5 ms·

Cancel Culture and Harper's Letter

wilsocr88 6y ago
I have to admit, I did not expect to see a Jezebel headline and think, "Well, that is an extremely reasonable thing to say." A good section: >"And like many religions, the cancel culture congregation is teeming with members eager to point out the sins of others to deflect from their own. Mass free expression is chaotic, clearly, which at the very least means we should be wary of pat explanations that attempt to squeeze the nature of the problem down to 500 words and place certain manners of expression in tidy boxes on either side of an ideological divide." Jezebel has always (perhaps fallaciously) been considered something of a thought leader in some communities. Maybe this gutsy article, which some their audience may not like, signals a return to some kind of capacity for normal discourse among human beings.
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  I hope so. The world is going to be a much nastier place if this new anti-free-speech in the name of manners and harm prevention stuff takes hold. Free speech is the greatest equalizing force between the powerful and the non-powerful that has ever existed. The only people who are against free speech are the ones that plan on being among the powerful.
0x8BADF00D 6y ago
In my view, the issue is not so much cancel culture. It’s that journalists can publish inaccurate information and libel people without any sort of punishment or way for the targeted party to respond. Also, this article is extremely racist. They are supporting the decades old trope of the “uppity” black male that just won’t shut up and behave like an Uncle Tom. At least these journalists are no longer hiding what they really think about minorities.
- nickthegreek 6y ago
  There is a way to respond when a corporation says libel thing about you... you can sue. The target can also respond, thru social media at the very least. Where in this article were they 'supporting the decades old trope of the “uppity” black male that just won’t shut up'? I felt like I read it pretty closely and I cant even begin to understand where that took place.
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    > Kanye West has made increasingly oppressive, malformed declarations over the past several years, and yet commands earth-stopping attention every time he opens his mouth/Twitter app. Forbes ran a massive feature just this week about the ridiculous notion of West running for president in this year’s election. It is very subtle. Oppressive? Malformed? This is basically calling him an uppity ni---r.
    - nickthegreek 6y ago
      https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/entertainment/kanye-west-slavery-choice-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/entertainment/kanye-west-slav... https://www.buzzfeed.com/lindsayfarber/twitter-reacts-to-kanye-wests-bill-cosby-is-innocent-tweet https://www.buzzfeed.com/lindsayfarber/twitter-reacts-to-kan...
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > It is very subtle. Subtle doesn't even begin to describe it...
loraa 6y ago
This is the best. Liberals created the cancel culture and then turned around adnd said "...but..but..guys we're on the same team,obviously I didn't mean any of that stuff I said on my quest to get known for something.."
awb 6y ago
> Last year in The New Republic, Osita Nwanevu characterized social media backlash that is often seen as the root of cancel culture as not a threat to speech itself, but perhaps just noise. “It seems at least possible that tweets are just tweets—that as difficult as criticism in the social media age may be to contend with at times, it bears no meaningful resemblance to genocides, excommunications, executions, assassinations, political imprisonments, and official bans past,” wrote Nwanevu. “Perhaps we should choose instead to understand cancel culture as something much more mundane: ordinary public disfavor voiced by ordinary people across new platforms.” Anti-Cancel Culture seems just as anti-Free Speech as Cancel Culture. Everyone has a right to express their opinion. And everyone has a right to react and respond to your opinion. People are allowed to boycott, demand, shun whoever they want. And "cancel cancel culture" folks are doing exactly that: expressing outrage, demanding change, shaming others, etc. It's totally fine, just ironic to see people shaming people for shaming others. Have people in power made bad decisions based on a few loud voices? Sure. But it's the people in power who bare the responsibility, not the people who expressed outrage.
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  Being actually supportive of free speech requires some level of tolerance for things that you disagree with. It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned). If the government did these things to people with unpopular opinions that would clearly be anti-free-speech, right? Why is it different when it's done by a mob instead?
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    The government does these sorts of things to people all the time without falling foul of the first amendment. They can't take away your right to say something but they absolutely do limit where you can say them. Trump has fired tons of people for saying stuff he doesn't like. Democratic adminstrations have too.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned) What would it mean for JK Rowling to be cancelled? Legitimately an honest question: she's a billionaire backed by a media empire. What do you think would have to happen before she could be considered "cancelled"?

I have to admit, I did not expect to see a Jezebel headline and think, "Well, that is an extremely reasonable thing to say." A good section: >"And like many religions, the cancel culture congregation is teeming with members eager to point out the sins of others to deflect from their own. Mass free expression is chaotic, clearly, which at the very least means we should be wary of pat explanations that attempt to squeeze the nature of the problem down to 500 words and place certain manners of expression in tidy boxes on either side of an ideological divide." Jezebel has always (perhaps fallaciously) been considered something of a thought leader in some communities. Maybe this gutsy article, which some their audience may not like, signals a return to some kind of capacity for normal discourse among human beings.

gotoeleven 6y ago
I hope so. The world is going to be a much nastier place if this new anti-free-speech in the name of manners and harm prevention stuff takes hold. Free speech is the greatest equalizing force between the powerful and the non-powerful that has ever existed. The only people who are against free speech are the ones that plan on being among the powerful.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago

In my view, the issue is not so much cancel culture. It’s that journalists can publish inaccurate information and libel people without any sort of punishment or way for the targeted party to respond. Also, this article is extremely racist. They are supporting the decades old trope of the “uppity” black male that just won’t shut up and behave like an Uncle Tom. At least these journalists are no longer hiding what they really think about minorities.

nickthegreek 6y ago
There is a way to respond when a corporation says libel thing about you... you can sue. The target can also respond, thru social media at the very least. Where in this article were they 'supporting the decades old trope of the “uppity” black male that just won’t shut up'? I felt like I read it pretty closely and I cant even begin to understand where that took place.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  > Kanye West has made increasingly oppressive, malformed declarations over the past several years, and yet commands earth-stopping attention every time he opens his mouth/Twitter app. Forbes ran a massive feature just this week about the ridiculous notion of West running for president in this year’s election. It is very subtle. Oppressive? Malformed? This is basically calling him an uppity ni---r.
  - nickthegreek 6y ago
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/entertainment/kanye-west-slavery-choice-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/entertainment/kanye-west-slav... https://www.buzzfeed.com/lindsayfarber/twitter-reacts-to-kanye-wests-bill-cosby-is-innocent-tweet https://www.buzzfeed.com/lindsayfarber/twitter-reacts-to-kan...
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > It is very subtle. Subtle doesn't even begin to describe it...

loraa 6y ago

This is the best. Liberals created the cancel culture and then turned around adnd said "...but..but..guys we're on the same team,obviously I didn't mean any of that stuff I said on my quest to get known for something.."

awb 6y ago

> Last year in The New Republic, Osita Nwanevu characterized social media backlash that is often seen as the root of cancel culture as not a threat to speech itself, but perhaps just noise. “It seems at least possible that tweets are just tweets—that as difficult as criticism in the social media age may be to contend with at times, it bears no meaningful resemblance to genocides, excommunications, executions, assassinations, political imprisonments, and official bans past,” wrote Nwanevu. “Perhaps we should choose instead to understand cancel culture as something much more mundane: ordinary public disfavor voiced by ordinary people across new platforms.” Anti-Cancel Culture seems just as anti-Free Speech as Cancel Culture. Everyone has a right to express their opinion. And everyone has a right to react and respond to your opinion. People are allowed to boycott, demand, shun whoever they want. And "cancel cancel culture" folks are doing exactly that: expressing outrage, demanding change, shaming others, etc. It's totally fine, just ironic to see people shaming people for shaming others. Have people in power made bad decisions based on a few loud voices? Sure. But it's the people in power who bare the responsibility, not the people who expressed outrage.

gotoeleven 6y ago
Being actually supportive of free speech requires some level of tolerance for things that you disagree with. It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned). If the government did these things to people with unpopular opinions that would clearly be anti-free-speech, right? Why is it different when it's done by a mob instead?
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  The government does these sorts of things to people all the time without falling foul of the first amendment. They can't take away your right to say something but they absolutely do limit where you can say them. Trump has fired tons of people for saying stuff he doesn't like. Democratic adminstrations have too.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > It can't possibly work if people with unpopular opinions are are cancelled (i.e. blacklisted, fired, castigated, sanctioned) What would it mean for JK Rowling to be cancelled? Legitimately an honest question: she's a billionaire backed by a media empire. What do you think would have to happen before she could be considered "cancelled"?