3 ms·

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career i

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation argument is purely made by evil jerks (e.g. I don't consider lex to be a jerk). You don't think it's easier now than ever before to be 'canceled' by a social media mob? Don't there have to be some negative consequences to allowing for permanent cancelations? By all means, people that do extremely horrible things should be shunned but how and where does the line get drawn for the more mediocre offenses? Also, people are fallible, they screw up and make mistakes. Do they have a right to make amends and be forgiven for dumb things they did in the past? It almost seems like it's trending towards a crowd sourced social credit system similar to what the CCP implemented. I am not on the left or right, but shouting social media mobs with pitch forks doesn't seem like the best way to achieve internet 'justice'.

nonameiguess 6y ago
I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  > I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views. > Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism. I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible. Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.
ryanong 6y ago
Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled It is important to disambiguate the two
- bostonsre 6y ago
  That line seems blurry to me. How do you define both and where is the line? I'm not sure that many angry emotional twitter users contemplate any line, I would assume most just think "I strongly disagree with that person's opinion or actions and I must punish them". I think most people would agree that harassment and doxing are bad, but I also think that most people would think that doing bad things to "bad" people is sometimes ok. Mobs of emotional people are not paragons of morality, bad actions by a few quickly spread and the morality of the mob normalizes to that new worse level.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  The difference being that in one case they harass you directly and in the other they harass your employer, family, and any future employers?
  - agogdog 6y ago
    Unorganized individuals from twitter contacting your employer isn't harassment. If it is the implications would be scary the other way around: would you punish someone who pointed out a problem that happened to become popular on a social network?
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      That's not how cancelling works, except maybe in the case of celebrities. When you are canceled, no one calls and has a polite chat with your employer. They call and threaten your employer with arson. They find where you live and vandalize your home. It's harassment. It's illegal.
      - agogdog 6y ago
        That's not what "cancelling" is. That's actual harassment and as you noted it's illegal, and people can and do face criminal charges for it. Cancelling in the way it's being used colloquially is equivilant to "consequences." The vast majority of it takes the form of social media denouncement, boycott attempts, and phone calls stating displeasure with the situation. The small % of threats and violence are generally the strawman used to denounce the entire concept (which again, is simply the call for someone to face the consequences of their actions)... and generally aren't what people who are inciting someone's "cancellation" are calling for. If what you're saying was true, there'd be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people being charged with harassment and criminal threat as a result of "cancel culture"... and there's no evidence of that happening, it's a few outliers just like anything else.

nonameiguess 6y ago

I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.

bostonsre 6y ago
> I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views. > Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism. I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible. Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.

ryanong 6y ago

Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled It is important to disambiguate the two

bostonsre 6y ago
That line seems blurry to me. How do you define both and where is the line? I'm not sure that many angry emotional twitter users contemplate any line, I would assume most just think "I strongly disagree with that person's opinion or actions and I must punish them". I think most people would agree that harassment and doxing are bad, but I also think that most people would think that doing bad things to "bad" people is sometimes ok. Mobs of emotional people are not paragons of morality, bad actions by a few quickly spread and the morality of the mob normalizes to that new worse level.
Mirioron 6y ago
The difference being that in one case they harass you directly and in the other they harass your employer, family, and any future employers?
- agogdog 6y ago
  Unorganized individuals from twitter contacting your employer isn't harassment. If it is the implications would be scary the other way around: would you punish someone who pointed out a problem that happened to become popular on a social network?
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    That's not how cancelling works, except maybe in the case of celebrities. When you are canceled, no one calls and has a polite chat with your employer. They call and threaten your employer with arson. They find where you live and vandalize your home. It's harassment. It's illegal.
    - agogdog 6y ago
      That's not what "cancelling" is. That's actual harassment and as you noted it's illegal, and people can and do face criminal charges for it. Cancelling in the way it's being used colloquially is equivilant to "consequences." The vast majority of it takes the form of social media denouncement, boycott attempts, and phone calls stating displeasure with the situation. The small % of threats and violence are generally the strawman used to denounce the entire concept (which again, is simply the call for someone to face the consequences of their actions)... and generally aren't what people who are inciting someone's "cancellation" are calling for. If what you're saying was true, there'd be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people being charged with harassment and criminal threat as a result of "cancel culture"... and there's no evidence of that happening, it's a few outliers just like anything else.