8 ms·

> reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others This is what is at issue. What does "reasonable consequences" mean for "harm to others"? Somet

by 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.

by abnry 5y ago

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.