4 ms·

Cancel culture is both ways. If you ask "is it bad to deny serving someone you don't like" you also have to ask "is it bad to deny getting service from someone

by zaarn 5y ago

Cancel culture is both ways. If you ask "is it bad to deny serving someone you don't like" you also have to ask "is it bad to deny getting service from someone you don't like". Conversly, I don't like google and I try to avoid using their services. That's cancel culture. Or if you follow recent events, boycotting Gigabyte over exploding PSU's is cancel culture. Employees denying service to someone who just trashed the store and took a dump at aisle 5 are also participating in cancel culture. Airlines cancel customers who make the flight unsafe all the time. Heck, you can end up on a no-fly list and get cancelled by a huge number of airlines for that one time you popped the emergency exit to take a smoke on the wing of the plane, waiting for things to proceed. The main difference is that usually you don't call some of those cancel culture unless you dislike what it's about.

nix23 5y ago
>Cancel culture is both ways. If you ask "is it bad to deny serving someone you don't like" you also have to ask "is it bad to deny getting service from someone you don't like". That's not Cancel culture, that's just "stand for what you think is right" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture >The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.
- zaarn 5y ago
  Cancel culture is indeed "stand for what you think is right". It's simply that the notion of a service contract of any type (be it buying in a supermarket, getting a service from a company or being employed by someone) are always two-way, where either side can decide to cancel the other by no longer entering contracts with the other. I would also argue that in the colloquial usage, Call Out Culture, "Stand for what you think is right" and Cancel Culture refer to the same thing in this context.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >Stand for what you think is right That's the difference, you stand for what (you think) is "right", and NOT that everyone else is wrong.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      For what am I supposed to stand but what I think is right?
      - nix23 5y ago
        Your not supposed to stand for anything, you are an individual. As long as you see other as individuals (and not groups) too, everything would be much better (and the US would NOT having just a two party system, it's just to easy to hold the status quo if you can use black and white arguments)
        zaarn 5y ago
        Humans tend to be tribal, not individualist (even if you believe the opposite)
        nix23 5y ago
        Not all tendencies are good (even if you believe the opposite)?
        zaarn 5y ago
        No but you can't deny they exist.
        nix23 5y ago
        No one did that.
        5y ago
radu_floricica 5y ago
> . Employees denying service to someone who just trashed the store and took a dump at aisle 5 are also participating in cancel culture. You're making it really easy to argue :) Do you want a generic answer to what's the difference between your examples and the grandparent's? They're examples a potential customer directly interfering with the operation of a business. A client's opinions don't touch the way a cafe operates. His/her fecal matter really really do. You can take this criteria pretty far and it'll still be useful. Is a university professor mistaken about something he's teaching? Fire him without a problem. Does the administration disagree with his political views? Firing him is cancel culture. Edit: and yes, of course you're free to not buy from somebody you don't like. That wasn't ever doubted or discussed.
- zaarn 5y ago
  A customer interfering with the operation of a business is a wide net. If I as an employee see ethical operation as part of business, then a customer being unethical in their behaviour is justifiable. Taking a dump on the floor or being the US Military and blowing up innocents isn't that far apart in objectionable behaviour, except in one case you can clean up the mess yourself while in the other your tax dollars are used for it. On your university professor example; what is mistaken about something they are teaching but a disagreement in political views on their teachings? Can you really judge mistakes without becoming political about it? And in many cases, those can intuitively overlap, such as if the professor is teaching that people of color are less intelligent because of their skin color. Their teaching is wrong and they will be fired for political reasons. They'll be cancelled for that. One can also argue that employees can simply refuse to sell their work hours to their employer if they disagree with a customer (aka a strike), however, Google has been very resilient against allowing employees to bargain on a level playing field (after all what are employees but customers seeking to sell their body and time for money?)
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    You're really stretching the argument. Probably the worst is confusing the US Military with a coffeeshop customer. At most they'd be the supplier or employer, and like I said you're free not to buy from or work with people you don't like. That was never in doubt, not in this conversation nor in most conversations. We're talking about canceling customers here. Or employees, for that matter. US Military is many things, but not "the little guy". Second is conflating things that affect a businesses operation in concrete ways with abstract ethical transgressions. They're very different things. Half the US population voted for Trump, but I doubt you'll find a handful to support shitting in stores, or opening plane doors during flight. That's not a small difference, it's a 4-5 digits difference. > such as if the professor is teaching that people of color are less intelligent because of their skin color If he's a biology or psychology professor, then it's a factual error and he should be fired for it. If he's teaching physics, then it's at most an optics issue, and while he has a fair chance of being fired it'll be a cultural decision. In a different society an atheist may be fired for speaking his beliefs. I'll also note that you picked a rather heavy-handed example - most real life cases are far from being so openly racist. I could also say something about correlation vs causation, but that would be plain goading you :)

by zaarn 5y ago

nix23 5y ago

>Cancel culture is both ways. If you ask "is it bad to deny serving someone you don't like" you also have to ask "is it bad to deny getting service from someone you don't like". That's not Cancel culture, that's just "stand for what you think is right" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture >The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.

zaarn 5y ago
Cancel culture is indeed "stand for what you think is right". It's simply that the notion of a service contract of any type (be it buying in a supermarket, getting a service from a company or being employed by someone) are always two-way, where either side can decide to cancel the other by no longer entering contracts with the other. I would also argue that in the colloquial usage, Call Out Culture, "Stand for what you think is right" and Cancel Culture refer to the same thing in this context.
- nix23 5y ago
  >Stand for what you think is right That's the difference, you stand for what (you think) is "right", and NOT that everyone else is wrong.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    For what am I supposed to stand but what I think is right?
    - nix23 5y ago
      Your not supposed to stand for anything, you are an individual. As long as you see other as individuals (and not groups) too, everything would be much better (and the US would NOT having just a two party system, it's just to easy to hold the status quo if you can use black and white arguments)
      - zaarn 5y ago
        Humans tend to be tribal, not individualist (even if you believe the opposite)
        nix23 5y ago
        Not all tendencies are good (even if you believe the opposite)?
        zaarn 5y ago
        No but you can't deny they exist.
        nix23 5y ago
        No one did that.
        5y ago

radu_floricica 5y ago

> . Employees denying service to someone who just trashed the store and took a dump at aisle 5 are also participating in cancel culture. You're making it really easy to argue :) Do you want a generic answer to what's the difference between your examples and the grandparent's? They're examples a potential customer directly interfering with the operation of a business. A client's opinions don't touch the way a cafe operates. His/her fecal matter really really do. You can take this criteria pretty far and it'll still be useful. Is a university professor mistaken about something he's teaching? Fire him without a problem. Does the administration disagree with his political views? Firing him is cancel culture. Edit: and yes, of course you're free to not buy from somebody you don't like. That wasn't ever doubted or discussed.

zaarn 5y ago
A customer interfering with the operation of a business is a wide net. If I as an employee see ethical operation as part of business, then a customer being unethical in their behaviour is justifiable. Taking a dump on the floor or being the US Military and blowing up innocents isn't that far apart in objectionable behaviour, except in one case you can clean up the mess yourself while in the other your tax dollars are used for it. On your university professor example; what is mistaken about something they are teaching but a disagreement in political views on their teachings? Can you really judge mistakes without becoming political about it? And in many cases, those can intuitively overlap, such as if the professor is teaching that people of color are less intelligent because of their skin color. Their teaching is wrong and they will be fired for political reasons. They'll be cancelled for that. One can also argue that employees can simply refuse to sell their work hours to their employer if they disagree with a customer (aka a strike), however, Google has been very resilient against allowing employees to bargain on a level playing field (after all what are employees but customers seeking to sell their body and time for money?)
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  You're really stretching the argument. Probably the worst is confusing the US Military with a coffeeshop customer. At most they'd be the supplier or employer, and like I said you're free not to buy from or work with people you don't like. That was never in doubt, not in this conversation nor in most conversations. We're talking about canceling customers here. Or employees, for that matter. US Military is many things, but not "the little guy". Second is conflating things that affect a businesses operation in concrete ways with abstract ethical transgressions. They're very different things. Half the US population voted for Trump, but I doubt you'll find a handful to support shitting in stores, or opening plane doors during flight. That's not a small difference, it's a 4-5 digits difference. > such as if the professor is teaching that people of color are less intelligent because of their skin color If he's a biology or psychology professor, then it's a factual error and he should be fired for it. If he's teaching physics, then it's at most an optics issue, and while he has a fair chance of being fired it'll be a cultural decision. In a different society an atheist may be fired for speaking his beliefs. I'll also note that you picked a rather heavy-handed example - most real life cases are far from being so openly racist. I could also say something about correlation vs causation, but that would be plain goading you :)