of the question you asked.

[Valmy]

Who decides what is defensible? Large swathes of the US population would have no problem with people who say terrible things about gays and blacks. And in fact, many still in positions to deny jobs to people use their freedom of speech to note that they are gay.

Simultaneously, they cry of cancel culture.

Tons of people who are cancelled have no objectionable views at all, or they had them in the past and have evolved. They made a dumb joke or were being edgy and just got the wrong people's attention.

If somebody is actively doing malevolent things to oppressed groups and action is being taken that is a different deal. As I said I recognize that plenty of "cancelling" is principled and done to protect people and apply pressure.

How many people are we talking about in group one that we are justified spending so much digital ink on the topic?

I have no statistics but I have personally seen it occur several times in my internet career. And enough that numerous articles and discussions have happened about it for over a decade. I wouldn't bring it up if I did not witness it myself numerous times and find it horrifying.

What number would it have to be for you to think we are justified talking about it?

[DGuller]

Are there minimum victim number requirements for other discussions?  What about hate crimes, do we need some thresholds for the number of attacks before we find the group's anxiety about them justified?

[Jacob]

Yes, I do think it is a left-wing phenomenon.  The right wing has no power to cancel someone, except maybe in internal power struggles.

So it's not left wing by definition (it's only cancel culture when the left does it), but rather by more-or-less-coincidence only the left has this power. Fair enough. I feel there's a bit of nuance around the edges, though.

Personally I'd think that Gamergate causing Alison Rapp to lose her job at Nintendo by manufacturing and circulating accusations of pedophilia, when her real offense was saying feminist things about games on the internet is an example of right wing cancelling. And IMO, that's what gamergate was all about writ large "ethics in gamejournalism" notwithstanding.

I don't think people keeping the name, picture, and actions of Brock Turner in rotation after what to them seemed a laughably light sentence for rape is particularly leftish, and it's IMO clearly an attempt to keep him cancelled. In general, there seems to be fairly strong straing of "this jerk got let off too lightly for their crime, let's shame them publically" which doesn't strike me is being particularly leftish.

Then there's stuff around animal cruelty - like the Vancouver CEO who lost his job after a video surfaced of him kicking his dog in an elevator. Again, that strikes me as not particularly leftish.

I don't know if you'd consider women losing their jobs due to their employers learning they have an onlyfans account to be cancel culture, but if it is that doesn't strike my as particularly leftish.

It's not like the US reactionary right doesn't try to cancel their opponents (just have a look in Syt's FB thread), they just fail to resonate with a wide enough section of the public for it to work.

I don't know what Fox News prefers, that's kind of the point of ignoring them.

IMO Fox News has a fairly solid track record of framing the discourse, even for people who don't watch them.

[Jacob]

BTW, does this board have a "split thread" feature? 

It does. I may get around to it.

[garbon]

I think you might mean terrible as I didn't say they are indefensible.

But I'd say the general consensus on that is changing all the time.

I meant indefensible.  It's the obverse of the question you asked.

Not really. I was pointing out that what is indefensible (in the context of this discussion) isn't really fixed. Different groups assign different values.

[garbon]

Are there minimum victim number requirements for other discussions?  What about hate crimes, do we need some thresholds for the number of attacks before we find the group's anxiety about them justified?

Well we certainly discuss all of the type of instances where people are wronged, while at the same time often gravitate back to victims of cancel culture.

[DGuller]

IMO Fox News has a fairly solid track record of framing the discourse, even for people who don't watch them.

They may have, but Barack Obama and Andrew Yang criticized "cancel culture", using that term, long before it was a fashionable term on the right (or at least long before I was aware that it was used on the right, I'm doing my best to not be too aware for my own sanity).

[Jacob]

IMO Fox News has a fairly solid track record of framing the discourse, even for people who don't watch them.

They may have, but Barack Obama and Andrew Yang criticized "cancel culture", using that term, long before it was a fashionable term on the right (or at least long before I was aware that it was used on the right, I'm doing my best to not be too aware for my own sanity).

Proving my point!!!!

But yeah, sure fair enough.

[DGuller]

Proving my point!!!!

But yeah, sure fair enough.

How would that prove your point?  Obama spoke out about the cancel culture way before Fox News did, as far as I am aware.  Fox News did not need to frame anything or invent any terms for this discussion, left wingers like me already did their work for them.  As I said before, Fox News doesn't need to stay silent on the bad things some on the left actually do engage in, they don't need to focus solely on made up bullshit.  These bad things don't suddenly become good once Fox News gets on the case.

[HVC]

Was Obama talking about leftists canceling people or rightist? if its rightist then that's the point jacob was trying to make. if i read it correctly.

[Valmy]

Fox only got obsessed with this in the past year and they are only doing it because they have nothing substantial to attack the Democrats on. They need culture war ammo, always the culture war to rile up the right.

[Jacob]

How would that prove your point?  Obama spoke out about the cancel culture way before Fox News did, as far as I am aware.  Fox News did not need to frame anything or invent any terms for this discussion, left wingers like me already did their work for them.  As I said before, Fox News doesn't need to stay silent on the bad things some on the left actually do engage in, they don't need to focus solely on made up bullshit.  These bad things don't suddenly become good once Fox News gets on the case.

"Even Obama was influenced by Fox". It wasn't a serious statement though. Hence the "!!!!!!" And the "But yeah sure, fair enough."

[DGuller]

Was Obama talking about leftists canceling people or rightist? if its rightist then that's the point jacob was trying to make. if i read it correctly.

He was addressing the left, telling them that being judgmental is not the right way to change the world.