2 ms·

I think one of the points that the post you replied to is trying to make is that it is important to recognize this as an instance of cancel culture, whether it

I think one of the points that the post you replied to is trying to make is that it is important to recognize this as an instance of cancel culture, whether it is appropriate in this case or not. Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril. (Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)

bluefirebrand 6y ago
You could just lump this under the umbrella of cancel culture and it would be reasonable. I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior" Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression. As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions. We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard. I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired. On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.

bluefirebrand 6y ago

You could just lump this under the umbrella of cancel culture and it would be reasonable. I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior" Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression. As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions. We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard. I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired. On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.