45 ms·

Reminds me of Dawn Frederick, a literary agent who was "cancelled" for calling 911 on looters who rammed a van into the gas station on her apartment block: http

• D13Fd 6y ago
  I honestly don't know why people use "post what you're thinking" style social media at all at this point. With employers being so sensitive, how can the cost/benefit analysis ever really result in a determination that it's a good idea to be active on Twitter/Facebook (or Gab, Parler, TheDonald.win, etc.)? Maybe that's part of what makes things get so extreme on those sites. The most reasonable people know enough not to risk their livelihoods by jumping in and posting, and that leaves the less reasonable people to just sit there and escalate.
  • banana_giraffe 6y ago
    I always suspected there's a little bit of survivorship bias (? not sure of the best term here) going on. If you haven't suffered the hoards, or had someone you know suffer them, you're likely to think some combination of "it only happens when it's justified" and "no one will care about little old me" I've witnessed it happen to a colleague early on in my career. He posted how trivial it was to cause an IoT device to reset because they had a reset password only protected by hashing an English word that they changed every update. There are multiple security lapses there, and he didn't even mention the really scary ones, this one was almost silly. Turns out the parent company of the IoT device and his parent company were the same, and calls got made, his post misunderstood by management, and he got told to find a new job somewhere else. Still makes my blood boil, and I'd name names, but neither company exists anymore. It did teach me to be _very_ careful what I post online, even when I'm anonymous.
    • kruxigt 6y ago
      Yeah, that sounds mostly really unlucky :(. I mean, anyone can understand that a company fires an employee that publicises a security weakness in a product instead of clearing it internally. However, when the employee doesn't understand that he is an "employee" of that company... Sounds like an unfortunate mistake.. you can be fired for those.
    • andrewclunn 6y ago
      So you internalized the censorship? Sadly pragmatic lesson there.
    • jdhn 6y ago
      If neither company exists, why not name names anyways?
    • Chris2048 6y ago
      To be fair, sometimes things happen, and it can be good (I think JP said something like that). something like "never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" - if people demonstrate their shittiness, help them. It would just be your friend that got an (admittedly mandatory) wake-up call - other employees would too. The best remedy is just a totally neutral post/tweet detailing what happened, with no judgement at all - 3rd parties will get angry on your behalf, and a lack of initial anger will only motivate that moreso.
• henrikschroder 6y ago
  The phenomenon is called "purity spiral", and it's absolutely maddening. Here's a good article on it: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
  • common_crow 6y ago
    I really like the term purity spiral. It captures it quite well. Alas, it seems this thread was flagged. Ironic given the content. But I'll continue to share that article about the purity spiral with others, it captures a lot of the things I've seen quite well.
  • pepperspray 6y ago
    There's no winning in these situations. Sooner or later they will implode into smaller groups and won't have much power. Look at the different Christian sects that came to be over minor theological differences.
    • henrikschroder 6y ago
      The only way to win is not to play.
  • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago
    I very vividly experienced this in a communist society, and later in a religious society. It is always a safe bet to praise G-d or Dear Leader a little more than customary. No one will dare to challenge you. And after a short while this becomes a new average and a minimum requirement.
    • henrikschroder 6y ago
      For a humorous example of this, there's the movie Office Space, and the fight over the number of pieces of flair that Joanna is wearing. She wears 15 pieces of flair, the company required minimum, compared to the boss' favourite, Brian, who wears 37 pieces of flair.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• neartheplain 6y ago
  Another for your list: Jordanian-American woman gets her publishing deal canceled for tweeting about a rude DC Metro employee, because the Metro employee was black. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/05/11/dc-pundit-shamed-metro-worker-eating-train-now-her-book-deal-is-jeopardy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/05/11/dc-...
  • filmgirlcw 6y ago
    I’m very much against people being fired for their social media posts (unless we’re crossing way over a line that delves into calls for violence or is doing something illegal), but that situation was a bit more complicated. That author, who was PR professional and verified on Twitter, was using her account and her blue-checkmark to shame a worker on a train for eating on her break. She literally tried to get that employee fired and put their face all over the internet. So forgive me if I don’t weep for someone being snitched on on social media when they were snitching themselves and using their position (brands and places like the transit authority take complaints from people with blue checks much more seriously and blue checks absolutely know this) to try to get someone fired for daring to break a rule of eating on a train. Come on now. Her losing her book contract with a publisher no one has ever heard of seems almost fitting. ETA: Since then, she’s also been able to leverage that experience into redemption/victimhood profiles on Good Morning America and an article in Elle UK. Both opportunities I guarantee she never would have had with her debut novel, so she’s fine.
    • neartheplain 6y ago
      You’ve gone and assumed the worst. “Trying to get that employee fired?” I just don’t see it. Anyway, the Metro employees union would never go for it. The no-eating rule is a fairly big deal on Metro. A twelve-year-old girl was famously arrested for eating a single French fry [0], in a case (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) that went all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where the arrest was upheld. A teenager was arrested in 2016 for carrying chips and snacks into a Metro station [1]. If I saw an employee flouting this rule, I’d be indignant too. I wouldn’t have posted a photo of the person, but the kind of vitriol, racism, and naked hate this novelist faced in response to her tweet was totally unwarranted. The potential for negative consequences on the part of the Metro employee was greatly exaggerated. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1 [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-transit-police-arrest-teenager-for-carrying-chips-and-lollipop-into-station/2016/10/19/1360a014-9627-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...
• hapless 6y ago
  It's worth noting that Frederick's employees quit -- her statements on twitter angered her staff so much they no longer wished to associate with her. That's not cancel culture. That's common sense. Don't make your coworkers so angry that they'd rather be jobless than spend time in your presence. The freedom of speech isn't the freedom to speak without consequences. Frederick spoke her mind in a public square, and signed her name to those statements, and other people freely chose not to associate themselves with her. That's bound to happen from time to time. It's a free country.
  • nmfisher 6y ago
    "It's a free country" doesn't really add much to the discussion. No-one is saying her employees should be legally forced to stay with the company. What is being said, however, is that we should reverse this spiralling cultural trend of thinking it's OK to rail-road/strong-arm those not on your "side". It's a base, mob instinct that has caused riots, factionalism, witch hunts and genocide all throughout human history. It's arguably responsible for a lot of the damage in US society in recent years I mean, her employees quit because she posted on Twitter that a business was being looted and someone should call the police (I believe, the original tweet seems to have been deleted). Resigning over something so innocuous surely points to a disturbingly reductionist world view, and that path leads only to violence.
    • iso1631 6y ago
      > It's a base, mob instinct that has caused riots, factionalism, witch hunts and genocide all throughout human history This is it. In the last 10 years or so mob instinct has shown up in many ways - in looting stores, in doxing people and cancelling people who say the wrong things, in trying to overthrow governments, or just simple pile-ons. In part this has been fanned by big tech, but not entirely The trick is tackling the causes of the creation of the mobs. "You're either with us or against us" is not new - Clinton and Bush were using it 20 years ago, but Cicero used it in Rome and it's in the bible. Big Tech is certainly a key part of the creation and expanse as it connects people, and people are encouraged to "pick a side". In traditional discourse what you'd say to your sportsmates up the pub could be a very different conversation to what you say to your collegues at an awayday. With social media, what you say to one, you say to all -- walking between worlds is difficult. You might agree with group A on one thing (say housing), and group B on another thing (say BLM), and group C on another thing (say economy), but if those don't all align with your side, you won't fit in.
• klausjensen 6y ago
  In case somebody else were wondering, I looked it up: PoC authors in this context refers to "Persons of Color"-authors. In hindsight it is probably clear from the context - but I didn't immediately get it. :)
  • marton78 6y ago
    I feel you, as an European engineer far away from such matters, PoC means "proof of concept" to me :)
    • OJFord 6y ago
      I had no idea what it meant and actually guessed it was some kind of slur (in line with PoS) until I learnt recently. Weird term. Doesn't work unabbreviated as an adjective, an adjectival formation ('coloured') is long out of politically-correct favour (at least it is in the UK), and why, is 'of colour' different/better/at all a good description of someone anyway? I'm, er, 'without colour', so it's hardly for me to object, but I couldn't comfortably use it. Fortunately (or I suppose that's why it 'feels' off to me) nobody ('of colour' or not) here seems to. Or maybe it's just a lesson in tone etc. being harder to convey on the internet - for ages I thought 'MeToo' was against the alleged victims, as in 'oh yeah yeah me too, I'm Brian and so's my wife'.
      • thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > why is 'of colour' different/better/at all a good description of someone anyway? It's different in that it's a different phrase. It's better because it's different; terminology in this area is driven purely by fashion. https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1988/08/28 https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1988/08/28
        • Macha 6y ago
          When I was in primary school, handicapped was going out of fashion in favour of disabled (wikipedia tells me we were 10-15 years later than the US on that one, culture wasn't so instantly global then). A large part of this was that handicapped had been repurposed as an insult so there was a need for disabled (as happened for the previous terminology for mental disability, also). Of course even "disabled [person/people]" is heading into the "maybe don't use that" territory these days It's clear why this happens, having difficulties is viewed as undesirable, most people would choose not to have them if they could (I'm aware some people with disabilities have felt it made them who they are and wouldn't change it, but they aren't the people to start using terms in a pejorative manner). As long as there are real negative attitudes against black people and real negative effects on black people, this is likely to be the same for terms used there also. I feel the only reason person centered language like "people of color" and "person with disabilities" has lasted so long as the acceptable phrasing is simply because the more wordy phrases are harder to turn into a playground insult/drunk jeering/etc.
• guntars 6y ago
  From that story, it doesn’t seem like calling 911 was the problem. It was tweeting about it.
  • srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Tweeting was the trigger. Hysteria was the problem.
• ForHackernews 6y ago
  I don't understand this, how did angry activists know that she was the one who phoned 911? Are identities of 911 callers part of some public records disclosure?
  • pjc50 6y ago
    She posted about it herself.
    • ForHackernews 6y ago
      Ok, then I have to revise my opinion of this. Live by the blue checkmark, die by the blue checkmark. Social media is a cancer.
• refurb 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings "On April 8, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union (DSt) proclaimed a nationwide "Action against the Un-German Spirit", which was to climax in a literary purge or "cleansing" ("Säuberung") by fire."
• boplicity 6y ago
  The term "cancel culture" is extremely ironic. The implication of the term is that people should not be "cancelled" for expressing their views. And yet, backing out of a book deal, for example, is an expression of a view. In practice, the term is used to de-legitimize some opinions, while upholding others. The term "cancel culture" is cancel culture.
  • boplicity 6y ago
    I don't mind down-votes, but I would prefer critical discourse.
  • srtjstjsj 6y ago
    This is a bad take, the wrong side of "paradox of tolerance". Firing/boycotting someone for doing nothing wrong, not even for something "offensive", but just for appearing to have some observable qualities vaguely similar to people who do offensive things, is unjustifiable.
    • Person5478 6y ago
      It blew me away when the ok symbol somehow became a white supremacist symbol. I couldn't believe people would actually allow white supremacists to have so much power over them that they'd circumvent such a benign symbol.
      • loveistheanswer 6y ago
        If my meme history is correct, the okay symbol was created as a troll on 4chan, and the media took the bait
        • theandrewbailey 6y ago
          Same thing with white milk.
        • AustinDev 6y ago
          You are correct. It was the beginning of the modern ‘clown world’ movement in memery.
• srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Another PoC author got her book dropped and brigaded by abusive harassers on goodreads, for the crime of tweeting a gripe that a subway employee illegally ate food on a subway train.
  • SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    Elsewhere in the thread it appears this author actually attempted to get this person fired. (Also, is has apparently been legal since 2019.) It’s more complicated than this. I don’t condone any harassment but not accurately disseminating the information is the same non-nuanced mob behavior that causes the harassment in the first place.
• cercatrova 6y ago
  Something I don't understand is, why don't people simply ignore such harassment and forcibly proceed towards whatever they were doing anyway? Such as publishing those books for example.
• dandersh 6y ago
  This post is misleading and outright false in some respects. From the first article posted: "By Claire Kirch | May 31, 2020 The civil unrest in the Twin Cities continues to take its toll on Minnesota's literary community—sometimes in unexpected ways. Thursday evening, the night before protesters set fire to two adjoining Minneapolis indie bookstores and destroying them both, the reaction to a St. Paul–based literary agent’s tweet ended up gutting the boutique agency she owns. Three agents affiliated with Red Sofa Literary tweeted this past weekend that they have resigned in response to owner Dawn Frederick’s tweet, leaving one subsidiary rights executive besides Frederick still employed there. Frederick's official Red Sofa account on Twitter has been removed." "Frederick, who founded Red Sofa in 2008, is a well-known fixture in Minnesota’s vibrant literary community, serving on the board of directors of the Loft Literary Center and having launched the MN Publishing Tweet Up social group. She also supervises the team of volunteers working in the galley room during the Heartland Fall Forum regional booksellers trade show each year." So no, this was not during the BLM protests in St. Louis as the date of the article precedes when those began. Furthermore she is a "well-known fixture in Minnesota's vibrant literary community", and has been since 2008, which is something I would have expected someone who "worked in publishing for years" to be aware of. Throwing her name combined with BLM into search engines like google only returns results after this event, so your assertion of her advocacy is unfounded and not to be believed by the above and what follows. "Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick of the Meyer, Njus, Tanick law firm emailed cease-and-desist letters on Monday to two literary agents and an author on behalf of his client, Dawn Frederick of Red Sofa Literary. The two agents are Beth Phelan of Gallt and Zacker (the email was cc’ed to that agency’s two principals) and Kelly Van Sant, who until two weeks ago worked for Red Sofa. The author is Isabel Sterling, who writes YA novels. SFF author Foz Meadows also received an email, she tweeted, but it contained multiple factual errors and was recalled by its sender." "UPDATE: On Thursday afternoon, Laura Zats, a principal of Headwater Literary Management in Minneapolis announced that she received a letter from Frederick's lawyer, threatening legal action against the agent for re-tweeting tweets by others alleging that Frederick is racist. Zats is a former employee of Red Sofa Literary, who left it last year ago to found her own agency. She has joined Phelan, Van Sant, and Sterling in their GoFundMe campaign soliciting funds in case of a lawsuit. The campaign has raised almost $15,000 to date. Several authors have announced that they are severing their relationships with Red Sofa Literary, including Margot Atwell, the head of publishing for Kickstarter. She tweeted Thursday afternoon that she has terminated her relationship with Frederick "due to the choice she made to call the police during the protests against George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, and her subsequent decision to threaten legal action against her critics." https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/people/article/83563-red-sofa-literary-principal-threatens-to-sue-other-agents-author.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p... So Frederick decides to start suing people, which results in agents/authors not targeted in lawsuits to cut ties with her in part due to her legal efforts. Had she stuck with the apology she released a few days after the tweet, instead of doubling down and even throwing lawsuits around, things would have likely been far better for her. Or even not publicly announcing she was calling the police during protests against police behavior. In other words she's not the blameless martyr you make her out to be. And finally cancelling is just a propaganda term on the political right to escape the negative consequences of their actions. This is evidenced by it not being applied when, say the (Dixie) Chicks criticized President Bush and had their careers largely ended. It's also not applied when the 'cancelling' is apolitical, such as a restaurateur who alienates their customers/community (think Cafe Hon from Kitchen Nightmares). EDIT: Less than 2 minutes after this was posted it was down voted and flagged.