5 ms·

Imo, it's an unalienable right for everybody, but that doesn't mean cancel culture won't #$(% on you for speaking your belief. However, sometimes you have to sa

by Vysero 6y ago

Imo, it's an unalienable right for everybody, but that doesn't mean cancel culture won't #$(% on you for speaking your belief. However, sometimes you have to say what you believe in even if you know you are going to be shamed for it. Perhaps this would be a good time for us all to go re-read The Scarlet Letter, eh?

isbjorn16 6y ago
Ugh. Can we stop with the cancel culture narrative? When people say objectionable things, there may be consequences. This unhinged proposition that you should have an invincibility force field around you when you spit out obnoxious shit is absurd. If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated. Nobody is being victimized here. Everyone's rights are being upheld and maintained. If my employer hated this comment enough to fire me, then onward I go to another employer, or onward to destitution. If I'm not confident that what I say is mainstream enough that I could be fired for it, then I shouldn't say it, or I should accept that I'm not mainstream enough and thus can't attempt to live in mainstream society. Arguments against "cancel culture" fundamentally mean that people should be forced to have a relationship with me they may not want even if I'm an objectionable, reprehensible twat, and that's too bad for them, because my position is somehow more important than their right to freely associate. I reject this utterly.
- dx87 6y ago
  > If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated. If it stopped at people they were actually associated with, then you may have a point. That's not the reality of the situation though, because people will stir up outrage mobs who have no association with you, your employer, your school, etc., and harass them until you are punished for what you said.
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    It's dredging up history (and for once, 'dredge' is exactly the right word), and relitigating it with the presumption that everyone at that time recognized the same issues as we do now in our perfected, enlightened minds. It is graceless, faithless, trustless, bigoted and suspicious towards past generations, unanchored in history, and sought for the purpose of personal moral status more than the perceived rectification of injustice.
    - isbjorn16 6y ago
      I feel like we're talking about two wildly different things. On the one hand, we have a Tucker Carlson character doing, well, Tucker Carlson things. People got upset, started listing off all the advertising relationships on his show, and raised a ruckus. This isn't some ancient history scenario, it's happening now, in real life. On the other, we have slaver statues being dumped into harbors in England. This is way more in line with your comment. Are you lumping them both together into cancel culture? They seem pretty different in many respects to me, though they do share some characteristics as well. I'm trying to understand and would appreciate your thoughts.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        They lie at the same roots, don't they? Different people at different level of engagement in different arenas, but acting on the same baseline ideas. Whether ten years ago or centuries ago, rummaging through the past is the same, only some of the results have more immediate effect. Many times that person was in the wrong, but may have learned since. Many times, only selective views on the person are presented, to shape a narrative of evil. The same tools, the same motivations, just in different contexts and scopes.
        isbjorn16 6y ago
        Again, I am not talking about 10 years ago, I'm talking about 10 hours ago or 10 days ago. I realize time is a continuum and that's why it gets wonky, but surely people can respond to something someone has said now, with their words and freedom to associate, and not try to conflate that with judging slave traders by today's standards. I mean, I'm still wildly against statues of slave traders, but to me they're different topics entirely.
- aa66tt55rr44 6y ago
  People online constantly go "cancel culture ruins lives" as if being "cancelled" isn't the easiest grift ever as you get an endless legion of conservative nutters to worship you for being against the ebil cancelling SJWs forevermore.
- steve_g 6y ago
  I reject your rejection. Cancel culture is terrible because the goal is to destroy people who hold unpopular beliefs. It not enough to refute the belief. The transgressor must be punished with the full fury that internet-enhanced social pressure can bring to bear. The goal is to punish and destroy. Shaming and social opprobrium can work in a community where there's interaction between the parties. This also allows for grace and restoration. It doesn't work in the global twitter-verse. Civilization is the ability to live in peace with people that aren't like you - you may disagree with them, disapprove of them, or dislike them, but you don't seek to destroy them. We seem to be losing it.
  - isbjorn16 6y ago
    Destroy, or show there are ramifications for speech? I find the "I can say whatever I want, it's just words" to be an immature stance to hold. Words hold power, and power can be used or misused. We know words hold power; otherwise protesting wouldn't work, MLK's letters from a birmingham jail wouldn't matter, even the very constitution itself would be pointless. So if that power is being applied to harm people, there needs to be a check on that. I fully agree it isn't the government's role to play that part; it's society's full, universal, democratic decision what to do with it. The final result is "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you". If you don't like the worst that the so-called "cancel culture" response can bring you, then the solution is relatively simple: choose your words carefully and own them.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      > it's society's full, universal, democratic decision what to do with it. That might be fine, if that were the way it worked. In practice, though, it seems more that it's a minority forming a howling mob that brings the heat. > "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you" I prefer the legal system to mob "justice".
  - dfxm12 6y ago
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  I think the trouble with this analysis is, 'mainstream' doesn't mean what we think it means. Most people do not care about, for example, what jokes Kevin Hart told ten years ago. Mores change, tastes differ, and mainstream society gets that. It's actually a tiny minority that want nothing to do with others on the basis of incautious speech, especially after that much time. But when nine people don't really care about something and the tenth feels strongly about it, that person will get their way. That is a great natural defence against mob rule and stagnation. But it does not mean that most people share the sentiment of the intolerant minority. To address your example of you and your boss, in most cases it's more as though your boss doesn't care what you said, but someone shows up to your place of work and makes them care by being more unpleasant than the consequences of firing you. It's the old paradox of the tolerant society writ large. I think the 'cancel culture' narrative is the early stages of mainstream culture working out where to draw a border around what accommodations an intolerant minority can and cannot expect of the majority.

by Vysero 6y ago

isbjorn16 6y ago

Ugh. Can we stop with the cancel culture narrative? When people say objectionable things, there may be consequences. This unhinged proposition that you should have an invincibility force field around you when you spit out obnoxious shit is absurd. If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated. Nobody is being victimized here. Everyone's rights are being upheld and maintained. If my employer hated this comment enough to fire me, then onward I go to another employer, or onward to destitution. If I'm not confident that what I say is mainstream enough that I could be fired for it, then I shouldn't say it, or I should accept that I'm not mainstream enough and thus can't attempt to live in mainstream society. Arguments against "cancel culture" fundamentally mean that people should be forced to have a relationship with me they may not want even if I'm an objectionable, reprehensible twat, and that's too bad for them, because my position is somehow more important than their right to freely associate. I reject this utterly.

dx87 6y ago
> If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated. If it stopped at people they were actually associated with, then you may have a point. That's not the reality of the situation though, because people will stir up outrage mobs who have no association with you, your employer, your school, etc., and harass them until you are punished for what you said.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  It's dredging up history (and for once, 'dredge' is exactly the right word), and relitigating it with the presumption that everyone at that time recognized the same issues as we do now in our perfected, enlightened minds. It is graceless, faithless, trustless, bigoted and suspicious towards past generations, unanchored in history, and sought for the purpose of personal moral status more than the perceived rectification of injustice.
  - isbjorn16 6y ago
    I feel like we're talking about two wildly different things. On the one hand, we have a Tucker Carlson character doing, well, Tucker Carlson things. People got upset, started listing off all the advertising relationships on his show, and raised a ruckus. This isn't some ancient history scenario, it's happening now, in real life. On the other, we have slaver statues being dumped into harbors in England. This is way more in line with your comment. Are you lumping them both together into cancel culture? They seem pretty different in many respects to me, though they do share some characteristics as well. I'm trying to understand and would appreciate your thoughts.
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      They lie at the same roots, don't they? Different people at different level of engagement in different arenas, but acting on the same baseline ideas. Whether ten years ago or centuries ago, rummaging through the past is the same, only some of the results have more immediate effect. Many times that person was in the wrong, but may have learned since. Many times, only selective views on the person are presented, to shape a narrative of evil. The same tools, the same motivations, just in different contexts and scopes.
      - isbjorn16 6y ago
        Again, I am not talking about 10 years ago, I'm talking about 10 hours ago or 10 days ago. I realize time is a continuum and that's why it gets wonky, but surely people can respond to something someone has said now, with their words and freedom to associate, and not try to conflate that with judging slave traders by today's standards. I mean, I'm still wildly against statues of slave traders, but to me they're different topics entirely.
aa66tt55rr44 6y ago
People online constantly go "cancel culture ruins lives" as if being "cancelled" isn't the easiest grift ever as you get an endless legion of conservative nutters to worship you for being against the ebil cancelling SJWs forevermore.
steve_g 6y ago
I reject your rejection. Cancel culture is terrible because the goal is to destroy people who hold unpopular beliefs. It not enough to refute the belief. The transgressor must be punished with the full fury that internet-enhanced social pressure can bring to bear. The goal is to punish and destroy. Shaming and social opprobrium can work in a community where there's interaction between the parties. This also allows for grace and restoration. It doesn't work in the global twitter-verse. Civilization is the ability to live in peace with people that aren't like you - you may disagree with them, disapprove of them, or dislike them, but you don't seek to destroy them. We seem to be losing it.
- isbjorn16 6y ago
  Destroy, or show there are ramifications for speech? I find the "I can say whatever I want, it's just words" to be an immature stance to hold. Words hold power, and power can be used or misused. We know words hold power; otherwise protesting wouldn't work, MLK's letters from a birmingham jail wouldn't matter, even the very constitution itself would be pointless. So if that power is being applied to harm people, there needs to be a check on that. I fully agree it isn't the government's role to play that part; it's society's full, universal, democratic decision what to do with it. The final result is "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you". If you don't like the worst that the so-called "cancel culture" response can bring you, then the solution is relatively simple: choose your words carefully and own them.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > it's society's full, universal, democratic decision what to do with it. That might be fine, if that were the way it worked. In practice, though, it seems more that it's a minority forming a howling mob that brings the heat. > "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you" I prefer the legal system to mob "justice".
- dfxm12 6y ago
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
I think the trouble with this analysis is, 'mainstream' doesn't mean what we think it means. Most people do not care about, for example, what jokes Kevin Hart told ten years ago. Mores change, tastes differ, and mainstream society gets that. It's actually a tiny minority that want nothing to do with others on the basis of incautious speech, especially after that much time. But when nine people don't really care about something and the tenth feels strongly about it, that person will get their way. That is a great natural defence against mob rule and stagnation. But it does not mean that most people share the sentiment of the intolerant minority. To address your example of you and your boss, in most cases it's more as though your boss doesn't care what you said, but someone shows up to your place of work and makes them care by being more unpleasant than the consequences of firing you. It's the old paradox of the tolerant society writ large. I think the 'cancel culture' narrative is the early stages of mainstream culture working out where to draw a border around what accommodations an intolerant minority can and cannot expect of the majority.