5 ms·

In the 90s, this was called boycotting, and I don't remember anyone having a problem with it. It's now been rebranded as cancel culture, and is somehow seen as

In the 90s, this was called boycotting, and I don't remember anyone having a problem with it. It's now been rebranded as cancel culture, and is somehow seen as petulant. In a capitalist economy, companies are guided by profit (in theory; Cloudflare has yet to actually be profitable IIRC). If people manage to affect that, they will take notice.

concinds 4y ago
> In the 90s, this was called boycotting, and I don't remember anyone having a problem with it. It's now been rebranded as cancel culture, and is somehow seen as petulant. Every boycott has detractors; if those detractors are too numerous, the boycott fails. Boycotts are marketing campaigns like everything else in the world. > In a capitalist economy, companies are guided by profit (in theory; Cloudflare has yet to actually be profitable IIRC). If people manage to affect that, they will take notice. The point is to observe which direction this pressures companies to lean towards, and what this says about who holds grassroots or institutional power at any given time.
- sgarland 4y ago
  Personally, I think companies lean whichever way public sentiment directs them. That said, if leftists are better at organizing boycotts, that says more about the relative skill and dedication of their membership than anything else.
dmatech 4y ago
Boycotting and cancel culture are quite different. At its core, cancel culture involves the isolation of a person or company by forcing their immediate network of friends or other connections. The cancellers force these connections to choose (under duress) between the cancelee and everyone else. If this doesn't work, they attack a connection's connections the same way. For instance, if they don't like you, they report you to your employer. If your employer defends you, they attack your employer's relationships with their customers, suppliers, and employees. Basically, cancel culture exploits social networks to force the submission of an opponent.
- sgarland 4y ago
  If you're espousing shitty views, you get what you deserve. shrug I think there's a line that most reasonable people can determine between "I disagree with $CURRENT_VIEW" and "I am against $PERSON_OF_CATEGORY existing." For example, frequently someone on Twitter will say things like, "calling for more bike lanes is ableist." I think - and am not afraid to have my name attached to this sentiment - that this is an absurd take. Every aspect of society cannot possibly serve everyone, but that doesn't mean we should fail to do something because a minority of that society can't participate. If the action actively harms that minority, then yes, close examination of it is warranted. However, if your publicly stated opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers, you deserve to be pilloried, because that opinion is harmful and without merit.
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    > If you're espousing shitty views, you get what you deserve. And who gets to decide what views are sufficiently shitty to deserve life ruination? Please remember this post if someone ever decides that something you said now means that you qualify for it.
    - sgarland 4y ago
      Again, see "reasonable people." If someone disagrees with me on, say, whether or not the USG should subsidize EV manufacturers, I wouldn't expect a 3rd party to call either side of that debate deserving of, well, anything. However, when someone holds an opinion that $GROUP is less deserving of x _due solely to their existence, not their choices,_ I expect that opinion to be questioned. Also, it's very possible to be wrong on the internet, be corrected, and become a better person without having your life ruined. I used to be somewhat of a troll. Not 4chan level, but I was definitely a crueler person than I was in real life. Someone once had the patience to engage me in questions, I realized what I was doing was harmful or at least not helpful, and I stopped the behavior.
      - Cyberdog 4y ago
boastful_inaba 4y ago
In several places there's a differentiation between a "primary boycott" and a "secondary boycott". Primary boycott: I buy from you now, but you did something bad and now I don't like you and refuse to purchase your goods/services anymore. I'm going to campaign for my friends to not buy from you either. Secondary boycott: I don't buy from you directly, but I don't like who you work with or sell to, don't associate with them. If you don't stop my friends and I will hurt you In some jurisdictions, secondary boycotts are illegal, usually as a measure to prevent unions applying muscle to people tangentially related to a core business. I'm not sure of the legal status of these things in the mess of jurisdictions involved in this controversy, though.
- salawat 4y ago
  Secondary boycott idn't a thing. You're thinking secondary strike, and no legally recognized Union can orchestrate one as a consequence of the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States. This is, if I recall, the same legislation that normally outlawed "unfair" practices in Capital/Labor relations, which included making illegal blacklisting, wildcat strikes, secondary striking, retaliation, etc...

concinds 4y ago

> In the 90s, this was called boycotting, and I don't remember anyone having a problem with it. It's now been rebranded as cancel culture, and is somehow seen as petulant. Every boycott has detractors; if those detractors are too numerous, the boycott fails. Boycotts are marketing campaigns like everything else in the world. > In a capitalist economy, companies are guided by profit (in theory; Cloudflare has yet to actually be profitable IIRC). If people manage to affect that, they will take notice. The point is to observe which direction this pressures companies to lean towards, and what this says about who holds grassroots or institutional power at any given time.

sgarland 4y ago
Personally, I think companies lean whichever way public sentiment directs them. That said, if leftists are better at organizing boycotts, that says more about the relative skill and dedication of their membership than anything else.

dmatech 4y ago

Boycotting and cancel culture are quite different. At its core, cancel culture involves the isolation of a person or company by forcing their immediate network of friends or other connections. The cancellers force these connections to choose (under duress) between the cancelee and everyone else. If this doesn't work, they attack a connection's connections the same way. For instance, if they don't like you, they report you to your employer. If your employer defends you, they attack your employer's relationships with their customers, suppliers, and employees. Basically, cancel culture exploits social networks to force the submission of an opponent.

sgarland 4y ago
If you're espousing shitty views, you get what you deserve. shrug I think there's a line that most reasonable people can determine between "I disagree with $CURRENT_VIEW" and "I am against $PERSON_OF_CATEGORY existing." For example, frequently someone on Twitter will say things like, "calling for more bike lanes is ableist." I think - and am not afraid to have my name attached to this sentiment - that this is an absurd take. Every aspect of society cannot possibly serve everyone, but that doesn't mean we should fail to do something because a minority of that society can't participate. If the action actively harms that minority, then yes, close examination of it is warranted. However, if your publicly stated opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers, you deserve to be pilloried, because that opinion is harmful and without merit.
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  > If you're espousing shitty views, you get what you deserve. And who gets to decide what views are sufficiently shitty to deserve life ruination? Please remember this post if someone ever decides that something you said now means that you qualify for it.
  - sgarland 4y ago
    Again, see "reasonable people." If someone disagrees with me on, say, whether or not the USG should subsidize EV manufacturers, I wouldn't expect a 3rd party to call either side of that debate deserving of, well, anything. However, when someone holds an opinion that $GROUP is less deserving of x _due solely to their existence, not their choices,_ I expect that opinion to be questioned. Also, it's very possible to be wrong on the internet, be corrected, and become a better person without having your life ruined. I used to be somewhat of a troll. Not 4chan level, but I was definitely a crueler person than I was in real life. Someone once had the patience to engage me in questions, I realized what I was doing was harmful or at least not helpful, and I stopped the behavior.
    - Cyberdog 4y ago

boastful_inaba 4y ago

In several places there's a differentiation between a "primary boycott" and a "secondary boycott". Primary boycott: I buy from you now, but you did something bad and now I don't like you and refuse to purchase your goods/services anymore. I'm going to campaign for my friends to not buy from you either. Secondary boycott: I don't buy from you directly, but I don't like who you work with or sell to, don't associate with them. If you don't stop my friends and I will hurt you In some jurisdictions, secondary boycotts are illegal, usually as a measure to prevent unions applying muscle to people tangentially related to a core business. I'm not sure of the legal status of these things in the mess of jurisdictions involved in this controversy, though.

salawat 4y ago
Secondary boycott idn't a thing. You're thinking secondary strike, and no legally recognized Union can orchestrate one as a consequence of the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States. This is, if I recall, the same legislation that normally outlawed "unfair" practices in Capital/Labor relations, which included making illegal blacklisting, wildcat strikes, secondary striking, retaliation, etc...