6 ms·
Because there's a mechanism for changing that government: the upcoming presidential election. Whereas changing a cultural movement like the one we're watching u
by wrren 6y ago
Because there's a mechanism for changing that government: the upcoming presidential election. Whereas changing a cultural movement like the one we're watching unfold is a lot more difficult.
- oisdk 6y agoIt does not make sense to me that we should say the actions of a government are less important to criticise or examine because we can vote on that government.
- wrren 6y agoI didn't say they were less important, just that they're more easily solved.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThey're more easy to take one concrete step to try to change. How much that will actually solve remains to be seen.
- mononcqc 6y agoA lot of the people "being cancelled" on twitter are only freaking out because for the first time in forever, they get the direct opinion of people reading their texts unfiltered, and they find out that they are prey to criticism. For example, Kelly Loeffler, claims to have been "cancelled" while being a sitting US senator. Cancel culture by popular action is not new (see letter-writing to TV stations, Frank Zappa having to testify in front of congress about censorship for his music albums). The only thing freaking people out is that people who have traditionally been structurally shielded from criticism and direct action (and often behind the cancelling itself) are just now on the receiving end of it.
- wrren 6y agoPeople expressing their opinions about one's ideas is not cancel culture: it's when critics go one step further and try to destroy the person they disagree with. Many people have lost their livelihoods and even more are afraid to express their opinion at all because of the disproportionate cost they might incur. People having been structurally shielded from mob justice in the past is a state worth returning to.
- oisdk 6y ago> Many people have lost their livelihoods What are you referring to, specifically?
- pwinnski 6y agoGood question! The phrase "many people" covers up the relative paucity of actual instances, as well as the exact nature of those instances. Every person who loses their job to a misunderstanding is a tragedy to that person, and every person who loses their job claims it's due to a misunderstanding. We live in a polarized nation such that other companies seem to rush to hire those very same people on purpose, so it doesn't seem to be a huge tragedy, but I'm sure it feels tragic. It also seems to happen very, very rarely, and usually after events that seem indefensible on their face. That is, rarely are people willing to say "they should have faced no consequences," but often people are willing to say "they should not have faced consequences quite that severe."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sinker 6y agoIf you can't be bothered to recognize even a single instance of this happening, then you've shut your eyes and ears.
- oisdk 6y agoI mean I was interested in examples. People disagree about what counts as a “cancelling” so I was looking to see what the person I was responding to was referring to, with some examples.
- gallegojaime 6y agoOf course a version of it existed, but the going concern with cancel culture is that it doesn't require much thought or effort to cancel someone now. Social media allows you to easily join a mob without judging a person deeply by yourself.
- minikites 6y agoBecause previous mobs were well known for their thoughtfulness and judgement?
- gallegojaime 6y agoNo - that's why it is a mob.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoWell previously you needed an actual physical mob so you had to get enough people local to the victim outraged enough to be convinced it's worth their time. That's a much higher bar than doxing someone and sending hate mail to everyone around them.