The Real problem with cancel culture

[Josquius]

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...

And how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.

In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.

For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.

[Solmyr]

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.

Is this somehow a common thing? In my experience, these kinds of cases end with deletion and apology 99% of the time.

[grumbler]

And how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.

In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.

For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.

It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time.  It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.

[grumbler]

Is this somehow a common thing? In my experience, these kinds of cases end with deletion and apology 99% of the time.

This is only known to us because it happened at the WaPo.  I don't think that we have any data on how often this happens, but I doubt that a regular company would have taken such strong action... if any action at all.

[Josquius]

And how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.

In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.

For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.

It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time.  It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.

Wouldn't this happen in the old days too however?
You're in the pub and your colleague at the next table hears you making a sexist joke. Assume for argument they're recording for some reason at the time and can prove it (the big problem). They then decide to try and get you fired over it.

Honorable behaviour? No.
But is it anything new beyond the capacity to do it increasing? Also no.

[Sheilbh]

As I said in my first post about this - I'm not sure it is "cancel culture" and it feels different.

But there's definitely something of this culture in "cancel culture". It feels - not for the first time with the US media (the NYT is really bad at this) - that we're seeing a little bit too much of the sausage being made and that just because you're on social media professionally doesn't mean you should be quite so on social media.

I often think about which previously respected professions have most trashed their reputation by engaging with social media and getting a little bit too online - academics, barristers, journalists, politicians etc.

Over here I think about the bar having to send a warning to QCs to chill out a bit on social media because they were getting into really intemperate political fights, commenting on things that aren't necessarily their area of expertise and engaging in some political conspiracy thinking (normally of the centrist/Remainer-ultra variety) while having "QC" in their Twitter handle. There was a worry that it was all starting to bring the profession into disrepute.

I feel there's something similar with academics - but also journalists and politicians. The need to be compulsively online means we're seeing more than is probably helpful - and the slide from helpful contributor of expertise to conspiracy or pile-ons or ranting about something that isn't your area (but with the credibility of your title/bio) is pretty easy to go down.

It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time.  It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.

That's part of the problem with journalists and politicians on Twitter. That's not his personal account. It's his verified work account where he posts all of his stories or other interesting re-tweets etc (because he is a great reporter) - from the bio:

Covering politics for @washingtonpost. [email protected], 202-334-7387. @CWAUnion member. Avatar by @damnyouregis. Buy my book: http://tinyurl.com/h7wyg2c
Los Angeles washingtonpost.com/thetrailer/ Born September 26 Joined February 2008

I think it goes to Oex's point around the blurring of personal and professional on social media which is especially acute for journalists and politicians (but also others - like academics). He's a reporter for a paper but it's probably even more difficult to draw a line for, say, a freelancer.

[crazy canuck]

He tweeted something on his work account, which brings his actions into the work environment.  Work related discipline for that sort of thing has been common for a long time -well before social media.

I don't see the issue with another employee making the complaint and the employer acting on it.  This is day to day HR stuff. 

[grumbler]

@daveweigel is a personal account.  The work account is @washingtonpost.

[Berkut]

What horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.

If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.

This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture. 

A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.

[Berkut]

And how is this "cancel culture"?
Saying something offensive has always been cause for disciplinary action. Its always been the case that some companies have an overly trigger happy HR department.
The only things different these days are
1: its not just rich white conservative men you have to be careful of upsetting.
2: the Internet allows your stupid shit to be dicseminated widely and leave a lasting paper trail.

In the case of number 1 it's fair enough. Don't be a dick is the golden rule to live by. Of course there's such a variety of people in the world a lot of things are sure to upset somebody, so some perspective is required, but generally that is the case.

For number 2... That's only the fault of the left in sofar as San Francisco is a left wing place.

It's cancel culture because the guy retweeted a joke on his personal account on his own time.  It was a fellow-employee that dragged the Post into this in an attempt to get him fired.

Wouldn't this happen in the old days too however?
You're in the pub and your colleague at the next table hears you making a sexist joke. Assume for argument they're recording for some reason at the time and can prove it (the big problem). They then decide to try and get you fired over it.

Honorable behaviour? No.
But is it anything new beyond the capacity to do it increasing? Also no.

The problem is that the means by which they decided to get them fired is not going to HR, showing how their actions violated some company policy or law, and then asking for action to be taken.

Instead the started screaming in the public square how their company tolerates misogynists. They specifically are trying to get the outcome they want not by making a fair, rational, and answerable complaint, but rather by attempting to enlist the twitter mob to scare the employer into NOT evaluating the complaint rationally.

This is the very definition of attempt cancel culture/mob justice. Where the deciding force is not the merits of the complaint, but the anger of the mob. 

I am continually amazed that people will see shit like this and say "Yep, that is definitely how things ought to work".

This is the same shit that got mobs to destroy Jewish businesses, or got French catholic priests shoved onto boats and burned alive. Mob justice is fucking bad, even when you like the mob.

[Josquius]

What horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.

If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.

This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture.

A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.

As said, agreed its pretty shitty.
But there's always been office rivalries and dickish colleagues, HR has always been a quite detested part of the professional landscape by the rank and file that is believed to exist just to try and get you fired.

Whether it's a valid hr complaint or not, it remains an hr complaint that could have been made just as well 20 years ago. It's nothing new beyond the medium.

[Berkut]

What horseshit. This is NOT day to day HR stuff.

If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.

This is exactly what people talk about when they are talking about cancel culture.

A *valid* HR complaint has rules and procedures built in to protect all the parties involved. Screaming to the world that "this is how your company does business" is not "day to day HR stuff". If she wanted to act with integrity, she would have taken her complaint to HR privately and within the structure created for that.

As said, agreed its pretty shitty.
But there's always been office rivalries and dickish colleagues, HR has always been a quite detested part of the professional landscape by the rank and file that is believed to exist just to try and get you fired.

Whether it's a valid hr complaint or not, it remains an hr complaint that could have been made just as well 20 years ago. It's nothing new beyond the medium.

It is absolutely new to the medium, because prior to social media, nobody had the ability to, on their own power, advertise their complaint to millions of potential customers and incite the mob to act.

Or rather, it was very hard to do. And when there were cases that the circumstances did in fact allow the mob to influence actions, it almost always (but not always) turned out pretty badly.

Why are people so adamant to deny that what is happening right in front of them is clearly what is happening right in front of them?

[Sheilbh]

@daveweigel is a personal account.  The work account is @washingtonpost.

That's wrong.

Some (normally more conservative/risk averse) media organisations may require that you identify them in your Twitter handle - like the NYT or BBC - but whether they do that or not, your verified social media presence is part of your job as a journalist. It is your work in just the same way as trend back to newsletters etc is. Part of the job of being a journalist is building a social media brand and it's something media organisations absolutely care about - what they are measuring is your brand which can direct attention, not followers of @washingtonpost (and it's something you'll want as a freelancer too).

It's why most journalists will often have private (and normally locked) social media accounts for actual personal use. It's like the difference between a work and personal email address.

He tweeted something on his work account, which brings his actions into the work environment.  Work related discipline for that sort of thing has been common for a long time -well before social media.

I don't see the issue with another employee making the complaint and the employer acting on it.  This is day to day HR stuff. 

But it isn't - as I say that's what's got everyone in UK media watching with a sort of rubbernecking horror.
The whole situation is incredible because it should be a standard HR issue addressed by a normal functioning HR team. But that hasn't happened.

This should have been a simple HR matter. But it's largely been played out on social media over the course of a week. There's been different people (who work for the Washington Post) offering their opinion in real time, different pile-ons in different directions instigated or encouraged by people who are, ostensibly, colleagues. Predictable camps forming between the different people involved - including their freelancer friends who are not associated with the Washington Post.

The whole thing is incredibly messy and very public.

It's not the only example - there's been a few ongoing stories in the UK media about prominent (freelance) columnists of almost orchestrating Twitter pile-ons of less prominent (employed) reporters at the same paper if they don't like the way a story was framed or written. And where and how that falls on whether it's bullying, is it covered by social media usage policies (which every media organisation has in abundance) and the extent to which they even apply to a freelance commentator v actual staff. But I've not seen anything quite as long-running or involved as this.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you have a problem with another employees actions that are directly affecting YOU, you take it to HR. You don't post your complaint to social media and bring the twitter mob into it in an effort to make the company respond to the mob rather then the specifics of your complaint.

That's correct but reality is taking us in a different direction.

And the discussion about whether this is "work" account or "personal" account is telling because IMO the answer is obvious that the distinction between the two is effectively meaningless in the Internet 2.0 era.  Weigel's twitter account is a great example - nominally it is under his personal name but the description touts his WaPo connections and links to his WaPo work and his 600K followers are not there because they are interested in his pets and favorite tourist destinations.  Everything is blended and blurred together.

This is what happens when post civil rights era/Anita Hill HR culture meets present day social media realities.  The Post reporter creates social media sites to promote his Post affiliation and professional activity and broaden his professional reach and clout, but under his personal name.  A co-worker reacts, not by using traditional HR channels, but through her own social media accounts.

One can tsk tsk about it, but the none of these social media genies are going back into their neat little bottles. Everyone's laundry is now out on the line to see.  Companies have to adapt and adjust best they can.  And employees using social media to augment their professional presence should be accordingly forewarned.  Just like we all had to learn (or fail to learn) how to use and not use email.

[Berkut]

No question - but my issue here is that in order to deal with this, with this new reality, we have to acknowledge that it has great benefits and great potential negatives.

Having a mob try to get someone fired is bad. 

Now, perhaps there isn't much that can be done about that - but whatever CAN be done won't be done if the response to mobs getting people fired because someone incites them is "Yep, that's how that is supposed to work!"

This is culture. We don't have to accept that whatever happens is the only thing that COULD happen.

I agree that the dude was probably not wise to use his twitter account to repost off color jokes. But that is an issue that can and should be handled in a controlled, legal manner. Not by some mob contest to see who can get more people screeching louder.

If there was any justice, she would be fired for violating HR policy and trying to force her companies management to fire someone based on mob outrage. That is a much more serious crime then him telling a joke on his sorta kinda company associated twitter account.