4 ms·

> If you write an outrageous blog post today, you're hosed. This just isn’t true, and I’m not sure why the discussion around cancel culture is framed like it i

> If you write an outrageous blog post today, you're hosed. This just isn’t true, and I’m not sure why the discussion around cancel culture is framed like it is true. It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. You can say literally anything you want if you can figure out how to be nice when you say it, but you do have to put real effort into that endeavor. Getting canceled isn’t a landmine, it’s a tar pit.

letmeiiin 5y ago
Sometime it's basically impossible to nicely say that something is just moronic.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Sufficiently talented communicators more or less only have these "cancel culture" problems through choice, not through inability to express themselves. Which is honestly why I have little sympathy for the "cancelled", in many cases. Occasionally, I do feel a pang of empathy for people like Gina Carano, for example, who genuinely don't seem to know how to say what they want to, and may not have intentionally wanted to harm others, but through ego end up refusing to reword their expression or to account for how their words might hurt others. It's a small pang, and not a long lasting one. I can see how the confusion might happen, but even for the least articulate among us there are clean off-ramps that get ignored.
  - cowuser666 5y ago
    no chilling effects here..
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      My point is cancel culture is not very chilling if you're a competent speaker/writer, and it ought to be even less chilling than it is (possibly not chilling at all). If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled.
      - Banana699 5y ago
        >If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled Any sufficiently selective style guide is indistinguishable from a censor. It's bizarrely hilarious how "Progressives" mirror religious fundamentalists, down to the particular language used to dispel accusations of censorship and closed-mindedness. "You can say whatever you like, just in ways we like (which will sometimes include you shutting up entirely)" looks painfully familiar for any closeted atheist.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        > Any sufficiently selective style guide is indistinguishable from a censor. Completely disagree. Censorship is the prohibition of the expression of certain ideas, not the prohibition of the expression of specific language. > "You can say whatever you like, just in ways we like (which will sometimes include you shutting up entirely)" The parenthetical is a strawman, and not what I said, nor is it true.
        Banana699 5y ago
        >Censorship is the prohibition of the expression of certain ideas, not the prohibition of the expression of specific language You completely missed the point, the "selective" part is doing most of the work. By having a vague and ill-defined rulebook that nobody but an ideologically homogeneous group of people can invoke and enforce, this group acts as a censor that selectively switches on and off certain expressions it deems "not polite". You also uncritically assume that polite language is universal, capable of expressing any possible issue. If I told you "you can write any program you want, just don't use C/C++/Rust" I have effectively banned you from writing a huge variety of programs, from OSes to Interpreters. Similarly, some things are inherently non-polite to say, because they express non-polite truths, and those truths will always exist because the universe is under no obligation to be polite. You can never discuss (say) Putin's human rights abuses in polite language, nor can you ever discuss how sexual predators use a trendy identity to escape retribution in a polite way using nice words. >The parenthetical is a strawman, and not what I said, nor is it true. Not at all, see above for my reasoning for why this is a natural implication of your words. You are free to dispute the major 2 points it rests on.
Aromasin 5y ago
Could not agree more. Time and time again I've seen people broach taboo topics on various media and walk away unscathed, often lauded if anything for their tact. Likewise, I've seen many people do the same with an air of arrogance and superiority, get lambasted by the general public, and go on to preach about how they're a victim of some new, alt-left system of oppression. Guile and wit get you just as far in today's 21st century "cancel culture" as they did in a 1800's gentleman's club, a 1400's king's court, or a BCE Roman senate. What you say is much less important to most people than how you say it.
lrem 5y ago
> It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. Sure, but that isn't the premise of what I wanted to express. You've had a bad day, or are a genuine jerk, and wrote something that you really shouldn't have. Passage of time, personal growth, change of opinions, conduct that demonstrably disagrees with the post and an apology does not prevent that from possibly ruining your future. Who of us wasn't an easily influenced jerk as a teenager? Well, right, some weren't. But many more outgrew that. Some took more time than others. Some remained jerks, at least for now. But I prefer to hope they will change for the better. And would prefer if we recognized the change in those who succeeded.
ryandrake 5y ago
We have no idea what the prevailing norms and taboos will be 20 years from now. Something you write today that is benign and uncontroversial, might be utterly offensive in 20 years, and all someone has to do is dig back in the internet archives and find it. I think back to 20 years ago, and I know I've told some (at the time) harmless, slightly off-color jokes, which today would get me fired instantly. You don't know which way the sensitivity wind will blow in the future, so your only safe play is to limit yourself to Rated-G "genuine, kind, and with empathy" speech, as you put it.
Banana699 5y ago
>It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. This a hypocritical Isolated Demand For Rigor[1], or in this case for Niceness. Many people doing the cancelling don't have to be and don't bother with civility or politeness, they are entirely ok with the worst slurs if it came from mouths they support. The kindness they demand is a thin wrapper over ideological conformity, and the demands are demonstrably done in bad faith to silence the discussion not to shape it. It also, rather naively and hilariously, imagines potential cancellers as ideal rational censors who will read all of your words before arriving at a fair judgment. This is in stark contrast with what actually happens, where cancellers read a headline and then reach a red 100 Celsius before reading a single additional word. The off-the-top-of-my-head example is a whole ironic saga of twitter cancelling a trans scifi author[2] because a pro-trans story just so happened to have an "offensive" title (that turned out to be literally true in the world of the story.) >Getting canceled isn’t a landmine, it’s a tar pit Both are public dangers that civilised societies hunt and eradicate. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Attack_Helicopter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_At...
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  There's no difference between the people doing the cancelling and the person being cancelled, from a "what are their fundamental rights?" perspective. Both must be kind, and both can face shame and shunning for failing to do so. "The Demand for Rigor" here is not Isolated. More "cancellers" should be shamed and shunned for failing in this way. Isabel Fall should not have been ridiculed for her work, Ken White would agree with you on that.
whiddershins 5y ago
That’s just privileging people with really good social skills alongside Orthodox Privilege. http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html
traspler 5y ago
> It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. Sorry but I don't even undstand what that would mean. I can understand not being a jerk or insulting someone when voicing an opinion but to me this sounds like you want people to only voice opinions in a docile way that acknowledges all the other positions as just as valid. You can be genuine, kind and nuanced and have a firm position I think. Not being a jerk is just half of the equation, the other half is if people are even receptive to discussion.

letmeiiin 5y ago

Sometime it's basically impossible to nicely say that something is just moronic.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Sufficiently talented communicators more or less only have these "cancel culture" problems through choice, not through inability to express themselves. Which is honestly why I have little sympathy for the "cancelled", in many cases. Occasionally, I do feel a pang of empathy for people like Gina Carano, for example, who genuinely don't seem to know how to say what they want to, and may not have intentionally wanted to harm others, but through ego end up refusing to reword their expression or to account for how their words might hurt others. It's a small pang, and not a long lasting one. I can see how the confusion might happen, but even for the least articulate among us there are clean off-ramps that get ignored.
- cowuser666 5y ago
  no chilling effects here..
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    My point is cancel culture is not very chilling if you're a competent speaker/writer, and it ought to be even less chilling than it is (possibly not chilling at all). If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled.
    - Banana699 5y ago
      >If you believe you're entering a conversation with positive intent, a genuine point of view, and empathy for others, you are more or less immune to being cancelled Any sufficiently selective style guide is indistinguishable from a censor. It's bizarrely hilarious how "Progressives" mirror religious fundamentalists, down to the particular language used to dispel accusations of censorship and closed-mindedness. "You can say whatever you like, just in ways we like (which will sometimes include you shutting up entirely)" looks painfully familiar for any closeted atheist.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        > Any sufficiently selective style guide is indistinguishable from a censor. Completely disagree. Censorship is the prohibition of the expression of certain ideas, not the prohibition of the expression of specific language. > "You can say whatever you like, just in ways we like (which will sometimes include you shutting up entirely)" The parenthetical is a strawman, and not what I said, nor is it true.
        Banana699 5y ago
        >Censorship is the prohibition of the expression of certain ideas, not the prohibition of the expression of specific language You completely missed the point, the "selective" part is doing most of the work. By having a vague and ill-defined rulebook that nobody but an ideologically homogeneous group of people can invoke and enforce, this group acts as a censor that selectively switches on and off certain expressions it deems "not polite". You also uncritically assume that polite language is universal, capable of expressing any possible issue. If I told you "you can write any program you want, just don't use C/C++/Rust" I have effectively banned you from writing a huge variety of programs, from OSes to Interpreters. Similarly, some things are inherently non-polite to say, because they express non-polite truths, and those truths will always exist because the universe is under no obligation to be polite. You can never discuss (say) Putin's human rights abuses in polite language, nor can you ever discuss how sexual predators use a trendy identity to escape retribution in a polite way using nice words. >The parenthetical is a strawman, and not what I said, nor is it true. Not at all, see above for my reasoning for why this is a natural implication of your words. You are free to dispute the major 2 points it rests on.

Aromasin 5y ago

Could not agree more. Time and time again I've seen people broach taboo topics on various media and walk away unscathed, often lauded if anything for their tact. Likewise, I've seen many people do the same with an air of arrogance and superiority, get lambasted by the general public, and go on to preach about how they're a victim of some new, alt-left system of oppression. Guile and wit get you just as far in today's 21st century "cancel culture" as they did in a 1800's gentleman's club, a 1400's king's court, or a BCE Roman senate. What you say is much less important to most people than how you say it.

lrem 5y ago

> It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. Sure, but that isn't the premise of what I wanted to express. You've had a bad day, or are a genuine jerk, and wrote something that you really shouldn't have. Passage of time, personal growth, change of opinions, conduct that demonstrably disagrees with the post and an apology does not prevent that from possibly ruining your future. Who of us wasn't an easily influenced jerk as a teenager? Well, right, some weren't. But many more outgrew that. Some took more time than others. Some remained jerks, at least for now. But I prefer to hope they will change for the better. And would prefer if we recognized the change in those who succeeded.

ryandrake 5y ago

We have no idea what the prevailing norms and taboos will be 20 years from now. Something you write today that is benign and uncontroversial, might be utterly offensive in 20 years, and all someone has to do is dig back in the internet archives and find it. I think back to 20 years ago, and I know I've told some (at the time) harmless, slightly off-color jokes, which today would get me fired instantly. You don't know which way the sensitivity wind will blow in the future, so your only safe play is to limit yourself to Rated-G "genuine, kind, and with empathy" speech, as you put it.

Banana699 5y ago

>It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. This a hypocritical Isolated Demand For Rigor[1], or in this case for Niceness. Many people doing the cancelling don't have to be and don't bother with civility or politeness, they are entirely ok with the worst slurs if it came from mouths they support. The kindness they demand is a thin wrapper over ideological conformity, and the demands are demonstrably done in bad faith to silence the discussion not to shape it. It also, rather naively and hilariously, imagines potential cancellers as ideal rational censors who will read all of your words before arriving at a fair judgment. This is in stark contrast with what actually happens, where cancellers read a headline and then reach a red 100 Celsius before reading a single additional word. The off-the-top-of-my-head example is a whole ironic saga of twitter cancelling a trans scifi author[2] because a pro-trans story just so happened to have an "offensive" title (that turned out to be literally true in the world of the story.) >Getting canceled isn’t a landmine, it’s a tar pit Both are public dangers that civilised societies hunt and eradicate. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Attack_Helicopter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_At...

TameAntelope 5y ago
There's no difference between the people doing the cancelling and the person being cancelled, from a "what are their fundamental rights?" perspective. Both must be kind, and both can face shame and shunning for failing to do so. "The Demand for Rigor" here is not Isolated. More "cancellers" should be shamed and shunned for failing in this way. Isabel Fall should not have been ridiculed for her work, Ken White would agree with you on that.

whiddershins 5y ago

That’s just privileging people with really good social skills alongside Orthodox Privilege. http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html

traspler 5y ago

> It’s exceedingly hard to be cancelled if you’re acting genuinely, kindly, and with empathy for the topic you’re discussing. Sorry but I don't even undstand what that would mean. I can understand not being a jerk or insulting someone when voicing an opinion but to me this sounds like you want people to only voice opinions in a docile way that acknowledges all the other positions as just as valid. You can be genuine, kind and nuanced and have a firm position I think. Not being a jerk is just half of the equation, the other half is if people are even receptive to discussion.