4 ms·

Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a sensitive topic with such open curiosity. Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are

Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a sensitive topic with such open curiosity. Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as they see fit. - The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, but global response. - The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a massive turn-around already or you were recorded without consent. Often that doesn't matter. - It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't led to improve. - No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, career, and family life) is in tatters. What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the current norm is, always remember you will be judged according to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. boss, parent, etc).

mathgorges 6y ago
Thanks for this. These sort-of argument catalogue comments are very helpful in these discussions. And your call out at the bottom is good wisdom :) Edit: this->these
- mr-wendel 6y ago
  You bet! Now, if you'll allow me to try to present the other side for your consideration: - Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick. - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic. - People are learning how horrible it is to rely on power and privilege to isolate you from the effects of your wrong-doing. Even if we assume the best of people and that they aren't consciously doing this, it is still pushing awareness closer to consciousness and thus (hopefully) better decision making. - The importance of allyship is making massive strides. As oft quoted, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". On a personal note, as a kid watching a neighborhood kid get his bully-buddy to stop throwing snowballs at another kid taught me a lesson I've never forgotten. - "Good" and "bad" deeds always have a "blast radius" and require support of some kind to sustain. Engaging organizations and platforms that surround people is a critical component to making a change, or all you're doing is swapping the hood ornament on the car without touching the engine underneath.
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > - Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick. I was under the impression the virtue signalling specifically requires insincerity. For example, if you inject yourself into a conversation to lecture everyone about what a great ally you are (and you don't even really mean it), that is virtue signaling. If you try to make it all about yourself, and assert completely risk free opinions that challenge nothing, that is virtue signalling. Simply sharing and asserting your values doesn't have to be virtue signalling. > - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic. Nobody objects to the underlying idea of witch hunting. If there were actual witches that were using magic powers to poison the town, of course we should have an inquisitor to hunt them down. This has only ever been a discussion about tactics.
    - mr-wendel 6y ago
      Thanks for your extra thoughts -- I think they add some very relevant color that I was intentionally omitting. I think there are lot of loaded words in our political vocabulary and their meaning can have subtle (or even significant) shifts based on who uses them. If "virtue signaling" includes a connotation of insincerity, and that aspect changes everything entirely as you show. I used it in a more strictly technical sense, but I think it fair to say that with most language the neutral, technical version is the least common in actual usage.
LanceH 6y ago
-- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on -- especially with regards to forgiveness of something which happened some time ago. -- Context is irrelevant. People are being canceled for using the wrong word when enumerating words which cannot be said. again, some people can say them, some can't. -- it is completely out of proportion to things which do actual damage. This really bothers me. Someone saying something really bad means less to me than even the mildest act of violence -- some places are upping the ante to claim that speech is actual violence and that if certain people aren't fired, then the workplace is unsafe
- MikeDelta 6y ago
  I've seen people get upset about authors from demographic group X writing about people from demographic group Y. Apparently, that is a prerogative of only group Y nowadays.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    I wouldn't consider that by itself as representative of anything - it's completely normal that people get upset about other people for all kinds of subjective reasons, that's normal free speech and diversity of opinions, I'm not the one to judge whether their upset is justified or not. But what seems problematic for me is when institutions react to random outrage groups (which often are very vocal but small groups) on social media by blindly joining in the outrage and rapidly severing ties with people (firing them, removing authors, etc) without a serious investigation of what - if any - actual wrongdoing there was, what were the circumstances, etc. I would expect some semblance of due process instead of "just" doing what the crowd says immediately for PR reasons.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    While simultaneously another author gets criticized for not including enough Y's.
- StevePerkins 6y ago
  > -- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on Joss Whedon is a showrunner and filmmaker, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame. A few years ago while going through a divorce, his ex-wife alleged that he had sex with female staff on one of his shows. This lead to allegations that his demeanor on the set of Justice League was snide and unprofessional. Which lead to former Buffy and Angel actors coming forward, and alleging that Joss called an actress "fat" when she got pregnant almost 20 years ago. James Cameron is a filmmaker of Titanic and Terminator fame. He has been married five times, notably to filmmakers he's worked with and actresses who worked on his films. Some of his divorces have been attributed to affairs with other actresses under his employ. He is a notoriously angry and difficult director to work for, and on the set of The Abyss he was punched in the face by an actor who was nearly allowed to drown because Cameron didn't want to spoil the take. Joss Whedon is effectively canceled. He has been forced to step down from a new show he was developing for HBO, and his fanbase on various Internet forums has viscerally turned against him. James Cameron is an Academy Award winner, one of the most marketable brands in the entertainment industry, and everyone will be lining up to watch Avatar sequels over the next few years. For me personally, the inconsistency and near-randomness of it all is just... unsettling.

mathgorges 6y ago

Thanks for this. These sort-of argument catalogue comments are very helpful in these discussions. And your call out at the bottom is good wisdom :) Edit: this->these

mr-wendel 6y ago
You bet! Now, if you'll allow me to try to present the other side for your consideration: - Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick. - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic. - People are learning how horrible it is to rely on power and privilege to isolate you from the effects of your wrong-doing. Even if we assume the best of people and that they aren't consciously doing this, it is still pushing awareness closer to consciousness and thus (hopefully) better decision making. - The importance of allyship is making massive strides. As oft quoted, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". On a personal note, as a kid watching a neighborhood kid get his bully-buddy to stop throwing snowballs at another kid taught me a lesson I've never forgotten. - "Good" and "bad" deeds always have a "blast radius" and require support of some kind to sustain. Engaging organizations and platforms that surround people is a critical component to making a change, or all you're doing is swapping the hood ornament on the car without touching the engine underneath.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > - Virtue signaling is a critical component to personal and social moral growth. Showing where you stand and putting your money where you mouth is necessary to decentralize authority and improve the standards that are "baked" into society. Otherwise you're just appealing to whoever has the biggest stick. I was under the impression the virtue signalling specifically requires insincerity. For example, if you inject yourself into a conversation to lecture everyone about what a great ally you are (and you don't even really mean it), that is virtue signaling. If you try to make it all about yourself, and assert completely risk free opinions that challenge nothing, that is virtue signalling. Simply sharing and asserting your values doesn't have to be virtue signalling. > - That people misapply a legitimate action or are overzealous in its application doesn't mean the underlying idea is wrong. The Internet is still quite young and its inviting a global confrontation of how to deal with deeply-seated social problems. Expecting this new-found power to be wielded without making mistakes is unrealistic. Nobody objects to the underlying idea of witch hunting. If there were actual witches that were using magic powers to poison the town, of course we should have an inquisitor to hunt them down. This has only ever been a discussion about tactics.
  - mr-wendel 6y ago
    Thanks for your extra thoughts -- I think they add some very relevant color that I was intentionally omitting. I think there are lot of loaded words in our political vocabulary and their meaning can have subtle (or even significant) shifts based on who uses them. If "virtue signaling" includes a connotation of insincerity, and that aspect changes everything entirely as you show. I used it in a more strictly technical sense, but I think it fair to say that with most language the neutral, technical version is the least common in actual usage.

LanceH 6y ago

-- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on -- especially with regards to forgiveness of something which happened some time ago. -- Context is irrelevant. People are being canceled for using the wrong word when enumerating words which cannot be said. again, some people can say them, some can't. -- it is completely out of proportion to things which do actual damage. This really bothers me. Someone saying something really bad means less to me than even the mildest act of violence -- some places are upping the ante to claim that speech is actual violence and that if certain people aren't fired, then the workplace is unsafe

MikeDelta 6y ago
I've seen people get upset about authors from demographic group X writing about people from demographic group Y. Apparently, that is a prerogative of only group Y nowadays.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I wouldn't consider that by itself as representative of anything - it's completely normal that people get upset about other people for all kinds of subjective reasons, that's normal free speech and diversity of opinions, I'm not the one to judge whether their upset is justified or not. But what seems problematic for me is when institutions react to random outrage groups (which often are very vocal but small groups) on social media by blindly joining in the outrage and rapidly severing ties with people (firing them, removing authors, etc) without a serious investigation of what - if any - actual wrongdoing there was, what were the circumstances, etc. I would expect some semblance of due process instead of "just" doing what the crowd says immediately for PR reasons.
- LanceH 6y ago
  While simultaneously another author gets criticized for not including enough Y's.
StevePerkins 6y ago
> -- it is selectively enforced depending on what side someone is on Joss Whedon is a showrunner and filmmaker, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame. A few years ago while going through a divorce, his ex-wife alleged that he had sex with female staff on one of his shows. This lead to allegations that his demeanor on the set of Justice League was snide and unprofessional. Which lead to former Buffy and Angel actors coming forward, and alleging that Joss called an actress "fat" when she got pregnant almost 20 years ago. James Cameron is a filmmaker of Titanic and Terminator fame. He has been married five times, notably to filmmakers he's worked with and actresses who worked on his films. Some of his divorces have been attributed to affairs with other actresses under his employ. He is a notoriously angry and difficult director to work for, and on the set of The Abyss he was punched in the face by an actor who was nearly allowed to drown because Cameron didn't want to spoil the take. Joss Whedon is effectively canceled. He has been forced to step down from a new show he was developing for HBO, and his fanbase on various Internet forums has viscerally turned against him. James Cameron is an Academy Award winner, one of the most marketable brands in the entertainment industry, and everyone will be lining up to watch Avatar sequels over the next few years. For me personally, the inconsistency and near-randomness of it all is just... unsettling.