4 ms·

> 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

> 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).

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).