5 ms·

Well, cancel culture is like a superpower for these social science professors and "thought" leaders, who otherwise might not have much klout or academic prestig

Well, cancel culture is like a superpower for these social science professors and "thought" leaders, who otherwise might not have much klout or academic prestige. Of course they will use it liberally. It's a kind of anti intellectualism, and ironically largely university funded.

taurath 6y ago
It’s one of the few ways to deal with people who don’t act or talk in good faith. Certainly there’s many cases of it being overused, but in a way it’s sort of denying that there are actual direct people and forces that are fighting tooth and nail against progress.
- 38eueheh 6y ago
  Seems like a stretch considering there hasn't been a demonstrated benefit to this sort of antagonism, it all just exists to justify itself rather than to facilitate a dialogue. Much more likely is that the humanities are just becoming increasingly desperate to find relevance as they fail over and over to contribute anything new to society. It's far easier to invent gender frameworks and equity rhetoric than to actually solve problems like predominantly one parent households or the seething xenophobia and sexism of the trans community (Latin X imperialism, treatment of black comedians, bigotry towards safe spaces for women, etc)
- basch 6y ago
  From my perspective, discrediting the speaker to silence them IS an argument in bad faith. Whether its an ad hominem, tu quoque, or a pitchforking kangaroo court. If someone is making a good faith rational argument, and the response is "I find your conclusion potentially offensive, so I will suppress your expression"; that is the suppressor acting in bad faith. The energy around "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" have turned into the destruction of nuance. It's very hard to say "I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning" because how one arrived at a conclusion no longer matters, only that the conclusion fits the dogma. It is anti intellectualism.
  - taurath 6y ago
    I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. I think there is a level to which the reasoning stops applying in the presence of trolls, which are absolutely bad actors. The conclusions a troll presents are not even necessarily ones that they even believe, and toxic words and actions also stifles intellectual debate. Flamebait SHOULD be suppressed, and thats fairly universally agreed upon. That a downvoted comment turns more opaque on this platform is evidence enough of that. Often times there's no intellectual debate happening online, just social posturing on opposed sides. Once you start talking about real people - like say for instance a video is posted of some white woman harassing and calling the police on a black person. Those doing the "cancelling" by calling their office are actively trying to create a societal social boundary, where you can't do that without consequences because you'd lose the trust of people you work with. That people are shocked someone could be fired for such a thing means they don't agree with that social boundary. Re: "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" - those are not at all what I'm espousing and I certainly don't agree with them.
    - basch 6y ago
      Directly suppressing flame is different than discrediting a speaker to silence them. I was mostly replying to the "it's overused" claim, that suppressing a bad faith actors may justify collaterally suppressing a good faith. I'm not sure that's what they were saying, but they didn't seem bothered by it.
- sinker 6y ago
  There's nothing that constrains its application. Its users are those energized by outrage and offense and act on emotional reflex. Their position of pure victimhood is the perception which justifies their right to take down anyone for any reason. It's single-minded, irrational, damaging to society and acts with little regard for the nuance of actual reality - which means it cannot in the long-term solve actual problems we face without creating bigger ones. Acting is good faith and with intellectual honesty is always going to require voluntary participation. But if one contestant decides to knock the pieces off the table, then what we're watching is not a chess game, but one party claiming chess superiority because he bit his opponent on the neck.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This is equivalent to saying that mobs are not inherently bad - since they often lynch bad people. Think about that.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    It's not, because lynching and cancelling aren't remotely equivalent.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      You're missing the point that mobs are not justice, just because they happen to side with you often. To make the analogy more in-line with your pedantry, imagine that it's a mob that's smashing storefronts rather than killing people.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Are you suggesting cancelers are commiting crimes? Ultimately what you're trying to say, it appears, is that people who are choosing to speak out about injustice are bad actors because other people choose to listen to them. The injustice!
        Udik 6y ago
        > Are you suggesting cancelers are commiting crimes? I think they are, it's harassment and mobbing. They should be prosecuted and given serious fines and in some cases jailed.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I think you'll find that there are essentially no jurisdictions where voicing your displeasure about someone's actions is a crime. In most US jurisdictions, Harassment requires the (credible) threat of violence. Otherwise it's just speech, and protected like any other speech. My understanding is that this is true in most international jurisdictions as well. Do you consider yourself a supporter of "free speech"? This concept is so fraught: if I say that I believe someone did a bad thing, that's acceptable. But if a bunch of other people agree with me, suddenly I've committed a crime.

taurath 6y ago

It’s one of the few ways to deal with people who don’t act or talk in good faith. Certainly there’s many cases of it being overused, but in a way it’s sort of denying that there are actual direct people and forces that are fighting tooth and nail against progress.

38eueheh 6y ago
Seems like a stretch considering there hasn't been a demonstrated benefit to this sort of antagonism, it all just exists to justify itself rather than to facilitate a dialogue. Much more likely is that the humanities are just becoming increasingly desperate to find relevance as they fail over and over to contribute anything new to society. It's far easier to invent gender frameworks and equity rhetoric than to actually solve problems like predominantly one parent households or the seething xenophobia and sexism of the trans community (Latin X imperialism, treatment of black comedians, bigotry towards safe spaces for women, etc)
basch 6y ago
From my perspective, discrediting the speaker to silence them IS an argument in bad faith. Whether its an ad hominem, tu quoque, or a pitchforking kangaroo court. If someone is making a good faith rational argument, and the response is "I find your conclusion potentially offensive, so I will suppress your expression"; that is the suppressor acting in bad faith. The energy around "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" have turned into the destruction of nuance. It's very hard to say "I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning" because how one arrived at a conclusion no longer matters, only that the conclusion fits the dogma. It is anti intellectualism.
- taurath 6y ago
  I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. I think there is a level to which the reasoning stops applying in the presence of trolls, which are absolutely bad actors. The conclusions a troll presents are not even necessarily ones that they even believe, and toxic words and actions also stifles intellectual debate. Flamebait SHOULD be suppressed, and thats fairly universally agreed upon. That a downvoted comment turns more opaque on this platform is evidence enough of that. Often times there's no intellectual debate happening online, just social posturing on opposed sides. Once you start talking about real people - like say for instance a video is posted of some white woman harassing and calling the police on a black person. Those doing the "cancelling" by calling their office are actively trying to create a societal social boundary, where you can't do that without consequences because you'd lose the trust of people you work with. That people are shocked someone could be fired for such a thing means they don't agree with that social boundary. Re: "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" - those are not at all what I'm espousing and I certainly don't agree with them.
  - basch 6y ago
    Directly suppressing flame is different than discrediting a speaker to silence them. I was mostly replying to the "it's overused" claim, that suppressing a bad faith actors may justify collaterally suppressing a good faith. I'm not sure that's what they were saying, but they didn't seem bothered by it.
sinker 6y ago
There's nothing that constrains its application. Its users are those energized by outrage and offense and act on emotional reflex. Their position of pure victimhood is the perception which justifies their right to take down anyone for any reason. It's single-minded, irrational, damaging to society and acts with little regard for the nuance of actual reality - which means it cannot in the long-term solve actual problems we face without creating bigger ones. Acting is good faith and with intellectual honesty is always going to require voluntary participation. But if one contestant decides to knock the pieces off the table, then what we're watching is not a chess game, but one party claiming chess superiority because he bit his opponent on the neck.
koheripbal 6y ago
This is equivalent to saying that mobs are not inherently bad - since they often lynch bad people. Think about that.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  It's not, because lynching and cancelling aren't remotely equivalent.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    You're missing the point that mobs are not justice, just because they happen to side with you often. To make the analogy more in-line with your pedantry, imagine that it's a mob that's smashing storefronts rather than killing people.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Are you suggesting cancelers are commiting crimes? Ultimately what you're trying to say, it appears, is that people who are choosing to speak out about injustice are bad actors because other people choose to listen to them. The injustice!
      - Udik 6y ago
        > Are you suggesting cancelers are commiting crimes? I think they are, it's harassment and mobbing. They should be prosecuted and given serious fines and in some cases jailed.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I think you'll find that there are essentially no jurisdictions where voicing your displeasure about someone's actions is a crime. In most US jurisdictions, Harassment requires the (credible) threat of violence. Otherwise it's just speech, and protected like any other speech. My understanding is that this is true in most international jurisdictions as well. Do you consider yourself a supporter of "free speech"? This concept is so fraught: if I say that I believe someone did a bad thing, that's acceptable. But if a bunch of other people agree with me, suddenly I've committed a crime.