13 ms·

> 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 tak

by 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.
  - anamax 5y ago
    The case we're talking about is I accuse you of calling me a fatty and get a bunch of people to tell your employer that they'll boycott, costing a bunch of people their income, people who didn't do anything, unless they fire you. Note that I said "accuse". Maybe you called me a fatty, maybe you didn't. Note that "get" is too strong. There appear to be people waiting for an excuse to go after "your employer" for pretty much any value of "your employer". I may not even be bothered - someone else may do the "get" even if all I do is mention that you called me fatty/thought that you thought of me as a fatty without any intent that someone do something.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Let's not move the goalposts. If you hurt your boss's feelings, should you lose your livelihood?
      - iosono88 5y ago
      - anamax 5y ago
        I see your "move the goalposts" and raise a "mote and bailey". I'm describing cancel culture as it is, which is different from "calling your boss a fatty" (or a Nazi for that matter). We might well decide that the "right thing" in these situations is different. Which reminds me - does someone have an obligation to hire me after I call them a fatty?
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        I’m not convinced it’s different from “cancel culture as it is”. One common theme I’ve seen — including in this thread! — is people creating a dichotomy between “free speech” and “feelings”. Usually that means they want to say something controversial, but their own feelings get hurt when they receive pushback, so they try to reframe the debate in such a way that they’re the aggrieved party. The “insult my boss” is a good thought experiment because it reveals that motivation. Is it really about “free speech” vs. “feelings”, or is there something else going on?
  - kritiko 5y ago
    In America, in most jobs you can be fired for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory against a protected class. What do you mean by “acceptable” here? As in, an average person would consider it fair?
  - liquid_bluing 5y ago
    I think it's broadly considered acceptable because insulting your boss is an aggresive behavior directed at a colleague. Simply stating an opinion is not.
    - alphabettsy 5y ago
      Does it matter at all what the opinion is?
- Latty 5y ago
  Of course, it depends on what you view as harmful, and who's opinions you agree with. There is no obvious right answer. Pretending we can say "so this should never happen" is absurd in my view, it implies people have to give their money to people that will use that money to fund harm. The core of free speech is that even abhorrent views should not face censorship by the government, because democracy requires it. If this is true, surely the right to not support people who's views you disagree with is just as necessary? (If not, is every Republican cancelling the Democratic party by not donating to them?) The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. We don't have a better answer than that. I think there are obvious cases we can personally make better choices: seek context and clarity, don't jump to conclusions and pile on just because others say something without checking it is valid and proportionate, but again, that's never the "anti-cancel culture" argument.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    > The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. I find this difficult to agree with but not because of the sentiment but because of the environment. If a bad faith actor wants to smear even totally reasoned speech by spouting complete fabrications, so long as they have the bigger platform/microphone on social media no amount of making a correct argument will resolve the problem. I agree in a perfect world without these sorts of algorithmic effects, this would be the ideal solution— but if you simply aren’t favored by the algorithm how can being reasonable save you from someone who is spewing lies?
    - Latty 5y ago
      Yeah, of course that's a problem, having a bigger platform gives you more political power. This... isn't new. Money is the classic way to attain platform, and the US has repeatedly doubled down on the freedom to spend as much money as you want politically, as a core freedom. Fox News is constantly broadcasting what I would classify as complete fabrications to their bigger platform, should the government be stepping in to stop that? I agree these things are a problem, but that's the cost of free speech, the two choices are the government deciding who's speech is right, or individuals deciding who's speech is right.
- akira2501 5y ago
  To me "consequences" are sought when someone wants to alleviate their own burden or guilt over the situation. Rarely is "restitution" sought. It seems to me that the latter would be a far more useful trend if we're going to continue trying to deal with social problems using the awesome power of the internet.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
When I mention that I don't understand what Popehat actually wants, I'm looking at it in the context of the concept of "competing rights" that he writes about. >"People complaining about “cancel culture” frequently suggest that it chills speech. Perhaps. But so does a vague denunciation of other people’s speech." My confusion stems from the fact that Popehat seems to want to have it both ways. On one hand, he entertains the idea that "cancel culture" has a chilling effect. It is not a stretch to say that "cancel culture" is a kind of "denunciation of other people's speech". But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech". If Popehat's main gripe is that the liberty of speech is being limited, both "cancel culture" and "anti-cancel culture" lead to speech being denounced and limited. With this contradiction in mind, I don't understand what Popehat hopes to achieve.
- Imnimo 5y ago
  >But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech". Right, but I think his criticism here is not that "they should not denounce other people's speech", it's that they are being hypocritical in their reasoning. He's arguing against the soundness of their denunciation, not arguing against their right to make it.
- _jal 5y ago
  He's pointing out that many (not all) people complaining are asking for criticism - other peoples' speech - to be shut down. There are a few sincere people out there. But most whining about cancel culture are just asking to be free from criticism. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious [1], more frequently layered with complaints about legitimately out of line acts and misdirects. The answer to bad speech is more speech. End of story. [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palin-criticism-threatens_n_1...
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"But most whining about cancel culture are just asking to be free from criticism" This assessment doesn't sit right with me because I don't sense the people 'whining' about cancel culture are trying to get out of ideological critique. I sense they're calling for tolerance because the 'critique' is laden with threats to livelihood and societal standing. From that perspective, I don't believe that calling on people to be more tolerant of other people's speech is a substantial reduction in speech. One could say it results in a net gain of speech.
RobertRoberts 5y ago
But who decides what "actions they take that harm others" is? If you look up if there are nazis in Ukraine army in US news, it will claim it's false, but international news sources say it's true. Since nazis are the worst ever, don't you think it's important to get this right? And how can we tell if we can't have openly opposing sources that don't get cancelled?
- Latty 5y ago
  Individuals make that decision, just as they do when it comes to democracy as a whole. That's the point of freedom of speech: we can't have an authority on the truth. The alternative is you aren't allowed to dislike and refuse to patronize someone because of their actions, which is obviously absurd. Everyone agrees people shouldn't face disproportionate responses, so arguing for that is nothing. Either you need to argue there are general things causing that (e.g: not looking into context, retractions, etc... before making judgements, which is a real problem) or argue the ethics of the particular situation, which is unique to a case. Almost always, I see "cancel culture" used as a shield to avoid having to defend the actual harm done.
  - RobertRoberts 5y ago
    Maybe you could provide a solid point of "the actual harm done" when someone says "there are nazis in the army"? (if it's true) If it's false, maybe you can claim slander on an entire army? Even the law doesn't protect anyone from that...
    - Latty 5y ago
      The harm done is very clear: the indented implication that Ukraine is controlled by Nazis is intended to justify Russia's illegal and unjustified war which is about control by Russia, and helps no one in Ukraine.
      - RobertRoberts 5y ago
        If it's false, then sure. But if it's true, then those hiding this fact are actually supporting Nazis. Don't you think it's important to have as many sources of information as possible to verify this?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
noduerme 5y ago
As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new, the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new, and that's exactly what "cancel culture" refers to. The underlying mechanism of Twitter is what gave birth to the term, regardless of whether it's used by haters to justify hate speech. One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. Coupled with the new notion that hurting someone's feelings constitutes a form of harm tantamount to violence, this allows proportionality in punishment to be abstracted away. If measures of harm are arbitrary and shifting depending on how much mob traction one particular issue recieves or how sensitive one person happens to be, then proportionality is impossible, and "cancel culture" captures a state where cancellation is the answer to any grievance of any severity which manages to find cultural purchase.
- guelo 5y ago
  Consumer boycotts are not new. They have a long history including the Boston Tea Party that kicked off America.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > the modality of mass mob boycotts I was watching the news this morning and they were talking about the latest company that's boycotting Russia in response to the social media storm. It occurred to me that governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant. They don't have to impose sanctions (and their own rules make it difficult to do so) - the Twitter mob is deciding who to banish. It's a form of democracy, I guess - but one without any checks or balances or regulations.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    A handful of tech companies arguably have far more power to regulate speech than any government.
    - guelo 5y ago
      Not universally true, Putin and Xi Jinping have more power than tech companies in their countries. America decided 231 years ago that private actors would have more power over speech than the government.
senthil_rajasek 5y ago
>For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" Accountability Culture.
macrolocal 5y ago
> 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. Although nowadays, soft penalties scale and can be automated. So it feels sensible to explore regulatory frameworks that could rein in the worst excesses.
- Latty 5y ago
  Who gets to decide what the excess is? I'm not saying they don't exist: if I advocate for gay rights, and turns out my employer has a bunch of homophobic customers who get me fired because they don't want to spend money that ends up in my pocket, that would be deeply wrong in my view. The question is, what does the "regulatory framework" do there? Force those customers to spend money that ends up funding someone that fights for something they see as morally wrong? Force my boss to employ me even though I hurt their business? The whole point of freedom of speech is the government doesn't get to ban views they don't like. Not supporting someone because of their views surely needs to be as much of a protected view as any other.
  - macrolocal 5y ago
    > Who gets to decide what the excess is? Legislators, who also get to address how we criminalize physical aggression, the poor man's social aggression.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    > Force my boss to employ me even though I hurt their business? Well probably the answer would be stronger wrongful termination regulation and then if they fire you for advocating for gay rights then you would probably get paid a reasonable amount of money for the loss you suffered, and your boss would have more of an incentive to think over if they really need to fire you to avoid losses to their business or if they should stand up to the people trying to force their hand.
    - Latty 5y ago
jimbokun 5y ago
> 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. Someone having an opinion different than you does not cause you harm. This is the Big Lie underlying a lot of the rhetoric that has been labeled "cancel culture". The potential harm at shutting down the opportunity to find out you were wrong about something by hearing viewpoints different from yours, is far greater than whatever harms you fear from the words themselves.
- Latty 5y ago
  I said "for actions they take that harm others", and you jumped to some trivial difference of opinion. If the difference of opinion is supporting policy that hurts me or people I care about, then yes, of course it can harm me. You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company. Freedom of expression swings both ways. I agree we should think about the harm done, ensure it is real, and what level of consequence is reasonable before acting, but that doesn't mean there are no situations action is justified.
  - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
    > "You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company." Like unborn fetuses? (I am pro-choice by the way.) The pro-life side care about them and feel they should have human rights and, by the silly paradox of tolerance people seem to love to quote, they're even justified in not tolerating those who don't tolerate their beliefs. So do you really believe that freedom of expression swings both ways and are willing to allow them to enact their consequences on those who don't agree with them? Maybe you should rethink the implications of what you are saying.
    - Latty 5y ago
      Yes. I believe that those people should be able to judge me and socially shun me, including calling for my firing, if I express that I am pro-choice. I think they are wrong, but it's on me to try and persuade enough people that I'm right. If they see it as I support murdering innocent people, then how can I possibly demand they hand me money, interact with me normally, etc...? I'm certainly not going to employ someone who says "I think we should kill <group of people>". I think they are fundamentally wrong about the core concept, I don't think it's right for them to "cancel" people over that as a result, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to do so, because forcing people to support behaviour they find abhorrent is worse.
lazide 5y ago
The type of people who complain and lash out when they face reasonable consequences for harming someone else are the least likely to follow any such guidance here though?
krapp 5y ago
>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. That's never going to happen. Such people have a vested interest in gaining sympathy for their views and actions by discrediting their critics as nothing but a hateful mob or a conspiracy to silence and oppress them, and clearly their efforts are working. "Cancel culture" has itself become a moral panic akin to the Red Scare.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Your post reminds me of Barry Deutsch's I Have Been Silenced comic [1], which is clearly still relevant today. 1: http://leftycartoons.com/2018/08/01/i-have-been-silenced/ http://leftycartoons.com/2018/08/01/i-have-been-silenced/
fsckboy 5y ago
> 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. the article is about free speech, but you sneak in the word actions, and then you label the damage (of free speech) as harm to others, and the consequences as reasonable. Therefore, I'd say you fit what this editorial is about, "many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dataduck 5y ago
> 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. What about people facing unreasonable consequences for actions that don't harm others?

by Latty 5y ago

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.
- anamax 5y ago
  The case we're talking about is I accuse you of calling me a fatty and get a bunch of people to tell your employer that they'll boycott, costing a bunch of people their income, people who didn't do anything, unless they fire you. Note that I said "accuse". Maybe you called me a fatty, maybe you didn't. Note that "get" is too strong. There appear to be people waiting for an excuse to go after "your employer" for pretty much any value of "your employer". I may not even be bothered - someone else may do the "get" even if all I do is mention that you called me fatty/thought that you thought of me as a fatty without any intent that someone do something.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Let's not move the goalposts. If you hurt your boss's feelings, should you lose your livelihood?
    - iosono88 5y ago
    - anamax 5y ago
      I see your "move the goalposts" and raise a "mote and bailey". I'm describing cancel culture as it is, which is different from "calling your boss a fatty" (or a Nazi for that matter). We might well decide that the "right thing" in these situations is different. Which reminds me - does someone have an obligation to hire me after I call them a fatty?
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        I’m not convinced it’s different from “cancel culture as it is”. One common theme I’ve seen — including in this thread! — is people creating a dichotomy between “free speech” and “feelings”. Usually that means they want to say something controversial, but their own feelings get hurt when they receive pushback, so they try to reframe the debate in such a way that they’re the aggrieved party. The “insult my boss” is a good thought experiment because it reveals that motivation. Is it really about “free speech” vs. “feelings”, or is there something else going on?
- kritiko 5y ago
  In America, in most jobs you can be fired for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory against a protected class. What do you mean by “acceptable” here? As in, an average person would consider it fair?
- liquid_bluing 5y ago
  I think it's broadly considered acceptable because insulting your boss is an aggresive behavior directed at a colleague. Simply stating an opinion is not.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    Does it matter at all what the opinion is?
Latty 5y ago
Of course, it depends on what you view as harmful, and who's opinions you agree with. There is no obvious right answer. Pretending we can say "so this should never happen" is absurd in my view, it implies people have to give their money to people that will use that money to fund harm. The core of free speech is that even abhorrent views should not face censorship by the government, because democracy requires it. If this is true, surely the right to not support people who's views you disagree with is just as necessary? (If not, is every Republican cancelling the Democratic party by not donating to them?) The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. We don't have a better answer than that. I think there are obvious cases we can personally make better choices: seek context and clarity, don't jump to conclusions and pile on just because others say something without checking it is valid and proportionate, but again, that's never the "anti-cancel culture" argument.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  > The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. I find this difficult to agree with but not because of the sentiment but because of the environment. If a bad faith actor wants to smear even totally reasoned speech by spouting complete fabrications, so long as they have the bigger platform/microphone on social media no amount of making a correct argument will resolve the problem. I agree in a perfect world without these sorts of algorithmic effects, this would be the ideal solution— but if you simply aren’t favored by the algorithm how can being reasonable save you from someone who is spewing lies?
  - Latty 5y ago
    Yeah, of course that's a problem, having a bigger platform gives you more political power. This... isn't new. Money is the classic way to attain platform, and the US has repeatedly doubled down on the freedom to spend as much money as you want politically, as a core freedom. Fox News is constantly broadcasting what I would classify as complete fabrications to their bigger platform, should the government be stepping in to stop that? I agree these things are a problem, but that's the cost of free speech, the two choices are the government deciding who's speech is right, or individuals deciding who's speech is right.
akira2501 5y ago
To me "consequences" are sought when someone wants to alleviate their own burden or guilt over the situation. Rarely is "restitution" sought. It seems to me that the latter would be a far more useful trend if we're going to continue trying to deal with social problems using the awesome power of the internet.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

When I mention that I don't understand what Popehat actually wants, I'm looking at it in the context of the concept of "competing rights" that he writes about. >"People complaining about “cancel culture” frequently suggest that it chills speech. Perhaps. But so does a vague denunciation of other people’s speech." My confusion stems from the fact that Popehat seems to want to have it both ways. On one hand, he entertains the idea that "cancel culture" has a chilling effect. It is not a stretch to say that "cancel culture" is a kind of "denunciation of other people's speech". But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech". If Popehat's main gripe is that the liberty of speech is being limited, both "cancel culture" and "anti-cancel culture" lead to speech being denounced and limited. With this contradiction in mind, I don't understand what Popehat hopes to achieve.

Imnimo 5y ago
>But he's simultaneously criticizing people who want to end "cancel culture" because he sees them as also committing a "denunciation of other people’s speech". Right, but I think his criticism here is not that "they should not denounce other people's speech", it's that they are being hypocritical in their reasoning. He's arguing against the soundness of their denunciation, not arguing against their right to make it.
_jal 5y ago
He's pointing out that many (not all) people complaining are asking for criticism - other peoples' speech - to be shut down. There are a few sincere people out there. But most whining about cancel culture are just asking to be free from criticism. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious [1], more frequently layered with complaints about legitimately out of line acts and misdirects. The answer to bad speech is more speech. End of story. [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palin-criticism-threatens_n_1...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"But most whining about cancel culture are just asking to be free from criticism" This assessment doesn't sit right with me because I don't sense the people 'whining' about cancel culture are trying to get out of ideological critique. I sense they're calling for tolerance because the 'critique' is laden with threats to livelihood and societal standing. From that perspective, I don't believe that calling on people to be more tolerant of other people's speech is a substantial reduction in speech. One could say it results in a net gain of speech.

RobertRoberts 5y ago

But who decides what "actions they take that harm others" is? If you look up if there are nazis in Ukraine army in US news, it will claim it's false, but international news sources say it's true. Since nazis are the worst ever, don't you think it's important to get this right? And how can we tell if we can't have openly opposing sources that don't get cancelled?

Latty 5y ago
Individuals make that decision, just as they do when it comes to democracy as a whole. That's the point of freedom of speech: we can't have an authority on the truth. The alternative is you aren't allowed to dislike and refuse to patronize someone because of their actions, which is obviously absurd. Everyone agrees people shouldn't face disproportionate responses, so arguing for that is nothing. Either you need to argue there are general things causing that (e.g: not looking into context, retractions, etc... before making judgements, which is a real problem) or argue the ethics of the particular situation, which is unique to a case. Almost always, I see "cancel culture" used as a shield to avoid having to defend the actual harm done.
- RobertRoberts 5y ago
  Maybe you could provide a solid point of "the actual harm done" when someone says "there are nazis in the army"? (if it's true) If it's false, maybe you can claim slander on an entire army? Even the law doesn't protect anyone from that...
  - Latty 5y ago
    The harm done is very clear: the indented implication that Ukraine is controlled by Nazis is intended to justify Russia's illegal and unjustified war which is about control by Russia, and helps no one in Ukraine.
    - RobertRoberts 5y ago
      If it's false, then sure. But if it's true, then those hiding this fact are actually supporting Nazis. Don't you think it's important to have as many sources of information as possible to verify this?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

noduerme 5y ago

As you point out, while boycotting someone based on your perception of their opinion is not new, the modality of mass mob boycotts of individuals over things potentially taken out of context is entirely new, and that's exactly what "cancel culture" refers to. The underlying mechanism of Twitter is what gave birth to the term, regardless of whether it's used by haters to justify hate speech. One other thing that's new, in America, is the idea that speech is less important than people's feelings. Coupled with the new notion that hurting someone's feelings constitutes a form of harm tantamount to violence, this allows proportionality in punishment to be abstracted away. If measures of harm are arbitrary and shifting depending on how much mob traction one particular issue recieves or how sensitive one person happens to be, then proportionality is impossible, and "cancel culture" captures a state where cancellation is the answer to any grievance of any severity which manages to find cultural purchase.

guelo 5y ago
Consumer boycotts are not new. They have a long history including the Boston Tea Party that kicked off America.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> the modality of mass mob boycotts I was watching the news this morning and they were talking about the latest company that's boycotting Russia in response to the social media storm. It occurred to me that governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant. They don't have to impose sanctions (and their own rules make it difficult to do so) - the Twitter mob is deciding who to banish. It's a form of democracy, I guess - but one without any checks or balances or regulations.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  A handful of tech companies arguably have far more power to regulate speech than any government.
  - guelo 5y ago
    Not universally true, Putin and Xi Jinping have more power than tech companies in their countries. America decided 231 years ago that private actors would have more power over speech than the government.

senthil_rajasek 5y ago

>For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" Accountability Culture.

macrolocal 5y ago

> 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. Although nowadays, soft penalties scale and can be automated. So it feels sensible to explore regulatory frameworks that could rein in the worst excesses.

Latty 5y ago
Who gets to decide what the excess is? I'm not saying they don't exist: if I advocate for gay rights, and turns out my employer has a bunch of homophobic customers who get me fired because they don't want to spend money that ends up in my pocket, that would be deeply wrong in my view. The question is, what does the "regulatory framework" do there? Force those customers to spend money that ends up funding someone that fights for something they see as morally wrong? Force my boss to employ me even though I hurt their business? The whole point of freedom of speech is the government doesn't get to ban views they don't like. Not supporting someone because of their views surely needs to be as much of a protected view as any other.
- macrolocal 5y ago
  > Who gets to decide what the excess is? Legislators, who also get to address how we criminalize physical aggression, the poor man's social aggression.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  > Force my boss to employ me even though I hurt their business? Well probably the answer would be stronger wrongful termination regulation and then if they fire you for advocating for gay rights then you would probably get paid a reasonable amount of money for the loss you suffered, and your boss would have more of an incentive to think over if they really need to fire you to avoid losses to their business or if they should stand up to the people trying to force their hand.
  - Latty 5y ago

jimbokun 5y ago

> 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. Someone having an opinion different than you does not cause you harm. This is the Big Lie underlying a lot of the rhetoric that has been labeled "cancel culture". The potential harm at shutting down the opportunity to find out you were wrong about something by hearing viewpoints different from yours, is far greater than whatever harms you fear from the words themselves.

Latty 5y ago
I said "for actions they take that harm others", and you jumped to some trivial difference of opinion. If the difference of opinion is supporting policy that hurts me or people I care about, then yes, of course it can harm me. You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company. Freedom of expression swings both ways. I agree we should think about the harm done, ensure it is real, and what level of consequence is reasonable before acting, but that doesn't mean there are no situations action is justified.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "You are saying that someone can use freedom of expression to say people I care about should not have human rights, but I can't say those people shouldn't be employed by some company." Like unborn fetuses? (I am pro-choice by the way.) The pro-life side care about them and feel they should have human rights and, by the silly paradox of tolerance people seem to love to quote, they're even justified in not tolerating those who don't tolerate their beliefs. So do you really believe that freedom of expression swings both ways and are willing to allow them to enact their consequences on those who don't agree with them? Maybe you should rethink the implications of what you are saying.
  - Latty 5y ago
    Yes. I believe that those people should be able to judge me and socially shun me, including calling for my firing, if I express that I am pro-choice. I think they are wrong, but it's on me to try and persuade enough people that I'm right. If they see it as I support murdering innocent people, then how can I possibly demand they hand me money, interact with me normally, etc...? I'm certainly not going to employ someone who says "I think we should kill <group of people>". I think they are fundamentally wrong about the core concept, I don't think it's right for them to "cancel" people over that as a result, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to do so, because forcing people to support behaviour they find abhorrent is worse.

lazide 5y ago

The type of people who complain and lash out when they face reasonable consequences for harming someone else are the least likely to follow any such guidance here though?

krapp 5y ago

>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. That's never going to happen. Such people have a vested interest in gaining sympathy for their views and actions by discrediting their critics as nothing but a hateful mob or a conspiracy to silence and oppress them, and clearly their efforts are working. "Cancel culture" has itself become a moral panic akin to the Red Scare.

ryandrake 5y ago
Your post reminds me of Barry Deutsch's I Have Been Silenced comic [1], which is clearly still relevant today. 1: http://leftycartoons.com/2018/08/01/i-have-been-silenced/ http://leftycartoons.com/2018/08/01/i-have-been-silenced/

fsckboy 5y ago

> 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. the article is about free speech, but you sneak in the word actions, and then you label the damage (of free speech) as harm to others, and the consequences as reasonable. Therefore, I'd say you fit what this editorial is about, "many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dataduck 5y ago

> 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. What about people facing unreasonable consequences for actions that don't harm others?