6 ms·

Boycott was long seen as a necessary behavior to preserve democracy and free markets; flush old ideas. It’s free agency; can’t force people to do business with

Boycott was long seen as a necessary behavior to preserve democracy and free markets; flush old ideas. It’s free agency; can’t force people to do business with someone or believe in their figurative identity. “Cancel culture” is boycott rebranded as a pejorative, to make the public mean and nasty for not wanting to heap figurative privilege on particular people anymore. Those shrieking loudest about the loss of speech in the US are usually those who are privileged at the expense of speech that would improve conditions for others (do not speak of sick days for railroad staff, or making Walmart pay worker benefits to get their employees off social programs!) Simple propaganda techniques are being leveraged to relabel free speech that suggests rethinking evolving society. Universities that are heavily dependent on government protections to exist fear change. Unless research requires exotic hardware (nuclear reactor or something) there’s little reason to provide special accommodations for data mining academics that make up the majority of university work these days. They can go freely speak in a park, or video chat about their findings. What’s funny is if you bring up how bloated with middle management unis have become you’re anti-intellectual too. When a corporation, celebrity, or institution are complaining about being oppressed as they rely on “essential workers” who are effectively not allowed to speak out of line, I laugh.

notSupplied 4y ago
No, I don’t think the analogy works. People have a freedom of who they associate with and do business with: Boycott is when you decide not to spend your money someplace because you don’t agree with them. You’re exercising your freedom of association. Cancellation is when a 3rd party demands that a employee/employer sever their relationship because the 3rd party disapproves of the employee. Here, a 3rd party is imposing on two other parties’ freedom of association. Also, the substance of the speech is quite different: - “You are wrong, and here are the reasons why” is debate. - “You are wrong, and you should become unemployable” is cancellation. Cancellation is technically speech, but it is speech that is focused on imposing a high cost on other speech. Talk about the “paradox of intolerance” argument that the modern left loves to use.
chrismcb 4y ago
Cancel culture is not boycotting. At least not what most people consider boycotting. Boycotting usually there's to not giving money to a company to try to get the company to change their ways (yes you could argue it is a way to try and cancel the company) cancel culture is trying to get someone fired, or get their event, contact, whatever cancelled. Because you don't like them. It isn't the same thing. Boycotting is telling people "please don't prize company x" while cancellation is going above that person and asking them to remove the person. Totally different concepts. And it is mean and nasty, it is basically giving someone a death sentence for something they may not have even done. And of course you have every right to ask for someone to be cancelled. But you should use that right judicially. And make sure the punishment fits the crime.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
Cancel culture == swatting. Same thing, abusing the system to get what they see as justice. Heavy cancellation usually involves stretching the truth or outright lies; an employer is very likely to drop a (male) employee based on an anonymous sexual assault tip for example, even if it turns out to be unsubstantiated depending on how high profile the employee/business is sometimes they'd rather play it safe & fire them anyway. As easy as it is for one of the many Indian scam centers to take your grandmothers money, it is just as easy for a wide-eyed innocent figure to tell you lies about someone and have you believe them. I don't think most people realise how many biases we all carry.

notSupplied 4y ago

No, I don’t think the analogy works. People have a freedom of who they associate with and do business with: Boycott is when you decide not to spend your money someplace because you don’t agree with them. You’re exercising your freedom of association. Cancellation is when a 3rd party demands that a employee/employer sever their relationship because the 3rd party disapproves of the employee. Here, a 3rd party is imposing on two other parties’ freedom of association. Also, the substance of the speech is quite different: - “You are wrong, and here are the reasons why” is debate. - “You are wrong, and you should become unemployable” is cancellation. Cancellation is technically speech, but it is speech that is focused on imposing a high cost on other speech. Talk about the “paradox of intolerance” argument that the modern left loves to use.

chrismcb 4y ago

Cancel culture is not boycotting. At least not what most people consider boycotting. Boycotting usually there's to not giving money to a company to try to get the company to change their ways (yes you could argue it is a way to try and cancel the company) cancel culture is trying to get someone fired, or get their event, contact, whatever cancelled. Because you don't like them. It isn't the same thing. Boycotting is telling people "please don't prize company x" while cancellation is going above that person and asking them to remove the person. Totally different concepts. And it is mean and nasty, it is basically giving someone a death sentence for something they may not have even done. And of course you have every right to ask for someone to be cancelled. But you should use that right judicially. And make sure the punishment fits the crime.

fennecfoxy 4y ago

Cancel culture == swatting. Same thing, abusing the system to get what they see as justice. Heavy cancellation usually involves stretching the truth or outright lies; an employer is very likely to drop a (male) employee based on an anonymous sexual assault tip for example, even if it turns out to be unsubstantiated depending on how high profile the employee/business is sometimes they'd rather play it safe & fire them anyway. As easy as it is for one of the many Indian scam centers to take your grandmothers money, it is just as easy for a wide-eyed innocent figure to tell you lies about someone and have you believe them. I don't think most people realise how many biases we all carry.