13 ms·

I don't want to be the preacher yelling that nothing is new under the sun, but I feel like I'm reading an article written by somebody who doesn't know what a bo

I don't want to be the preacher yelling that nothing is new under the sun, but I feel like I'm reading an article written by somebody who doesn't know what a boycott is. I feel like the only major difference is that boycotts were traditionally supported by voting blocs, but these "cancellations" seem to cross party lines. Otherwise, though, isn't this the same sort of outrage that folks had had last century when African-Americans chose en masse to not spend money at establishments whose management they found to be acting offensively?

StavrosK 6y ago
That's a good point, what's the difference between cancel culture and boycotts? Does anyone know whether there is one?
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Cancel culture typically targets individuals with the goal of removing their ability to participate in open society - sometimes that extends into calls for a person to lose their livelihood. Boycotts target companies with the goal of driving policy change through commercial power. I don't really think those two look very similar.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on "participate in open society"? I'm not very familiar with cancel culture but AFAIK it's done against celebrities so people unfollow them or stop buying their products.
    - flyingfences 6y ago
      Increasingly, it's being done against normal people - mid-level or even low-level employees, contributors, members, participants, etc. - for things they've said or done in their personal time. See "Donglegate" [1] and "Opalgate" [2], for well-known examples. [1] https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-overreaction-and-everyone-pays/ https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-... [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
      - StavrosK 6y ago
        Oh, I see. Yeah, that's... Something else.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        "Donglegate" happened at a professional conference. The PlayHaven employee represented his employer. Adria Richards didn't even contact PlayHaven. The article points out PlayHaven implied the PyCon incident wasn't the only reason they decided to fire the employee. Richards was also fired and 10 months later was still unemployed.[1] People in the community criticized how everyone handled the incident. PyCon changed its code of conduct to discourage "public shaming".[2] "Opalgate" went nowhere. Elia Schito kept his position and still mentions it in his Twitter profile.[3] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5415256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5415256 [3] https://twitter.com/elia https://twitter.com/elia
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- flyingfences 6y ago
  I would say that, generally, boycotts have been organized against specific companies or groups that are well understood to have clearly and undeniably done something wrong, whereas a lot of these "cancel" storms, often started by rumors and or heresay, build up so quickly that there is not a chance for examination, no time to question whether the "cancellation" is deserved.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Hm, true, this "witch hunt" mentality seems to be common in internet "activism".
    - loopz 6y ago
      "Witch hunt" and "bullying" are words that closely describe the mob rule mentality. The simple truth is that most people have no problem supporting bullies. It's the rare exception that people stand up against bullies, as needs to be done to avoid toxic exclusionary tactics and "rule by the bully". We now witness the lack of bully immunity in the population, and its dire consequences, caused by the accellerations from "social" media.
jedimastert 6y ago
Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. Another issue is that organizing a boycott took enough effort that it took conviction about the reason. With cancelling it's dogpile at the drop of a hat, leading to the thread of cancelling is leading to a stifling of speech.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  The mechanism underlying boycotts and shunning is the exercise of free relations. The thing which takes boycotts and shunning from individual water droplets to a flood is public conversation, whether over the web or elsewhere.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is no way to cancel them other than to not purchase goods and services from them, since the typical company cannot be bought out and dissolved the hard way. So, who are the public figures that the article wants to talk about? When we actually dig in, we find a few journalists who were fired for various causes. Did the public cause them to be fired? No, their employers caused them to be fired. Does the public owe them employment protection? No, their union owes them employment protection; we the public owe them tax-funded unemployment benefits. The fact is that jobs are so important in this country because we have next to no social safety nets and we have institutionalized a lack of empathy and a desire to see the weak struggle and perish. As a result, when somebody's job is threatened, their very life is threatened. Should we endorse this sort of histrionic mania, or should we fix our society so that people are not starving if they do not report to some corporate overlord? And once we've taken this massive step back, then by what measure should we punish corporations who unfairly punish their employees? Well, by not purchasing their goods and services! So we are indeed back at the concept of boycotts. Please do not confuse any of this with actual shunning, as practiced today mostly by religious cults. If a public figure finds themselves suddenly without as much of an audience as they expected, then that is not at all comparable to a private person finding themselves bereft of their closest and most intimate relationships.
aaron-santos 6y ago
Common morality-in the form of shame, outrage, and stigma-has always been society's first line of defense against ethical transgressions. What's new about cancel culture is that it inverts the power hierarchy. Instead of top-down command and control of moral hegemony, new groups have found the means to exercise their value systems. The social media provides unprecedented access to manipulate the value system and mores of a society which was previously only available to the ruling class.
sgt-serverless 6y ago
I think the difference is that this form of 'cancel culture' is the attempt to not only boycott establishments, but to 'cancel' people for having differing opinions. You see this, especially in the twitter-verse, where if your opinion differs form the "popular" (read far-left) view of the world, the will attempt to silence you. Goya is one example on the establishment side of things, but you see it also with dox'ing people and things like that.
cryptonector 6y ago
In a democratic society, in the end might makes right. So if 70% of the population want to apply boycotts or cancel culture to 15%, the only protection the 15% will get is whatever is afforded them by constitutional norms that the courts choose to enforce. If it's more like 40% trying to cancel a different 40% then it's more like a cold civil war than like democracy. The Harpers' letter tells me it's not even 40% pushing cancel culture, but maybe more like 15% trying to cancel some 40%. Once the folks in the middle feel threatened enough to make cause with the targets, the 15% will have to back off.

StavrosK 6y ago

That's a good point, what's the difference between cancel culture and boycotts? Does anyone know whether there is one?

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
Cancel culture typically targets individuals with the goal of removing their ability to participate in open society - sometimes that extends into calls for a person to lose their livelihood. Boycotts target companies with the goal of driving policy change through commercial power. I don't really think those two look very similar.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on "participate in open society"? I'm not very familiar with cancel culture but AFAIK it's done against celebrities so people unfollow them or stop buying their products.
  - flyingfences 6y ago
    Increasingly, it's being done against normal people - mid-level or even low-level employees, contributors, members, participants, etc. - for things they've said or done in their personal time. See "Donglegate" [1] and "Opalgate" [2], for well-known examples. [1] https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-overreaction-and-everyone-pays/ https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-... [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Oh, I see. Yeah, that's... Something else.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      "Donglegate" happened at a professional conference. The PlayHaven employee represented his employer. Adria Richards didn't even contact PlayHaven. The article points out PlayHaven implied the PyCon incident wasn't the only reason they decided to fire the employee. Richards was also fired and 10 months later was still unemployed.[1] People in the community criticized how everyone handled the incident. PyCon changed its code of conduct to discourage "public shaming".[2] "Opalgate" went nowhere. Elia Schito kept his position and still mentions it in his Twitter profile.[3] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5415256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5415256 [3] https://twitter.com/elia https://twitter.com/elia
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
flyingfences 6y ago
I would say that, generally, boycotts have been organized against specific companies or groups that are well understood to have clearly and undeniably done something wrong, whereas a lot of these "cancel" storms, often started by rumors and or heresay, build up so quickly that there is not a chance for examination, no time to question whether the "cancellation" is deserved.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Hm, true, this "witch hunt" mentality seems to be common in internet "activism".
  - loopz 6y ago
    "Witch hunt" and "bullying" are words that closely describe the mob rule mentality. The simple truth is that most people have no problem supporting bullies. It's the rare exception that people stand up against bullies, as needs to be done to avoid toxic exclusionary tactics and "rule by the bully". We now witness the lack of bully immunity in the population, and its dire consequences, caused by the accellerations from "social" media.

jedimastert 6y ago

Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. Another issue is that organizing a boycott took enough effort that it took conviction about the reason. With cancelling it's dogpile at the drop of a hat, leading to the thread of cancelling is leading to a stifling of speech.

threatofrain 6y ago
The mechanism underlying boycotts and shunning is the exercise of free relations. The thing which takes boycotts and shunning from individual water droplets to a flood is public conversation, whether over the web or elsewhere.
Kednicma 6y ago
I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is no way to cancel them other than to not purchase goods and services from them, since the typical company cannot be bought out and dissolved the hard way. So, who are the public figures that the article wants to talk about? When we actually dig in, we find a few journalists who were fired for various causes. Did the public cause them to be fired? No, their employers caused them to be fired. Does the public owe them employment protection? No, their union owes them employment protection; we the public owe them tax-funded unemployment benefits. The fact is that jobs are so important in this country because we have next to no social safety nets and we have institutionalized a lack of empathy and a desire to see the weak struggle and perish. As a result, when somebody's job is threatened, their very life is threatened. Should we endorse this sort of histrionic mania, or should we fix our society so that people are not starving if they do not report to some corporate overlord? And once we've taken this massive step back, then by what measure should we punish corporations who unfairly punish their employees? Well, by not purchasing their goods and services! So we are indeed back at the concept of boycotts. Please do not confuse any of this with actual shunning, as practiced today mostly by religious cults. If a public figure finds themselves suddenly without as much of an audience as they expected, then that is not at all comparable to a private person finding themselves bereft of their closest and most intimate relationships.

aaron-santos 6y ago

Common morality-in the form of shame, outrage, and stigma-has always been society's first line of defense against ethical transgressions. What's new about cancel culture is that it inverts the power hierarchy. Instead of top-down command and control of moral hegemony, new groups have found the means to exercise their value systems. The social media provides unprecedented access to manipulate the value system and mores of a society which was previously only available to the ruling class.

sgt-serverless 6y ago

I think the difference is that this form of 'cancel culture' is the attempt to not only boycott establishments, but to 'cancel' people for having differing opinions. You see this, especially in the twitter-verse, where if your opinion differs form the "popular" (read far-left) view of the world, the will attempt to silence you. Goya is one example on the establishment side of things, but you see it also with dox'ing people and things like that.

cryptonector 6y ago

In a democratic society, in the end might makes right. So if 70% of the population want to apply boycotts or cancel culture to 15%, the only protection the 15% will get is whatever is afforded them by constitutional norms that the courts choose to enforce. If it's more like 40% trying to cancel a different 40% then it's more like a cold civil war than like democracy. The Harpers' letter tells me it's not even 40% pushing cancel culture, but maybe more like 15% trying to cancel some 40%. Once the folks in the middle feel threatened enough to make cause with the targets, the 15% will have to back off.