2 ms·

> The difference is that they classify an "aggression" as equivalent to cancelling, and they have a very expansive definition of what an aggression is. Well, y

> The difference is that they classify an "aggression" as equivalent to cancelling, and they have a very expansive definition of what an aggression is. Well, yes, that's one hell of a difference. Their definition of "aggression" is basically expressing any disagreement with their ideas, because they're totalitarians and totalitarians can tolerate no dissent. The symmetry is thus false. This would be a bit like saying that China and Japan had a defensive stance at the outset of WWII, but that Japan merely had a much looser set of criteria for what constituted Chinese aggression than vice versa. I'm sure from the Imperial Japanese perspective, they saw themselves as defending their way of life, even though they were obviously aggressors to all other parties.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Agreed. Still, to me, starting from a more reasonable starting point and then following the exact same playbook seems like a bad idea. I think it likely that the playbook is dangerous, not just the starting point. How is it dangerous? I suspect that the logic of it drives you more and more into open conflict and warring camps. I'm not sure that's the best response to cancel culture.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > Agreed. Good that we basically agree about the nature of the enemy. > Still, to me, starting from a more reasonable starting point and then following the exact same playbook seems like a bad idea. I think it likely that the playbook is dangerous, not just the starting point. But it's not the exact same playbook. For example, when do woke mobs forgive and leave their targets alone? It's pure domination from them. > How is it dangerous? I suspect that the logic of it drives you more and more into open conflict and warring camps. I'm not sure that's the best response to cancel culture. Yes, of course it's dangerous. There will be people who simply hate the wokes just as much as the wokes hate them, and they'll bask in power games just as much as the wokes do. I reject and disavow that now and will continue to. That being said, I think following the conditions I laid out would prevent my "side" from going overboard. The biggest danger IMO is in operational problems like falsely accusing someone of being a cancel culture warrior, which could cause serious harm. It could also be weaponized by the wokes themselves. Ultimately, I think cancel culture either dies out on its own (the cancelers begin to cancel each other, which we have seen some evidence of), or it drags literally everyone into its maw. I think the latter, esp. in the tech world, is a serious risk. Once cancel culture and social justice take root in some organization, they are polarizing. Since wokeness is totalitarian, trying to remain neutral is an unstable position (in practice, neutrality is an anti-woke position), a bit like trying to stay away from the Nazi or Communist parties in 1930s Germany or Russia. I'm not sure the best response either, but this seems like a fairly good one, albeit one I won't act on until some of the vulnerabilities can be mitigated (such as false accusations). While I strongly support the open letter to the ACM, and other open letters like the Harper's one, or even Bari Weiss' open letter to the NYT, I'm not sure those are much more than a wet noodle to the wokes. If anything, it just helps them organize the target list. My way at least has some teeth and gives the various parties an incentive to behave civilly again.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Agreed. Still, to me, starting from a more reasonable starting point and then following the exact same playbook seems like a bad idea. I think it likely that the playbook is dangerous, not just the starting point. How is it dangerous? I suspect that the logic of it drives you more and more into open conflict and warring camps. I'm not sure that's the best response to cancel culture.

baryphonic 6y ago
> Agreed. Good that we basically agree about the nature of the enemy. > Still, to me, starting from a more reasonable starting point and then following the exact same playbook seems like a bad idea. I think it likely that the playbook is dangerous, not just the starting point. But it's not the exact same playbook. For example, when do woke mobs forgive and leave their targets alone? It's pure domination from them. > How is it dangerous? I suspect that the logic of it drives you more and more into open conflict and warring camps. I'm not sure that's the best response to cancel culture. Yes, of course it's dangerous. There will be people who simply hate the wokes just as much as the wokes hate them, and they'll bask in power games just as much as the wokes do. I reject and disavow that now and will continue to. That being said, I think following the conditions I laid out would prevent my "side" from going overboard. The biggest danger IMO is in operational problems like falsely accusing someone of being a cancel culture warrior, which could cause serious harm. It could also be weaponized by the wokes themselves. Ultimately, I think cancel culture either dies out on its own (the cancelers begin to cancel each other, which we have seen some evidence of), or it drags literally everyone into its maw. I think the latter, esp. in the tech world, is a serious risk. Once cancel culture and social justice take root in some organization, they are polarizing. Since wokeness is totalitarian, trying to remain neutral is an unstable position (in practice, neutrality is an anti-woke position), a bit like trying to stay away from the Nazi or Communist parties in 1930s Germany or Russia. I'm not sure the best response either, but this seems like a fairly good one, albeit one I won't act on until some of the vulnerabilities can be mitigated (such as false accusations). While I strongly support the open letter to the ACM, and other open letters like the Harper's one, or even Bari Weiss' open letter to the NYT, I'm not sure those are much more than a wet noodle to the wokes. If anything, it just helps them organize the target list. My way at least has some teeth and gives the various parties an incentive to behave civilly again.