8 ms·

No, and I think you know why, but I'll bite. This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with

No, and I think you know why, but I'll bite. This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you.

daveoc64 6y ago
> This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you. Can't you say that about anything and anyone though? Every instance of someone being "cancelled" is really just the "consequence" of their past actions.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  I think I agree with that. "cancel culture" is just the catchy phrase being used today to imply that the past actions weren't so bad and weren't deserving of the subsequent response. In this case...I don't think someone who has definitive links to pedophilia and already been kicked out of two organizations for those links probably shouldn't be employed in a position at Reddit where they are working with youth. Should she never get a job again ever? No! But probably not one with children or youth...
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    I'm very curious who/why at Reddit decided she was a good hire for that position. And the husband too. I think that's a much more interesting question than another to and fro about cancel culture.
tmotwu 6y ago
> This is a consequence for past actions This is exactly how people justify cancel culture and/or cancelling others. Before anyone downvotes as they did to OP, I am in no way shape or form defending the person of interest. But unfortunately, this is what cancel culture is; there's no reason to redefine it.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Well, guilt by association is certainly a trait of cancel culture and, unless I missed it, association is the source of all pedophilic activity in this story rather than anything the subject (Mrs. Challenor) did themself. Yet if you look at Reddit's homepage, you'd think she was the one charged with child rape.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Guilt by association is probably fair game here...in her capacity at reddit she was working on subreddits that involved younger adults/teenagers. Do you think that would be okay? If she was a software engineer or working on marketing, I would not advocate for her to be removed from reddit. Much of the controversy is that this was an admin with control over subreddits which there is clear public information that perhaps they aren't best suited for.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    Well, once again, you're treating her as if she was the one convicted of pedophilia. Do I think someone associated with a pedophile should be treated like a pedophile? No. Our justice system and legal ethics certainly don't believe in a transitivity of guilt like that. We'd consider that extremely unfair. In my eyes, a large component of cancel culture is when we ignore all that because we like the result.
    - darkwizard42 6y ago
      It was her father...who she chose to employ as her campaign manager AFTER it was already known about his crimes. It wasn't just someone in her extended friend circle or a passing acquaintance. I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. That feels like a pretty reasonable concern.
      - hombre_fatal 6y ago
        > I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. These statements don't square. Barring them from employment isn't just wariness. Hiring her pedo dad is definitely a bad choice for a political campaign and it looks bad. That's different than: can't be trusted alone in a room with a child or can't be trusted to run a forum.
happytoexplain 6y ago
>and I think you know why No, I am not being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to catch somebody out on hypocrisy (though I do believe many people are extremely hypocritical on this topic). Apologies - let me be more clear: I am not implicitly asking, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a good outcome", nor, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a bad outcome". I am not using the term "cancel culture" as a synonym for "unjust social punishment". I am asking: Is this an example of cancel culture, and, if not, what is the distinction? (And don't worry, I'm not stubbornly requiring an objective distinction in the shape of a formal argument, since this is a very subjective topic.) I appreciate your opinion, but you're expressing it very generically - you're just saying she deserved her consequences, which is fine, and I agree, but are you saying you believe that whether or not the consequences are "deserved" or "just" is the primary/only distinction between cancel culture and "normal" social consequences? Edit: As others have pointed out, I picked this topic not just because it's a case of social consequences, but also because it has other, more specific hallmarks of what is typically labeled "cancel culture". That is: The crime leaned more toward morality and social damage vs concrete actions; guilt by association; and a sexual topic.
- thomasz 6y ago
  There is a galaxy of difference between offensive speech and child rape.
  - daveoc64 6y ago
    Yes, but that's not really the relevant thing. People get "cancelled" when a large enough group of people think someone has done something wrong. It just happens to be the case here that the group is very large, but it's fundamentally no different to other cases where people have been "cancelled".
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Most people I've talked to who are concerned about "cancel culture" are concerned about the dynamic where even a small group of people can get someone fired by being very loud about it. (I do agree with your implicit statement that it's not a very helpful term to use, though - at this point it's been too thoroughly repurposed for weird political battles.)
PenguinCoder 6y ago
> This is a consequence for past actions. That's what cancel culture is... Retribution for past actions, not justice for current ones.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  "cancel culture" is just the flashy new way for people to try to downplay the offensive past actions and find a way to criticize the reaction as going too far. I think removing this person from employment in a role that involves youth/children given their past actions and associations seems like a reasonable reaction, NOT "cancel culture"
cgio 6y ago
I’ll bite too. Do you not deserve or not have said rights? Both qualifications have cultural underpinnings but each reflect different stages of a rights statement lifecycle.
kragen 6y ago
The past action in question was that the former Green Party politician in question apparently continued to associate voluntarily with her own father, appointing him her election agent, even though he had been accused (apparently correctly) of torturing and raping children. Is that really the kind of "past action" that should be punished by permanent unemployment? This sounds like the Cultural Revolution.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Not advocating for permanent unemployment but just not one at Reddit in a role where she is working with youth/teens
- pgalvin 6y ago
  It’s worth noting too - she had only newly turned 18 when she appointed her father as her campaign manager, he hadn’t been convicted, and she was a minor when he was charged. Not defending her other actions re. her husband, but the thing with her father isn’t so bad given her age, given he was still legally innocent (note: he was later convicted), and given how common it is for children to maintain relationships with terrible parents in prison. I’m not going to pick a side overall, really, but I think a lot of people assume she was an adult during all of this.
Can_Not 6y ago
> This is a consequence for past actions. Ok, so to be clear, it's "a consequence for past actions" when you know what's going on and agree, but "cancel culture" when you are out of the loop or when you disagree.

daveoc64 6y ago

> This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you. Can't you say that about anything and anyone though? Every instance of someone being "cancelled" is really just the "consequence" of their past actions.

darkwizard42 6y ago
I think I agree with that. "cancel culture" is just the catchy phrase being used today to imply that the past actions weren't so bad and weren't deserving of the subsequent response. In this case...I don't think someone who has definitive links to pedophilia and already been kicked out of two organizations for those links probably shouldn't be employed in a position at Reddit where they are working with youth. Should she never get a job again ever? No! But probably not one with children or youth...
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  I'm very curious who/why at Reddit decided she was a good hire for that position. And the husband too. I think that's a much more interesting question than another to and fro about cancel culture.

tmotwu 6y ago

> This is a consequence for past actions This is exactly how people justify cancel culture and/or cancelling others. Before anyone downvotes as they did to OP, I am in no way shape or form defending the person of interest. But unfortunately, this is what cancel culture is; there's no reason to redefine it.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Well, guilt by association is certainly a trait of cancel culture and, unless I missed it, association is the source of all pedophilic activity in this story rather than anything the subject (Mrs. Challenor) did themself. Yet if you look at Reddit's homepage, you'd think she was the one charged with child rape.

darkwizard42 6y ago
Guilt by association is probably fair game here...in her capacity at reddit she was working on subreddits that involved younger adults/teenagers. Do you think that would be okay? If she was a software engineer or working on marketing, I would not advocate for her to be removed from reddit. Much of the controversy is that this was an admin with control over subreddits which there is clear public information that perhaps they aren't best suited for.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Well, once again, you're treating her as if she was the one convicted of pedophilia. Do I think someone associated with a pedophile should be treated like a pedophile? No. Our justice system and legal ethics certainly don't believe in a transitivity of guilt like that. We'd consider that extremely unfair. In my eyes, a large component of cancel culture is when we ignore all that because we like the result.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    It was her father...who she chose to employ as her campaign manager AFTER it was already known about his crimes. It wasn't just someone in her extended friend circle or a passing acquaintance. I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. That feels like a pretty reasonable concern.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      > I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. These statements don't square. Barring them from employment isn't just wariness. Hiring her pedo dad is definitely a bad choice for a political campaign and it looks bad. That's different than: can't be trusted alone in a room with a child or can't be trusted to run a forum.

happytoexplain 6y ago

>and I think you know why No, I am not being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to catch somebody out on hypocrisy (though I do believe many people are extremely hypocritical on this topic). Apologies - let me be more clear: I am not implicitly asking, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a good outcome", nor, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a bad outcome". I am not using the term "cancel culture" as a synonym for "unjust social punishment". I am asking: Is this an example of cancel culture, and, if not, what is the distinction? (And don't worry, I'm not stubbornly requiring an objective distinction in the shape of a formal argument, since this is a very subjective topic.) I appreciate your opinion, but you're expressing it very generically - you're just saying she deserved her consequences, which is fine, and I agree, but are you saying you believe that whether or not the consequences are "deserved" or "just" is the primary/only distinction between cancel culture and "normal" social consequences? Edit: As others have pointed out, I picked this topic not just because it's a case of social consequences, but also because it has other, more specific hallmarks of what is typically labeled "cancel culture". That is: The crime leaned more toward morality and social damage vs concrete actions; guilt by association; and a sexual topic.

thomasz 6y ago
There is a galaxy of difference between offensive speech and child rape.
- daveoc64 6y ago
  Yes, but that's not really the relevant thing. People get "cancelled" when a large enough group of people think someone has done something wrong. It just happens to be the case here that the group is very large, but it's fundamentally no different to other cases where people have been "cancelled".
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Most people I've talked to who are concerned about "cancel culture" are concerned about the dynamic where even a small group of people can get someone fired by being very loud about it. (I do agree with your implicit statement that it's not a very helpful term to use, though - at this point it's been too thoroughly repurposed for weird political battles.)

PenguinCoder 6y ago

> This is a consequence for past actions. That's what cancel culture is... Retribution for past actions, not justice for current ones.

darkwizard42 6y ago
"cancel culture" is just the flashy new way for people to try to downplay the offensive past actions and find a way to criticize the reaction as going too far. I think removing this person from employment in a role that involves youth/children given their past actions and associations seems like a reasonable reaction, NOT "cancel culture"

cgio 6y ago

I’ll bite too. Do you not deserve or not have said rights? Both qualifications have cultural underpinnings but each reflect different stages of a rights statement lifecycle.

kragen 6y ago

The past action in question was that the former Green Party politician in question apparently continued to associate voluntarily with her own father, appointing him her election agent, even though he had been accused (apparently correctly) of torturing and raping children. Is that really the kind of "past action" that should be punished by permanent unemployment? This sounds like the Cultural Revolution.

darkwizard42 6y ago
Not advocating for permanent unemployment but just not one at Reddit in a role where she is working with youth/teens
pgalvin 6y ago
It’s worth noting too - she had only newly turned 18 when she appointed her father as her campaign manager, he hadn’t been convicted, and she was a minor when he was charged. Not defending her other actions re. her husband, but the thing with her father isn’t so bad given her age, given he was still legally innocent (note: he was later convicted), and given how common it is for children to maintain relationships with terrible parents in prison. I’m not going to pick a side overall, really, but I think a lot of people assume she was an adult during all of this.

Can_Not 6y ago

> This is a consequence for past actions. Ok, so to be clear, it's "a consequence for past actions" when you know what's going on and agree, but "cancel culture" when you are out of the loop or when you disagree.