Cancel Culture Conversation Not Cancelled

[DGuller]

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.

[garbon]

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.

[garbon]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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?

[DGuller]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[DGuller]

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

[DGuller]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[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.

[DGuller]

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?

[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.

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.