5 ms·

You seem to assume people accepted the definition and ignored the term. Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it

You seem to assume people accepted the definition and ignored the term. Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. They came close actually. 53% said "people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public" was closer to their opinion. Only 31% said "There should not be social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people because free speech is protected" was closer to their opinion. How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. Sure, it’s not a very good term. No argument from me. > Social consequences Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? When I think of social consequences, I think “you might lose friends”, not “you won’t be able to pay your bills and your kid won’t get the treatment she needs to survive”. > How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes. I’m guessing anecdotes are the best we have. I doubt anyone has numbers because employers are rarely going to be forthcoming that they fired their employee because they were afraid of the Twitter mob. Moreover, it’s not just the people who are fired, but the people who self-censor for fear of losing their jobs. Personally I don’t understand why this is controversial. Surely we can all agree that Twitter mobs shouldn’t hold sway over people’s employment in order to suppress dissent? How much fear and chilled speech is optimal for a democratic society? Even if you think critics exaggerate the impact of cancel culture, can’t we all agree that canceling is vile, there’s too much of it going around, and we should condemn it and if necessary neuter it by passing employment protection laws or regulating social media or similar?
- krapp 6y ago
  >Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? Of course it is, when employment is not a right but a privilege granted by society. Exceptions regarding protected groups aside, no one has the right to embarrass their employer and potentially negatively affect their image or customer relations and keep their job. That is functionally no different than bringing shame to one's household or community.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    That’s a harsh take in a society that lacks universal income or healthcare. It’s also ripe for exploitation in that anyone can harass your employer into firing you if you offend them. I’m sure that works great if the mob is on your side, but mobs aren’t exactly known for their fidelity.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Perhaps it's harsh, but it's true, and it's always been true. Employment has never existed in some pocket universe entirely separate from society or its consequences. And many of the same people most vocally complaining about cancel culture belong to the political axis that opposes universal income and social safety nets, labor rights and protections for special classes, and if the "twitter mob" came after progressives, feminists or LGBT people wouldn't lift so much as a finger in protest. So it's difficult in that case to have sympathy with people who want to have their cake but refuse to eat it.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        > Perhaps it's harsh, but it's true, and it's always been true. Perhaps it's always been true in the US, but other countries protect employment. > Employment has never existed in some pocket universe entirely separate from society or its consequences. By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences". But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative.
        krapp 6y ago
        >Perhaps it's always been true in the US, but other countries protect employment. True. >By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences". Of course it is. Have you never heard of honor killings? Crimes of passion or revenge? Something can be a social consequence and also be a crime. No one is arguing that all social consequences must be legal, or should always be tolerable. >But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative. This is why I should stop trying to have political conversations on Hacker News, in the end, everyone just makes it personal. I'm actually opposed to at-will employment and I support free speech, albeit not the absolutist definition of free speech that Hacker News seems to believe in. I do support the right of groups to petition anyone they like - even employers, to air whatever grievances they wish. Cancel culture, while it can be abused, is an expression of free speech. And that's the rub - everyone wants to abridge the free speech rights of the "twitter mob" because of politics, but no one wants to address the fact that the only real power in "cancel culture" lies with the employer.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  54% supported Blake Neff being fired. Slightly more than supported unspecified social consequences. Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids? Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound. Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it. But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > 54% supported Blake Neff being fired. Slightly more than supported unspecified social consequences. I'm guessing people interpreted the question as "Do you think posting racist remarks is a fireable offense?". I don't think he should be fired because a Twitter mob harassed his employer. Ask them about David Shor and see what happens. > Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids? I don't think it is acceptable, and neither do many other lefties with the notable exception for cancel culture--then it's just Social Consequences (TM). > Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound. Maybe, but it's still going to be a slog to get that data. Good luck to any researcher who is investigating this, but I'm not holding my breath. Probably a better approach would be to look at periodic surveys that ask "How comfortable do you feel talking about X?" every few years, and look at how the results change over time. I'm guessing these exist. Maybe the effect of cancel culture is actually smaller than I'm expecting? Who knows? > Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it. No, it just means we need to be clear when we discuss it. As previously mentioned, I'm talking about ordinary people being terminated because of an organized harassment campaign. > But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence. Nor should they be. But a harassment campaign for the express purpose of having an employee terminated because they offended you isn't "free speech" any more than any other kind of harassment.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. Sure, it’s not a very good term. No argument from me. > Social consequences Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? When I think of social consequences, I think “you might lose friends”, not “you won’t be able to pay your bills and your kid won’t get the treatment she needs to survive”. > How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes. I’m guessing anecdotes are the best we have. I doubt anyone has numbers because employers are rarely going to be forthcoming that they fired their employee because they were afraid of the Twitter mob. Moreover, it’s not just the people who are fired, but the people who self-censor for fear of losing their jobs. Personally I don’t understand why this is controversial. Surely we can all agree that Twitter mobs shouldn’t hold sway over people’s employment in order to suppress dissent? How much fear and chilled speech is optimal for a democratic society? Even if you think critics exaggerate the impact of cancel culture, can’t we all agree that canceling is vile, there’s too much of it going around, and we should condemn it and if necessary neuter it by passing employment protection laws or regulating social media or similar?

krapp 6y ago
>Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? Of course it is, when employment is not a right but a privilege granted by society. Exceptions regarding protected groups aside, no one has the right to embarrass their employer and potentially negatively affect their image or customer relations and keep their job. That is functionally no different than bringing shame to one's household or community.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  That’s a harsh take in a society that lacks universal income or healthcare. It’s also ripe for exploitation in that anyone can harass your employer into firing you if you offend them. I’m sure that works great if the mob is on your side, but mobs aren’t exactly known for their fidelity.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Perhaps it's harsh, but it's true, and it's always been true. Employment has never existed in some pocket universe entirely separate from society or its consequences. And many of the same people most vocally complaining about cancel culture belong to the political axis that opposes universal income and social safety nets, labor rights and protections for special classes, and if the "twitter mob" came after progressives, feminists or LGBT people wouldn't lift so much as a finger in protest. So it's difficult in that case to have sympathy with people who want to have their cake but refuse to eat it.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > Perhaps it's harsh, but it's true, and it's always been true. Perhaps it's always been true in the US, but other countries protect employment. > Employment has never existed in some pocket universe entirely separate from society or its consequences. By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences". But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >Perhaps it's always been true in the US, but other countries protect employment. True. >By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences". Of course it is. Have you never heard of honor killings? Crimes of passion or revenge? Something can be a social consequence and also be a crime. No one is arguing that all social consequences must be legal, or should always be tolerable. >But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative. This is why I should stop trying to have political conversations on Hacker News, in the end, everyone just makes it personal. I'm actually opposed to at-will employment and I support free speech, albeit not the absolutist definition of free speech that Hacker News seems to believe in. I do support the right of groups to petition anyone they like - even employers, to air whatever grievances they wish. Cancel culture, while it can be abused, is an expression of free speech. And that's the rub - everyone wants to abridge the free speech rights of the "twitter mob" because of politics, but no one wants to address the fact that the only real power in "cancel culture" lies with the employer.
pseudalopex 6y ago
54% supported Blake Neff being fired. Slightly more than supported unspecified social consequences. Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids? Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound. Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it. But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > 54% supported Blake Neff being fired. Slightly more than supported unspecified social consequences. I'm guessing people interpreted the question as "Do you think posting racist remarks is a fireable offense?". I don't think he should be fired because a Twitter mob harassed his employer. Ask them about David Shor and see what happens. > Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids? I don't think it is acceptable, and neither do many other lefties with the notable exception for cancel culture--then it's just Social Consequences (TM). > Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound. Maybe, but it's still going to be a slog to get that data. Good luck to any researcher who is investigating this, but I'm not holding my breath. Probably a better approach would be to look at periodic surveys that ask "How comfortable do you feel talking about X?" every few years, and look at how the results change over time. I'm guessing these exist. Maybe the effect of cancel culture is actually smaller than I'm expecting? Who knows? > Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it. No, it just means we need to be clear when we discuss it. As previously mentioned, I'm talking about ordinary people being terminated because of an organized harassment campaign. > But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence. Nor should they be. But a harassment campaign for the express purpose of having an employee terminated because they offended you isn't "free speech" any more than any other kind of harassment.