3 ms·

I think it should continue. For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with pe

by tensor 5y ago

I think it should continue. For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with people that have abhorrent views. Rarely will doing so actually change their mind, or mine. What corporations are allowed to do is one thing, but as an individual I've decided to take cancel culture to heart. When possible, I now just put anyone with awful views on my personal ban lists. Twitter and Reddit both allow this. I no longer see any of their posts and they don't see mine. I'm far happier having done this an I don't think the world has lost anything by it. There are definitely issues I'm willing to engage on and discuss, but there are many that I am not. Hearing the same tired old propaganda talking points from people in certain camps is just poison to me.

jimbokun 5y ago
Cancel Culture would be actively seeking to enact consequences on those people beyond disagreeing with them, blocking them, or calling them a poo-poo head. Like contacting an employer to get them fired, trying to ruin their business, trying to get them banned from social media sites or organizations, etc.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
> For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with people that have abhorrent views. Rarely will doing so actually change their mind, or mine. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but your notion has pretty much nothing to with what other people call "cancel culture". If there is a talk about topic "X", you not showing up is not "canceling" anything and nobody cares.
- tensor 5y ago
  Sure, but as a private institution you also have no obligation to give a person a platform to talk about "X." The counter to this is why not give free promotion to people who can't afford it? Why are we biasing "speech" towards those who can pay to be loud? That's not freedom either. The poor are by default "canceled" in many ways.

by tensor 5y ago

jimbokun 5y ago

Cancel Culture would be actively seeking to enact consequences on those people beyond disagreeing with them, blocking them, or calling them a poo-poo head. Like contacting an employer to get them fired, trying to ruin their business, trying to get them banned from social media sites or organizations, etc.

diffeomorphism 5y ago

> For a while I was leaning against it, but on reflection I realized that there is no obligation for me to listen to or engage with people that have abhorrent views. Rarely will doing so actually change their mind, or mine. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but your notion has pretty much nothing to with what other people call "cancel culture". If there is a talk about topic "X", you not showing up is not "canceling" anything and nobody cares.

tensor 5y ago
Sure, but as a private institution you also have no obligation to give a person a platform to talk about "X." The counter to this is why not give free promotion to people who can't afford it? Why are we biasing "speech" towards those who can pay to be loud? That's not freedom either. The poor are by default "canceled" in many ways.