13 ms·

>"Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way th

>"Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us has our own conception of a term - wordfeel, if you will - and virtually no one actually knows or holds to the literal dictionary definition. We hear words and apply them if they seem right to us. Even if you managed to precisely define cancel culture, people would easily try to claim that some alleged cancelling event it is actually something else, "accountability", "showing you the door", etc.. Never underestimate someone's ability to lawyerly redefine what something is or isn't. Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here: >"Saying we should “end cancel culture” means we’re saying some people should refrain from some exercises of speech and association to promote other people feeling more free to speak." No rights are actually being infringed by this. It is possible to have cultural mores that are in the spirit of free speech. The opposite stance, not calling on people to end cancel culture, is also accepting a reduction in speech. Even so, by Popehat's own worldview, because the government is not restricting cancel culture this shouldn't be seen as some infringement of liberty. I don't know what Popehat actually wants here.

Latty 5y ago
> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people. Contextless social media that encourages misunderstanding, a lack of ability to find retractions, and the ability to dig up old sins and present them as present views are an issue, and result in people piling onto others over misconceptions. It's a real problem. That's almost never what actually gets talked about, it's just "I should get to say whatever I want without people disliking me".
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  When one is already in overshoot, it's a bad play to make demands in the direction you've already overextended yourself on.
- abnry 5y ago
  > reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Sometimes the harm to others is disputed, as the harm is almost always considered emotional. Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    > Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood. What if it’s reframed? If I call my boss a fatty and they fire me that’s ok right? It’s just their feelings and I’m losing my income, but in that case it’s acceptable. Why?
    - cowuser666 5y ago
      That's exactly the point that was being made to you. The debate here is precisely what is reasonable, and what is harm.
      - alphabettsy 5y ago
        The comment I replied to seemed to trivialize emotional harm and suggest that loss of livelihood might be too severe. Did I read too much into it? I was providing an actual scenario as a basis of comparison. I think concrete examples are more useful here.
        cowuser666 5y ago
        It's not really an informative example. You're not losing your job in this case for emotional harm. It's because you insulted your boss. You could lose your job even if he didn't care. If you had to let an employee go and caused even more emotional harm (brought on by their no longer being employed), you wouldn't receive a reprisal. Why are you pointing out that speech sometimes is reasonable to punish? How does this clarify the question of whether we have become too punitive regarding political and controversial social speech.
tptacek 5y ago
Without the definition, White says, the appeal to an "end cancel culture norm" is, overtly, a call to broadly restrict people's speech. If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means." I'm dismissing his standard of what counts as "clarity" because I sense he's expecting a lawyerly definition based on something akin to precedent and case law. In other words, he's seeking past examples of alleged "cancel culture" and trying to define what made each event count as, or not count as, "cancel culture". And then from that formulate a rigid definition. I believe such a rigid definition is flawed because it is reactionary, because vernacular consensus is not formed this way, and because the definition can easily be skirted around. It would be like me demanding clarity on what makes something "cool".
  - tptacek 5y ago
    If you want to erect a new societal norm around "cool", it would in fact fall upon you to define "coolness".
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. I chose "cool" as an example because none of us came up with the term, no one can confidently define it and have everyone agree on it, and it's a word we all seem to use without truly knowing what it means. At the risk of stretching an analogy too far, I would not need to define what "coolness" is in order to confront people who I perceive to be overly critical and who are trying to get people to stop expressing themselves in ways they perceive as "uncool". In other words, if I tell someone "If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all", it does not seem reasonable to expect me to define what "nice" means in order to justify chiding someone for not being nice.
abnry 5y ago
Cancel culture is... targeted at individuals, for the loss of their job, invitations, or positions, for offenses that are minor in comparison to historical offenses, or offenses that are based on guilt by association or speculative inference, often for things in the past, which were things many people accepted at the time, and often which the individual disavows today.
- tptacek 5y ago
  That's a more specific and coherent definition of cancel culture, but it's certainly not the current consensus definition: many "cancel culture" debates --- probably most of them --- are about speech or opinions that the individual stands resolutely behind. And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective; it just shifts the debate to a different set of words, but it doesn't narrow it or offer us any guidance. People think all sorts of things are minor, or world-ending; proven, or fabricated.
  - abnry 5y ago
    > And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective. They really aren't. I used the word "historically" for this reason. Years ago, for example, people would openly espouse directly racist views. Today, you can get fired for using a slur in the "mention" category, rather than in the "use" category. And speculative inference isn't anything more than saying, "this person said x, y, & z... which means they _must_ also believe horrendous things a, b & c" when it is in fact logically possible to believe x, y & z without believing a, b, & c.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      You can get fired for having the wrong hairstyle --- that is a thing that in fact happens more often than firings because of cancel mobs. So we're not really saying much yet. Similarly, you can use the logic in your second paragraph to insulate any kind of speech at all from approbation; if you take what you're saying to its clear conclusion, what you're really saying is that it's never OK to boycott anything over speech. That's far beyond what even the most vigorous anti-cancel-culture advocates are saying.
Imnimo 5y ago
>I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. I think he wants people who say "we should end cancel culture" to recognize that their cause is not "the spirit of free speech".
adriand 5y ago
> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us has our own conception of a term - wordfeel, if you will - and virtually no one actually knows or holds to the literal dictionary definition. I really disagree, I think he addresses this very specifically at the end of the article, where he writes, "I believe more specificity — action items — is the answer": > Pointing to specific instances of “cancellation” and debating why they are inside or outside of our norms is a productive action item. Saying “colleges shouldn’t disinvite speakers because of controversy” is a good specific action item; we can debate it. Saying “Ken, stop piling on 20-follower Twitter accounts when they say stupid things” is an action item; I can debate it. [Shan’t.] Saying “stop demanding that businesses fire people for what they say off the job” is an action item. I might not agree but we can discuss it. He's not at all falling into a definition trap! I think that misses the point of the article, which is one of the most coherent articles I've ever encountered on the subject.
pas 5y ago
> defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does US politics is full of ambiguities, word games, and of course attacks that exploit these clarity gaps. See a list [0] of them below. Of course slogans are useful, and trying to hold hypocrites to account by using their slogan against them, yet at the same time it seems the political discourse is extremely low signal-to-noise, and there's almost no general need/demand for clarity. For example the both the "rich people pay no taxes" and the usual "XY corp last year paid 3.50 in taxes" memes are just that, catchy memes. And all of this puts a brutally counter productive shouting at the late night game feeling on politics. (Sure, there's a reason why political discourse is like this... we probably have to go through the catchy meme arms race.) [0] BLM, defund the police, liberal and classical liberal, gender/sex, socialism, recently critical race theory, equality vs equity (equal outcome, equal opportunity), free speech vs. selective publishing/hosting of content free from government interference; safe space vs. safe space from certain ideas/trigger vs. safe space for expressing ideas free of consequences, and maybe also "no child left behind" too. (Of course a few of them are proper slogans, but then due to the ambiguity in semantics folks try to use these as concrete promises.)
Misdicorl 5y ago
> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Certainly it leads to more clarity. Two parties talking "past" each other is one of the most common sources of disagreement in my experience. Of course it isn't a panacea and there will still be disagreement on when the definition is being used correctly, and bad actors, and .... But it is an excellent (and I would argue necessary) starting point for any meaningful discussion. > Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here:.... I don't know what Popehat actually wants here The headings of the sections work pretty neatly for me to distill this down (skipping the intro). 1) (Why) Working Towards A Definition Is Important -> dont just handwave 2) Propaganda Drives Perception -> rethink what you think cancel culture is 3) Everybody’s Rights Matter -> The person being cancelled may have been out of bounds and trying to cancel someone else too. Context is important 4) We Need Action Items -> stop these stupid articles that simply clutch pearls and propose something anything that can actually be considered
- parineum 5y ago
  > Two parties talking "past" each other is one of the most common sources of disagreement in my experience. A prime and recent example of this is "defund the police". You could talk to 10 people at a protest and get 10 different answers on what that means, and that's among supporters. Any actual conversation on the topic has to start with "well what do you mean?". You would often hear a refrain of "nobody is talking about completely defunding the police." but there was plenty of actual support for that in just-outside-of-mainstream groups. So many movements are united behind such vague slogans that they garner widespread support because everybody has a personal and reasonable (to them) interpretation of it's meaning. "Cancel culture" just the next "Occupy Wallstreet", "Black Lives Matter", "Defund the Police", etc. It's a leaderless grassroots phenomenon with no stated objectives or goals. I think people are much more concerned with finding a community to fight with rather than actually winning the fight.
  - Misdicorl 5y ago
    Yes, the "vague idea anyone can attach meaning to" is often an intentional aspect of these movements to gather larger support. Its also easy to subsequently exploit and I think the venerable CIA handbook from the ~60s goes into detail on that. Of course having a narrow focus doesn't really stop exploitation from a motivated counterparty with sufficient resources, especially when you need broad source support (e.g. large political reform issues).
systemvoltage 5y ago
This completely leaves out that the tolerance for speech, even minor offenses, which used to be acceptable are now being weaponized to destroy each other in visceral, tribal fashion. You can have an accountable society and cancel someone for crossing the line. That line used to be for things such as Pedophilia, encouraging violence, promoting rape-culture, etc. Truly terrible things. I hope people will wake up or we'll end up with a worse place than ever.
Animats 5y ago
Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. He does seem to be obsessing over nomenclature. A more useful question is, what happens if you express an unpopular opinion? Do you get fired? Arrested? Lynched? Torn to bits by a mob? Shamed on social media? Blocked by social media companies? Can't get published in major media? Attacked by TV pundits? Not invited to the good parties? Also, how long does this go on, and is it retroactive for things said in the past?
skissane 5y ago
> No rights are actually being infringed by this. It is possible to have cultural mores that are in the spirit of free speech. What do you mean by “rights”? Legal rights or moral rights? If legal rights, under which law in which jurisdiction? I agree very many cases of “cancellation” are not illegal, and as such not violating anyone’s legal rights - but a lot of people seem to approach this with a narrow focus on the US 1st Amendment (hereafter 1A), when this isn’t a US-only issue, and even in the US there are other laws involved than just 1A - a private company firing someone for their publicly expressed political views cannot violate 1A, but it might violate state laws against political discrimination in employment (such as California Labor Code section 1101), and those state laws can also be understood as creating (or recognising) legal rights. Also, law is not static, it evolves through case law and legislation, so something which is legal today might not be legal in the future-people who believe that we have a problem with “cancel culture” are likely to lobby for laws against it, and we’ll see if they succeed. If one acknowledges the existence of ethics/morality independent of the law, it follows people may have ethical/moral rights which are violated even if their legal rights (in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time) are not being violated.
throwawaygh 5y ago
> The opposite stance, not calling on people to end cancel culture, is also accepting a reduction in speech. I'm not sure that accepting certain spaces becoming unwelcome is the same as a reduction in speech. The quote toward the end of the article really hits the nail on the head for me: > The room felt tense... I was shaken, but also determined to not silence myself. Still, the disdain of my fellow students stuck with me. I was a welcome member of the group — and then I wasn’t. Feeling tense and unwelcome in a space where people disagree with you is totally normal and to be expected. A huge fraction of people grow up feeling exactly like that in virtually every space they inhabit. (BTW, I'd be unsurprised if the tenseness in this case was more about annoyance with a loudmouth once again derailing a seminar with what they think is profoundly courageous iconoclasm but is actually annoying low-effort culture war trolling that's spoiling a quite expensive educational product for the rest of the paying customers...) I grew up non-straight and atheist in the midwest, decades ago, and not in a city. The feeling of tenseness described here is totally normal. Gays are not entitled to a complete absence of tenseness in midwest churches or sports bars. That tenseness and unwelcomeness will result in lost opportunities for socialization, employment, etc. even without overt discrimination. Not everyone will feel comfortable in every space. Not everyone will fit in everywhere. That's life. It seems like literally everyone except a certain brand of conservative hothead understands this. To me, the entire cancel culture thing can be summed up as: "apparently some people went through a lot of life without ever desiring to inhabit a space where they weren't 100% welcome and, unsurprisingly, react in an emotionally stunted and frankly embarrassing way when encountering this situation." IDK. Half the country -- and a much larger percentage of its landmass -- is wholly hostile to anyone who isn't a died-in-the-wool conservative. Whence the entitlement to also fit in perfectly everywhere else with zero friction? As a queer person, I don't even have that much sympathy for fellow queer people who try to get along in conservative religious communities. You have a right to free association. If you don't like feeling tense and unwelcome, exercise that right. If you choose to inhabit spaces where you aren't welcome... well, I can sympathize up to a point, but I'm mostly going to roll my eyes if you complain too much.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm a dark-skinned POC straight man that grew up in poverty (and that in the SFBA I feel like a unicorn, especially in my climbing gym where sometimes I'm the only dark-skinned POC for my entire workout). > Feeling tense and unwelcome in a space where people disagree with you is totally normal and to be expected. A huge fraction of people grow up feeling exactly like that in virtually every space they inhabit. I grew up very used to the idea of feeling unwelcome because of my skin color. I didn't and still do not feel the most comfortable in many spaces. That uncomfortability has made me keenly aware at how alienating the feeling is. When I see other people feel uncomfortable, I don't think "good now you feel how it's like to be me", I feel that humanity has lost yet another victim to intolerance. I do not think that normalizing this feeling helps anyone, even if the person feeling this pain is a straight, white man. Moreover when someone hates me for my skin color (and perceived behaviors associated with my skin color), I certainly become uncomfortable and angry, but at the end of the day I realize it's something I cannot fundamentally change. My skin color and body type will stay with me for the rest of my life. But when people become uncomfortable by _my ideas_ that's what hurts more; I feel that people disapprove of the fruits of my own agency. It's why I've always felt so keenly for transgender folk who endure endless discrimination for simply choosing how to live their own lives.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity No, he’s very clearly making the argument that vigorously avoiding defining it at all while trying to argue about it prevents any coherency or utility, not that precisely defining it leads to clarity.
zeruch 5y ago
"Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity." It's not a trap, it's essentially true. Clarity doesn't mean solvability, but reducing ambiguity, or at the very least getting some better consensual agreement on terms among adversaries usually helps flash out the discourse beyond tropes and jabs.

Latty 5y ago

> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start. People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people. Contextless social media that encourages misunderstanding, a lack of ability to find retractions, and the ability to dig up old sins and present them as present views are an issue, and result in people piling onto others over misconceptions. It's a real problem. That's almost never what actually gets talked about, it's just "I should get to say whatever I want without people disliking me".

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
When one is already in overshoot, it's a bad play to make demands in the direction you've already overextended yourself on.
abnry 5y ago
> reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Sometimes the harm to others is disputed, as the harm is almost always considered emotional. Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > Sometimes what is considered "reasonable consequences" is something as significant as loss of livelihood. What if it’s reframed? If I call my boss a fatty and they fire me that’s ok right? It’s just their feelings and I’m losing my income, but in that case it’s acceptable. Why?
  - cowuser666 5y ago
    That's exactly the point that was being made to you. The debate here is precisely what is reasonable, and what is harm.
    - alphabettsy 5y ago
      The comment I replied to seemed to trivialize emotional harm and suggest that loss of livelihood might be too severe. Did I read too much into it? I was providing an actual scenario as a basis of comparison. I think concrete examples are more useful here.
      - cowuser666 5y ago
        It's not really an informative example. You're not losing your job in this case for emotional harm. It's because you insulted your boss. You could lose your job even if he didn't care. If you had to let an employee go and caused even more emotional harm (brought on by their no longer being employed), you wouldn't receive a reprisal. Why are you pointing out that speech sometimes is reasonable to punish? How does this clarify the question of whether we have become too punitive regarding political and controversial social speech.

tptacek 5y ago

Without the definition, White says, the appeal to an "end cancel culture norm" is, overtly, a call to broadly restrict people's speech. If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means." I'm dismissing his standard of what counts as "clarity" because I sense he's expecting a lawyerly definition based on something akin to precedent and case law. In other words, he's seeking past examples of alleged "cancel culture" and trying to define what made each event count as, or not count as, "cancel culture". And then from that formulate a rigid definition. I believe such a rigid definition is flawed because it is reactionary, because vernacular consensus is not formed this way, and because the definition can easily be skirted around. It would be like me demanding clarity on what makes something "cool".
- tptacek 5y ago
  If you want to erect a new societal norm around "cool", it would in fact fall upon you to define "coolness".
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. I chose "cool" as an example because none of us came up with the term, no one can confidently define it and have everyone agree on it, and it's a word we all seem to use without truly knowing what it means. At the risk of stretching an analogy too far, I would not need to define what "coolness" is in order to confront people who I perceive to be overly critical and who are trying to get people to stop expressing themselves in ways they perceive as "uncool". In other words, if I tell someone "If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all", it does not seem reasonable to expect me to define what "nice" means in order to justify chiding someone for not being nice.

abnry 5y ago

Cancel culture is... targeted at individuals, for the loss of their job, invitations, or positions, for offenses that are minor in comparison to historical offenses, or offenses that are based on guilt by association or speculative inference, often for things in the past, which were things many people accepted at the time, and often which the individual disavows today.

tptacek 5y ago
That's a more specific and coherent definition of cancel culture, but it's certainly not the current consensus definition: many "cancel culture" debates --- probably most of them --- are about speech or opinions that the individual stands resolutely behind. And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective; it just shifts the debate to a different set of words, but it doesn't narrow it or offer us any guidance. People think all sorts of things are minor, or world-ending; proven, or fabricated.
- abnry 5y ago
  > And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective. They really aren't. I used the word "historically" for this reason. Years ago, for example, people would openly espouse directly racist views. Today, you can get fired for using a slur in the "mention" category, rather than in the "use" category. And speculative inference isn't anything more than saying, "this person said x, y, & z... which means they _must_ also believe horrendous things a, b & c" when it is in fact logically possible to believe x, y & z without believing a, b, & c.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    You can get fired for having the wrong hairstyle --- that is a thing that in fact happens more often than firings because of cancel mobs. So we're not really saying much yet. Similarly, you can use the logic in your second paragraph to insulate any kind of speech at all from approbation; if you take what you're saying to its clear conclusion, what you're really saying is that it's never OK to boycott anything over speech. That's far beyond what even the most vigorous anti-cancel-culture advocates are saying.

Imnimo 5y ago

>I don't know what Popehat actually wants here. I think he wants people who say "we should end cancel culture" to recognize that their cause is not "the spirit of free speech".

adriand 5y ago

> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us has our own conception of a term - wordfeel, if you will - and virtually no one actually knows or holds to the literal dictionary definition. I really disagree, I think he addresses this very specifically at the end of the article, where he writes, "I believe more specificity — action items — is the answer": > Pointing to specific instances of “cancellation” and debating why they are inside or outside of our norms is a productive action item. Saying “colleges shouldn’t disinvite speakers because of controversy” is a good specific action item; we can debate it. Saying “Ken, stop piling on 20-follower Twitter accounts when they say stupid things” is an action item; I can debate it. [Shan’t.] Saying “stop demanding that businesses fire people for what they say off the job” is an action item. I might not agree but we can discuss it. He's not at all falling into a definition trap! I think that misses the point of the article, which is one of the most coherent articles I've ever encountered on the subject.

pas 5y ago

> defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does US politics is full of ambiguities, word games, and of course attacks that exploit these clarity gaps. See a list [0] of them below. Of course slogans are useful, and trying to hold hypocrites to account by using their slogan against them, yet at the same time it seems the political discourse is extremely low signal-to-noise, and there's almost no general need/demand for clarity. For example the both the "rich people pay no taxes" and the usual "XY corp last year paid 3.50 in taxes" memes are just that, catchy memes. And all of this puts a brutally counter productive shouting at the late night game feeling on politics. (Sure, there's a reason why political discourse is like this... we probably have to go through the catchy meme arms race.) [0] BLM, defund the police, liberal and classical liberal, gender/sex, socialism, recently critical race theory, equality vs equity (equal outcome, equal opportunity), free speech vs. selective publishing/hosting of content free from government interference; safe space vs. safe space from certain ideas/trigger vs. safe space for expressing ideas free of consequences, and maybe also "no child left behind" too. (Of course a few of them are proper slogans, but then due to the ambiguity in semantics folks try to use these as concrete promises.)

Misdicorl 5y ago

> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Certainly it leads to more clarity. Two parties talking "past" each other is one of the most common sources of disagreement in my experience. Of course it isn't a panacea and there will still be disagreement on when the definition is being used correctly, and bad actors, and .... But it is an excellent (and I would argue necessary) starting point for any meaningful discussion. > Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here:.... I don't know what Popehat actually wants here The headings of the sections work pretty neatly for me to distill this down (skipping the intro). 1) (Why) Working Towards A Definition Is Important -> dont just handwave 2) Propaganda Drives Perception -> rethink what you think cancel culture is 3) Everybody’s Rights Matter -> The person being cancelled may have been out of bounds and trying to cancel someone else too. Context is important 4) We Need Action Items -> stop these stupid articles that simply clutch pearls and propose something anything that can actually be considered

parineum 5y ago
> Two parties talking "past" each other is one of the most common sources of disagreement in my experience. A prime and recent example of this is "defund the police". You could talk to 10 people at a protest and get 10 different answers on what that means, and that's among supporters. Any actual conversation on the topic has to start with "well what do you mean?". You would often hear a refrain of "nobody is talking about completely defunding the police." but there was plenty of actual support for that in just-outside-of-mainstream groups. So many movements are united behind such vague slogans that they garner widespread support because everybody has a personal and reasonable (to them) interpretation of it's meaning. "Cancel culture" just the next "Occupy Wallstreet", "Black Lives Matter", "Defund the Police", etc. It's a leaderless grassroots phenomenon with no stated objectives or goals. I think people are much more concerned with finding a community to fight with rather than actually winning the fight.
- Misdicorl 5y ago
  Yes, the "vague idea anyone can attach meaning to" is often an intentional aspect of these movements to gather larger support. Its also easy to subsequently exploit and I think the venerable CIA handbook from the ~60s goes into detail on that. Of course having a narrow focus doesn't really stop exploitation from a motivated counterparty with sufficient resources, especially when you need broad source support (e.g. large political reform issues).

systemvoltage 5y ago

This completely leaves out that the tolerance for speech, even minor offenses, which used to be acceptable are now being weaponized to destroy each other in visceral, tribal fashion. You can have an accountable society and cancel someone for crossing the line. That line used to be for things such as Pedophilia, encouraging violence, promoting rape-culture, etc. Truly terrible things. I hope people will wake up or we'll end up with a worse place than ever.

Animats 5y ago

Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. He does seem to be obsessing over nomenclature. A more useful question is, what happens if you express an unpopular opinion? Do you get fired? Arrested? Lynched? Torn to bits by a mob? Shamed on social media? Blocked by social media companies? Can't get published in major media? Attacked by TV pundits? Not invited to the good parties? Also, how long does this go on, and is it retroactive for things said in the past?

skissane 5y ago

> No rights are actually being infringed by this. It is possible to have cultural mores that are in the spirit of free speech. What do you mean by “rights”? Legal rights or moral rights? If legal rights, under which law in which jurisdiction? I agree very many cases of “cancellation” are not illegal, and as such not violating anyone’s legal rights - but a lot of people seem to approach this with a narrow focus on the US 1st Amendment (hereafter 1A), when this isn’t a US-only issue, and even in the US there are other laws involved than just 1A - a private company firing someone for their publicly expressed political views cannot violate 1A, but it might violate state laws against political discrimination in employment (such as California Labor Code section 1101), and those state laws can also be understood as creating (or recognising) legal rights. Also, law is not static, it evolves through case law and legislation, so something which is legal today might not be legal in the future-people who believe that we have a problem with “cancel culture” are likely to lobby for laws against it, and we’ll see if they succeed. If one acknowledges the existence of ethics/morality independent of the law, it follows people may have ethical/moral rights which are violated even if their legal rights (in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time) are not being violated.

throwawaygh 5y ago

> The opposite stance, not calling on people to end cancel culture, is also accepting a reduction in speech. I'm not sure that accepting certain spaces becoming unwelcome is the same as a reduction in speech. The quote toward the end of the article really hits the nail on the head for me: > The room felt tense... I was shaken, but also determined to not silence myself. Still, the disdain of my fellow students stuck with me. I was a welcome member of the group — and then I wasn’t. Feeling tense and unwelcome in a space where people disagree with you is totally normal and to be expected. A huge fraction of people grow up feeling exactly like that in virtually every space they inhabit. (BTW, I'd be unsurprised if the tenseness in this case was more about annoyance with a loudmouth once again derailing a seminar with what they think is profoundly courageous iconoclasm but is actually annoying low-effort culture war trolling that's spoiling a quite expensive educational product for the rest of the paying customers...) I grew up non-straight and atheist in the midwest, decades ago, and not in a city. The feeling of tenseness described here is totally normal. Gays are not entitled to a complete absence of tenseness in midwest churches or sports bars. That tenseness and unwelcomeness will result in lost opportunities for socialization, employment, etc. even without overt discrimination. Not everyone will feel comfortable in every space. Not everyone will fit in everywhere. That's life. It seems like literally everyone except a certain brand of conservative hothead understands this. To me, the entire cancel culture thing can be summed up as: "apparently some people went through a lot of life without ever desiring to inhabit a space where they weren't 100% welcome and, unsurprisingly, react in an emotionally stunted and frankly embarrassing way when encountering this situation." IDK. Half the country -- and a much larger percentage of its landmass -- is wholly hostile to anyone who isn't a died-in-the-wool conservative. Whence the entitlement to also fit in perfectly everywhere else with zero friction? As a queer person, I don't even have that much sympathy for fellow queer people who try to get along in conservative religious communities. You have a right to free association. If you don't like feeling tense and unwelcome, exercise that right. If you choose to inhabit spaces where you aren't welcome... well, I can sympathize up to a point, but I'm mostly going to roll my eyes if you complain too much.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm a dark-skinned POC straight man that grew up in poverty (and that in the SFBA I feel like a unicorn, especially in my climbing gym where sometimes I'm the only dark-skinned POC for my entire workout). > Feeling tense and unwelcome in a space where people disagree with you is totally normal and to be expected. A huge fraction of people grow up feeling exactly like that in virtually every space they inhabit. I grew up very used to the idea of feeling unwelcome because of my skin color. I didn't and still do not feel the most comfortable in many spaces. That uncomfortability has made me keenly aware at how alienating the feeling is. When I see other people feel uncomfortable, I don't think "good now you feel how it's like to be me", I feel that humanity has lost yet another victim to intolerance. I do not think that normalizing this feeling helps anyone, even if the person feeling this pain is a straight, white man. Moreover when someone hates me for my skin color (and perceived behaviors associated with my skin color), I certainly become uncomfortable and angry, but at the end of the day I realize it's something I cannot fundamentally change. My skin color and body type will stay with me for the rest of my life. But when people become uncomfortable by _my ideas_ that's what hurts more; I feel that people disapprove of the fruits of my own agency. It's why I've always felt so keenly for transgender folk who endure endless discrimination for simply choosing how to live their own lives.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity No, he’s very clearly making the argument that vigorously avoiding defining it at all while trying to argue about it prevents any coherency or utility, not that precisely defining it leads to clarity.

zeruch 5y ago

"Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity." It's not a trap, it's essentially true. Clarity doesn't mean solvability, but reducing ambiguity, or at the very least getting some better consensual agreement on terms among adversaries usually helps flash out the discourse beyond tropes and jabs.