3 ms·

I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. My intent was to draw o

by dahart 4y ago

I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. My intent was to draw out your core argument, not to get our conversation cancelled with a flag. :P I also feel like this conversation wasn’t progressing, and I do take some responsibility for that, maybe I deserved the flag. What I was trying to get to is why you’re reacting to the term “cancel culture” with consistent disbelief. It feels like there’s probably some core feeling or belief or assumption here that is driving your reaction to the article and to the idea of cancellation, and I’m curious what it is. You don’t seem to like the words, even though along the way you’ve described exactly what it is: online words going viral causing groups of people to enact painful consequences on someone. To be fair, your top comment that started this thread violates multiple HN guidelines wrt to the article, and I (along with others) was trying to see if you’d reflect on that and explain it, and hear your point of view and understand your reasoning, by arguing with it. I didn’t flag it though. It wasn’t egregious, and I realize you’re making a meta comment and may not be thinking specifically about how it comes off next to the article, so I replied instead. In effect, you responded to a personal account of someone’s problem with what comes off as a tone deaf claim that the problem doesn’t exist, in multiple ways, and have since maintained and insisted you’re right without addressing any counter argument. Your stance so far as a whole is failing to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation. Words do have power, which goes without saying, it’s not even debatable. I’m just curious why you’re choosing to use the argument repeatedly that tweets are mere words to suggest that cancel culture somehow isn’t a real or serious phenomenon.

lapcat 4y ago
> I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. Thank you! I appreciate the apology. > In effect, you responded to a personal account of someone’s problem with what comes off as a tone deaf claim that the problem doesn’t exist I don't agree with that characterization. I've never been in denial that some people have lost their jobs and other professional opportunities in this way. For example, I said, "Cowardly people in power would rather throw their colleagues under the bus than experience any bad PR whatsoever." That's an affirmation rather than a denial of cancellation. (One of the fastest ways to get cancelled in the United States, ironically, is to criticize the government of Israel.) The point of my original comment was to correctly attribute blame for the occurrence. I understand that Twitter loudly calls for some people's heads, but there's no legal mandate to act on the basis of that. Tweets are no substitute for thoughtfulness and due process. Which is why I said: > they could easily fight it if they had the backing of their own employer, for example, who would be the very organization that's officially doing the "canceling". My goal was to put the focus on the people in power, the ones making the final decisions. The ones who can say "You're fired." Ultimately, it doesn't matter if thousands of people call for you to be fired, as long as none of those thousands is your boss. To the extent that leaders cave to Twitter pressure, those leaders empower and incentivize "cancel culture". The culture could not thrive unless the leaders abide by it. To be fair, Twitter can raise legitimate complaints. Historically, the powerless have been routinely subject to cancellation. Black people, women, et al. Twitter has given formerly powerless people a public voice they never had before, which can be a force for good. And some of the targets of Twitter scorn truly deserve it. But again, Twitter is not decisive on the matter. You mentioned Harvey Weinstein: he was convicted of crimes by a jury in a court of law, where evidence and testimony was presented. That's why he's in jail. The court of public opinion doesn't have that power. Moreover, Twitter is the ultimate in slacktivism. It takes almost no effort at all to tweet, and you don't even have to leave the couch. So in general, Twitter "mobs" ought to have less weight than, say, in-person protests. Of course, protests can also be ignored by those in power, but at least a protest shows a significant amount of effort and determination in support of a cause, vastly more than a tweet. In the abstract, I'm personally ambivalent about "cancellation". I think that some people have been treated wrongly, but I also think that other people deserve to be removed from positions of power. Which is why I said: > I should note that I'm expressing no particular opinion about whether a particular person should or shouldn't lose a particular job or financial benefit.
- dahart 4y ago
  > The point of my original comment was to correctly attribute blame for the occurrence. Correctly according to who? I understand and agree that this was your goal. I disagree that you did it correctly. Why does it even make sense to pretend like there’s only one reason or only one part to blame in said “occurrence”? You’re also still talking about jobs and making black and white assumptions that it comes down to only a few people who have “power”. The assumptions you’re stating clearly demonstrate that you’re talking about only one narrow form of cancellation, and trying to downplay painful social stigma as an outcome. > Twitter is not decisive on the matter. Again, nobody said it was. This is still a straw man. Social media doesn’t have to be decisive on the matter in order to have massive and unstoppable influence. It doesn’t have to have the final say in order to initiate things or sway public opinion. It is not useful to draw a line between who’s making a final decision and who’s starting a campaign to spread information with an agenda. You’re trying to skip right past the fact that Harvey Weistein’s trouble did not start in a court of law. It started with his actions, which lead to public allegations, many shared on social media. He’s in jail because he was convicted after and as a result of words being spread around about what he did. Cause and effect. Private and public allegations are the cause that lead to newspapers and then police to investigate, the court of law that jailed him was the effect of that cause. Suggesting that public opinion had little to do with this and doesn’t have that power is so weird and incorrect, the order of events here was extremely public and extremely well documented. The outcome of his story lead many other people to share their experiences on social media, which in turn has caused other “cancellations”, some of which then became police investigations into other people. In these a bunch of these cases (which just so happen to be pretty much the exemplar class for social canceling) your framing of people in power caving to Twitter is entirely and completely incorrect. The negative outcomes are caused sometimes by audiences refusing to watch some celebrities, sometimes by advertisers and sponsors doing the pressuring by dropping financial support, sometimes because of legal investigations revealing wrongdoing, and almost always because public outcry came first. There are very few cases in the national media that match your imaginary scenario of someone getting fired after their boss just read and believed some unverified junk online. The very small number of storied I’ve ever read like that usually involved the boss apologizing or the employee being offered something much better by people who heard the story. > Twitter is the ultimate in slacktivism. Sometimes, yes. This was the point of the article. This is also one reason why social media cancel culture is not the same as McCarthyism or other kinds of ostracism historically.

by dahart 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> I’d agree I’ve been a tad aggressive with the debate style and went over the line a little. I’m sincerely sorry that my words upset you. Thank you! I appreciate the apology. > In effect, you responded to a personal account of someone’s problem with what comes off as a tone deaf claim that the problem doesn’t exist I don't agree with that characterization. I've never been in denial that some people have lost their jobs and other professional opportunities in this way. For example, I said, "Cowardly people in power would rather throw their colleagues under the bus than experience any bad PR whatsoever." That's an affirmation rather than a denial of cancellation. (One of the fastest ways to get cancelled in the United States, ironically, is to criticize the government of Israel.) The point of my original comment was to correctly attribute blame for the occurrence. I understand that Twitter loudly calls for some people's heads, but there's no legal mandate to act on the basis of that. Tweets are no substitute for thoughtfulness and due process. Which is why I said: > they could easily fight it if they had the backing of their own employer, for example, who would be the very organization that's officially doing the "canceling". My goal was to put the focus on the people in power, the ones making the final decisions. The ones who can say "You're fired." Ultimately, it doesn't matter if thousands of people call for you to be fired, as long as none of those thousands is your boss. To the extent that leaders cave to Twitter pressure, those leaders empower and incentivize "cancel culture". The culture could not thrive unless the leaders abide by it. To be fair, Twitter can raise legitimate complaints. Historically, the powerless have been routinely subject to cancellation. Black people, women, et al. Twitter has given formerly powerless people a public voice they never had before, which can be a force for good. And some of the targets of Twitter scorn truly deserve it. But again, Twitter is not decisive on the matter. You mentioned Harvey Weinstein: he was convicted of crimes by a jury in a court of law, where evidence and testimony was presented. That's why he's in jail. The court of public opinion doesn't have that power. Moreover, Twitter is the ultimate in slacktivism. It takes almost no effort at all to tweet, and you don't even have to leave the couch. So in general, Twitter "mobs" ought to have less weight than, say, in-person protests. Of course, protests can also be ignored by those in power, but at least a protest shows a significant amount of effort and determination in support of a cause, vastly more than a tweet. In the abstract, I'm personally ambivalent about "cancellation". I think that some people have been treated wrongly, but I also think that other people deserve to be removed from positions of power. Which is why I said: > I should note that I'm expressing no particular opinion about whether a particular person should or shouldn't lose a particular job or financial benefit.

dahart 4y ago
> The point of my original comment was to correctly attribute blame for the occurrence. Correctly according to who? I understand and agree that this was your goal. I disagree that you did it correctly. Why does it even make sense to pretend like there’s only one reason or only one part to blame in said “occurrence”? You’re also still talking about jobs and making black and white assumptions that it comes down to only a few people who have “power”. The assumptions you’re stating clearly demonstrate that you’re talking about only one narrow form of cancellation, and trying to downplay painful social stigma as an outcome. > Twitter is not decisive on the matter. Again, nobody said it was. This is still a straw man. Social media doesn’t have to be decisive on the matter in order to have massive and unstoppable influence. It doesn’t have to have the final say in order to initiate things or sway public opinion. It is not useful to draw a line between who’s making a final decision and who’s starting a campaign to spread information with an agenda. You’re trying to skip right past the fact that Harvey Weistein’s trouble did not start in a court of law. It started with his actions, which lead to public allegations, many shared on social media. He’s in jail because he was convicted after and as a result of words being spread around about what he did. Cause and effect. Private and public allegations are the cause that lead to newspapers and then police to investigate, the court of law that jailed him was the effect of that cause. Suggesting that public opinion had little to do with this and doesn’t have that power is so weird and incorrect, the order of events here was extremely public and extremely well documented. The outcome of his story lead many other people to share their experiences on social media, which in turn has caused other “cancellations”, some of which then became police investigations into other people. In these a bunch of these cases (which just so happen to be pretty much the exemplar class for social canceling) your framing of people in power caving to Twitter is entirely and completely incorrect. The negative outcomes are caused sometimes by audiences refusing to watch some celebrities, sometimes by advertisers and sponsors doing the pressuring by dropping financial support, sometimes because of legal investigations revealing wrongdoing, and almost always because public outcry came first. There are very few cases in the national media that match your imaginary scenario of someone getting fired after their boss just read and believed some unverified junk online. The very small number of storied I’ve ever read like that usually involved the boss apologizing or the employee being offered something much better by people who heard the story. > Twitter is the ultimate in slacktivism. Sometimes, yes. This was the point of the article. This is also one reason why social media cancel culture is not the same as McCarthyism or other kinds of ostracism historically.