Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 6:26:44 GMT -5
Every single complaint you've leveled against cancel culture can be leveled against the justice system along with a lot more. I'd like it a lot more if this were true. But, in theory, for example, if a policeman storms into an innocent person's apartment and shoots them dead, under the justice systems we have, that police officer is accountable. Them not being held so is not the norm, and cause for public outrage. Prosecutors who abuse their power, under the justice system, are responsible for their actions too, and we send them to jail when we catch them at it. Crooked judges who back prisons for profit too. And prison is NOT a nice place when you're a crooked judge.
Under what you're proposing, that's much more common, and no one is accountable. When you call it a Justice System, you're glorifying cyber bullying and swatting. The only difference between what you're calling for and what Tyler Raj Barriss is doing 20 in Federal Prison for is that you're doing it in the name of politics rather than because you were pissed off at them for beating you in a CoD match.
And, since this combines the worst aspects of a witch trial and an internet forum, let's ask the question: what happens when they turn it on you? Because that's a thing now too, if you took the time to read that Atlantic Article I linked for you. And it's a LOT harder to destroy, or end, someone's life with the Justice System than it is with Cancel Culture. It has no defense, no appeal, and no mitigating circumstances, and it's just as happy to destroy your life for something you did as a minor 20 years ago as it is for something you did recently as an adult, and if it does so isn't based on evidence or law, but is rather completely arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 22, 2021 6:52:02 GMT -5
One, the idea that people can't separate the artist and the art. Ahah as I mentioned above, sometime you even have to separate the art from the art, like in the case of Birth of a Nation. I'm perfectly able to separate young-girl-raping Polanski from his movies and I would have no qualm watching those if he was in prison like he deserves, instead of being celebrated at the César award like nothing happened, or dead. Two, if it's not right for someone to do it to you, it's certainly not right for you to do it to someone else. It's not right to protect me from the consequence of my actions after a fair trial, and it's not fair to do it for Polanski either. My own grandfather on the native side was found shot in the head in a ditch. I am absolutely sorry that this happened! You can sit there, anonymously, and pass judgement on them for the causes they support, and then, when you read about how they lost their job and killed their spouse, you can pretend that you had nothing to do with it and that they deserved it for having a different political opinion that yours. Somebody mentioned one's 'moral compass' but Cancel Culture has no more moral compass than any other lynch mob. And to be blunt, we've already seen it unleashed on people who've in no way deserved to lose their livelihoods by any stretch of the imagination. A link, since I know someone will demand one. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/There is another example of someone who took their own life after “being cancelled” on ContraPoint's video. It can be incredibly hard on the small people. On the other hand, you noted yourself that it basically just mean a slightly lower paycheck for Hollywood powerful people. The US definitely need laws that forces managers to justify it when they fire people, and to not make every reason valid. And not just about cancel culture, it just gives too much power to the manager, that they can then use for blackmail or whatever. Well, hope it was worth it. You've gotten that horse all the way up, sucked it's dick, and proven you could do it when literally no one asked, then managed to find your way back to the table and actually catch up with the conversation. Kudos. Maybe next time, instead of pages of making everyone but the most patient Walrus on earth angry at what a shit you can be, you could just say "I hope we get Trump but let's not get carried away and start breaking people's knees for random Twitter comments." Oh, come on. Don't be a dick. Nobody is going to accuse me of being patient (I got banned from about every 40k forum there is) and I didn't get angry at Baron. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 7:20:27 GMT -5
I was the one with the moral compass comment. Yes the internet goes too far in the hate mobs, but the moral compass still exists and to pretend it doesn't is ridiculous.
If a writer on a show is screeching about 'N-words being subhuman' and MY moral compass tells me that by watching this show, this terrible fucker makes money. Me enjoying the show and advocating for their removal, so the show can continue without giving them money, is 'cancel culture'. How is my move towards 'cancel culture' not dictated by moral compass.
Again, on the point of the art from the author line. When they are alive they can still actively profit off of it. How absolutely fucking horrible must a person act before your moral compass pushes you into 'cancel culture' regarding that person?
If you act like the moral compass doesn't exist, then there is also no limit to the depths that they should be able to sink?
We're conflating public personas with private people. Should we push for private people to be fired? Probably not. Should we push for public personas to be fired? Yes, because they have a larger responsibility and reach, they can find a more private job if they want to be able to blurt out whatever horrible thing surfaces in their head.
Its obfuscating two parts of 'cancel culture' to declare that they are both equally bad. Its coming across as side stepping the difficult questions and painting us all in the worst light possible, even though we started off discussing the difficult questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 7:36:35 GMT -5
The US definitely need laws that forces managers to justify it when they fire people, and to not make every reason valid. And not just about cancel culture, it just gives too much power to the manager, that they can then use for blackmail or whatever. The hypocrisy being that the people wailing the loudest about 'cancel culture' in US politics, are also diametrically opposed to any sort of legislation that might be seen as negative towards the interests of companies, such as the above. Funnily enough, the liberals who supposedly drive 'cancel culture' are also the only ones 'socialist' enough to consider such legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jan 22, 2021 7:37:50 GMT -5
And I'm the most impatient person I know. I just try not to be a dick because I've been one far too many times in the past. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we agree that people should not be fired due to "cancel culture", we either accept that this requires state intervention through protective legislation or we accept that such firings will happen as market forces push companies to react to (what they judge is) public opinion. Depending on the state, in the US, this legislation may already exist, however, in some situations, this does not actually matter. You're making two assumptions: one that the victems are conservatives in the first place, in some cases, they are not, and, in my mind, disgustingly, occasionally are not even actually affiliated with the persons targeted. One example in that Atlantic article is a bakery where the owners daughter said something stupid online when she was 14. Someone set out to destroy the livelihoods of their entire family over that. The second assumption is that they get the right target in the first place. A family in New York lost their jobs because they had moved into a house previously lived in by someone who was being targeted. How do you stop people exercising their First Amendment rights from doing so to ruin someone's life? Now try doing it without breaking Republican dogma about free speech and voting with your wallet. As for what happens when it's turned on the American left, why don't we ask the Dixie Chicks? As I said in my last post, if we define "cancel culture" as "left-wing pressure to get dissenters fired" then the outrage from the US right cannot be the "pressure to get dissenters fired" part; that's been happening for ever. The outrage, as usual, is that the leopard is eating Republican faces. It is the inevitable result of drawing Republican laissez-faire labour and free speech laws to their logical conclusion. Assume that you're entirely right. How do you stop it? |
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jan 22, 2021 7:50:33 GMT -5
Its the cancel culture paradox, to keep culture from being canceled one must cancel cancel culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 22, 2021 7:52:10 GMT -5
Assume that you're entirely right. How do you stop it? Lemme try. By convincing people that it's a terrible thing to do and making doing this socially unacceptable? You don't need to make it literally illegal (though really, for the labor laws part, you *should*) to make it way way less likely to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 8:02:34 GMT -5
Assume that you're entirely right. How do you stop it? Lemme try. By convincing people that it's a terrible thing to do and making doing this socially unacceptable? You don't need to make it literally illegal (though really, for the labor laws part, you *should*) to make it way way less likely to happen. But what about it happening to public personas? Should that remain acceptable or not? The Atlantic article cherry picks cases that none of us can disagree with, so there really is no argument to be had there. The argument we need to have with Baron is where that line gets drawn, but he seems unwilling to indicate where that line should be placed for him. |
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 22, 2021 8:59:27 GMT -5
Perhaps a major concern is how this all evolves in the coming years. We're already at the point now where discovering a years old tweet can get someone into a bit of controversy (James Gunn). Do we want that to evolve to the point where, 15 years from now, someone can't get a job because they posted one picture on Facebook of themselves wearing a MAGA hat in 2016?
I think the concern is not for the major politicians who did genuinely bad things, or the actual bad people who promote and commit violent acts, but for the regular people who just lived regular lives and who may end up getting punished just for being on the other side of the political line, just for having "bad thoughts".
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 9:11:29 GMT -5
Yes, but I don't think there is any real discussion to be had from that, because everyone here seems to agree that this should not happen. Private/regular people should not face this (I mean without accounting for impossible to predict exceptions?).
What we're arguing for here is that there should be consequences for people doing actual harm (and undermining democracy most certainly is), not just expressing regular political opinions like supporting Trump or wearing a MAGA hat. The problem is, discussing 'cancel culture' is always done in the most black versus white manner possible. While there is a gulf of grey between that Atlantic article Baron posted and Trump being removed from Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jan 22, 2021 9:11:34 GMT -5
Just because it's a pet peeve of mine: stop conflating speech with thoughts. The two are distinct things.
|
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 22, 2021 9:20:31 GMT -5
Just because it's a pet peeve of mine: stop conflating speech with thoughts. The two are distinct things. If that was directed at me, the use of the word "thoughts" was intentional. Because that's the whole point behind a mob mentality: you must think the same as the mob or the mob turns on you. We don't want cancel culture to evolve into thought policing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 9:28:59 GMT -5
We don't want cancel culture to evolve into thought policing.
A little late for that, since that's exactly what some people are advocating for, including wolf, depending on how you read his last few posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 9:31:59 GMT -5
The hypocrisy being that the people wailing the loudest about 'cancel culture' in US politics, are also diametrically opposed to any sort of legislation that might be seen as negative towards the interests of companies, such as the above. Funnily enough, the liberals who supposedly drive 'cancel culture' are also the only ones 'socialist' enough to consider such legislation. I'm a conservative and would sign on to it in a without batting an eye. But I also disagree with companies being people. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 22, 2021 9:37:59 GMT -5
I'm a conservative and would sign on to it in a without batting an eye. But I also disagree with companies being people. Ah Baron I didn't mean voters, I meant the Republican politicians. Usually Republican politicians are much more opposed to regulations and labor laws than their voters. Its just that this get burried under more hot button topics like guns and abortion. So they don't have to listen to their voters on that, because they know their voters won't vote blue. Protecting people from the mob is something that we should also hold social media accountable for. The best thing to do is to roll out more and better privacy laws, so that you can actually appeal to "the right to be forgotten" as we have it in the EU. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgottenIts not perfect yet, but more of this and less protection for companies harvesting as much data as is (il) legally allowed. But then you fall back on the question, who should and shouldn't get to appeal to that right? |
|
