Sharpe
1992
I just skipped 60 posts in this thread b/c F it nothing new.
I’m at the point of feeling like this thread is ruined by its title. There are real issues to be discussed of balancing speech and preventing harassment etc. but I feel like this thread ALWAYS descends into useless semantic circular bullshit, driven mostly by certain right/center-right/whatever-the-fuck-they-are posters here pretending to care about technicalities and principles when they really just want to bash liberals, and like endlessly fucking continuously exhaustingly repetitively harping on the exaggerated, cherry picked, over-hyped Perils! Of! Cancel! Culture! By! Those! Nasty! Leftists!!!
Let’s give it a rest.
I’ve tried to have reasoned discussion here and a lot of us have as well but the crap-posters just always crap on this thread. The title is like a crap magnet IMO.
In an ideal world, the bulk of us would not respond to these jerks again and again and again and again but it’s hard, I understand. Letting obvious bullcrap flow by is just not in the nature of many of us who post here.
I just - I mean – we’ve discussed the stuff that was discussed today like a hundred times in this thread already and the same posters keep pushing the same bull crap. I’m tired of it.
Aceris
1993
You do realize that a left wing poster picked the title, and intended the thread to be for dunking on the very idea of cancel culture?
Anyone who attempts to engage from a different viewpoint is barraged with disagreement, much of it bad faith (yes, there’s constructive engagement too). And you never complain about the bad faith posting by leftists.
We agree the thread is pointless but shit man, your lack of self-reflection and toleration of bad behaviour from your fellow travellers is another aspect of the problem Ellis tried to highlight
I have been involved in that “semantic bullshit”, but I don’t give a flying fuck about who is doing the “canceling.” I’m concerned about the people who are being piled on and driven off of the internet, not about labeling the people who are harassing them. Like you can pick out someone’s political views because they’re going “No, Raya is nothing like Avatar!”
And if you want to give something a rest, how about the idea that “this person is pretending to care about X but they really just want to bash liberals.” It’s difficult enough to have a cogent conversation without assigning a political position based on no evidence.
We are all racists alt-right nationalists until we prove ourselves and cancel some culture.
There sure have been a lot of posts in the last twelve hours! Oddly, not much about solutions, though. I wonder who it is that’s preventing anyone from talking about solutions now? Can’t be me; I was asleep.
Unfortunately it only takes one poster taking the bait that we all know - seriously, we all know - is going nowhere to shit up an otherwise perfectly good thread with 200 pointless shitposts in a few hours.
I found this thread actually a pretty good place to discuss the topic as it pertains to the case of Lindsey Ellis until what, some time yesterday morning?
Ignore is your friend, y’all.
Wrong. I offered a simple solution.
Destroy Twitter. Most of this goes away.
Twitter would just be replaced by something else just like Twitter, wouldn’t it?
Maybe, but at least it was a proposal, regardless to how so difficult it is impossible it actually is.
I suppose from another direction, decouple companies and orgs from social media actions without some kind of hard review. Good luck with that though. Companies are defacto dictatorships replete with different class employees.
Okay. I was confused because you said it was a simple solution.
Simple can be difficult.
The only problem with @roguefrog 's proposal is the omission of salting the earth and forbidding the lying of stones one atop the other.
I mean, I could propose the simple solution of make people be better. It’s simple! I don’t actually know how to do it, but that’s an exercise best left for the implementation team to work out.
It was simple in it’s explanation, but difficult to actually execute.
Opposed to your vague “make humanity not be assholes.” Paraphrasing in my own words of course. But that is straight up capital ‘I’ impossible.
I think we must have different ideas of what it means to ‘explain’ something. I don’t really know what ‘destroy Twitter’ actually means. That’s why I asked the question.
Really?
Remove Twitter from existence. In the prime materia, Twitter is gone. No Twitter. Kaput.
Your response suggested otherwise…
Your response agreed that you’d just be eliminating the name, not the problem. You have to say more to explain what you mean, because otherwise it isn’t obviously a solution.
I may regret responding because I haven’t caught up on the posts below, but I think “stupid corporate decision making” is at some level a part of cancel culture.
I haven’t quantified it in a satisfying way, and I don’t mean they bear the same responsibility as online harassers or necessarily any other part of the equation, but at some level an exploitable corporate culture of consequences first, thorough investigation later if at all, is a factor.
There are lots of good reasons for a company, organization, or group of any type to react swiftly to distance themselves from a problem, but they aren’t all good reasons because the “problem” presented may not be what it first appears (Gunn being a pretty good example).
Weaponizing an online outrage campaign only works because we know there’s a good chance it won’t get a nuanced investigation before it’s acted on, whether it’s because an employer (or whatever) doesn’t have the resources, interest, or nerve to act slowly look into every claim.
I like to throw around “twitter isn’t real” glibly because frequently it’s a distorted view magnified by bots and trolls that doesn’t necessarily reflect society, but sometimes it can have real consequences.
My response was a maybe…
But hypothetically, Twitter could be cancelled! (And anything resembling it).
I actually think Gunn is a poor example (of cancel culture), since in practice he never really got cancelled. When one media company didn’t want to associate with him anymore, another was more than happy to do so, and the result was that even the original media company relented and welcomed him back. This doesn’t mean that nobody tried to cancel him; it just means that he is a powerful figure, someone with enough power as to be practically uncancellable. The same is true of Rowling. And of Chappelle, etc.
I think I’m retreading ground covered in the ~70 back-and-forth posts I just skimmed, but I think it counts. He was fired from a job. That he got a different job, and then ultimately got his original job back, are both points worth discussing in how the fallout can be different, but the initial firing is worth discussing in the context of this thread.
