4 ms·

Of course we only hear about famous (or semi-famous) people Off the top of my head... Stephen Hsu of MSU Greg Patton of USC Bret Weinstein (a few years ago.

Of course we only hear about famous (or semi-famous) people Off the top of my head... Stephen Hsu of MSU Greg Patton of USC Bret Weinstein (a few years ago.. this backfired). Jonathan Friedland (fired for using the N-Word in a meeting discussing sensitive words in PR), Peter Boghossian (still is employed, but was harassed IRL and investigated under ethics charges after the grievance studies papers). But, it's the famous people that are the most important for signalling that if you publicly voice an unpopular opinion you will have to endure retribution. It's the chilling effect that important as that will silence multiples for each public witch burning. For most of human history being ostracized from your social group was a death sentence. We are wired to respond to negative group pressure. We learn the rules pretty quickly. Avoid certain topics, post anodyne content, virtue signal to my in group.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This is exactly the problem, of the people you listed, only perhaps freidland and patton meet GPs definition of cancel culture. The others got backlash for doing incendiary, public things, which doesn't meet the definition given by GP. Hsu, Weinstein, and Boghossian definitely do not meet GPs definition. After a second look, Freidland also does not. He was fired by netflix solely due to their preferences and without any sort of external hubbub at all. (I'm also not clear how Friedland's firing meets any definition of cancel culture, so I'd like to hear your definition as well).
- mgamache 6y ago
  GP was looking for people 'who was not previously famous'. Any college professor has a somewhat public job, but it's not the defining feature of the job (for most professors).
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You picked out one aspect of four. A college professor who gets recognition for controversial research they do does have the opportunity to contextualize that research. Someone who spends weeks or months devoted to doing something wasn't "caught on a bad day". An executive fired by their own company isn't "thrust into the spotlight". If your personal definition of cancel culture is "a non famous person faces consequences for an act", that's fine, but it's also a uselessly loose definition.
    - fscsq 6y ago
      "Faced consequences" is such a horrid phrase. Strongly implying that a heinous act had been committed, one that required punishment but would have gone unpunished, and that the "consequences" wrought instead were fair and justified and proportionate and meaningful...but without having to actually make such statements. That they don't normally face consequences, that they are the fabled Men of Power that run roughshod over laws and morals and spend their days kicking dogs and grabbing pussies, and it is up to us to make them face Consequences once and for all. But fortunately, you only said "they did something, so we felt justified to Do Something", a statement of fact, impervious to attack.

joshuamorton 6y ago

This is exactly the problem, of the people you listed, only perhaps freidland and patton meet GPs definition of cancel culture. The others got backlash for doing incendiary, public things, which doesn't meet the definition given by GP. Hsu, Weinstein, and Boghossian definitely do not meet GPs definition. After a second look, Freidland also does not. He was fired by netflix solely due to their preferences and without any sort of external hubbub at all. (I'm also not clear how Friedland's firing meets any definition of cancel culture, so I'd like to hear your definition as well).

mgamache 6y ago
GP was looking for people 'who was not previously famous'. Any college professor has a somewhat public job, but it's not the defining feature of the job (for most professors).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You picked out one aspect of four. A college professor who gets recognition for controversial research they do does have the opportunity to contextualize that research. Someone who spends weeks or months devoted to doing something wasn't "caught on a bad day". An executive fired by their own company isn't "thrust into the spotlight". If your personal definition of cancel culture is "a non famous person faces consequences for an act", that's fine, but it's also a uselessly loose definition.
  - fscsq 6y ago
    "Faced consequences" is such a horrid phrase. Strongly implying that a heinous act had been committed, one that required punishment but would have gone unpunished, and that the "consequences" wrought instead were fair and justified and proportionate and meaningful...but without having to actually make such statements. That they don't normally face consequences, that they are the fabled Men of Power that run roughshod over laws and morals and spend their days kicking dogs and grabbing pussies, and it is up to us to make them face Consequences once and for all. But fortunately, you only said "they did something, so we felt justified to Do Something", a statement of fact, impervious to attack.