Cancel culture

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:08 am

A Nick Cohen article in the Observer today. Let's all read it so we think alike.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... odays-left

Actually, no need to read it, only says what I said before.
Now as then, people without access to lawyers and influential friends suffer the most...

...Panic at the fear of denunciation and bad faith posing as rectitude can be found across the west. A comparison with the right shows how deep the decay has reached. Conservatives know there are thoughts they cannot whisper – Brexit is a mistake comparable to Munich and Suez, anti-black and anti-Muslim racism are tangible evils, poverty makes a nonsense of equality of opportunity. Likewise on the liberal left, the canny careerist takes care to avoid being caught on the “wrong side” of arguments about trans and women’s rights, leftwing antisemitism, and bigotry in ethnic minorities. The canniest decide the best course is to say nothing at all.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:23 am

secret squirrel wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:59 am
Yes of course. But the narrative in the more mainstream parts of the media seems to me to be largely that 'crazy SJW leftists are ruining everything!', which I believe is false, and also happens to serve the interests of groups I generally disagree with. Before we can deal with the nuance, we have to first acknowledge the context.
But the crazy SJW leftists did ruin the hope of a new Gender Recognition Act for England and Wales. They made it too toxic to touch - no government wants to be seen siding with extremists talking about lady penises and assaulting elderly feminists.

And the crazy Corbynite leftists did ruin the hope of a Labour Government, driving out people who criticised anti-semitism and telling moderate supporters to f.ck off and vote for the Tories.

Seems to me, the way to stop the mainstream parts of the media from presenting 'crazy SJW leftists are ruining everything!' is to actually stop crazy SJW leftists from ruining everything. Particularly in centre-right dominated country like England. Confronting Militant Tendency was necessary to achieve 13 years of practical, moderate Blairite improvements to the country.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

secret squirrel
Fuzzable
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by secret squirrel » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:57 am

lpm wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:23 am
secret squirrel wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:59 am
Yes of course. But the narrative in the more mainstream parts of the media seems to me to be largely that 'crazy SJW leftists are ruining everything!', which I believe is false, and also happens to serve the interests of groups I generally disagree with. Before we can deal with the nuance, we have to first acknowledge the context.
But the crazy SJW leftists did ruin the hope of a new Gender Recognition Act for England and Wales. They made it too toxic to touch - no government wants to be seen siding with extremists talking about lady penises and assaulting elderly feminists.

And the crazy Corbynite leftists did ruin the hope of a Labour Government, driving out people who criticised anti-semitism and telling moderate supporters to f.ck off and vote for the Tories.

Seems to me, the way to stop the mainstream parts of the media from presenting 'crazy SJW leftists are ruining everything!' is to actually stop crazy SJW leftists from ruining everything. Particularly in centre-right dominated country like England. Confronting Militant Tendency was necessary to achieve 13 years of practical, moderate Blairite improvements to the country.
New Labour made some significant social improvements to the country, but also continued on an economic path which is painful now, and will be disastrous long term. Not to mention the Iraq war. But this is a digression. More to the point, this is exactly the kind of disingenuous framing I've been talking about, so thank you.

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by purplehaze » Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:10 am

Tessa K wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:07 am
lpm wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:52 am

I think it's highly likely right-wing extremists trigger pile-ons, knowing the PFJ and JPF will fight each other to death once you get them started. The Russian troll farms certainly know how to stir up division and amplify conflicts - I wouldn't be surprised if there's also right-wing funding for trolls as part of fuelling culture wars. Trump wants these modern controversies to be front and centre of the election because he believes his side has the vote winning position for ordinary voters, so why not orchestrate some feminist vs feminist chemical attacks or Democrat vs BLM civil war?
I'm watching Mrs America at the moment, a fictional account of the pro and anti ERA groups in 1970s America (equal rights amendment). https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ and a review of the series here https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... f-feminism

The anti-ERA group present a united front with a single message whereas the pro-ERA is made up of various different feminist groups who have differing views and priorities. One of the anti-ERA tactics is to exploit and increase these divisions, caricaturing and demonising the feminists while concealing their own differences to present an easily saleable message to a target audience (often through deliberate lies and exaggerations).

It's fascinating (and a bit depressing) to watch how the sides line up, the tactics they use and how the men choose which sides to take - and exploit for their own ends. It's a pre-Internet time so the methods are newsletters, landline phone calls to a mailing list, live TV interviews, posters and handbills and so on but the methods of persuasion and divide-and-conquer haven't changed much.
Parts of it are fictional, one scene in particular seems contrived, but it is mainly based on fact. I did however enjoy the episode that was probably fictional - the trip to the women's convention, a real treat to watch.

The NO ERA lobby was effective, but only after bringing in the Evangelists, the Mormons and the KKK which at the time was controversial and politically a hot potato, even for the Republicans. That soon changed.

This is a good analysis of the truth/fiction rate in the series, though it does contain 'spoilers'.

https://www.vulture.com/2020/05/mrs-ame ... story.html

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:29 am

Bewildered wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:55 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:40 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:51 am


Obviously the making of the demand is exercising freedom of speech, and no supporter of freedom of speech can condemn it without hypocrisy, but the employer taking action, unless that action consists solely of speech, is not exercising freedom of speech, so a supporter of freedom of speech can consistently claim that an employer disciplining or firing an employee solely because of something they said - even if it resulted in numerous complaints - is infringing freedom of speech.
Indeed. But this is where the interplay between capitalism and free speech comes in. Employers are concerned about their reputation, their ability to make money, whether from customers, other businesses, sponsors, etc. Sometimes overly so.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from the consequences of speech. Being fired because an employer deemed something you said to be gross misconduct or whatever isn't infringing on free speech - people are still free to say things if they want to - but it might provide some consequences for doing so.

Obviously, not if you're a billionaire author of wizard fiction with three films to go of a thirteen film franchise, an immensely popular stage show, a huge readership and lots of followers on twitter, of course. It's hard to really get cancelled in that position - unless you count some meanies on fan website taking your photo down as being "cancelled". Which apparently she does. Even though it isn't.
Just for some clarity though, do you agree that there should be some protections for employees against being fired for exercising their free speech, even if you think there are exceptions? I agree that free speech doesn’t mean there can be no consequences for what you say, but if it is easy for an employer to fire an employee for exercising their free speech outside of work, then for people who need to keep that job to survive, support their family or maintain their immigration status, that free speech is little more than an illusion.
I do agree that there should be some protections for employees being fired, for all sorts of reasons. That's why we have employment tribunals, although the law around those is currently deeply unsatisfactory (you can't access them unless you've been employed for over two years - thanks Tories & Lib Dems). In principle, however, they'd be the ones to resolve whether me saying Chris Grayling was an appalling transport secretary on facebook is actually gross misconduct or not.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:03 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:36 am
I agree. Compared to Facebook there's also two other things - its far easier to be anonymous on Twitter and Facebook is build around closed networks (yes some are open but it seems that people's default is to share things among friends and members only groups).
Obviously though one problem with facebook's closed networks is that it's very, very easy to filter out dissenting opinion, through defriending people or unfollowing their posts (or limiting what they can see). I try to do this rarely, to be honest, but given how much political shite I post on facebook I'd be terrifically unsurprised if others had done it to me. Certainly the temptation is always there. Thus, one ends up with echo chambers.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:10 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:52 am
plodder wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:07 am
lpm one specific point: what happened to Katie Hopkins (and Milo, and Tommy) was that their career trajectories went massively downhill, from a huge media platform to bankruptcy in the case of Hopkins.

I really think we need to see social media in a similar way to “msm” with specific reference to the degree of influence the proprietors have.
Yes. I think these examples are interesting:

- Were the roles they played really cancelled? Are they merely swapped out for a fresh face?
- How much was pressure from progressives? Hopkins bankrupted herself with a reckless libel, Tommy is a violent alleged drug addict, Milo made paedophilia remarks
- The establishment made the decision to axe Hopkins and Milo, the power still lies with them even if pressure comes from below
- Are trolls like evolving killer robots, where Version 1.0 gets killed by human freedom fighters, 2.0 knows to avoid that killing method, 3.0 is even better, until Captain Picard says "They're adapting to our weapons" and the Borg take over the ship. Hopkins 2.0 knows to avoid the words that killed Hopkins 1.0
- Are there any examples of internecine cancellations among our opponents? Do one clique of racists ever attack and cancel a racist from another clique?

But mostly it's the huge asymmetry that's startling:

- For Hopkins it took months of "cockroaches" and "final solution", and huge resources devoted to her cancellation, until she was finally given the boot.
- For leftie transgressors something trivial can be enough - for example tweeting a link to an academic article, a cancellation mob coming for you and getting fired days later
This is a good point, and to be honest, the interesting case is Trump himself, I think - given everything he's said, what does it take for his popularity to significantly drop? It's not the sexual assault, racism, sexism, incest, treason, fascism, removal of rights, etc - that stuff doesn't really impact on his base. They care mainly when the budget doesn't get passed and their jobs suddenly stop, or when Trump insults the family of a dead soldier. "Cancellation" of someone Trumpy is much more likely to come, or be forced, with jailtime (often not even then) or stuff that unavoidably hits home with the people who didn't already dislike him and who don't care about equal rights and sh.t like that.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Stargoon
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:04 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:29 am
I do agree that there should be some protections for employees being fired, for all sorts of reasons. That's why we have employment tribunals, although the law around those is currently deeply unsatisfactory (you can't access them unless you've been employed for over two years - thanks Tories & Lib Dems). In principle, however, they'd be the ones to resolve whether me saying Chris Grayling was an appalling transport secretary on facebook is actually gross misconduct or not.
I think that nowadays such protection would need to go a bit beyond that. If someone's dismissal is being called for by a twitter mob then, by the time it gets to a tribunal, then the position of both the employee and the employer may have become untenable. I think that there should be some sort of obligation on social media outlets to moderate calls for people to be fired, in much the same way as there is an obligation for them to moderate calls for people to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick.

It couldn't be a universal rule though, and calls for politicians to be dismissed would have to be largely exempt from such moderation, because their positions ultimately depend on public approval.
Last edited by snoozeofreason on Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:20 pm

I'm not sure though that a call to defend free speech is resolved by restricting freedom of speech, is the thing. Which unfortunately, snooze, is what you're suggesting.

That's not to say there's no merit at all in what you suggest, but I think it shows up some of the trade offs here, and I think your suggestion probably gives too much power to those who already have a lot, at the expense of those who don't.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Stargoon
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:32 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:20 pm
I'm not sure though that a call to defend free speech is resolved by restricting freedom of speech, is the thing. Which unfortunately, snooze, is what you're suggesting.

That's not to say there's no merit at all in what you suggest, but I think it shows up some of the trade offs here, and I think your suggestion probably gives too much power in the hands of those who already have a lot, at the expense of those who don't.
I wasn't making a call to defend free speech, and I don't really believe in free speech as any kind of absolute right. There are all sort of circumstances in which a person's freedom to express themself would have to be limited or moderated, because it might impinge on some the (relative) freedom that someone else has to do something else. There are, in particular, reasons why stuff that people post on the internet might need to be moderated, and if you disagree with that, then I am afraid we will have to strip you of your NMC jackboots.

I take your point about potentially giving too much power to those who already have power though, and I think that there would need to be checks and balances to ensure that moderation of social media wasn't used to protect the powerful. But, as the examples that LPM quoted, people on the sharp end of twitter calls for dismissal aren't necessarily particularly powerful.
Last edited by snoozeofreason on Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:42 pm

Indeed, and I don't believe in absolute free speech either, which is why I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that my employer has a social media policy restricting what I can say on social media. Those who wrote the Harper's letter appear to believe in absolute free speech, however - or at least, much less constricted free speech. That is, in reality, much less constricted free speech for themselves and less free speech for everyone else.

And given their call for "More free speech!", I think there's an hypocrisy (from them, not you) in claiming that this is what you want when the problem they cite exists because of more plebs having more free speech than they are comfortable with. And I think that removing peoples' right to call for resignations, even though there are some unfortunate cases of this being abused, is a restriction that goes far too far.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Stargoon
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:59 pm

I can't see anything in the Harper's letter that suggests its signatories believe in absolute freedom of speech, or even the extent to which they want it to be less constricted than it actually is. As Samuel Moyn, one of the signatories, puts it.
I am not a free speech absolutist. Language is part of how our world is constituted. It does not operate free from the dangers and hierarchies of real life; it makes them possible. Calls for open debate routinely conceal the endurance of hierarchies. Distinguishing between necessarily helpful speech and potentially harmful acts, as John Stuart Mill did and as free speech absolutists do, will not work.
If anything, the problem with the Harper's letter is that it aims for, as another signatory suggests, a lowest common denominator, so it's not really clear what they are against, or what they are for.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
jimbob
Dorkwood
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Cancel culture

Post by jimbob » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:16 pm

https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1 ... 8358333441
Wajahat "Wears a Mask Because of a Pandemic" Ali
@WajahatAli
How Cancel Culture really works: During my year at CNN, which was a great experience, I was "warned" a total of 3.5 times. Each warning was because some Republicans, who defended Trump's cruelty & abuses, complained about the most innocuous statements. Here's the official list:
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Stargoon
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:43 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:42 pm
And I think that removing peoples' right to call for resignations, even though there are some unfortunate cases of this being abused, is a restriction that goes far too far.
And, for the sake of clarity, I wasn't suggesting any general removal of the right to call for resignations. I just suggested that there can be circumstances where social media might need to moderate calls for someone to be fired, particularly if they took off to the point where they would jeopardise due process in an employment tribunal.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:08 pm

Forum members earlier implied strongly that calling for a firing was job dependent - OK if it was a relevant job, for example an anti-vaxer GP. But not if was irrelevant to their job, so we shouldn't be going after the job of a 5G-Covid conspiratorist who works at DFS.

This lack of concern for employment rights disappointed me, but it would seem to be an easy rule to follow.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:15 pm

Here's someone digging deeper into that Harper's letter:

https://twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz/stat ... 2204861440
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1562
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Stephanie » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:21 pm

lpm wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:15 pm
Here's someone digging deeper into that Harper's letter:

https://twitter.com/AlanLevinovitz/stat ... 2204861440
Fascinating stuff indeed
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:09 pm

Bari Weiss New York Times resignation letter.

She's a writer who is seen as pro Jewish and pro Zionism, and got a lot of attacks from the left, some of which she has considered anti-Semitic, plus attacks from the right for being a leftie.

She has said some controversial stuff (e.g. about MeToo) and has stalked as a target for years. She once tweeted “Immigrants: They get the job done” about the American daughter of Japanese immigrants winning an Olympic medal and colleagues at the NY Times complained this tweet was as bad as Japanese internment.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions...

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are...

...And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

secret squirrel
Fuzzable
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by secret squirrel » Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:04 am

Bari Weiss is a raging hypocrite about cancel culture. If the NYT provided a hostile work environment for her production of self-serving drivel then all the better for them.

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bewildered » Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:49 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:29 am
Bewildered wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:55 pm
Just for some clarity though, do you agree that there should be some protections for employees against being fired for exercising their free speech, even if you think there are exceptions? I agree that free speech doesn’t mean there can be no consequences for what you say, but if it is easy for an employer to fire an employee for exercising their free speech outside of work, then for people who need to keep that job to survive, support their family or maintain their immigration status, that free speech is little more than an illusion.
I do agree that there should be some protections for employees being fired, for all sorts of reasons. That's why we have employment tribunals, although the law around those is currently deeply unsatisfactory (you can't access them unless you've been employed for over two years - thanks Tories & Lib Dems). In principle, however, they'd be the ones to resolve whether me saying Chris Grayling was an appalling transport secretary on facebook is actually gross misconduct or not.
I don’t recall what you do other than that it is transport related and there could be a job-specific reason for that to be a non-trivial question. Obviously there are jobs where such a statement should be a sackable offence, like a job running his election campaign.
Given how it interferes with your freedom to express political opinions though, I would need there to be a bl..dy good reason for your speech to restricted like that. For most jobs, I really hope it is not simply left up to the nuanced judgement of a specific tribunal panel, but something that is in clear violation of employment law. Otherwise that admits the possibility of a frightening level of employer suppression of an employees ability to speak up on political issues. Same goes for LPM’s example:
“LPM” wrote:Forum members earlier implied strongly that calling for a firing was job dependent - OK if it was a relevant job, for example an anti-vaxer GP. But not if was irrelevant to their job, so we shouldn't be going after the job of a 5G-Covid conspiratorist who works at DFS.

This lack of concern for employment rights disappointed me, but it would seem to be an easy rule to follow.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:57 am

The priority order should be:

1) Actions - what a person does
2) Speech - what a person says
3) Identity - who a person is

- I'd have doubts about trying to get a GP fired when she books children in for vaccinations like any other GP, even if she says on Facebook vaccinations are bad
- If a person heads a charity that gives support to trans prisoners, that action counts for a lot more than if she says on twitter she doesn't think transwomen should have the same rights to play sport
- If a man says supportive things about the right of employees to strike in protest against workplace bullying, that speech matters more than that he went to Eton and never worked in a factory in his life

We've run into trouble because the order has been reversed. People look to identity first, to see if the person is on the correct side, then look to what they say, and what they actually do in life is ignored.

- a left wing politician is a "Sir" and so is too privileged to serve the working class
- a misogynist delighting in sabotaging women's sport is trans, so must be supported without hesitation
- a BLM protestor vandalises property and injures a police officer during his arrest, but gets uncritical support because protestors are good and police are bad

The whole point of the Gender Recognition Act is to give everyone the right to effortlessly claim their own personal identity because it shouldn't matter in the slightest what gender variant someone wants to call themselves, and the anti-racism movement is all about ending how society always sees identity first and individual qualities last. Which makes it ironic that identity is so often used by these movements as the key determinant.

Identity politics is ultimately self-contradictory. It's created an environment where actions speak quieter than words, and the book's cover determines whether the words inside should be read.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bewildered » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:44 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:57 am
The priority order should be:

1) Actions - what a person does
2) Speech - what a person says
3) Identity - who a person is

- I'd have doubts about trying to get a GP fired when she books children in for vaccinations like any other GP, even if she says on Facebook vaccinations are bad
yes I agree

- If a person heads a charity that gives support to trans prisoners, that action counts for a lot more than if she says on twitter she doesn't think transwomen should have the same rights to play sport
Not really, the action is a more significant act, but it doesn’t make that person immune from criticism over other things they do or say. The action here is a mitigating factor that limits the degree of bigotry one can infer, but if you think what they said was bigoted then its fine to still criticise them for it regardless.

- If a man says supportive things about the right of employees to strike in protest against workplace bullying, that speech matters more than that he went to Eton and never worked in a factory in his life
Yes I agree.

We've run into trouble because the order has been reversed. People look to identity first, to see if the person is on the correct side, then look to what they say, and what they actually do in life is ignored.
maybe, but I think we are in a much better situation in that respect than when people thought it was fine to keep someone as a slave if they had a certain identity.

- a left wing politician is a "Sir" and so is too privileged to serve the working class
I wouldn’t say that, but I do support people rejecting knighthoods, and would reject one myself (not that I’ll ever do anything that could result in one)
- a misogynist delighting in sabotaging women's sport is trans, so must be supported without hesitation
I suspect this is a very slanted description of a real event, where you equate “wanting to participate in” with sabotage, but I could be wrong.
- a BLM protestor vandalises property and injures a police officer during his arrest, but gets uncritical support because protestors are good and police are bad
Seems plausible that a significant number of people would react that way and I agree it’s not best. I do support criticising your own side as well and holding it a high standard, but plenty of people on here have disagreed and said we should ignore things like that because it’s not the core problem.
The whole point of the Gender Recognition Act is to give everyone the right to effortlessly claim their own personal identity because it shouldn't matter in the slightest what gender variant someone wants to call themselves, and the anti-racism movement is all about ending how society always sees identity first and individual qualities last. Which makes it ironic that identity is so often used by these movements as the key determinant.

Identity politics is ultimately self-contradictory. It's created an environment where actions speak quieter than words, and the book's cover determines whether the words inside should be read.
My responses in red.

I do personally worry things have moved slightly back in this direction, and I understand your concerns, but there have also been valid points about how identity does matter because of privilege and different experiences (“lived experience” is flavour of the day) made in many discussions about this in the old place*. I also wonder if it’s not so much that anything has been moved back, it’s that stuff like that only gets noticed by people like me (relatively privileged) when positive changes are being pushed for, whereas if you you are from group that is discriminated against you experience this all the time.

* And I feel like you were one of the people making them.

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bewildered » Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:01 am

lpm wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:04 am
snoozeofreason wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:52 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:18 pm
I think if people are making arguments that rest on particular anecdotes it would be really helpful if they can link to them. Most of us probably don't follow every twitter spat, or follow different ones (as there are plenty to choose from and the algorithm sorts by interest).

For example, googling "violent civil rights protests in 1968 appear to have helped the Republicans in the Nov 1968 elections" just brings up a Guardian article from its US editor Ed Pilkington making that argument, and he doesn't appear to have been fired.

It's not that I don't trust other people's representation of these events - I fully accept that there will be examples of cancel culture directed at the wrong targets. But it would be nice to see reliable sources so we can see if any commonalities link those cases, etc.
Hello caller. You are through to LPM's out-of-hours linking service. I think that the case that she is referring to is that of David Shor, a data analyst the consulting firm Civis Analytics, the details of which are set out here.
Thanks Links Minion, but I think it's better not to provide links. Partly because self-education is better than being spoonfed education - 60 minutes reading per 6 minutes posting would be a good ratio.

But mainly because if everyone of us just follows the same trail of spoonfed links, we'll all just end up at the same place. Group think is enhanced by a group reading exactly the same material. Why not just tell people there are loads of interesting things in the forest and we should all just wander off on separate paths?
Last time I tried to push at you for this, it created a stupid debacle with the mods, but I think this is ridiculous. Your first post was too vague to make it easy for people to find the context themselves. When a link Is given I very often check other sources, but I am not going to waste a significant amount of time searching around for news events that may fit what you described and guessing which one. As you yourself pointed out in this thread, it’s easy for people to be unintentionally given the wrong impression when someone just describes things, so if you don’t give the link, then in case like this I will just ignore your example and assume its basically made up or biased account. If you want to convince me with an example, the onus is on you to actually provide that example in a way that I can easily verify it.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:32 am

Why do you think I want to convince you with examples? This is about ideas. Examples are just illustrations, little anecdotes to bring a bit of colour to the scene, not the scene itself. If you start arguing over the merits of the anecdote, like Secret Squirrel just did, you're doing it wrong. There's no way anyone can take a collection of these anecdotes and turn them into evidence on whether the problem is, say, increasing/decreasing.

Find your own context. Read your own books. Bring something new to the table. Don't demand links just so you can follow my journey through the labyrinth. I'm not claiming certainty or a consistent position or any extra insight to anyone else, and I'm in it to explore the topic rather than convince anyone about anything.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bewildered » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:07 am

Yup, that’s why i didn’t bother to engage last time.

Post Reply