4 ms·

The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others,

by Gimpei 5y ago

The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. For example, there is the case of Dorian Abbot, who was disinvited from an MIT lecture after he wrote an op-ed criticizing affirmative action [1], even though the MIT lecture had nothing to do with affirmative action. I just don't see how allowing him to speak about climate science significantly impinges on the free speech of the members of the MIT community who found his views objectionable. I think it's also significant that 73% of the US population agrees with Abbot (I support affirmative action for the record). Basically the message that I get from MIT's behavior is that if you have a thoroughly mainstream opinion, you better not mention it in public if you want to have a successful academic career. This is chilling for science. If I were still a practicing social scientist, I wouldn't touch any hot button social issue with a ten foot pole. Or at least not if I wasn't prepared to p-hack a socially acceptable result. I also think that shutting out views that you disagree with is terrible for personal intellectual development. Only hearing views that correspond to your priors is a recipe for group-think and intellectual laziness. I make a point of trying to read a wide range of opinions (National Review to Jacobin) because I believe having my ideas challenged makes them stronger. I don't see how you can have an informed opinion about anything without doing the same. Lastly, if the polls that nytimes cite are true, "cancel culture" is a huge political mistake for progressive. It risks making the democratic brand toxic so that electoral victory, and any real change is impossible. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html

whimsicalism 5y ago
> For example, there is the case of Dorian Abbot, who was disinvited from an MIT lecture after he wrote an op-ed criticizing affirmative action Or Chelsea Manning who was disinvited from speaking at Harvard after pressure from the government
krapp 5y ago
>The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. Actually, many progressives do acknowledge that. Plenty of people on the left feel that cancel culture sometimes goes too far, including marginalized groups who feel it appropriates their struggle and does more harm than good, primarily serving as a way for outsiders to virtue signal allyship in ways that don't really threaten their privilege, or require skin in the game as it were. On the other hand, given a corrupt system which often protects and insulates powerful people from the consequences of their vile actions, cancel culture is sometimes the only lever people have to effect progressive change in that system. I mean, cancellation, protest and collective action are the only reason certain issues are even part of the greater cultural conversation at all.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  When was the last time that someone genuinely powerful was successfully cancelled?
  - krapp 5y ago
    Donald Trump? Although that depends on what you mean by "successfully" cancelled. Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I don't know what your line for "genuinely" powerful is, either.
    - Banana699 5y ago
      >Donald Trump Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. >Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I don't know what your line for "genuinely powerful" is, either Not OP, but I suspect his\her line for "genuinely powerful being cancelled" is that the cancellation is not planned and catalysed by a "more powerful" entity. When and if "cancelling" is ever used against a powerful person, there are often extremely obvious marks of an equal or superior in power person(s) behind it. When this doesn't happen, the cancellation attempt fails (e.g. Sexual allegations against Joe Biden failing).
guelo 5y ago
> For example ... One of the reasons this debate is so useless is that it's mostly about cherry-picking anecdotes that support your partisan biases.
lliamander 5y ago
> I think it's also significant that 73% of the US population agrees with Abbot I think that's an essential part of the problem: the fact that the views being penalized are (generally) widely held. From a purely practical standpoint it seems foolish. It's possible to ostracize a group of people for their beliefs when the group is small, but completely impractical if that belief gains any sort of traction. I mean, early in our history America ostracized the Mormons, but could you imagine doing it now? And they're not even close to a majority.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vsareto 5y ago
>The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. To me, this hints that the concept is a convenient tool to own people over social media or use in political attacks for rallying a voter base. There isn’t anything new here except people being shitty to each other. Anything else from it is what you normally get with reputation damage (justified or not). Once we get rid of the annoying exercise of trying to define cancel culture, there’s some real action items we can talk about regarding reputation/livelihood damage for dumb things being said. Any reason to revisit that is because of technology’s reach now and how seemingly easily it can happen, not that cancel culture is a new thing.

by Gimpei 5y ago

whimsicalism 5y ago

> For example, there is the case of Dorian Abbot, who was disinvited from an MIT lecture after he wrote an op-ed criticizing affirmative action Or Chelsea Manning who was disinvited from speaking at Harvard after pressure from the government

krapp 5y ago

>The problem with the debate on "cancel culture" is a lack of specificity. The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. And I think a problem with the progressive argument is the refusal to acknowledge that there can ever be any excesses. Actually, many progressives do acknowledge that. Plenty of people on the left feel that cancel culture sometimes goes too far, including marginalized groups who feel it appropriates their struggle and does more harm than good, primarily serving as a way for outsiders to virtue signal allyship in ways that don't really threaten their privilege, or require skin in the game as it were. On the other hand, given a corrupt system which often protects and insulates powerful people from the consequences of their vile actions, cancel culture is sometimes the only lever people have to effect progressive change in that system. I mean, cancellation, protest and collective action are the only reason certain issues are even part of the greater cultural conversation at all.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
When was the last time that someone genuinely powerful was successfully cancelled?
- krapp 5y ago
  Donald Trump? Although that depends on what you mean by "successfully" cancelled. Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I don't know what your line for "genuinely" powerful is, either.
  - Banana699 5y ago
    >Donald Trump Trump was banned from twitter after he already lost the presidency, and banning from a mediocre low-IQ forum is not how most cancel culture opponents define it, the dominant conception has an essential material aspect to it, such as firing from a job, harassment or extra-legal violence. >Plenty of politicians and celebrities have been cancelled for racist, sexist and otherwise abusive behavior, but I don't know what your line for "genuinely powerful" is, either Not OP, but I suspect his\her line for "genuinely powerful being cancelled" is that the cancellation is not planned and catalysed by a "more powerful" entity. When and if "cancelling" is ever used against a powerful person, there are often extremely obvious marks of an equal or superior in power person(s) behind it. When this doesn't happen, the cancellation attempt fails (e.g. Sexual allegations against Joe Biden failing).

guelo 5y ago

> For example ... One of the reasons this debate is so useless is that it's mostly about cherry-picking anecdotes that support your partisan biases.

lliamander 5y ago

> I think it's also significant that 73% of the US population agrees with Abbot I think that's an essential part of the problem: the fact that the views being penalized are (generally) widely held. From a purely practical standpoint it seems foolish. It's possible to ostracize a group of people for their beliefs when the group is small, but completely impractical if that belief gains any sort of traction. I mean, early in our history America ostracized the Mormons, but could you imagine doing it now? And they're not even close to a majority.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vsareto 5y ago

>The fact is that there are certain occasions where "canceling" seems fine, and others, where it does not. To me, this hints that the concept is a convenient tool to own people over social media or use in political attacks for rallying a voter base. There isn’t anything new here except people being shitty to each other. Anything else from it is what you normally get with reputation damage (justified or not). Once we get rid of the annoying exercise of trying to define cancel culture, there’s some real action items we can talk about regarding reputation/livelihood damage for dumb things being said. Any reason to revisit that is because of technology’s reach now and how seemingly easily it can happen, not that cancel culture is a new thing.