3 ms·

The challenge with this debate is that the meaning of "cancel culture" is too broad, verging on incoherent. Examples of "cancellation" range from people who exp

The challenge with this debate is that the meaning of "cancel culture" is too broad, verging on incoherent. Examples of "cancellation" range from people who experienced harsh consequences for minimal or imaginary "offenses", like Justine Sacco and Donald McNeil, to powerful serial sex offenders like Harvey Weinstein.

tomp 5y ago
But surely you can simultaneously think that Weinstein shouldn't have been cancelled (mostly by his almost-equally perverted friends who dropped him like hot lava when he started becoming toxic, to save their own reputations, after having cozied up to him for years/decades) and still think he should be charged/jailed for actual crimes by actual justice system.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Sure, you could, but that seems a little perverse by itself. Choosing to remain friends with someone you know you to be the serial perpetrator of sexual assault while also favoring their conviction and imprisonment seems ... odd, at best. What makes the Weinstein case difficult are the widespread claims that lots of people in Weinstein's circle did know what he was doing, and did not (a) report him (b) dissassociate from him. Their lack of willingness to report him (let alone their willingness to actively aid him) means that they are not part of the category described above. [ EDITED because my final sentence was a clear logical error, but is now correct. ]
thereddaikon 5y ago
I think that most of these debates even exist at all because there is little to no agreement on these things. The current climate for social and political discourse does not allow for much nuance. That means individuals with what are actually different ideologies and belief systems get forced together into the same group. So many current issues are portrayed as having only two sides and you can only be totally on one or the other. "Woke" Is no different. I'm not some ageless immortal who has personally witnessed all social strife in human history. So while I can confidently say this is a problem now, I can't say for sure if this has always been a problem and inherent to the human condition or if its a recent one and its causes lay in the circumstances of our time.
- jfengel 5y ago
  As with all history, it never repeats, but it rhymes. People have always stood up to abuses that were previously hidden. They have always been dismissed as not real problems. A few have always been selfish, and have always been portrayed as if they were the true reason for the movement. This Time It's Different because of the Internet, enabling more people to talk about it, more people to spread misinformation, more people to say stupid things, and generally creating more heat than light at a vaster scale. Everybody involved adapts their tactics to that. But the core issues are identical.

tomp 5y ago

But surely you can simultaneously think that Weinstein shouldn't have been cancelled (mostly by his almost-equally perverted friends who dropped him like hot lava when he started becoming toxic, to save their own reputations, after having cozied up to him for years/decades) and still think he should be charged/jailed for actual crimes by actual justice system.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Sure, you could, but that seems a little perverse by itself. Choosing to remain friends with someone you know you to be the serial perpetrator of sexual assault while also favoring their conviction and imprisonment seems ... odd, at best. What makes the Weinstein case difficult are the widespread claims that lots of people in Weinstein's circle did know what he was doing, and did not (a) report him (b) dissassociate from him. Their lack of willingness to report him (let alone their willingness to actively aid him) means that they are not part of the category described above. [ EDITED because my final sentence was a clear logical error, but is now correct. ]

thereddaikon 5y ago

I think that most of these debates even exist at all because there is little to no agreement on these things. The current climate for social and political discourse does not allow for much nuance. That means individuals with what are actually different ideologies and belief systems get forced together into the same group. So many current issues are portrayed as having only two sides and you can only be totally on one or the other. "Woke" Is no different. I'm not some ageless immortal who has personally witnessed all social strife in human history. So while I can confidently say this is a problem now, I can't say for sure if this has always been a problem and inherent to the human condition or if its a recent one and its causes lay in the circumstances of our time.

jfengel 5y ago
As with all history, it never repeats, but it rhymes. People have always stood up to abuses that were previously hidden. They have always been dismissed as not real problems. A few have always been selfish, and have always been portrayed as if they were the true reason for the movement. This Time It's Different because of the Internet, enabling more people to talk about it, more people to spread misinformation, more people to say stupid things, and generally creating more heat than light at a vaster scale. Everybody involved adapts their tactics to that. But the core issues are identical.