6 ms·
It is undoubtedly cancel culture. But some people will deny it because they benefit from it and/or agree with it. It is a trend that must be stopped before we i
by wait_a_minute 6y ago
It is undoubtedly cancel culture. But some people will deny it because they benefit from it and/or agree with it. It is a trend that must be stopped before we irreparably damage the free movement of ideas that has enabled America and the rest of the world to flourish. If you cannot speak against the orthodoxy without fear of being forced into poverty, then the orthodoxy will grow unchallenged into a monster that eats even the people who helped create it.
- helixhelix 6y agoBut we're seeing the opposite. Speaking against counter-culture and being cancelled.
- wait_a_minute 6y agoThat is not the opposite. That is just the beginnings of what I said - the monster eating the very people who helped create it. Both left and right need to agree that hitting working individuals in the pocketbook over political disagreement is not okay, even if someone says something that is "offensive" to someone else. Obviously there are lines that have to be drawn in the work place, but the intellectuals signing the Harper letter weren't concerned by non-toxic workplaces. They were talking about something much worse that we can all agree is vile and dangerous.
- helixhelix 6y agoLines must be drawn with cancel culture. To avoid any slippery slopes, will eliminating or demoting this person hurt the project? In case of Linus taking a forced holiday to "psychology rehab" and Dr. Stallman being pushed to resign by someone admittedly too frustrated to do her job, meritocracy seems to be a good start. Too late, since a posse of wolves in sheep's wool (or XY-chromosomed persons in female-gendered clothing), is fixing to end meritocracy in favor of inclusivity. Would you agree to such a sacrifice?
- femiagbabiaka 6y agoI’m in support of a movement for truly free speech. If we were to achieve that, it would be the first time in modern history where that would be the case.
- softwaredoug 6y agoYou can't stop cancel culture without harming the speech of those 'canceling'.
- helixhelix 6y agoProfessionals call it 'negative PR', 'slander', 'sabotage', and other such words. Why can't we have 'disagreement culture' or 'better-alternatives suggestionism' instead?
- wait_a_minute 6y agoThose people are not speaking - they are doxxing and actively harrassing employers in order to get the wrongthinkers fired. I am sure you know the difference between speech and cancel culture.
- softwaredoug 6y agoFor the most part, cancel culture has been applied to writing letters criticizing people, boycotting people/companies, and other actions consistent with 'speech'. Of course outright harassment and doxing should be dealt with harshly.
- wait_a_minute 6y agoThen it seems we are in agreement. I would guess the one gray area where we do not definitely agree is to what extent deplatforming should be a thing. I am of the view that deplatforming campaigns are a manifestation of cancel culture. What do you think?
- orwin 6y agoI think deplatforming is a mistake in most cases, it make an "US vs THEM", David vs Goliath narrative that people love to follow and identify with. It make people think their opinions are more transgressive and more interesting that they really are. But this deplatforming and this "cancel culture" is only a manifestation of what millenials heard for years: if you want change, vote with your wallet. Well, we now are able to. I'm not agreeing with everything, but boycott is the only power my generation have right now, and nobody can prevent this. Twitter and the social network allow people to explain why they're boycotting this or that, that's all.