1941

Yeah, if only there were some sort of general term that referred to social media misunderstanding, exposure to assholes, harassment, and mob mentality! Oh well, I guess it will be an eternal mystery.

1942

So what you’re saying is, it wasn’t really “cancel culture” because what if he didn’t actually get canceled as a result?? That makes no sense.

“Online bullying isn’t actually a problem. Sure, that kid was bullied a lot, but it would have come to nothing if he just refused to feel bullied! The problem is thin-skinned kids!”

1943

No that’s not at all what I said.

1944

I literally said online harassment is a problem.

This is a great example of how the obsession with the term cancel culture obfuscates the real problems and distracts from any real search for solutions. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly.

1945

Good news! There is such a term.

“Social Media”

1946

Cute, but no.

Just because you seem to be confused by the term, it doesn’t mean that other people are.

Of course it is. You described a chain of events that I would broadly refer to as “cancel culture”:

Bad faith actors → overblown criticism focused on an individual → bandwagoning → apology or explanation not accepted → material effect on the victim (loss of job in this case)

…and then you focus only on the final step and call it “stupid corporate decision making”, ignoring all of the other factors that happened before that. That’s why we need to talk about the whole process, instead of just focusing on one tiny part and blaming it on the corporate response.

1947

Since you’re all over the place and got the exact opposite of my meaning here I’ll break this down for you.

Gunn was “canceled”. Initially at least. Disney fired him. Because Disney overeacted in a craven corporate way to twitter bullshit when Disney should have ignored it.

1948

And I’m saying that you’re excusing away the “twitter bullshit” by blaming Disney instead. Again, it’s like bullying a kid and then saying, “Well it’s his own fault that he got depressed! He should have just ignored the bullying.”

1950

I’m blaming the firing on Disney.

I am also a firm believer in Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and how social media is poison. I’ve been pretty clear on this.

What’s your point?

1952

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about??? It was alt-right people who harassed James Gunn and got him canceled. They were alt-right bad-faith actors. No one is blaming lefties for what happened to him. So why do you keep bringing this up?!

1953

Because some of us would actually like to talk about the social media problem and not just say “social media is poison” and ignore it.

1954

Um, okay. Talk about it. I’ve already mentioned the idea that social media platforms should provide tools for users and police things better and pointed out the details of how is ripe for discussion. Have at it.

Not sure how misunderstanding my point about Gunn’s hasty firing contributed to your desire to discuss how to make social media less poisionous.

1955

Destroy Twitter
Disable the comment section on Youtube videos.

More generally, remove the ability for autonomous Internet fuckwads to leak their anal vitriol everywhere.

1957

Twitter can be useful for news and jokes.

I propose use of biometrics for posting. I don’t mean fingerprints for identity. Stress levels. If you get too worked up you get a time out. Pictures of kittens and puppies come up. Keep people from getting too emotionally invested in the moment.

1958

The distinction between Gunn and Rowling was already explained, but once again:

Bad faith actors → No. People were criticizing Rowling based on her transphobic views. They weren’t attacking her because of some other secret reason.
overblown criticism focused on an individual → Yes.
bandwagoning → Yes.
apology or explanation not accepted → No. Rowling never offered an apology, and just doubled down on her comments when confronted
material effect on the victim → No. She was not fired, and is still making money from her existing content and is making new content. There may be some effect on book sales, but she was not “canceled” in any significant respect

So no, what happened to Gunn and Rowling was different in multiple significant respects.

1960

Yeah, I’ve already made some suggestions. Scroll up and enjoy. But the conversation gets derailed every time we have to go back and discuss whether or not “cancel culture” is a thing in the first place.

1961

So, don’t respond to posts you think derail things. Don’t act like anyone is stopping you from discussing things. Especially when they are literally agreeing with you that social media has harassment issues (i.e. is poison)

1962

You didn’t address “bad faith actors” which is another key component. Even that one point is enough to distinguish the two.

Again, people criticized Rowling about her views on trans people because of her views on trans people. People criticized Gunn about decade-old tweets that he had already apologized for because they didn’t like his political comments.

1963

I don’t understand why Shuma is trying to equate JK Rowing to James Gunn.

1965

Because posts that claim there isn’t a problem make discussion of a solution seem irrelevant. And saying that social media “is a poison” is dismissive. If there is harassment, perhaps there is a way to solve that; if it “is a poison”, that suggests that there is no solution and the whole thing should be scrapped.