4 ms·

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 doin

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.

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.