4 ms·

This article (and a bunch of comments here) seem to be arguing against a straw man: that there are a bunch of "minority opinions" that are being threatened to b

This article (and a bunch of comments here) seem to be arguing against a straw man: that there are a bunch of "minority opinions" that are being threatened to be withdrawn from the sphere of discussion by cancel culture, and people who happen to share these opinions are at threat of losing their jobs over it. Cancelling is not simply about disagreeing with someone's opinions. It's about stopping the spread and normalisation of actual sexual violence [1], racial violence [2], or hate speech [3] I think it's hard for American engineers (I am one) to understand this, but there are actually times in which suppressing certain vile speech and acts is good for society. Our profession deals with absolutes most of the time, but we forget that there are actually nuances and shades of grey all around us. In Germany, for example, there are very strict restrictions around Nazi language and symbolism [4], and for good reason. Even in the US, there are towns in the south that have a long history of "cancelling" their local white supremacist chapters. Stores won't do business with certain people, they aren't welcomed as a part of the community [5]. This is to protect the town from damaging people and ideas, and is a perfectly healthy part of growing a community. These vile acts and words are not worth promoting as part of public personalities with high-profile jobs. In many cases, those cancelled don't even face legal consequences for their actions, but are simply removed from the public sphere. With the way we idolise fame, it's a good way to help make sure that kids aren't looking up to rapists and racists as idols in our society. And just to add another point about several cases which I know people will try to rebut my point with (Louis CK, Aziz Ansari, ...) These people were never unanimously cancelled like the others. There were debates even within leftist communities about how bad these acts were. And reality reflects that. Both Aziz and Louis have only had relatively minor hiatuses from the spotlight. Both are back on tour now (I went to see Aziz live last fall). This is not a "threat to our democracy" or a "threat to minority opinions". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/mark-wahlberg-racist-hate-crimes-wikipedia-history-george-floyd-blm-protests-a9554191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/... [3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/11/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff-resigns-amid-allegations-racism/5419820002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/11/tuck... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Re-unified_Germany_(1990%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Re-unifi... [5] https://abcnews.go.com/US/life-inside-small-north-dakota-town-terrorized-white/story?id=33778885 https://abcnews.go.com/US/life-inside-small-north-dakota-tow...

zozbot234 6y ago
> or hate speech [3] Where the "hate speech" amounts to speculation that the availability of games like Call of Duty might well be deterring some former criminals from engaging in real-world criminal activity. It might be an uncomfortable opinion to some, maybe even a distasteful one, but people should be free to hold uncomfortable opinions.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The game is not the issue but the implication that crime is linked to black people.
unishark 6y ago
This is not just censorship, it's blacklisting. The case in the article was an electrician who lost his job, not a celebrity.
dgellow 6y ago
> In Germany, for example, there are very strict restrictions around Nazi language and symbolism [4], and for good reason. I feel that needs a bit of clarification. The reason nazi symbolism is restricted is because it is promoting an illegal political party. It is a disgusting ideology full of hate, but its symbolism isn't illegal because it is vile or hateful. The nazi party (NSDAP, and lot of other related smaller parties) has been ruled unconstitutional because it is explicitly against the German constitution. The same has been done with communist parties trying to overthrow the constitution, and you also have symbolism of the islamic state that is considered illegal. My point is: the legal argument is based on the defense of the constitution, not on the fact that it is considered hate. Germany also has regulation for hate speech, but that's not what is being used in the context of unconstitutional political parties.
- anoncake 6y ago
  That is not true. Section 86 StGB explicitly mentions "former National Socialist organisation" separately from other unconstitutional organizations. Since they were technically never banned in the FRG (as they didn't exist anymore), their symbols would be still legal otherwise. Also the only parties that were ever banned were the SRP (replacement for the NSDAP) and the KPD (under pressure from the Adenauer government). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0917 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

zozbot234 6y ago

> or hate speech [3] Where the "hate speech" amounts to speculation that the availability of games like Call of Duty might well be deterring some former criminals from engaging in real-world criminal activity. It might be an uncomfortable opinion to some, maybe even a distasteful one, but people should be free to hold uncomfortable opinions.

pjc50 6y ago
The game is not the issue but the implication that crime is linked to black people.

unishark 6y ago

This is not just censorship, it's blacklisting. The case in the article was an electrician who lost his job, not a celebrity.

dgellow 6y ago

> In Germany, for example, there are very strict restrictions around Nazi language and symbolism [4], and for good reason. I feel that needs a bit of clarification. The reason nazi symbolism is restricted is because it is promoting an illegal political party. It is a disgusting ideology full of hate, but its symbolism isn't illegal because it is vile or hateful. The nazi party (NSDAP, and lot of other related smaller parties) has been ruled unconstitutional because it is explicitly against the German constitution. The same has been done with communist parties trying to overthrow the constitution, and you also have symbolism of the islamic state that is considered illegal. My point is: the legal argument is based on the defense of the constitution, not on the fact that it is considered hate. Germany also has regulation for hate speech, but that's not what is being used in the context of unconstitutional political parties.

anoncake 6y ago
That is not true. Section 86 StGB explicitly mentions "former National Socialist organisation" separately from other unconstitutional organizations. Since they were technically never banned in the FRG (as they didn't exist anymore), their symbols would be still legal otherwise. Also the only parties that were ever banned were the SRP (replacement for the NSDAP) and the KPD (under pressure from the Adenauer government). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0917 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...