4 ms·

"Just a bunch of intellectuals getting their book tours cancelled" is a strawman that people use to trivialize an increasingly hostile environment that is seein

by imgabe 5y ago

"Just a bunch of intellectuals getting their book tours cancelled" is a strawman that people use to trivialize an increasingly hostile environment that is seeing regular, non-famous people getting silenced and having their careers destroyed. Here's a Twitter thread compiling some examples of instances other than book tours and twitter blocks: https://twitter.com/SoOppressed/status/1282404648389926913 https://twitter.com/SoOppressed/status/1282404648389926913 Sure, nobody is getting lynched yet. If you want to hold an oppression Olympics, minorities still win. Does that make you feel better? Do we have to wait until people are getting murdered to care about it?

mjlawson 5y ago
Honestly, I read the first 8 or so and found most to be appropriate social backlash when taking full context into account. 1. White cafeteria workers serving Kool Aid and watermelon-flavored water for Black History Month, while lying to a student who took offense, saying "black people put this menu together." 2. A yoga studio who was already in the red going under after many of their teachers quit and protested due to workplace complaints. 3. I couldn't find the original source video for this, but feeling obligated to publicly post a video mentioning "overall crime rates of black Americans compared with white Americans" in an attempt to discredit BLM can get you fired. I don't see that as cancel culture, but an employer using their discretion on who they want interfacing with the public. 4. This one I find the most compassion for. If we were to hold everyone and their parents accountable for the things they or their children said when they were 14, we'd be in a lot of trouble. NPR did a good article about this story: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/07/28/891829285/after-being-called-out-for-racism-what-comes-next https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/07/28/891829285... 5. This was a private school, not a public school, published by the National Post without any details about the individual who was fired, and uncorroborated by other, less biased news sources. 6. Two white women admit tactlessly that they were stealing recipes from Mexican taco ladies. People didn't like that, and decided not to support their business. I could go on, but I don't see what there is to be outraged about here.
- imgabe 5y ago
  I'm not going to litigate every example, suffice to say I don't think that's a fair characterization of any of those, except for 4. And in that case, you don't find it outrageous that a family's livelihood was destroyed, along with that of all of their employees for what is essentially some teenage edgelord posturing? You find that to be a perfectly fine and fair thing to happen? Nothing to be outraged about?
  - mjlawson 5y ago
    > You find that to be a perfectly fine and fair thing to happen? I think I've already conceded the fact that I don't. But let's look at it from a different angle. 1. What should be the appropriate reaction to being called a hateful ethnic slur? 2. Perhaps more importantly, what gives you the right to decide what that is?
    - imgabe 5y ago
      1. Whatever it is, it’s not depriving dozens of people of a livelihood. 2. I’m a thinking person with the capacity to form opinions and am as entitled as anyone to decide what I consider appropriate? What sort of answer are you looking for here? I’m saying what I think and giving reasons why, instead of refuting those reasons your response is to assert that I’m not allowed to think about certain things? What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about?
      - mjlawson 5y ago
        Actions have consequences in society, and public actions moreso. That's part of the cost of being in one. I don't think it's particularly outrageous to expect that people who say and do hurtful things, either intentionally or out of ignorance, should pay consequences. > What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about? What indeed? It seems on one hand you're expressing outrage against other people's expression of their own opinion, while preventing yourself from similar scrutiny. You can't have it both ways. I appreciate this conversation, for what it's worth. It's echoed one that I've had to myself for a while. At the end of the day, I think we mainly disagree on whether or not these are proportional responses to the level of harm caused. Personally, I think the vast majority of these dozens are either justified, or they're outliers.

by imgabe 5y ago

mjlawson 5y ago

Honestly, I read the first 8 or so and found most to be appropriate social backlash when taking full context into account. 1. White cafeteria workers serving Kool Aid and watermelon-flavored water for Black History Month, while lying to a student who took offense, saying "black people put this menu together." 2. A yoga studio who was already in the red going under after many of their teachers quit and protested due to workplace complaints. 3. I couldn't find the original source video for this, but feeling obligated to publicly post a video mentioning "overall crime rates of black Americans compared with white Americans" in an attempt to discredit BLM can get you fired. I don't see that as cancel culture, but an employer using their discretion on who they want interfacing with the public. 4. This one I find the most compassion for. If we were to hold everyone and their parents accountable for the things they or their children said when they were 14, we'd be in a lot of trouble. NPR did a good article about this story: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/07/28/891829285/after-being-called-out-for-racism-what-comes-next https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/07/28/891829285... 5. This was a private school, not a public school, published by the National Post without any details about the individual who was fired, and uncorroborated by other, less biased news sources. 6. Two white women admit tactlessly that they were stealing recipes from Mexican taco ladies. People didn't like that, and decided not to support their business. I could go on, but I don't see what there is to be outraged about here.

imgabe 5y ago
I'm not going to litigate every example, suffice to say I don't think that's a fair characterization of any of those, except for 4. And in that case, you don't find it outrageous that a family's livelihood was destroyed, along with that of all of their employees for what is essentially some teenage edgelord posturing? You find that to be a perfectly fine and fair thing to happen? Nothing to be outraged about?
- mjlawson 5y ago
  > You find that to be a perfectly fine and fair thing to happen? I think I've already conceded the fact that I don't. But let's look at it from a different angle. 1. What should be the appropriate reaction to being called a hateful ethnic slur? 2. Perhaps more importantly, what gives you the right to decide what that is?
  - imgabe 5y ago
    1. Whatever it is, it’s not depriving dozens of people of a livelihood. 2. I’m a thinking person with the capacity to form opinions and am as entitled as anyone to decide what I consider appropriate? What sort of answer are you looking for here? I’m saying what I think and giving reasons why, instead of refuting those reasons your response is to assert that I’m not allowed to think about certain things? What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about?
    - mjlawson 5y ago
      Actions have consequences in society, and public actions moreso. That's part of the cost of being in one. I don't think it's particularly outrageous to expect that people who say and do hurtful things, either intentionally or out of ignorance, should pay consequences. > What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about? What indeed? It seems on one hand you're expressing outrage against other people's expression of their own opinion, while preventing yourself from similar scrutiny. You can't have it both ways. I appreciate this conversation, for what it's worth. It's echoed one that I've had to myself for a while. At the end of the day, I think we mainly disagree on whether or not these are proportional responses to the level of harm caused. Personally, I think the vast majority of these dozens are either justified, or they're outliers.