4 ms·

In terms of getting people fired/removed/cancelled for remarks, yes absolutely. That may be a function of social media and the scale of communication in modern

In terms of getting people fired/removed/cancelled for remarks, yes absolutely. That may be a function of social media and the scale of communication in modern times, but either way the sensitivity of the vocal minority has definitely changed even in my relatively short life.

germinalphrase 5y ago
Alternatively, we just may just hear about more examples which increases our perception of prevalence (similar, maybe, to the perception of increased violent crime in the 90’s while violent crime was actually reducing).
throwaway09223 5y ago
You say yes, but can you explain how it is different? As far as I can tell it's the same as it was a century ago. The only change is the subject matter. Do you think you'd keep your job after saying something anti-Christian in the 1950s? Look at what happened to Sinead O'Connor in the early 90s after she spoke out against child abuse in the Catholic church. Maybe the biggest difference is that now we write when we communicate with peers, so there's evidence of our speech. I'm not convinced the mechanism behind cancel culture itself is new at all.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  I regret that I have only one upvote for the Sinead O'Connor reference. This isn't new, the only thing that's new is that people are broadcasting their opinions far and wide for everyone to find/see/hear.
- MajorBee 5y ago
  Not to mention if you uttered something even vaguely socialist/communist sounding a few decades ago, you would be fired from your All-American job, be socially ostracized, and have the FBI on your tail before you can say "Stalin is bad".
  - akiselev 5y ago
    You didn't even have to utter anything. During McCarthyism (aka the second red scare), false allegations of communist sympathies was an easy way to eliminate competition for particularly immoral opportunists, especially in entertainment. The obvious weaponization was probably why the whole thing was eventually shut down by the courts.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- allturtles 5y ago
  > Look at what happened to Sinead O'Connor in the early 90s after she spoke out against child abuse in the Catholic church. I don't think this is an apt comparison at all. 1. Sinead O'Connor is a celebrity, celebrities have always had more scrutiny. It doesn't seem comparable to the random employees getting fired / random HS students losing their college offers that are happening today. 2. She did not just speak out against child abuse, she held up a photo of the pope on national TV while singing "evil", and then tore it up. This was obviously an act intended to be very public and very controversial. 3. What actually happened to her other than some angry editorials? Were her performances canceled by venues?
- greedo 5y ago
  Witness what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they protested the impending invasion of Iraq.
- michaelscott 5y ago
  No I'm not saying the mechanism has changed, mob rule has probably been a thing since humans organised in groups larger than 5, but the scale and level of scrutiny definitely have. I'm not familiar with the case of celebrities or Sinead O'Connor specifically, but no celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today (even Michael Jackson, who had serious allegations of child molestation, had an O2 concert scheduled shortly before his death). Even for the average person, if you lost your job due to anti-mob comments in the 50s that didn't bar you from ever finding a job again (which is the case for some today), and this is without even touching on the way some people have had their entire twitter history crawled and pulled apart from a time when they were generally very different people. As I said, this is probably a function of social media in the modern era more than anything else.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    "No celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today" But they have, this is the very nature of the infamous Hollywood blacklist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist Have you ever read "Time of the Toad" by Trumbo? I think people would be blacklisted in exactly the same way in the 50s; this is all fairly well documented in relevant writings from the period. I think we're in agreement that social media and specifically giving people access to publishing has changed the duration and discoverability of the speech.
    - michaelscott 5y ago
      Ah I didn't realise the Hollywood blacklist had been that serious! It's definitely not in my lifetime though, I wasn't around in the 50s. I'm also not sure that's a good example; you're talking about what could be termed a national security threat vs. something like saying you don't agree with unisex bathrooms. As I said, the scale is way out of whack. I'd definitely be interested to see comparisons that are more like-for-like though, if they exist. I'm not familiar with "Time of the Toad", although from a brief look it seems to also deal with Cold War era issues? Again, this isn't a like-for-like comparison.
derivagral 5y ago
How would you say this differs from the communist-era stuff that the USA went through? I suppose the new wave of social media isn't (?) as existential to USA security, but the fear tactics and other-ing mechanisms seem quite similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
mcguire 5y ago
"...the sensitivity of the vocal minority has definitely changed even in my relatively short life." I realize that you didn't mean this statement the way I am reading it, but I'm having a hard time not reading this as a reference to the time when the minority was less vocal and knew its place.

germinalphrase 5y ago

Alternatively, we just may just hear about more examples which increases our perception of prevalence (similar, maybe, to the perception of increased violent crime in the 90’s while violent crime was actually reducing).

throwaway09223 5y ago

You say yes, but can you explain how it is different? As far as I can tell it's the same as it was a century ago. The only change is the subject matter. Do you think you'd keep your job after saying something anti-Christian in the 1950s? Look at what happened to Sinead O'Connor in the early 90s after she spoke out against child abuse in the Catholic church. Maybe the biggest difference is that now we write when we communicate with peers, so there's evidence of our speech. I'm not convinced the mechanism behind cancel culture itself is new at all.

anoonmoose 5y ago
I regret that I have only one upvote for the Sinead O'Connor reference. This isn't new, the only thing that's new is that people are broadcasting their opinions far and wide for everyone to find/see/hear.
MajorBee 5y ago
Not to mention if you uttered something even vaguely socialist/communist sounding a few decades ago, you would be fired from your All-American job, be socially ostracized, and have the FBI on your tail before you can say "Stalin is bad".
- akiselev 5y ago
  You didn't even have to utter anything. During McCarthyism (aka the second red scare), false allegations of communist sympathies was an easy way to eliminate competition for particularly immoral opportunists, especially in entertainment. The obvious weaponization was probably why the whole thing was eventually shut down by the courts.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
allturtles 5y ago
> Look at what happened to Sinead O'Connor in the early 90s after she spoke out against child abuse in the Catholic church. I don't think this is an apt comparison at all. 1. Sinead O'Connor is a celebrity, celebrities have always had more scrutiny. It doesn't seem comparable to the random employees getting fired / random HS students losing their college offers that are happening today. 2. She did not just speak out against child abuse, she held up a photo of the pope on national TV while singing "evil", and then tore it up. This was obviously an act intended to be very public and very controversial. 3. What actually happened to her other than some angry editorials? Were her performances canceled by venues?
greedo 5y ago
Witness what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they protested the impending invasion of Iraq.
michaelscott 5y ago
No I'm not saying the mechanism has changed, mob rule has probably been a thing since humans organised in groups larger than 5, but the scale and level of scrutiny definitely have. I'm not familiar with the case of celebrities or Sinead O'Connor specifically, but no celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today (even Michael Jackson, who had serious allegations of child molestation, had an O2 concert scheduled shortly before his death). Even for the average person, if you lost your job due to anti-mob comments in the 50s that didn't bar you from ever finding a job again (which is the case for some today), and this is without even touching on the way some people have had their entire twitter history crawled and pulled apart from a time when they were generally very different people. As I said, this is probably a function of social media in the modern era more than anything else.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  "No celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today" But they have, this is the very nature of the infamous Hollywood blacklist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist Have you ever read "Time of the Toad" by Trumbo? I think people would be blacklisted in exactly the same way in the 50s; this is all fairly well documented in relevant writings from the period. I think we're in agreement that social media and specifically giving people access to publishing has changed the duration and discoverability of the speech.
  - michaelscott 5y ago
    Ah I didn't realise the Hollywood blacklist had been that serious! It's definitely not in my lifetime though, I wasn't around in the 50s. I'm also not sure that's a good example; you're talking about what could be termed a national security threat vs. something like saying you don't agree with unisex bathrooms. As I said, the scale is way out of whack. I'd definitely be interested to see comparisons that are more like-for-like though, if they exist. I'm not familiar with "Time of the Toad", although from a brief look it seems to also deal with Cold War era issues? Again, this isn't a like-for-like comparison.

derivagral 5y ago

How would you say this differs from the communist-era stuff that the USA went through? I suppose the new wave of social media isn't (?) as existential to USA security, but the fear tactics and other-ing mechanisms seem quite similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

mcguire 5y ago

"...the sensitivity of the vocal minority has definitely changed even in my relatively short life." I realize that you didn't mean this statement the way I am reading it, but I'm having a hard time not reading this as a reference to the time when the minority was less vocal and knew its place.