4 ms·

> I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a “cancel culture” decision. “The comic sucks now” would have been an editorial de

> I hate to quote him at all, but I do so to dissuade responses that this is a “cancel culture” decision. “The comic sucks now” would have been an editorial decision about the content. “Here’s a terrible thing the author said somewhere else” is cancel culture. It’s not as if all the readers know or care who draws this.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
To the extent this is an appropriate definition of “cancel culture”, it’s also a perfect demonstration that complaints about “cancel culture” are essentially “grievance culture”. There is nothing wrong with the editorial staff of a news publisher making editorial decisions based on the values they want the publication to represent. Even if that decision is not based on the content they may or may not publish. This is and has always been the logical conclusion of the very confused “free speech vs cancel culture” position: everything is permissible… except anyone or any organization having the temerity to choose who they wish to associate with, even if that’s an express purpose of their role.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marcusverus 4y ago
  > complaints about “cancel culture” are essentially “grievance culture”. Where does the “grievance” come into play? Opponents of cancel culture are just saying that people shouldn’t be fired for wrongthink.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    But no one is being fired here. An editor is making an editorial decision. Sounds like maybe you don’t like the decision but so what? You can start your own paper and make your own decisions that others can disagree with. Adams will continue being a multimillionaire who gets to speak his mind to his followers. Everyone is exercising their first amendment rights. So what’s the problem?
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    That’s the grievance. He wasn’t “fired for wrongthink”, they didn’t want to continue to work with him and said why. They’re not under any obligation to continue to publish his comic, right?
    - caeril 4y ago
      This would be a fair argument if Scott was literally sitting in the newsroom or on the newsroom Slack going on racist tirades, making the employees uncomfortable. But he's syndicated. The Plain Dealer doesn't "work with" him any more than I "work with" Mitchell Hashimoto, for example. Nearly all of these newspapers work through a syndication middleman that operates professionally and neither represents, nor transmits, their cartoonists personal opinions on other platforms. Firing someone for being an asshole in the office is perfectly legitimate. Firing someone for being an asshole somewhere else that your employees have no reasonable chance of even knowing about other than through the tweets of people they don't even know is absolutely ridiculous. This whole thing reminds me of the Yarvin / Strange Loop fiasco. We've, as a society, decided long ago that private and professional lives are generally distinct. We accept that the alcoholic who gets shitfaced every night after work is a perfectly acceptable coworker as long as he doesn't come to work drunk. We accept that whatever crazy shit you might get up to in your bedroom has no bearing on how you comport yourself at work. But recently we've somehow made a bizarre exception for personal opinions.
      - hedora 4y ago
        Since when are YouTube channels “in private”? Also, go look up anything he has done outside of Dilbert in the last ten years. He went off the deep end long ago.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        So it’s your position that any newspaper/news website which has ever published the Dilbert comic, is perpetually obligated to continue to publish the Dilbert comic in their news publication… unless Dilbert itself deviates from their editorial standards?
      - 4y ago
  - themitigating 4y ago
    If I said I want to kill all jews is that wrongthink?
- Dudelander 4y ago
  Yeah stop trying to "cancel" "cancel culture".
reaperducer 4y ago
I didn't agree that this is a cancel culture thing until this discussion, with 213 points, suddenly got "flagged" here on HN. The discussion of being cancelled has been cancelled.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

To the extent this is an appropriate definition of “cancel culture”, it’s also a perfect demonstration that complaints about “cancel culture” are essentially “grievance culture”. There is nothing wrong with the editorial staff of a news publisher making editorial decisions based on the values they want the publication to represent. Even if that decision is not based on the content they may or may not publish. This is and has always been the logical conclusion of the very confused “free speech vs cancel culture” position: everything is permissible… except anyone or any organization having the temerity to choose who they wish to associate with, even if that’s an express purpose of their role.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marcusverus 4y ago
> complaints about “cancel culture” are essentially “grievance culture”. Where does the “grievance” come into play? Opponents of cancel culture are just saying that people shouldn’t be fired for wrongthink.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  But no one is being fired here. An editor is making an editorial decision. Sounds like maybe you don’t like the decision but so what? You can start your own paper and make your own decisions that others can disagree with. Adams will continue being a multimillionaire who gets to speak his mind to his followers. Everyone is exercising their first amendment rights. So what’s the problem?
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  That’s the grievance. He wasn’t “fired for wrongthink”, they didn’t want to continue to work with him and said why. They’re not under any obligation to continue to publish his comic, right?
  - caeril 4y ago
    This would be a fair argument if Scott was literally sitting in the newsroom or on the newsroom Slack going on racist tirades, making the employees uncomfortable. But he's syndicated. The Plain Dealer doesn't "work with" him any more than I "work with" Mitchell Hashimoto, for example. Nearly all of these newspapers work through a syndication middleman that operates professionally and neither represents, nor transmits, their cartoonists personal opinions on other platforms. Firing someone for being an asshole in the office is perfectly legitimate. Firing someone for being an asshole somewhere else that your employees have no reasonable chance of even knowing about other than through the tweets of people they don't even know is absolutely ridiculous. This whole thing reminds me of the Yarvin / Strange Loop fiasco. We've, as a society, decided long ago that private and professional lives are generally distinct. We accept that the alcoholic who gets shitfaced every night after work is a perfectly acceptable coworker as long as he doesn't come to work drunk. We accept that whatever crazy shit you might get up to in your bedroom has no bearing on how you comport yourself at work. But recently we've somehow made a bizarre exception for personal opinions.
    - hedora 4y ago
      Since when are YouTube channels “in private”? Also, go look up anything he has done outside of Dilbert in the last ten years. He went off the deep end long ago.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      So it’s your position that any newspaper/news website which has ever published the Dilbert comic, is perpetually obligated to continue to publish the Dilbert comic in their news publication… unless Dilbert itself deviates from their editorial standards?
    - 4y ago
- themitigating 4y ago
  If I said I want to kill all jews is that wrongthink?
Dudelander 4y ago
Yeah stop trying to "cancel" "cancel culture".

reaperducer 4y ago

I didn't agree that this is a cancel culture thing until this discussion, with 213 points, suddenly got "flagged" here on HN. The discussion of being cancelled has been cancelled.