2 ms·

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. I chose "cool" as an example because none of us came up with the term, no one can confidently define it and have everyone ag

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. I chose "cool" as an example because none of us came up with the term, no one can confidently define it and have everyone agree on it, and it's a word we all seem to use without truly knowing what it means. At the risk of stretching an analogy too far, I would not need to define what "coolness" is in order to confront people who I perceive to be overly critical and who are trying to get people to stop expressing themselves in ways they perceive as "uncool". In other words, if I tell someone "If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all", it does not seem reasonable to expect me to define what "nice" means in order to justify chiding someone for not being nice.

tptacek 5y ago
You're getting to Ken White's point, which is that we can't reasonably call for clear norms about "cancel culture" given how poorly defined it is. Without that definition --- and maybe we'll never have it --- "cancel culture" is mostly just an undisciplined tool for shutting down criticism. White writes at length about the fact that disproportionate responses to objectionable speech happen, and are worth discussing. His take is that you have to talk about those things in their particulars, rather than trying to write staff editorials and open letters about the phenomenon of "cancel culture" (or, in the NYT's case, a [nonexistant!] right to express thoughts without fear of shame or shunning). White's essay is about the NYT letter. It is not an attempt to end the "cancel culture" debate once and for all. I'd ask you to scroll through this thread and try to pick out the arguments here that recognize that fact, or the ones that are clearly premised on the notion that White believes he's "solved" the cancel culture problem (or doesn't believe it's real).

2 ms·

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. I chose "cool" as an example because none of us came up with the term, no one can confidently define it and have everyone ag

by BitwiseFool 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago
You're getting to Ken White's point, which is that we can't reasonably call for clear norms about "cancel culture" given how poorly defined it is. Without that definition --- and maybe we'll never have it --- "cancel culture" is mostly just an undisciplined tool for shutting down criticism. White writes at length about the fact that disproportionate responses to objectionable speech happen, and are worth discussing. His take is that you have to talk about those things in their particulars, rather than trying to write staff editorials and open letters about the phenomenon of "cancel culture" (or, in the NYT's case, a [nonexistant!] right to express thoughts without fear of shame or shunning). White's essay is about the NYT letter. It is not an attempt to end the "cancel culture" debate once and for all. I'd ask you to scroll through this thread and try to pick out the arguments here that recognize that fact, or the ones that are clearly premised on the notion that White believes he's "solved" the cancel culture problem (or doesn't believe it's real).