6 ms·

> What views in the 1950s do you think were similar? How about professing atheism, or believe in communism? Being in a same sex or different race relationship

> What views in the 1950s do you think were similar? How about professing atheism, or believe in communism? Being in a same sex or different race relationship in the 50's wouldn't just get you fired, it could lead to people refusing to give you a mortgage or the police driving you out of town. It's difficult to find examples from the 50's america of a widespread belief that wasn't in the "mainstream" acceptable view because the effects of going against the acceptable view were so harsh. I doubt we could find a reliable poll from that time period to hit your arbitrary 30% threshold, but I like to flatter my ancestral countrymen at least enough to think that miscegenation laws weren't thought of as morally right by 70% of the population. The difference, as you point it out, is that today's "cancel culture" can target people from the majority classes.

rayiner 6y ago
> How about professing atheism, or believe in communism? Even today these are sub-5% viewpoints.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  Okay, how about allowing mixed race marriages? I think the 30% threshold is arbitrary and not worth fixating on, but there are certainly counter examples.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    In 1958, only 4% of Americans supported interracial marriage. (And in 1951 you had Support was around 30% by the 1970s. It was below 50% into the mid-1990s. In 1975, The Jeffersons featured an interracial married couple on TV. So that’s not a great example of being cancelled for something 30% of Americans supported.
    - mattnewton 6y ago
      Another example is catholicism; Catholics absolutely were barred from some jobs in the 50's, despite being nearly a quarter of the population. We can keep looking at examples, but I don't think the 30% is a meaningful number, as I wrote above it seems impossible to find an opinion that the majority felt comfortable expressing that went against the stringent vocal monitory setting the overton window. I hypothesize that the vast majority of people just did not care strongly about interracial marriage but did not want to tangle with those who did. It seems to just be another way of saying that today's overton window doesn't include some of the views common in conservative white america, and before it was defined by conservative white america.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - yanderekko 6y ago
        30% is an arbitrary number, so if you find an example with or 29% I'd be happy to hear that too. I probably could find some examples of majority views in 2021 that would get you predictably fired if you expressed them as say an adjunct professor. Think "All Lives Matter" and such. But if you have to reach down to 20% or 10% or whatever then yes that's a significant enough difference that I see it as conceding my original point about that this isn't like the 50s. It's also notable that the examples that you're reaching for seem to involve elite bigotry that eventually collapsed - do you think that cancel culture will collapse in the same fashion?
throwaway894345 6y ago
> The difference, as you point it out, is that today's "cancel culture" can target people from the majority classes. I think the difference is that "cancel culture" targets speech that is acceptable to well over 70% of the population.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  “Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. I think the truth is the majority has no appetite for the culture wars and mostly doesn’t want to be out of step with “normal” - their default lack of conviction is often mistaken for tacit support by both sides of an issue.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > “Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. Your comment made me curious, and I found out Politico took a poll: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe7.... 46% think cancel culture goes too far, 10% thinks it goes not far enough, 18% say 'neither', and 26% don't know. The kicker, however, is that Politico defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for a public figure or a company". That is the softest, most benign definition I can think of and it notably excludes all of the ordinary people who were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign. It strikes me as almost pleasant--"we're angry with you, so we're going to go away and leave you be!". I think for a more reasonable definition, and especially when primed with specific incidences of cancellation (especially ordinary people who lost jobs), far more would disapprove. I don't want to quibble about definitions, but I'm expressly not concerned about celebrities "losing support" and much more interested in low and middle class families losing income and healthcare. I think "cancel culture" mostly just works because it takes society some time to collectively identify a problem and organize to find a solution. At present, there are at least a handful of bills in the pipeline of various state legislatures to combat cancel culture, all of which would be horrible from perspectives of free speech and academic freedom (the best approach I can think of is to strengthen employment protections and take away the bullies' stick). The point is that just because political opposition hasn't organized yet doesn't mean that the majority of people are ambivalent or supportive.

rayiner 6y ago

> How about professing atheism, or believe in communism? Even today these are sub-5% viewpoints.

mattnewton 6y ago
Okay, how about allowing mixed race marriages? I think the 30% threshold is arbitrary and not worth fixating on, but there are certainly counter examples.
- rayiner 6y ago
  In 1958, only 4% of Americans supported interracial marriage. (And in 1951 you had Support was around 30% by the 1970s. It was below 50% into the mid-1990s. In 1975, The Jeffersons featured an interracial married couple on TV. So that’s not a great example of being cancelled for something 30% of Americans supported.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    Another example is catholicism; Catholics absolutely were barred from some jobs in the 50's, despite being nearly a quarter of the population. We can keep looking at examples, but I don't think the 30% is a meaningful number, as I wrote above it seems impossible to find an opinion that the majority felt comfortable expressing that went against the stringent vocal monitory setting the overton window. I hypothesize that the vast majority of people just did not care strongly about interracial marriage but did not want to tangle with those who did. It seems to just be another way of saying that today's overton window doesn't include some of the views common in conservative white america, and before it was defined by conservative white america.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - yanderekko 6y ago
      30% is an arbitrary number, so if you find an example with or 29% I'd be happy to hear that too. I probably could find some examples of majority views in 2021 that would get you predictably fired if you expressed them as say an adjunct professor. Think "All Lives Matter" and such. But if you have to reach down to 20% or 10% or whatever then yes that's a significant enough difference that I see it as conceding my original point about that this isn't like the 50s. It's also notable that the examples that you're reaching for seem to involve elite bigotry that eventually collapsed - do you think that cancel culture will collapse in the same fashion?

throwaway894345 6y ago

> The difference, as you point it out, is that today's "cancel culture" can target people from the majority classes. I think the difference is that "cancel culture" targets speech that is acceptable to well over 70% of the population.

mattnewton 6y ago
“Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. I think the truth is the majority has no appetite for the culture wars and mostly doesn’t want to be out of step with “normal” - their default lack of conviction is often mistaken for tacit support by both sides of an issue.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > “Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. Your comment made me curious, and I found out Politico took a poll: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe7.... 46% think cancel culture goes too far, 10% thinks it goes not far enough, 18% say 'neither', and 26% don't know. The kicker, however, is that Politico defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for a public figure or a company". That is the softest, most benign definition I can think of and it notably excludes all of the ordinary people who were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign. It strikes me as almost pleasant--"we're angry with you, so we're going to go away and leave you be!". I think for a more reasonable definition, and especially when primed with specific incidences of cancellation (especially ordinary people who lost jobs), far more would disapprove. I don't want to quibble about definitions, but I'm expressly not concerned about celebrities "losing support" and much more interested in low and middle class families losing income and healthcare. I think "cancel culture" mostly just works because it takes society some time to collectively identify a problem and organize to find a solution. At present, there are at least a handful of bills in the pipeline of various state legislatures to combat cancel culture, all of which would be horrible from perspectives of free speech and academic freedom (the best approach I can think of is to strengthen employment protections and take away the bullies' stick). The point is that just because political opposition hasn't organized yet doesn't mean that the majority of people are ambivalent or supportive.