3 ms·

Some people's idea of free speech is really about their freedom to punch down, and they suddenly become very anti-free speech when criticized. Then they double

by Kye 5y ago

Some people's idea of free speech is really about their freedom to punch down, and they suddenly become very anti-free speech when criticized. Then they double down, and people set boundaries, and they complain about those boundaries... Much of the noise about cancel culture looks a lot like DARVO.

dfxm12 5y ago
There was a great line in last Sunday's Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David (half) jokes about free speech, saying something like "I don't know about free speech. Well, I should have it. The constitution should have said free speech for Larry David, everyone else, check with him first." Larry is effectively holding up a mirror to the type of people you describe, and yeah what you say is true about people who complain about cancel culture, too. I try to engage anyone worried about losing a job due to something like that. I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman. It's plain to see that too much of the discourse about free speech or cancel culture doesn't come from a place of good faith...
- nybble41 5y ago
  > I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman. It is possible to disagree with your proposed solutions as well as cancel culture. The problem with cancel culture is not in the fact that people are free to (dis)associate with others as they choose, so your suggestions to force association do nothing to fix the core issue. You may be allowed to keep your job, under duress, but you've still been "cancelled". The problem is that some people resort to disassociation rather than practicing tolerance; this is a subtle social problem and requires a more nuanced solution.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I have to confess that I don't understand your comment in any way. If labor laws or a labor contract prevent you from losing your job for tweeting "COVID19 is no worse than having your left foot amputated", then when you do in fact tweet this, and do not lose your job, surely you have neither lost your job, nor been "cancelled". Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      Being "cancelled" is about people's attitude toward you, not whether you remain employed. People will still know what you said, and still not want anything to do with you; that's what I mean when I say you're still "cancelled". They may behave immaculately professional toward you (because they're required to) but it won't be a pleasant place to work, to say the least, and you probably won't choose to remain long unless you're unusually stubborn. In any case—I don't care for cancel culture myself, but I wouldn't risk the far more fundamental freedom of association over it. Social ostracism ("cancelling") is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        Wait, you're now using "cancelled" for "people know what you said and don't want anything to do with you", and suggesting that this is a problem? The alternative appears to be "people know what you said, but ignore it." Is that somehow supposed to be better in some way than "people actually have opinions about good and bad, and act on them" ? This just reminds me of what was supposed to be a funny (if sad) joke by Asheigh Brilliant: please don't judge me by what I do, or say, or who I really am. > People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done. Implicit in this is the claim that people don't already do this. Implicit in this is the idea that people cannot possibly be already performing this calculus and saying "well, yep, even though Tonya from accounting has done a lot of great things here and has been great to work with, her attitudes and language about <X> overrides all that, and we need to make that clear".

by Kye 5y ago

dfxm12 5y ago

There was a great line in last Sunday's Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David (half) jokes about free speech, saying something like "I don't know about free speech. Well, I should have it. The constitution should have said free speech for Larry David, everyone else, check with him first." Larry is effectively holding up a mirror to the type of people you describe, and yeah what you say is true about people who complain about cancel culture, too. I try to engage anyone worried about losing a job due to something like that. I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman. It's plain to see that too much of the discourse about free speech or cancel culture doesn't come from a place of good faith...

nybble41 5y ago
> I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman. It is possible to disagree with your proposed solutions as well as cancel culture. The problem with cancel culture is not in the fact that people are free to (dis)associate with others as they choose, so your suggestions to force association do nothing to fix the core issue. You may be allowed to keep your job, under duress, but you've still been "cancelled". The problem is that some people resort to disassociation rather than practicing tolerance; this is a subtle social problem and requires a more nuanced solution.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I have to confess that I don't understand your comment in any way. If labor laws or a labor contract prevent you from losing your job for tweeting "COVID19 is no worse than having your left foot amputated", then when you do in fact tweet this, and do not lose your job, surely you have neither lost your job, nor been "cancelled". Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Being "cancelled" is about people's attitude toward you, not whether you remain employed. People will still know what you said, and still not want anything to do with you; that's what I mean when I say you're still "cancelled". They may behave immaculately professional toward you (because they're required to) but it won't be a pleasant place to work, to say the least, and you probably won't choose to remain long unless you're unusually stubborn. In any case—I don't care for cancel culture myself, but I wouldn't risk the far more fundamental freedom of association over it. Social ostracism ("cancelling") is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Wait, you're now using "cancelled" for "people know what you said and don't want anything to do with you", and suggesting that this is a problem? The alternative appears to be "people know what you said, but ignore it." Is that somehow supposed to be better in some way than "people actually have opinions about good and bad, and act on them" ? This just reminds me of what was supposed to be a funny (if sad) joke by Asheigh Brilliant: please don't judge me by what I do, or say, or who I really am. > People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done. Implicit in this is the claim that people don't already do this. Implicit in this is the idea that people cannot possibly be already performing this calculus and saying "well, yep, even though Tonya from accounting has done a lot of great things here and has been great to work with, her attitudes and language about <X> overrides all that, and we need to make that clear".