Yes, of course this. Cancel Culture is just another word for Political Correctness, the idea that a person might actually face criticism for what they say, and that criticism is oppression, and that the right to free speech includes freedom from criticism and trumps the right to freedom of association.
Enidigm
2016
Just to clarify, i’d say, at least for myself, Cancel Culture encapsulates the subset of that description of those instances where the most uncharitable reading of statements are used to gain outcomes in excess of the harm caused and the power, influence and “oppressive power” of those targeted.
I understand, I just disagree. The reasonable charge against online mob harassment is that it targets ordinary people who can’t defend themselves, people who haven’t meant to make themselves public figures, people who can neither weather the storm nor easily deal with the economic and social consequences. None of that describes Gunn or Rowling or Chappelle. Those people are people with real power, people who have made themselves public figures deliberately, for good or ill, and have the resources to survive, even thrive despite the mob.
If the only examples of ‘cancel culture’ we could offer were Gunn and Rowling and Chappelle and others like that, nobody but the fans of those people would even care about the problem. Instead, the examples people offer here are e.g. Lindsay Ellis, or ordinary-person-who-was-fired-because-they-called-the-cops-on-a-black-man, or ordinary-person-who-was-a-case-of-mistaken-identity. Because those examples resonate, generate sympathy for the victim, which increases the notion that there is an actual problem to be solved; one that can actually be solved somehow.
Alstein
2018
Any action taken to Twitter- Twitter will implement it in a fashion that will protect its corporate customers, and screw over anyone else, and it will likely lead to a system that is ok with bigotry, even if Twitter doesn’t openly wish to be bigoted.
The end result would likely be a fragmented, radicalized network.
What really should be done is Twitter should be forced to have a lot of human moderation, so folks don’t get suspended for innocuous comments (I seriously know more than a few folks who got 12-hr bans for flirting with their gf’s). They’d need a large workforce for that, but that should be part of the cost of running social media- Twitter/Facebook really cheap out on this, and that’s a huge problem.
What I don’t know is what should be the standard for human moderation response times/how many do they need. I do know the work can be traumatic (which is another reason why they need to be forced to hire enough).
Enidigm
2019
The problem is caused by overconnectiveness, and the solution is breaking some of or reducing the speed of transmission of those connections.
CraigM
2020
Funny way of spelling Facebook though.
Which is to say social media itself is poorly designed, from a societal perspective.
Alstein
2021
But it’s great from a capitalist one (which is part of the problem) The social media companies don’t want to fix the problem, the problem makes them money!
Cancelling is a tool, a tool that can be appropiate or inappropiate. I think part of the disconnect here is some folks are viewing cancelling as inherently wrong, either because they don’t think the tactic is ever appropiate (which would lead to bothsiding), or that it’s hitting the wrong targets (which can either be a legit criticism, or kinda saying you’re ok with things others aren’t ok with, which can be good or bad)
Cancelling is an uncontrolled machinegun. Sure, it can hit the people you’re trying to hit, but it’s going to take a bunch of your guys too.
And at the end of the day, when you’re on public, large scale social media (Qt3 isn’t big enough, we can still sort of have an accurate idea of each other), you’re shouting your opinion to the world. And guess what, there’s enough people in the world that almost anything you say, several people are going to take issue to. Also helps if you’re the wrong kind of people with an opinion.
Well, if people want to stuff labor issues, consumer power, bullying and criticism under the same label, I, for one, am surprised it doesn’t work at all!
But, also this
Where I am, even the cringe spats between progressives and libertarians would be a good enough reason for this.
Thrag
2024
You know you keep saying you want to talk about what to do about online harassment but you have failed to take every opportunity to do so. You instead obsessed about your personal definition of cancel culture.
Thrag
2026
Oh look, I found one of those bad faith arguements.
I offered multiple suggestions for solutions, but you didn’t see them because you have me on ignore. I guess it’s easier to attack me when you can’t actually see where you’re wrong.
I answered multiple specific questions about what does and doesn’t constitute “cancel culture”, including coming up with a very specific definition of the term that at least one other person agreed was very reasonable. But again, you didn’t see any of this because you have me on ignore. The only shitposting I see is when you jump in on a very active conversation just to complain that I’m participating.
I believe that Monty Python defined Cancel Culture and science as the solution for it quite adequately a long time ago.
edit: after enjoying the clip on second thought, the solution clearly is a judge or arbiter wise in the ways of science and fairness. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Hey, I specifically asked people to tell me if you offered any solutions. That’s not the request of someone who doesn’t want to know what your solutions are.
I saw limit who can reply to you, which already exists, and more robust blocking features, which already exists except for the undefined robust part. Yet we still apparently have cancel culture, so these things are not enough.
Of course, if you take either of those measures to their logical conclusion, you’re basically withdrawing from social media, so there is that.
Oh really.
That discussion hasn’t gained any traction, but I did offer ideas for solutions. It seems like people on this thread (including me, obvs) are also interested in discussing whether cancel culture is a problem in the first place.
Putting me on Ignore does suggest some level of disengagement from the discussion.
Because I don’t want to be subjected to all your hand-waving distractions! I asked you nicely several times to suggest solutions, but all you did was prattle on about how people were preventing you from doing that. So I put you on ignore, and asked people to tell me when you offered solutions. Nobody told me so, but you claimed you did — though without referencing them, which is another sort of hand-waving distraction. Still, I went and found them, and — unless I missed something — there was basically nothing there. So now, instead of defending the suggestions — things that already exist and don’t seem to solve the problem — you’re back to complaining about how I’m stopping you from doing that. It is all hand-waving distractions, all the time.
Thrag
2033
I also mentioned obvious ideas like better tools and moderation multiple times, while literally saying the obsession with terming things “cancel culture” detracts from discussing those. I even suggested starting a discussion of those solutions separate from the counterproductive terminology. The response was to continue obsessing about the term thus proving my point over and over again.
Timex
2034
The term really only becomes a problem if you go into the discussion with the preconception that the term only describes the stuff that you agree with, and that the stuff you disagree with falls into some other category.
If you are willing to accept the premise that “cancel culture” actually does result in bullying and mob justice against people without justification, the term isn’t a problem.
The issue we have here is that there are folks who have already become set in their preconceptions that cancel culture is only something that the right wing complains about.
