5 ms·

Stallman was cancelled. If the repercussions he faced were just, he was nonetheless cancelled. If the repercussions have turned out to be only temporary, he was

Stallman was cancelled. If the repercussions he faced were just, he was nonetheless cancelled. If the repercussions have turned out to be only temporary, he was nonetheless cancelled. In general, you seem to think that because these people deserved the punishment they faced, that they were not really cancelled. This is a wrongheaded way to think about the matter. A person is cancelled when he faces certain punishments for having done (of being thought to have done) certain actions. Whether these punishments were just does not play into whether they constitute cancellation. Justified or unjustified, it's cancellation the same. Now, it is true that people who are the most vocal about cancellation tend to be against it as a rule. Or, to be against it when it is seen as going against freedom of speech - Justin Roiland and others who are seen as having been credibly accused of having committed a crime may be seen as fair game. P.S. I never said Finkelstein was cancelled for being woke (you likely misread the word "work"), in fact he is very much against woke culture - see his latest book, "I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It!"

cauch 3y ago
Your definition of "cancelled" seems to be pretty different than the current usage, in particular people who are against "cancel-culture" as a threat to legitimate freedom and/or as a dangerous unfair ideology. (in both cases, it requires the cancellation to be unfair. If it is not unfair, then it cannot be considered as a danger) I don't really see the point of the term "cancelled" if it is what you describe: what you describe is just the normal usual consequences of living in society, and it existed since millenia without the need of using a specific term like "cancel". It is also not really good because it muddies the water. We have people who are saying that the cancel-culture is a big danger. What they have in mind as "cancellation" is mainly a fantasy, and it is true that what they have in mind practically never happens in real life. But then, if you come and say "yeah, there is the list of people cancelled", these people will just start to believe these people went under the way more extreme definition of "cancellation" they have in mind. > P.S. I never said Finkelstein as cancelled for being woke (you likely misread the word "work"), in fact he is very much against woke culture - see his latest book, "I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It!" Oh. When I saw that, I was thinking "Good, this list contains some people that would have been cancelled for not conforming to right-wing ideal. Then I guess it is already more believable". But if it is not the case, I find it problematic. There is absolutely no intrinsic reason that only people would be cancelled for "not conforming with a left-wing ideal". If "cancellation" is a real thing, it should happen to right-wing or left-wing.
- calderknight 3y ago
  Can you state which parts of the popular conception of cancellation are fantasy? What is it that people have in mind? that thing which practically never happens in real life. Norman Finkelstein is as left-wing as it gets. He views wokism as a right-wing ideology (correctly).
  - cauch 3y ago
    The popular conception of cancellation is that cancellation is an unfair imposition of an ideology on people who don't deserve to be judged, and that it is destroying their life. But on this discussion you've provided a list, and some people have highlighted that there is legitimate ground for their "cancellation" and that their lives are not destroyed. Therefore it does not correspond to this idea that we have a kind of crazy inquisition randomly punishing perfectly innocent people. Sure, those "cancellation" can be criticized and discussed, but they are not more a big danger than any other decision about rule of society. My comment here is rather: "I was told that cancel culture was bad, life-destroying and unfair. Then, someone asked for a list. Someone else provided a list. But then, others have noticed that this list does not correspond to what I have been told: it's way milder than bad, life-destroying and unfair." It is possible that what I have been told is not the "popular conception of cancellation", but it would be surprising: it is still very much how it is depicted in mass media (from "official newpapers" to "twitter feed of politicians"). About Finkelstein: it is not really what I mean. I'm not saying Finkelstein is right-wing or left-wing. I'm saying I'm interested to see example of cancel culture of someone who wanted to do something left-wing and was canceled by people who defend right-wing ideals. Was Finkelstein canceled because he was too left-wing to the taste of people who liked right-wing? It's a honest question, the answer can be "yes". The situation is just that I first saw "Finkelstein was canceled for being too woke", which seems to be a description that correspond to that. When you said that it was not the case, I thought "oh, ok, maybe it's not the case, then". As for "wokism is a right-wing ideology", I would be more convinced by argument saying things like "wokism shares aspect with authoritarianism" or things like that. Something "right-wing" is first and foremost "something that is loved and adopted in the right-wing community". At the end of the day, it fails against to reach my argument. My argument is not really that "a good list will have people who are blue and people who are red in it", my argument is rather "a good list will have people who are canceled by the group A and the group B is outraged by the cancellation, and people who are canceled by the group B and the group A is outraged by the cancellation". So, in fact, it does not matter if wokism is theoretically right-wing or left-wing: if the cancellation is done by the left-wing community acting like the right-wing community, and that the right-wing community is upset about the cancelation, it still has the problem I've raised: why are all the cancellation examples always done by the left-wing community? One possibility is that one includes ideological orientation in the definition. But even so, if cancel culture is bad, it would be because it's unfair or arbitrary, and "being unfair" or "being arbitrary" is possible whatever ideology you have. So it feels strange that "cancel culture" is a danger while something that is as unfair and arbitrary is not considered as a danger.

cauch 3y ago

Your definition of "cancelled" seems to be pretty different than the current usage, in particular people who are against "cancel-culture" as a threat to legitimate freedom and/or as a dangerous unfair ideology. (in both cases, it requires the cancellation to be unfair. If it is not unfair, then it cannot be considered as a danger) I don't really see the point of the term "cancelled" if it is what you describe: what you describe is just the normal usual consequences of living in society, and it existed since millenia without the need of using a specific term like "cancel". It is also not really good because it muddies the water. We have people who are saying that the cancel-culture is a big danger. What they have in mind as "cancellation" is mainly a fantasy, and it is true that what they have in mind practically never happens in real life. But then, if you come and say "yeah, there is the list of people cancelled", these people will just start to believe these people went under the way more extreme definition of "cancellation" they have in mind. > P.S. I never said Finkelstein as cancelled for being woke (you likely misread the word "work"), in fact he is very much against woke culture - see his latest book, "I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It!" Oh. When I saw that, I was thinking "Good, this list contains some people that would have been cancelled for not conforming to right-wing ideal. Then I guess it is already more believable". But if it is not the case, I find it problematic. There is absolutely no intrinsic reason that only people would be cancelled for "not conforming with a left-wing ideal". If "cancellation" is a real thing, it should happen to right-wing or left-wing.

calderknight 3y ago
Can you state which parts of the popular conception of cancellation are fantasy? What is it that people have in mind? that thing which practically never happens in real life. Norman Finkelstein is as left-wing as it gets. He views wokism as a right-wing ideology (correctly).
- cauch 3y ago
  The popular conception of cancellation is that cancellation is an unfair imposition of an ideology on people who don't deserve to be judged, and that it is destroying their life. But on this discussion you've provided a list, and some people have highlighted that there is legitimate ground for their "cancellation" and that their lives are not destroyed. Therefore it does not correspond to this idea that we have a kind of crazy inquisition randomly punishing perfectly innocent people. Sure, those "cancellation" can be criticized and discussed, but they are not more a big danger than any other decision about rule of society. My comment here is rather: "I was told that cancel culture was bad, life-destroying and unfair. Then, someone asked for a list. Someone else provided a list. But then, others have noticed that this list does not correspond to what I have been told: it's way milder than bad, life-destroying and unfair." It is possible that what I have been told is not the "popular conception of cancellation", but it would be surprising: it is still very much how it is depicted in mass media (from "official newpapers" to "twitter feed of politicians"). About Finkelstein: it is not really what I mean. I'm not saying Finkelstein is right-wing or left-wing. I'm saying I'm interested to see example of cancel culture of someone who wanted to do something left-wing and was canceled by people who defend right-wing ideals. Was Finkelstein canceled because he was too left-wing to the taste of people who liked right-wing? It's a honest question, the answer can be "yes". The situation is just that I first saw "Finkelstein was canceled for being too woke", which seems to be a description that correspond to that. When you said that it was not the case, I thought "oh, ok, maybe it's not the case, then". As for "wokism is a right-wing ideology", I would be more convinced by argument saying things like "wokism shares aspect with authoritarianism" or things like that. Something "right-wing" is first and foremost "something that is loved and adopted in the right-wing community". At the end of the day, it fails against to reach my argument. My argument is not really that "a good list will have people who are blue and people who are red in it", my argument is rather "a good list will have people who are canceled by the group A and the group B is outraged by the cancellation, and people who are canceled by the group B and the group A is outraged by the cancellation". So, in fact, it does not matter if wokism is theoretically right-wing or left-wing: if the cancellation is done by the left-wing community acting like the right-wing community, and that the right-wing community is upset about the cancelation, it still has the problem I've raised: why are all the cancellation examples always done by the left-wing community? One possibility is that one includes ideological orientation in the definition. But even so, if cancel culture is bad, it would be because it's unfair or arbitrary, and "being unfair" or "being arbitrary" is possible whatever ideology you have. So it feels strange that "cancel culture" is a danger while something that is as unfair and arbitrary is not considered as a danger.