Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2021, 07:23:29 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2021, 06:04:25 AMThe idea of Chinese rising up to demand democracy once they have become middle class has not really been tested. But so far that theory doesn't really hold up. Tiananmen was crushed rather easily.
Yeah and I'm not sure any Western coalition would win in some generational ideological struggle against China. For one, the chamber of commerce Right in most Western countries would be adamantly against it. Imagine the Cold War against the Soviets with big business interests firmly on the Soviet side. :hmm:
not only the businesses, but many of the people too. Both on the left and right authoritarian tendencies have gained massive strenght. Cancelling is in, civil discussion is out.
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2021, 03:06:33 AM
You guys should take it easy on Mono. It can be very dangerous for him to hint he might not agree with the regime. In some database somewhere a record is being made of his Internet activity, and it can be looked at whenever somebody important enough wants to give his job to somebody else.
When he claims he wants more Trumps elected President he gies too far though!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 04, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2021, 07:23:29 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2021, 06:04:25 AMThe idea of Chinese rising up to demand democracy once they have become middle class has not really been tested. But so far that theory doesn't really hold up. Tiananmen was crushed rather easily.
Yeah and I'm not sure any Western coalition would win in some generational ideological struggle against China. For one, the chamber of commerce Right in most Western countries would be adamantly against it. Imagine the Cold War against the Soviets with big business interests firmly on the Soviet side. :hmm:
not only the businesses, but many of the people too. Both on the left and right authoritarian tendencies have gained massive strenght. Cancelling is in, civil discussion is out.
I will never cancel you CI.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 04, 2021, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2021, 07:23:29 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2021, 06:04:25 AMThe idea of Chinese rising up to demand democracy once they have become middle class has not really been tested. But so far that theory doesn't really hold up. Tiananmen was crushed rather easily.
Yeah and I'm not sure any Western coalition would win in some generational ideological struggle against China. For one, the chamber of commerce Right in most Western countries would be adamantly against it. Imagine the Cold War against the Soviets with big business interests firmly on the Soviet side. :hmm:
not only the businesses, but many of the people too. Both on the left and right authoritarian tendencies have gained massive strenght. Cancelling is in, civil discussion is out.
"Cancel culture" is just a ridiculous smear of the long accepted art of the boycott. MLK and the civil rights leaders of the 60s were all about canceling politicians, businesses and organizations that were on the other side and they were right to do so.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2021, 10:10:19 PM
"Cancel culture" is just a ridiculous smear of the long accepted art of the boycott. MLK and the civil rights leaders of the 60s were all about canceling politicians, businesses and organizations that were on the other side and they were right to do so.
Hey I recognize plenty of "canceling" is done for admirable and principled purposes and against powerful targets that need pressuring, but it sure gets leveled at ordinary people for very petty reasons a lot. But hey small communities have been shunning people for petty reasons forever, no reason people on the internet would be different I guess. Canceling politicians, businesses, and organizations is one thing but taking one ordinary person's twitter post from ten years ago and using that to get them fired is something else.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2021, 10:10:19 PM
"Cancel culture" is just a ridiculous smear of the long accepted art of the boycott. MLK and the civil rights leaders of the 60s were all about canceling politicians, businesses and organizations that were on the other side and they were right to do so.
I think when people refer to cancel culture, they usually refer to individuals who are not public figures suffering the wrath of Twitter. There is nothing admirable about it. It's the worst kind of behavior humanity has to offer, and the fact that it's dressed up as a noble act in defense of justice just adds insult on top of injury.
Mobs are pretty much always bad.
Cancelling worked well for South Africa.
Less well for 1930s Germany.
Depends who is doing the cancelling really.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2021, 11:10:05 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2021, 10:10:19 PM
"Cancel culture" is just a ridiculous smear of the long accepted art of the boycott. MLK and the civil rights leaders of the 60s were all about canceling politicians, businesses and organizations that were on the other side and they were right to do so.
I think when people refer to cancel culture, they usually refer to individuals who are not public figures suffering the wrath of Twitter. There is nothing admirable about it. It's the worst kind of behavior humanity has to offer, and the fact that it's dressed up as a noble act in defense of justice just adds insult on top of injury.
We've been ostracizing people for petty things since civilization began. it's a just a bit easier now :D
Not to mention we canceled plenty of people on this board in the day, most notably Martinus.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2021, 08:25:53 AM
We've been ostracizing people for petty things since civilization began. it's a just a bit easier now :D
Exactly, it makes it much easier to do nasty things to people when you don't have to look them in the face, or if you don't even know them well enough to think of them as a human being.
Quote from: Syt on April 05, 2021, 08:37:15 AM
Not to mention we canceled plenty of people on this board in the day, most notably Martinus.
We excluded him from our club. We did not try to get him fired, or in general destroy every part of his life. I wonder if people are trying to minimize what "canceling" means to avoid thinking about what it really means for people on the receiving end of their righteous indignation.
Quote from: Syt on April 05, 2021, 08:37:15 AM
Not to mention we canceled plenty of people on this board in the day, most notably Martinus.
He canceled himself. had plenty of chances.
We didn't harass him or get him fired though.
It's too bad he isn't here, I wanted to give him shit for Milo becoming ex-gay.
Was Milo Yianopolous a victim of cancel culture?
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Was Milo Yianopolous a victim of cancel culture?
I know he got banned from twitter and there was something about pedophilia but I am not clear if he was a practitioner or just a fan. How much farther that went I don't know.
I will point out he is a provocateur and a celebrity not just some ordinary person.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2021, 11:10:05 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 04, 2021, 10:10:19 PM
"Cancel culture" is just a ridiculous smear of the long accepted art of the boycott. MLK and the civil rights leaders of the 60s were all about canceling politicians, businesses and organizations that were on the other side and they were right to do so.
I think when people refer to cancel culture, they usually refer to individuals who are not public figures suffering the wrath of Twitter. There is nothing admirable about it. It's the worst kind of behavior humanity has to offer, and the fact that it's dressed up as a noble act in defense of justice just adds insult on top of injury.
I think it means Democrats were impeached Trump twice. I think this because that's what Republicans said it was.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 11:09:56 AM
I know he got banned from twitter and there was something about pedophilia but I am not clear if he was a practitioner or just a fan. How much farther that went I don't know.
I will point out he is a provocateur and a celebrity not just some ordinary person.
Ah, I didn't realize that made a difference. I'll admit to being a bit unclear on the boundaries between generic internet hate mobs, ordinary "and here are the consequences of my actions" situations, and genuine examples of cancel culture.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 11:09:56 AM
I know he got banned from twitter and there was something about pedophilia but I am not clear if he was a practitioner or just a fan. How much farther that went I don't know.
I will point out he is a provocateur and a celebrity not just some ordinary person.
Ah, I didn't realize that made a difference. I'll admit to being a bit unclear on the boundaries between generic internet hate mobs, ordinary "and here are the consequences of my actions" situations, and genuine examples of cancel culture.
i think the defining line where normal* people have an issue with cancel culture is where joe shmo gets canceled. where they dox a person to get them fired and basically try to ruin their life
*as opposed to someone in public life who says something dumb and faces the repercussions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfzVJvTgMi8
Here's an "ordinary Schmoe" that lost his job because he smacked an Uber driver.
I don't think it's as simple as ordinary Schmoe vs. public figure.
Perhaps it's as easy as a convenient way for companies to identify idiots, like that Taco Bell guy, that slip through the normal company net.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2021, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 11:09:56 AM
I know he got banned from twitter and there was something about pedophilia but I am not clear if he was a practitioner or just a fan. How much farther that went I don't know.
I will point out he is a provocateur and a celebrity not just some ordinary person.
Ah, I didn't realize that made a difference. I'll admit to being a bit unclear on the boundaries between generic internet hate mobs, ordinary "and here are the consequences of my actions" situations, and genuine examples of cancel culture.
i think the defining line where normal* people have an issue with cancel culture is where joe shmo gets canceled. where they dox a person to get them fired and basically try to ruin their life
*as opposed to someone in public life who says something dumb and faces the repercussions.
I'm feeling deja vu but where does it sit if people are working to get day those white ladies who called cops on innocent black people?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2021, 11:25:50 AM
I think it means Democrats were impeached Trump twice. I think this because that's what Republicans said it was.
Just because Fox News gets their hands on the phrase doesn't mean that what the phrase used to describe doesn't exist. I think it would be counterproductive to let our language be controlled by propaganda psychopaths. The euphemism treadmill can't spin fast enough to stay ahead of right wing perversions, so I think it would be more productive to just ignore the right wing.
It's also productive to remember that if the left does something wrong, the right can still criticize it, they don't have to be perfectly wrong every time. Just because the right wing criticizes something doesn't mean that what their criticism is about is complete bullshit.
We have gradations of punishment in the criminal justice system, even for wrong things that people actually did do. In our criminal code, not every crime is punishable by mob lynching, and there is also due process before the punishment is carried out. I think the reasons behind this state of affairs are not just due to some esoteric legal concepts, but also because it's just a good policy in general that might be translatable to Twitter justice system as well.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 11:56:56 AM
I'm feeling deja vu but where does it sit if people are working to get day those white ladies who called cops on innocent black people?
what would happen to them before twitter? charged with false police reporting?
I personally don't have a horse in the race. I don't think cancel culture is wide spread enough to have a panic over it. I hear more about people bemoaning the effects of cancel culture way more then i hear about actual incidents of cancel culture.
What i was trying to do, and it appears not in the clearest way, is separate public personas complaining that they're losing jobs or advertisement over the consequences of their actions and trying to blame cancel culture.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2021, 12:10:24 PM
I personally don't have a horse in the race. I don't think cancel culture is wide spread enough to have a panic over it. I hear more about people bemoaning the effects of cancel culture way more then i hear about actual incidents of cancel culture.
The cancel culture has two very bad parts to it. The first part is obvious, some Joe Schmoe who may or may not be a nice person has their life ruined because a mob of justice warriors are in the mood to destroy someone. The second part is far more insidious: people start self-censoring themselves because they know that they'll be unemployable before they even have a chance to defend themselves or provide context. I realize some people think the second part is a good thing, and that is what truly scares me.
Somethings people should censor themselves on... and in fact, it has always been the case that one has to temper certain views to be employable and participate in society.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:16:05 PM
Somethings people should censor themselves on... and in fact, it has always been the case that one has to temper certain views to be employable and participate in society.
Equally true in the US and North Korea.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:16:05 PM
Somethings people should censor themselves on... and in fact, it has always been the case that one has to temper certain views to be employable and participate in society.
Equally true in the US and North Korea.
Well yes, there can be extremes. Not sure we need the slippery slope though given again we are really just looking at something people have done throughout history.
Garbon, do you think the nuclear option should be used for every incident? you imply that canceling is a valid option for false police reports. Is there escalation of punishment in your view? What's the next level up from trying to ruin someone's life?
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:16:05 PM
Somethings people should censor themselves on... and in fact, it has always been the case that one has to temper certain views to be employable and participate in society.
Equally true in the US and North Korea.
Well yes, there can be extremes. Not sure we need the slippery slope though given again we are really just looking at something people have done throughout history.
I think a good guideline is that if a person reasonably fears saying something that is actually defensible, but they either won't have a chance to present that defense or have receptive audience to hear it, then it's a definitive sign that we're too far in the North Korea direction, and probably a good distance too far.
In fact, I think we're too far even when all offensive thoughts have to be self-censored, because then you have no safety margin for society just being wrong about what should and shouldn't be offensive. There should be a space for things that people say where people would roll their eyes upon hearing it, but will not have the socially-accepted urge to destroy the person who said it.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2021, 12:31:19 PM
Garbon, do you think the nuclear option should be used for every incident? you imply that canceling is a valid option for false police reports. Is there escalation of punishment in your view? What's the next level up from trying to ruin someone's life?
No but then it isn't even used in most instances, let alone every instance.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:16:05 PM
Somethings people should censor themselves on... and in fact, it has always been the case that one has to temper certain views to be employable and participate in society.
Equally true in the US and North Korea.
Well yes, there can be extremes. Not sure we need the slippery slope though given again we are really just looking at something people have done throughout history.
I think a good guideline is that if a person reasonably fears saying something that is actually defensible, but they either won't have a chance to present that defense or have receptive audience to hear it, then it's a definitive sign that we're too far in the North Korea direction, and probably a good distance too far.
In fact, I think we're too far even when all offensive thoughts have to be self-censored, because then you have no safety margin for society just being wrong about what should and shouldn't be offensive. There should be a space for things that people say where people would roll their eyes upon hearing it, but will not have the socially-accepted urge to destroy the person who said it.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2021, 11:52:46 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfzVJvTgMi8
Here's an "ordinary Schmoe" that lost his job because he smacked an Uber driver.
I don't think it's as simple as ordinary Schmoe vs. public figure.
That's not "cancel culture," that's a corporation protecting itself against its own fucked-up employees. That Taco Bell assailant dude wasn't exercising speech, he was committing a violent crime.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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.
Who gets to decide what things said about gays or blacks are indefensible?
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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.
It may be hard to decide. That's all the more reason to err towards less self-censorship rather than more. We're better off having people not self-sensor something they should self-censor, rather than the other way around.
Even if people do have some truly repugnant beliefs, self-censorship just results in them seeking out other like-minded individuals with whom it would be safe to share such beliefs. Forcing bigots into echo chambers doesn't seem like the most productive way to get salvageable bigots to cut down on their bigotry.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:04:25 PM
Just because Fox News gets their hands on the phrase doesn't mean that what the phrase used to describe doesn't exist. I think it would be counterproductive to let our language be controlled by propaganda psychopaths. The euphemism treadmill can't spin fast enough to stay ahead of right wing perversions, so I think it would be more productive to just ignore the right wing.
It's also productive to remember that if the left does something wrong, the right can still criticize it, they don't have to be perfectly wrong every time. Just because the right wing criticizes something doesn't mean that what their criticism is about is complete bullshit.
Are you defining cancel culture as a left-wing phenomenon here? Because that's clearly the definition Fox News and the right wing (whom you say we should ignore) prefer.
On one hand, I - like everyone here I'm sure - am not super keen on innnocent people having their careers ruined (and I think that's what's primarily at stake) because someone whips up a hate mob for spurious reasons. On the other hand, I see the term "cancel culture" applied to a whole lot of things other than that, and typically in pursuit of a political agenda.
BTW, does this board have a "split thread" feature? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 12:49:38 PM
Are you defining cancel culture as a left-wing phenomenon here? Because that's clearly the definition Fox News and the right wing (whom you say we should ignore) prefer.
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. I don't know what Fox News prefers, that's kind of the point of ignoring them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2021, 12:36:51 PM
That's not "cancel culture," that's a corporation protecting itself against its own fucked-up employees. That Taco Bell assailant dude wasn't exercising speech, he was committing a violent crime.
Well yeah, but isn't that how the whole thing works? It weaponizes the tendency of corporations to protect themselves by drawing attention to things that could cause someone to lose their job, things that otherwise would have flown under the radar.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 11:09:56 AM
I know he got banned from twitter and there was something about pedophilia but I am not clear if he was a practitioner or just a fan. How much farther that went I don't know.
I will point out he is a provocateur and a celebrity not just some ordinary person.
Ah, I didn't realize that made a difference. I'll admit to being a bit unclear on the boundaries between generic internet hate mobs, ordinary "and here are the consequences of my actions" situations, and genuine examples of cancel culture.
There are three key differences in his situation:
1. He may have actually done something malevolent. I am not sure on the details with the whole pedophilia thing.
2. He actively sought being cancelled by provoking people. It was almost a performance art thing.
3. He is a celebrity who is insulated from the impacts to a large extent.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 12:49:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:04:25 PM
Just because Fox News gets their hands on the phrase doesn't mean that what the phrase used to describe doesn't exist. I think it would be counterproductive to let our language be controlled by propaganda psychopaths. The euphemism treadmill can't spin fast enough to stay ahead of right wing perversions, so I think it would be more productive to just ignore the right wing.
It's also productive to remember that if the left does something wrong, the right can still criticize it, they don't have to be perfectly wrong every time. Just because the right wing criticizes something doesn't mean that what their criticism is about is complete bullshit.
Are you defining cancel culture as a left-wing phenomenon here? Because that's clearly the definition Fox News and the right wing (whom you say we should ignore) prefer.
On one hand, I - like everyone here I'm sure - am not super keen on innnocent people having their careers ruined (and I think that's what's primarily at stake) because someone whips up a hate mob for spurious reasons. On the other hand, I see the term "cancel culture" applied to a whole lot of things other than that, and typically in pursuit of a political agenda.
Oh no. The right does it all the time. But they don't see the problem with cancelling people because their indignation is seen as more righteous by them. Also: they lost the twitter culture war to a large degree so they are currently on the defensive.
When Colin Kaepernick knelt, to throw out a celebrity example, they wanted everybody who took a knee during the national anthem fired and boycotted and so forth. But it was to defend 'Murica so it wasn't cancel culture to them I guess.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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.
The right wing definitely would engage in cancel culture if they could get away with it. So what, what does that change? It's wrong regardless of who does it, and if the left wing doesn't police their own, then they'll go the way of the right wing.
As a historical note, be careful of corporations protecting themselves, they are amoral entities and they protect themselves for their own interests (or rather corporate employees don't feel like going out on a limb protecting someone when going with the flow is an easier option). Many decades ago being outed as gay could make corporations protect themselves. Why should a corporation make their clients feel all icky and shit about having to deal with a gay salesperson when they can go with someone uncontroversial instead?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2021, 12:41:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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.
Who gets to decide what things said about gays or blacks are indefensible?
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 01:00:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 01:07:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2021, 01:00:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 12:36:49 PM
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?
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?
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:53:07 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 12:49:46 PM
BTW, does this board have a "split thread" feature? :hmm:
It does. I may get around to it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2021, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 01:27:00 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 01:27:00 PM
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!!!! :lol:
But yeah, sure fair enough.
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 01:34:23 PM
Proving my point!!!! :lol:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 01:39:03 PM
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."
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2021, 01:43:26 PM
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.
The left wing version of cancelling where an average person says something stupid and this gets forwarded to their boss, they get fired, etc... Does suck.
On occasion it can be justified but sometimes people get carried away.
Contra points did a video on this recently. She fell victim to it.
Of course this must be remembered in the context of the right wing version of cancelling, where they fucking murder you.
Sure sure. Not everyone. A minority of cases end up in physical violence. But the level of hate and threats left wing figures get absolutely dwarves that recieved by the right.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 01:29:14 PM
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.
If you're saying that people can be wrong when they accuse another of wrongdoing, when we agree and I guess we're done.
One thought I have on cancel culture is I think you can have rigorous standards that you apply to the past if you are open to change and forgiveness, or you can be incredibly lax about things but if someone's been ostracised that's it.
I feel like we are drifting into a rigorous and unforgiving space which isn't sustainable. Possibly because a lot of it is actually just bad faith political actors - I also wonder if it's because it's American and this is your protestant roots coming to the fore (like how everything everything is described "doing work" because work is a good thing that gives worth rather than an unfortuate trap we're all in <_<).
I always think about Naz Shah who is a Labour MP who posted some anti-semitic stuff before she was elected and it then re-surfaced once she was an MP. And she gave, to my mind, the best response I've seen - she apologised for it (not just for "any offence I may have caused"), she engaged with her local Jewish community, she did training with the Community Support Trust and is now actually incredibly aware around anti-semitic tropes. By every measure it's incredibly sincere and she changed because she was horrified at the idea that she was actually being anti-semitic. But her bad posts are still used by opponents on the right as an example of why she's anti-semitic, I don't know if there'd be a similar process of her being rehabilitated into the mainstream now and a lot on the left point to her as an example of how the accusations of anti-semitism are themselves being made in bad faith for political reasons (see the right still going after her).
It's the post-cancelling thing I find slightly interesting - at the minute I think the incentives are that you are better off becoming a professional victim of cancel culture in the right/left media space which reinforces the whole thing, than taking the Naz Shah route.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
It's the post-cancelling thing I find slightly interesting - at the minute I think the incentives are that you are better off becoming a professional victim of cancel culture in the right/left media space which reinforces the whole thing, than taking the Naz Shah route.
You're probably right, but I think that's because the mob is rarely interested in reform or forgiveness. It's much like the Great Purge: if you were targeted by NKVD, you were in a bad place no matter what, but confessing and apologizing was just going to make your odds of survival even more remote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2021, 02:36:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2021, 01:29:14 PM
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.
If you're saying that people can be wrong when they accuse another of wrongdoing, when we agree and I guess we're done.
But of course. To hold a contrary opinion would be mad.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2021, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2021, 01:34:23 PM
Proving my point!!!! :lol:
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.
That is really nuts about how woke the left has become.
The immigration debate certainly went this way - once the right adopted "WE FUCKING HATE IMMIGRANTS!" as a rallying cry, the left decided anything other then "ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE OSSUM!!!" is fascist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 05, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
One thought I have on cancel culture is I think you can have rigorous standards that you apply to the past if you are open to change and forgiveness, or you can be incredibly lax about things but if someone's been ostracised that's it.
I feel like we are drifting into a rigorous and unforgiving space which isn't sustainable. Possibly because a lot of it is actually just bad faith political actors - I also wonder if it's because it's American and this is your protestant roots coming to the fore (like how everything everything is described "doing work" because work is a good thing that gives worth rather than an unfortuate trap we're all in <_<).
I always think about Naz Shah who is a Labour MP who posted some anti-semitic stuff before she was elected and it then re-surfaced once she was an MP. And she gave, to my mind, the best response I've seen - she apologised for it (not just for "any offence I may have caused"), she engaged with her local Jewish community, she did training with the Community Support Trust and is now actually incredibly aware around anti-semitic tropes. By every measure it's incredibly sincere and she changed because she was horrified at the idea that she was actually being anti-semitic. But her bad posts are still used by opponents on the right as an example of why she's anti-semitic, I don't know if there'd be a similar process of her being rehabilitated into the mainstream now and a lot on the left point to her as an example of how the accusations of anti-semitism are themselves being made in bad faith for political reasons (see the right still going after her).
It's the post-cancelling thing I find slightly interesting - at the minute I think the incentives are that you are better off becoming a professional victim of cancel culture in the right/left media space which reinforces the whole thing, than taking the Naz Shah route.
Sam Harris had a good argument about this in one of his podcasts.
He mentioned that if it came out that you employed a murderer who had gotten out of prison, figured out their life, and never had another violent episode at all, you would be seen as being something of a hero in that figures redemption story.
But if it came out that you employed someone who had once shown up at a party in blackface, but otherwise never evidenced any racist tendencies, you can be certain that the woke left would destroy your business if you didn't fire that person RIGHT NOW and there would be zero interest in any stories about their life outside that picture of them as a 21 year old college student.
I think that's a lot less common in Europe where there are stronger employee rights and you can't just fire people - that feels like a key part of addressing it if you're really worried about "cancel culture". Here it is far more people in positions of responsibility.
If you can't legally fire someone for something they did on social media 5 years ago then the demands for that kind of go away.
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
Then the Hungarian-nationality goalkeeper coach of Hertha Berlin had an interview in a pro-government newspaper basically outlining how the above guy was wrong and how this whole diversity thing is bad.
So Hertha has fired him.
That's a tie in football terms: 1-1.
My dad lost a job 30 years ago for making a political endorsement.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 06, 2021, 09:16:04 AM
My dad lost a job 30 years ago for making a political endorsement.
Yeah it is not exactly a new thing, especially for people who live in small communities. Just the internet has empowered the busy bodies.
Who did he endorse? Ross Perot?
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
That was Péter Gulásci, right?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 06, 2021, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
That was Péter Gulásci, right?
No but yes, he also made pro-not being a fascist comments, that's true. He is not a commentator though and don't have his livelihood depend on Orban's good graces.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2021, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 06, 2021, 09:16:04 AM
My dad lost a job 30 years ago for making a political endorsement.
Yeah it is not exactly a new thing, especially for people who live in small communities. Just the internet has empowered the busy bodies.
Who did he endorse? Ross Perot?
Local congressional candidate.
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 06, 2021, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
That was Péter Gulásci, right?
No but yes, he also made pro-not being a fascist comments, that's true. He is not a commentator though and don't have his livelihood depend on Orban's good graces.
So what was the name of the first one? Footy sides around here only seem to mention Péter Gulásci.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 06, 2021, 09:54:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 06, 2021, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
That was Péter Gulásci, right?
No but yes, he also made pro-not being a fascist comments, that's true. He is not a commentator though and don't have his livelihood depend on Orban's good graces.
So what was the name of the first one? Footy sides around here only seem to mention Péter Gulásci.
Ah yes because the goalkeeper coach guy was reacting to Gulacsi's comments, my mistake.
The anti-fascist commentator who got fired by the oligarch TV was Janos Hrutka.
Obrigado.
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
In Hungary an ex-footballer now football commentator tweeted in support of gay adoption rights (the government was doing a whole "family is a man and a woman" thing so a counter "family is family" thing was started by some people, which this commentator supported). So he got fired by the Fidesz oligarch-owned station he worked at. Well, this wasn't the official reason, but even pro-government pundits agreed yes it was the reason.
Then the Hungarian-nationality goalkeeper coach of Hertha Berlin had an interview in a pro-government newspaper basically outlining how the above guy was wrong and how this whole diversity thing is bad.
So Hertha has fired him.
Very rightly, the anti-fascist footballer and the organisation behind the "family is family" anti-fascist slogan both denounced Hertha's decision to fire the goalkeeper coach for expressing his opinion.
Hopefully this state of affairs will make libertarians catch up to the fact that effective freedom means protection of individuals from all entities that hold power over them, not just from the government. I may even call myself a libertarian if they collectively reach that breakthrough.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2021, 08:23:52 AM
Hopefully this state of affairs will make libertarians catch up to the fact that effective freedom means protection of individuals from all entities that hold power over them, not just from the government. I may even call myself a libertarian if they collectively reach that breakthrough.
Yeah - I mean one reading of all this is that conservatives in the US spent years pushing for the rights of corporations and entities to "political speech" and are now horrified to find that the consequence of that is not just to make politics more shaped to corporate interests/needs but to make corporate decisions more shaped by politics.
That combined with the American right deciding that rather than make any compromises that would enable it to become a majority conservative party (as was talked about in the 2000s, as the CDU normally are in Germany, or the Tories in Britain, or the LDP in Japan), they would rather stay a minority that makes no changes and really leans into the minoritarian aspects of the US constitution. The problem is in terms of market or consumer power you're chasing the majority - so if there's a similar proportion of hyper-engaged individuals on either side you'd probably ignore the GOP side because it'll be smaller.
I'm happy that today, corporations seem to be aligned with the good guys, but I'm still very uncomfortable that they have such a role to play. I have some recourse against being punished by the government, but I have no recourse against corporations all collectively making decisions that make their potential problems go away.