4 ms·

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

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
      It's still a matter of perspective, though. To use the Keffals issue as an example, the same way you see stopping people from criticizing and doxxing trans activists like Keffals as saving lives, many people, including many on KF, see stopping people from promoting normalization of transsexualism and encouraging minors to seek out HRT and surgery as saving lives. It's not okay for these people to stoop to illegal activity in their activism, but it's also not okay for your side to do it. Any justification you can make on your side is a justification they can make on their side. If you feel strongly emotional about this issue, I understand how that can be hard to accept, but it doesn't make it less true.
      - sgarland 4y ago
        Disclaimer: I am in no way a philosopher, nor have I taken any classes on it. Obviously there is always a "but my beliefs" aspect, but I believe that these arguments can be ethically reduced to "do not harm others, unless in the defense of others." For example, murder is arguably ethically wrong. However, at least in most states in the U.S., you are allowed to murder someone if they are themselves attempting to murder you, or someone else. Taken further, if I was on a jury, and the defendant had murdered someone who had severely harmed their child - for instance, rape - I would have no qualms about finding them not guilty, even if the murder had occurred days or weeks after the first crime. I'm fully aware that this is illegal, but I don't consider it ethically wrong. If you're curious, I do consider the death penalty to be wrong, because I don't believe the state has the right to take life. Whether or not these two views are incongruous I don't know; it makes sense in my head. On a more relevant level, I believe that teenagers are able to determine things like "I am gay," or "I have gender dysphoria." I also understand that I am not a doctor, and defer to the American Medical Association, who has stated[0] that: > It is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician. Given that, I assert that the beliefs KF members have espoused are the ones that are harmful, should not be encouraged, and should be actively discouraged. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sta...
  - dmatech 4y ago
    Getting back to cancel culture, you can see the tactic here. The host is privately owned. The data center is OK with them as a tenant. Now they're putting Twitter pressure on the upstreams to cut off the data center. These people aren't willing to accept anything but victory. https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1566301416917856256?t=dpb1ybPow-r-C0Q_UwSiIQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1566301416917856256?t=...
    - sgarland 4y ago
      > These people aren't willing to accept anything but victory. "Those people," and myself, view KF and their ilk as harmful to society. What exactly do you suggest should be accepted if not victory?
      - dmatech 4y ago
        A realization that you have to share an internet with people who hate your guts so long as they don't break any laws. This includes all sorts of bigots. Rather than harassing internet backbones, file lawsuits.
        sgarland 4y ago
        > they don't break any laws > file lawsuits And here a glaring issue with this approach is apparent. Even _if_ the harassers meet the criteria for law-breaking, anonymity and civil suits having the burden of proof be on the plaintiff make this extremely difficult. I can think of any number of defenses, starting with "Someone guessed my WiFi password / took over my forum account." It is far easier to pressure companies to de-platform hate than to individually find and file suit against the harassers.
        dmatech 4y ago
        It's clear that they're trying to take down the site by any means necessary, and that's why I ultimately find them far more dangerous than the people on that site. Deplatforming using Twitter pressure is a terrifying tactic that tosses out the rulebook and replaces it with a popularity contest.
dale_glass 4y ago
Not really. This is just the modern myth of that in the good old days, everyone just politely protested by showing up in the street dressed in a formal suit, voiced their displeasure like a gentleman, didn't impede anything going on, didn't raise their voice, and that somehow got things done. It's bullshit. "Boycott" comes from the last name of Charles Boycott. Protesters threatened and beat up people that worked with him, threatened shops not to sell to him, and ramped up to such a point that it cost more for the police to defend his harvest than the harvest was worth. His blacksmith was threatened with murder, and a 12 year old carrying his mail was threatened not to keep doing it. It was definitely not a polite "Oh, we don't buy from this particular guy" stand. Now I'm not saying that threatening people is a good thing. What I am saying is that this narrative of that once upon a time people were civilized and suddenly this new "cancel culture" thing get everything out of whack is fiction. If anything, the past was a scarier and a rougher place, because if somebody stopped you in the middle of a rural road and threatened you, there were no cameras and no recording devices.
- salawat 4y ago
  Which again, if that's what people want, then fine. Do that. Except when the question is put to people what they want to have be the case with what someone rlse can get away with, everyone seems uncomfortable with the prospect of lack of due process. Everyone wants a procedural. Nobody wants the procedural to get in the way with something they care about though. You can't have both.

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
    It's still a matter of perspective, though. To use the Keffals issue as an example, the same way you see stopping people from criticizing and doxxing trans activists like Keffals as saving lives, many people, including many on KF, see stopping people from promoting normalization of transsexualism and encouraging minors to seek out HRT and surgery as saving lives. It's not okay for these people to stoop to illegal activity in their activism, but it's also not okay for your side to do it. Any justification you can make on your side is a justification they can make on their side. If you feel strongly emotional about this issue, I understand how that can be hard to accept, but it doesn't make it less true.
    - sgarland 4y ago
      Disclaimer: I am in no way a philosopher, nor have I taken any classes on it. Obviously there is always a "but my beliefs" aspect, but I believe that these arguments can be ethically reduced to "do not harm others, unless in the defense of others." For example, murder is arguably ethically wrong. However, at least in most states in the U.S., you are allowed to murder someone if they are themselves attempting to murder you, or someone else. Taken further, if I was on a jury, and the defendant had murdered someone who had severely harmed their child - for instance, rape - I would have no qualms about finding them not guilty, even if the murder had occurred days or weeks after the first crime. I'm fully aware that this is illegal, but I don't consider it ethically wrong. If you're curious, I do consider the death penalty to be wrong, because I don't believe the state has the right to take life. Whether or not these two views are incongruous I don't know; it makes sense in my head. On a more relevant level, I believe that teenagers are able to determine things like "I am gay," or "I have gender dysphoria." I also understand that I am not a doctor, and defer to the American Medical Association, who has stated[0] that: > It is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician. Given that, I assert that the beliefs KF members have espoused are the ones that are harmful, should not be encouraged, and should be actively discouraged. [0] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sta...
- dmatech 4y ago
  Getting back to cancel culture, you can see the tactic here. The host is privately owned. The data center is OK with them as a tenant. Now they're putting Twitter pressure on the upstreams to cut off the data center. These people aren't willing to accept anything but victory. https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1566301416917856256?t=dpb1ybPow-r-C0Q_UwSiIQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1566301416917856256?t=...
  - sgarland 4y ago
    > These people aren't willing to accept anything but victory. "Those people," and myself, view KF and their ilk as harmful to society. What exactly do you suggest should be accepted if not victory?
    - dmatech 4y ago
      A realization that you have to share an internet with people who hate your guts so long as they don't break any laws. This includes all sorts of bigots. Rather than harassing internet backbones, file lawsuits.
      - sgarland 4y ago
        > they don't break any laws > file lawsuits And here a glaring issue with this approach is apparent. Even _if_ the harassers meet the criteria for law-breaking, anonymity and civil suits having the burden of proof be on the plaintiff make this extremely difficult. I can think of any number of defenses, starting with "Someone guessed my WiFi password / took over my forum account." It is far easier to pressure companies to de-platform hate than to individually find and file suit against the harassers.
        dmatech 4y ago
        It's clear that they're trying to take down the site by any means necessary, and that's why I ultimately find them far more dangerous than the people on that site. Deplatforming using Twitter pressure is a terrifying tactic that tosses out the rulebook and replaces it with a popularity contest.

dale_glass 4y ago

Not really. This is just the modern myth of that in the good old days, everyone just politely protested by showing up in the street dressed in a formal suit, voiced their displeasure like a gentleman, didn't impede anything going on, didn't raise their voice, and that somehow got things done. It's bullshit. "Boycott" comes from the last name of Charles Boycott. Protesters threatened and beat up people that worked with him, threatened shops not to sell to him, and ramped up to such a point that it cost more for the police to defend his harvest than the harvest was worth. His blacksmith was threatened with murder, and a 12 year old carrying his mail was threatened not to keep doing it. It was definitely not a polite "Oh, we don't buy from this particular guy" stand. Now I'm not saying that threatening people is a good thing. What I am saying is that this narrative of that once upon a time people were civilized and suddenly this new "cancel culture" thing get everything out of whack is fiction. If anything, the past was a scarier and a rougher place, because if somebody stopped you in the middle of a rural road and threatened you, there were no cameras and no recording devices.

salawat 4y ago
Which again, if that's what people want, then fine. Do that. Except when the question is put to people what they want to have be the case with what someone rlse can get away with, everyone seems uncomfortable with the prospect of lack of due process. Everyone wants a procedural. Nobody wants the procedural to get in the way with something they care about though. You can't have both.