4 ms·

>> whine about how unfair it is that people don't unconditionally support them... There's a difference between 'not unconditionally supporting' someone who off

>> whine about how unfair it is that people don't unconditionally support them... There's a difference between 'not unconditionally supporting' someone who offends you and, mob-handed, hounding that person, their associates, their employers in an attempt to have them ostracised, sacked and their life ruined.

jjk166 6y ago
Imagine you went into a McDonalds and the cashier called you a racial slur. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to tell people that this happened and why it offended you. I think it would be quite reasonable if other people agreed that such behavior was unsupportable. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to request that McDonalds take measures so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for others who are also appalled that this happened to do the same. I think it would be quite reasonable to stop frequenting McDonalds if they instead did nothing. I think it would be quite reasonable for McDonalds to make the requested changes for the sake of not losing those paying customers. Now let us consider the reverse. Would it be reasonable to say that you shouldn't tell anyone this happened to you? Would it be reasonable to say no one else should be able to form an opinion on this? Would it be reasonable to forbid you from asking McDonalds for any sort of change to address the issue? Would it be reasonable to force you to continue frequenting that McDonalds if it didn't? Would it be reasonable to forbid McDonalds from firing their employee for a decision they had made which McDonalds considers to be wrong? No, there is no middle ground between forcing people to support things and them being free not to support things; it's a boolean situation. Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. Sure should a situation move beyond people just complaining on twitter - perhaps people start doxxing or inciting violence - then that is unacceptable. But that's not what we are talking about here. If you have the freedom to say what you wish, they have the freedom to denounce you for what you say. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out to begin with.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  > Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. No, Cancel Culture is the deliberate attempt to destroy people who disagree. "Not supporting" would be an avoidance of the person or business. You don't give them any of your money. That is the middle ground, by the way, and like nearly all the rest of real life it isn't a binary situation. Actively tearing down someone's life is not the same as "not supporting" them. Unless one lives in some sort of philosophical bubble where one's actions must always have the approval of the group or else be prevented, non-support is simply lack of encouragement. What we're really talking about is intolerance. Now we have something to sink our teeth into. Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" is that in a tolerant society, there would necessarily be some intolerance. The primary thing to oppose? We must not tolerate attacking people whose ideas differ from ours. After that, I think we can come to some agreements on what social behaviors cannot be tolerated (violence, racism, theft...). There's one other thing missing from this whole notion of cancelling. No one is ever actually allowed to change their ways and gain forgiveness. It provides no room for mercy or growth. It only hands out condemnation, replacing one set of unreasonable biases with a different set. We can do better than that.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I remember an article about how the knitting community got "into a purity spiral". I don't think criticism can be brushed away like you try to do. I wouldn't want to cancel you, even if I think your position is objectionable.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    If you say and do things you are proud to say and do, then it is easy to brush off criticism. If a community goes into a purity spiral and deems something I'm proud of to be wrong, they're doing me a favor expelling me as I want no part in it. Again, consider the flat earthers - their criticism means nothing to me because I am proud of supporting science, and I will continue to support science regardless of any consequences. Criticism only stings when it is valid. If you say or do things you're not proud of, and someone calls you out on it, you can't simply ignore it, you have to address it, and that may be uncomfortable if not downright painful. However it is not the fault of the party laying valid criticism that you feel uncomfortable. You did something you are not proud of, and this is merely the consequence of it. If you have a problem with my position, I strongly encourage you to tell my that it's hurt you, tell me why, and suggest how I should behave differently. This goes for both the person I'm replying to and anyone else who might read this. Assuming you're a reasonable person, I do not wish to make you feel uncomfortable, and if I have I would like to change my ways so I won't do it in the future. If you simply assume I'm an asshole and say nothing, then I will have no opportunity to rectify the situation, and I will go on just being, at least in your eyes, an asshole. Now if your objections are dumb, I may very well ignore them and continue being what you view as an asshole, but in that case I will be doing so with pride, and you too can continue to hold your position with pride. A system where everyone expresses their minds and we all bear the consequences of our actions is much better than one where we bite our tongues and hope that everyone else does as well.

jjk166 6y ago

Imagine you went into a McDonalds and the cashier called you a racial slur. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to tell people that this happened and why it offended you. I think it would be quite reasonable if other people agreed that such behavior was unsupportable. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to request that McDonalds take measures so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for others who are also appalled that this happened to do the same. I think it would be quite reasonable to stop frequenting McDonalds if they instead did nothing. I think it would be quite reasonable for McDonalds to make the requested changes for the sake of not losing those paying customers. Now let us consider the reverse. Would it be reasonable to say that you shouldn't tell anyone this happened to you? Would it be reasonable to say no one else should be able to form an opinion on this? Would it be reasonable to forbid you from asking McDonalds for any sort of change to address the issue? Would it be reasonable to force you to continue frequenting that McDonalds if it didn't? Would it be reasonable to forbid McDonalds from firing their employee for a decision they had made which McDonalds considers to be wrong? No, there is no middle ground between forcing people to support things and them being free not to support things; it's a boolean situation. Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. Sure should a situation move beyond people just complaining on twitter - perhaps people start doxxing or inciting violence - then that is unacceptable. But that's not what we are talking about here. If you have the freedom to say what you wish, they have the freedom to denounce you for what you say. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out to begin with.

slowmovintarget 6y ago
> Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. No, Cancel Culture is the deliberate attempt to destroy people who disagree. "Not supporting" would be an avoidance of the person or business. You don't give them any of your money. That is the middle ground, by the way, and like nearly all the rest of real life it isn't a binary situation. Actively tearing down someone's life is not the same as "not supporting" them. Unless one lives in some sort of philosophical bubble where one's actions must always have the approval of the group or else be prevented, non-support is simply lack of encouragement. What we're really talking about is intolerance. Now we have something to sink our teeth into. Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" is that in a tolerant society, there would necessarily be some intolerance. The primary thing to oppose? We must not tolerate attacking people whose ideas differ from ours. After that, I think we can come to some agreements on what social behaviors cannot be tolerated (violence, racism, theft...). There's one other thing missing from this whole notion of cancelling. No one is ever actually allowed to change their ways and gain forgiveness. It provides no room for mercy or growth. It only hands out condemnation, replacing one set of unreasonable biases with a different set. We can do better than that.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I remember an article about how the knitting community got "into a purity spiral". I don't think criticism can be brushed away like you try to do. I wouldn't want to cancel you, even if I think your position is objectionable.
- jjk166 6y ago
  If you say and do things you are proud to say and do, then it is easy to brush off criticism. If a community goes into a purity spiral and deems something I'm proud of to be wrong, they're doing me a favor expelling me as I want no part in it. Again, consider the flat earthers - their criticism means nothing to me because I am proud of supporting science, and I will continue to support science regardless of any consequences. Criticism only stings when it is valid. If you say or do things you're not proud of, and someone calls you out on it, you can't simply ignore it, you have to address it, and that may be uncomfortable if not downright painful. However it is not the fault of the party laying valid criticism that you feel uncomfortable. You did something you are not proud of, and this is merely the consequence of it. If you have a problem with my position, I strongly encourage you to tell my that it's hurt you, tell me why, and suggest how I should behave differently. This goes for both the person I'm replying to and anyone else who might read this. Assuming you're a reasonable person, I do not wish to make you feel uncomfortable, and if I have I would like to change my ways so I won't do it in the future. If you simply assume I'm an asshole and say nothing, then I will have no opportunity to rectify the situation, and I will go on just being, at least in your eyes, an asshole. Now if your objections are dumb, I may very well ignore them and continue being what you view as an asshole, but in that case I will be doing so with pride, and you too can continue to hold your position with pride. A system where everyone expresses their minds and we all bear the consequences of our actions is much better than one where we bite our tongues and hope that everyone else does as well.