5 ms·

I totally agree with the extreme example of nazism or something like that, or most less extreme examples of prejudicial behavior, especially when that person is

I totally agree with the extreme example of nazism or something like that, or most less extreme examples of prejudicial behavior, especially when that person is managing or just in any way talking to others. The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry. Too many of these people either aren't actually doing anything wrong (Some truck driver with his hand out the window) or have done something that is comparatively minimal to what they received (Justine Sacco, for instance). It's not that these people shouldn't be reprimanded, just that it shouldn't be the default for it to happen in this public, permanent, and very often dangerous way. The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it. It's especially obvious when these people doing it have done what they're complaining about themselves. It gets back to the main idea, that you don't have to harass people to get your point across. Even the most egregious reaction, trying to take someone's employment (and most often the ability to support themselves and their dependents) can be done in a way that isn't public and permanent.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> permanent Can you give an example of incorrect permanent punishment? Sacco found a job almost immediately. The truck driver may have a more difficult time, but not because this event will follow him, but because the labor market at the moment is shitty. (And to be clear here I'm not saying what happened to him was right or just). > The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry. Sure but now we're in a very fuzzy area. We're no longer saying that public shaming is always wrong, but that there are situations where, in your judgement, the scope is misapplied. Those are two very different situations, especially if you're willing to acknowledge that your perception of the severity of some action may indeed be different than the actual effect of that action. > The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it. I still don't buy this. People not being self aware is narcissism, but not in the way that you seem to be meaning, which is more like that the activism is performative and not genuine. Not to say that there aren't people who are performative. Lots of social media activism is, but in many ways so is stuff like signing petitions, and that doesn't get a bad rap.
- chiefmcloud 6y ago
  The story about Wadi from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin... is pretty horrible. I mean they all are, but maybe it’s the most clear permanent damage.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    So that story shows the potential for long term damage (his store hasn't closed yet), but I agree that if it does, it would be the best example I've yet seen. However even if we assume the worst outcome in that situation, the negative impacts of cancel culture are tame compared to a lot of other systems. If we're calling for an end to cancel culture due to the one case of permanent damage, why aren't we calling for an end of the US justice system which, on a daily basis, causes far more permanent and far more cases of damage? And this is sort of whataboutism, but lots of the recent concern about cancel culture, at least that I've seen, is from mostly upper class, mostly non-black and latino, mostly well educated people. Their concern has been that they'll be cancelled if they don't support recent protests enough or in the right way. So we have two systems of justice, one that unjustly kills innocent people on the daily, and one that might end up closing down a single restaurant whose owner was innocent. Why are we focusing our energy on dismantling the second system over the first?
    - chiefmcloud 6y ago
      There are a few reasons I’m particularly concerned about cancel culture. One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with. There’s lots of things I hate about the justice system that I believe are being worked on. But fundamentally, I accept I was born into a particular society, and I’ve implicitly agreed that I need to agree to certain rules. Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in. Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> permanent Can you give an example of incorrect permanent punishment? Sacco found a job almost immediately. The truck driver may have a more difficult time, but not because this event will follow him, but because the labor market at the moment is shitty. (And to be clear here I'm not saying what happened to him was right or just). > The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry. Sure but now we're in a very fuzzy area. We're no longer saying that public shaming is always wrong, but that there are situations where, in your judgement, the scope is misapplied. Those are two very different situations, especially if you're willing to acknowledge that your perception of the severity of some action may indeed be different than the actual effect of that action. > The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it. I still don't buy this. People not being self aware is narcissism, but not in the way that you seem to be meaning, which is more like that the activism is performative and not genuine. Not to say that there aren't people who are performative. Lots of social media activism is, but in many ways so is stuff like signing petitions, and that doesn't get a bad rap.

chiefmcloud 6y ago
The story about Wadi from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin... is pretty horrible. I mean they all are, but maybe it’s the most clear permanent damage.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  So that story shows the potential for long term damage (his store hasn't closed yet), but I agree that if it does, it would be the best example I've yet seen. However even if we assume the worst outcome in that situation, the negative impacts of cancel culture are tame compared to a lot of other systems. If we're calling for an end to cancel culture due to the one case of permanent damage, why aren't we calling for an end of the US justice system which, on a daily basis, causes far more permanent and far more cases of damage? And this is sort of whataboutism, but lots of the recent concern about cancel culture, at least that I've seen, is from mostly upper class, mostly non-black and latino, mostly well educated people. Their concern has been that they'll be cancelled if they don't support recent protests enough or in the right way. So we have two systems of justice, one that unjustly kills innocent people on the daily, and one that might end up closing down a single restaurant whose owner was innocent. Why are we focusing our energy on dismantling the second system over the first?
  - chiefmcloud 6y ago
    There are a few reasons I’m particularly concerned about cancel culture. One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with. There’s lots of things I hate about the justice system that I believe are being worked on. But fundamentally, I accept I was born into a particular society, and I’ve implicitly agreed that I need to agree to certain rules. Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in. Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob.