4 ms·

"and exerting social pressure" is key here. Are you being intentionaly ignorant? First being against cancelation is censorship, now cancelation is just voicing

"and exerting social pressure" is key here. Are you being intentionaly ignorant? First being against cancelation is censorship, now cancelation is just voicing an opinion? All while quoting half a definition that I just cited out of context.

slg 4y ago
I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". What do you think those terms mean and how are they different? Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment about protesting a theater for hosting a controversial personality. That protest would be me "expressing disapproval", "exerting social pressure", and exercising my free speech. I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". It isn't the same at all. It is "a way of [a] expressing disapproval and [b] exerting social pressure. One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. >Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment. Ok: >Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? >You have complete freedom to do that, but it doesn't mean you should or shouldn't. That's what GP is saying. And cancellation can be over extremely petty or unfounded things. Obviously there is a line but people have taken a "cancel first, ask questions later" approach, and over increasingly petty reasons. One can advocate against that without being against free speech, which means that the government cannot make speech illegal. Well, what is the purpose of the protest? If it is to make your disaproval known, then it is not an attempt of cancelation. If, as you have clarified, you intent is to exert social pressure to scilence them, then you are trying to both cancel and censor them. In any case, that doesn't make disagreement of opinions in general censorship, as you have claimed: >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship Are we both censoring each other now? Or are we having a discusion? >I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech. exercising my free speech: (almost) any speech falls under this category. expressing disapproval: GP expressing disaproval of cancel culture exerting social pressure: When as a part of "mass canceling" an atempt is made to censor someone. To recap: 1. Having an opinion is not censorship. 2. acknowlegment of freedom of speech legaly is not the same as an endorcment of said speech. 3. Being against what people do is not a demand that their free speech be taken away legaly. Therefore: "Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting." Is wrong. 4. Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usualy gone too far. These can all be true at the same time
  - slg 4y ago
    >One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. What does "have your voice heard" mean? Who is hearing your voice? How does hearing that voice impact that person or group? Isn't there an implicit social pressure on that person to change after hearing voices of disapproval. Just think of it on a small scale interpersonal level. Imagine your significant other comes to you and says "I'm thinking of painting the bedroom blue". How do you respond voicing your disapproval of the idea without them taking it as social pressure to not do it? Any objection to the color choice will be viewed as pressure to not make that choice. You can't separate the disapproval from the social pressure because the disapproval is inherently a form of the social pressure. The same is true for protests. People don't protest just to make their disapproval known. They protest to motivate change. People aren't in the streets of Iran and China at the moment because they want strangers to know they disapprove of their government actions. They are doing it to motivate change from their government.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >"have your voice heard" mean? Who is hearing your voice? It means for those involved to know about it. >How does hearing that voice impact that person or group? Isn't there an implicit social pressure on that person to change after hearing voices of disapproval They are impacted only (or mainly) in the sense that you have given them new information. Think about an argument you had with a colleague: were you trying to pressure them, or were you having a discusion? There may be some element of presure involved, but was that your goal? If you always act that way you will not work well with others, even if it works temporarily. >How do you respond voicing your disapproval of the idea without them taking it as social pressure to not do it? My aim certainly would not be to pressure them. I also wouldn't immediately disaprove but initiate a discusion as this is the first time it is brought up. But this is also not the social pressure that is involved in canceling. If I were to say "the wall will be red or we break up" that would be a manipulative and an abusive relationship certainly. Me being honest about how I feel about the color and discussing possible options would be best. But I would certainly try to limit any compelling attitude in order to maintain a healthy relationship. >People don't protest just to make their disapproval known. True, and there are also awareness marches and awareness days, which are meant strictly to bring awareness. >People aren't in the streets of Iran and China at the moment because they want strangers to know they disapprove of their government actions. Actualy, in china there are two elements, one of which is to let other citizens (and the world) know that they disapprove. But yes the main reason is to affect some change. I didn't say that every action which attempts to change something is canceling. Those two examples (which are ironicaly protests against censorship) are not about censoring the government so the terminology of canceling doesn't really make sense. But if you like we can still use it. Say the protesters are trying to cancel the government, what of it? I didn't say that you can't do it, all I said was that it is on a different level, which is true: >Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usually gone too far.

slg 4y ago

I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". What do you think those terms mean and how are they different? Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment about protesting a theater for hosting a controversial personality. That protest would be me "expressing disapproval", "exerting social pressure", and exercising my free speech. I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". It isn't the same at all. It is "a way of [a] expressing disapproval and [b] exerting social pressure. One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. >Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment. Ok: >Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? >You have complete freedom to do that, but it doesn't mean you should or shouldn't. That's what GP is saying. And cancellation can be over extremely petty or unfounded things. Obviously there is a line but people have taken a "cancel first, ask questions later" approach, and over increasingly petty reasons. One can advocate against that without being against free speech, which means that the government cannot make speech illegal. Well, what is the purpose of the protest? If it is to make your disaproval known, then it is not an attempt of cancelation. If, as you have clarified, you intent is to exert social pressure to scilence them, then you are trying to both cancel and censor them. In any case, that doesn't make disagreement of opinions in general censorship, as you have claimed: >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship Are we both censoring each other now? Or are we having a discusion? >I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech. exercising my free speech: (almost) any speech falls under this category. expressing disapproval: GP expressing disaproval of cancel culture exerting social pressure: When as a part of "mass canceling" an atempt is made to censor someone. To recap: 1. Having an opinion is not censorship. 2. acknowlegment of freedom of speech legaly is not the same as an endorcment of said speech. 3. Being against what people do is not a demand that their free speech be taken away legaly. Therefore: "Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting." Is wrong. 4. Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usualy gone too far. These can all be true at the same time
- slg 4y ago
  >One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. What does "have your voice heard" mean? Who is hearing your voice? How does hearing that voice impact that person or group? Isn't there an implicit social pressure on that person to change after hearing voices of disapproval. Just think of it on a small scale interpersonal level. Imagine your significant other comes to you and says "I'm thinking of painting the bedroom blue". How do you respond voicing your disapproval of the idea without them taking it as social pressure to not do it? Any objection to the color choice will be viewed as pressure to not make that choice. You can't separate the disapproval from the social pressure because the disapproval is inherently a form of the social pressure. The same is true for protests. People don't protest just to make their disapproval known. They protest to motivate change. People aren't in the streets of Iran and China at the moment because they want strangers to know they disapprove of their government actions. They are doing it to motivate change from their government.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >"have your voice heard" mean? Who is hearing your voice? It means for those involved to know about it. >How does hearing that voice impact that person or group? Isn't there an implicit social pressure on that person to change after hearing voices of disapproval They are impacted only (or mainly) in the sense that you have given them new information. Think about an argument you had with a colleague: were you trying to pressure them, or were you having a discusion? There may be some element of presure involved, but was that your goal? If you always act that way you will not work well with others, even if it works temporarily. >How do you respond voicing your disapproval of the idea without them taking it as social pressure to not do it? My aim certainly would not be to pressure them. I also wouldn't immediately disaprove but initiate a discusion as this is the first time it is brought up. But this is also not the social pressure that is involved in canceling. If I were to say "the wall will be red or we break up" that would be a manipulative and an abusive relationship certainly. Me being honest about how I feel about the color and discussing possible options would be best. But I would certainly try to limit any compelling attitude in order to maintain a healthy relationship. >People don't protest just to make their disapproval known. True, and there are also awareness marches and awareness days, which are meant strictly to bring awareness. >People aren't in the streets of Iran and China at the moment because they want strangers to know they disapprove of their government actions. Actualy, in china there are two elements, one of which is to let other citizens (and the world) know that they disapprove. But yes the main reason is to affect some change. I didn't say that every action which attempts to change something is canceling. Those two examples (which are ironicaly protests against censorship) are not about censoring the government so the terminology of canceling doesn't really make sense. But if you like we can still use it. Say the protesters are trying to cancel the government, what of it? I didn't say that you can't do it, all I said was that it is on a different level, which is true: >Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usually gone too far.