Cancel culture

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:29 pm

Just read it. It's very short, and they don't give any specific examples of what they do or don't consider excessive, so it's hard to engage with. https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

There's obviously a line between reasonable debate and promoting intolerance (even if done unwittingly), which anybody is at risk of crossing. All sorts of attitudes that used to be totally acceptable in public are now totally unacceptable (eg many forms of open sexism and racism), and not many people would like to bring them back.

Other stuff is acceptable in some environments but unacceptable in others, and one of the challenges of the internet age is that environments are now much less sharply distinguished from one another.

So EPD's examples are obviously all terrible things that should get a public figure cancelled (and I hereby demand his removal as a forum overlord #cancelEPD), whereas lpm's discussion of transpeople in sports should perhaps be able to be handled sensitively, though I'd argue that the onus is on outsiders to be careful when they are debating other people's lives and identities.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Stephanie » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:44 pm

I'm just going to point again to your example, lpm:
lpm wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:45 pm
I know you realise "without the threat of reprisal" is in the context of extreme online abuse, being doxxed, your employer targeted with demands for your firing, people who follow you on social media being abused, co-workers being attacked for their associations with you...

Who here has ever joined a mob asking for someone to be fired?

Or has actually phoned/emailed an employer demanding someone be sacked?

For example:
Hi @UniofOxford, can you please release a statement confirming your Deputy Director of External Affairs and International Strategy has been fired by the end of the day.
Who here, apart from EPD, thinks this sort of reprisal is acceptable?
I searched it to find the context, which I referred to here:
Stephanie wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:07 pm
LPM's example (having googled) funnily enough came from someone suggesting a woman of colour deserved a bunch of abuse and death threats on twitter, because she posted a selfie eating an ice lolly
I've also looked at your post here:
lpm wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:24 pm
There's a lot of vague stuff, but the calls for more debate are not vague in the slightest:

"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted."

"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters."

"The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."

"We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences."
I don't see how this person's tweet reply, which lead to people calling him out, was in good faith, part of debate, or the free exchange of information and ideas. I guess it was evidence of "robust and even caustic counter-speech", but given earlier in this thread you condemned abuse and threats, and suggested that it contributed to restricting free speech, and called out EPD for what you saw as supporting abuse, I'm surprised you'd be okay with this.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:04 pm

You say the wrong-tweet was "someone suggesting a woman of colour deserved a bunch of abuse and death threats on twitter, because she posted a selfie eating an ice lolly".

The wording of the wrong-tweet appears to actually be "I guess you reap what you sow..."

These are different.

From a 7 word reply on twitter, an online mob hounded a person's employer to get him fired. Does this not shout to world "be risk averse"? Could this be an example of "ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes"? Or is getting this person fired a valid reprisal?

How about the person who typed #ISTANDWITHROWLING into the little twitter box.Should she have been more risk averse? Was it a clumsy mistake? What would be a valid reprisal? Was one of the mob tweets justified: "Fire and denounce X.... Please fire her and make sure to never hire another person like her again.” ? Was the response - to indeed fire her - justified?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by snoozeofreason » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:24 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:10 pm
Coming at this from a slightly different angle, I'm thinking about why writers and others are expressing their opinions in public. Do they see themselves as campaigners? As champions? Is it attention-seeking?
Well, one of the signatories is Wynton Marsalis. He's always blowing his own trumpet.
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
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Stephanie » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:27 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:04 pm
You say the wrong-tweet was "someone suggesting a woman of colour deserved a bunch of abuse and death threats on twitter, because she posted a selfie eating an ice lolly".

The wording of the wrong-tweet appears to actually be "I guess you reap what you sow..."

These are different.

From a 7 word reply on twitter, an online mob hounded a person's employer to get him fired. Does this not shout to world "be risk averse"? Could this be an example of "ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes"? Or is getting this person fired a valid reprisal?

How about the person who typed #ISTANDWITHROWLING into the little twitter box.Should she have been more risk averse? Was it a clumsy mistake? What would be a valid reprisal? Was one of the mob tweets justified: "Fire and denounce X.... Please fire her and make sure to never hire another person like her again.” ? Was the response - to indeed fire her - justified?
So what meaning of "you reap what you sow" do you think he meant in this context?
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:44 pm

I don't know.

But self-confessed non-readers like BoaF might be misled by your adaptation of the tweet, which appeared to imply the wrong-tweeter was hounding or abusing a woman of colour as part of a pattern. He might assume the wrong-tweeter said something like "You deserve to be abused, you bitch" or "I hope you die and you deserve all the death threats you get". These are, after all, fairly standard tweets seen everyday.

It's probably safe to say that any 7 word tweet that needs reinterpreting, with context being added from elsewhere or old history being dragged up, is not worthy of a "let's twitter fire this person" response in itself.

The demand for a firing wasn't "this person has a long track record of racist tweets and abusive tweets, and here's loads of examples". The demand for a firing was for the 7 words "I guess you reap what you sow..."
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

egbert26
Clardic Fug
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by egbert26 » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:54 pm

I would interpret the 'reap what you sow' thing to be about Ash Sarkar's ability to incite pile-ons, make out that anyone who is slightly more centrist than her is her enemy and the worst person ever, etc.

When I saw the Tweet I did have a bit of a laugh, particular as Owen 'join a union' Jones came to her rescue by calling for dismissal without due process.
It's what happens when they try to apply IATBMCTT with their willies...

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:07 pm

It certainly seems reasonable to give somebody an opportunity to clarify and/or apologise before calling for their sacking.

In the particular case of Craig Morley he does seem to be an actual c.nt (e.g. has called the climate crisis a "socialist Trojan horse") and probably did mean that Ash Sarkar deserved death threats, if not for being a woman or a Muslim then for being an outspoken socialist. It's not a good look for a Deputy Director of External Affairs and International Strategy, but maybe it was a typo or something.

Of course, the flip side of this coin is that an 'ambiguous' seven-word tweet isn't generally going to be a valuable contribution to public debate either (and nor are threats of violence, or selfies with ice lollies for that matter), so I don't think any of this is really an example of what the letter-writers are talking about. Seems a very odd example to pick.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:15 pm

It's a very good example.

If your career can be threatened by an ambiguous and casual 7 word tweet, or for that matter if you get death threats for posting a casual selfie having an ice lolly...

... just imagine what can happen if you offer an unapproved viewpoint about Black Lives Matter.

The triviality of it is what proves the toxicity and narrowing down that the letter writers talk about. Who dares venture into genuine debates and campaigning and offering disputing views in this environment?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:29 pm

I mean, I've read a lot of pieces from all sorts of people giving all sorts of perspectives on BLM over the last few weeks, so clearly plenty of people do feel comfortable discussing stuff. I'm not sure that a tweet from Owen Jones counts as a serious threat to one's career, either, but I'm sure I'd find it unpleasant if it happened to me.

I think the problem with the letter's vagueness is that it's going to be a bit of a Rorshach test where we all can read into what kind of contributions they're defending, and what kind of reactions they're opposed to. Sometimes twitter mobs are too quick to react, but equally there are plenty of people saying unpleasant things who continue to hold positions of power and influence. I don't think that the lines of acceptable public discourse are in the right place, but I'm also not convinced that cancel culture is the biggest problem to be honest. I think we need some evidence about what kind of things people would like to be discussing and who is put off from participating.

The examples that they give
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.
mostly suggest occasions where people have plenty of opportunity to express themselves carefully. If what they've expressed makes innocent people feel unwelcome or unsafe then they probably do have a case to answer, though permanently banning them from public life is maybe a bit extreme. Is that actually common, though?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Tessa K » Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:34 pm

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a genuine 'clumsy mistake' and someone rapidly backtracking when they get called out. The 'I mispoke' defence is very rarely acceptable, for example.

The problem is sometimes one of proportionate response. People who belong to certain groups that have historically been abused, discriminated against etc are going to react strongly to yet another example of this even it if it is not the worst. Understandably, they have had enough - final straw etc.

And perhaps people who want to express what they know will be contentious opinions should choose more carefully what medium they express them in. Twitter is never going to be a good place for any opinion that requires space for nuance and clarification. Anyone posting there surely knows by now what kind of response they will get, rightly or wrongly. If you're any kind of communicator as a career, judging the audience is/should be part of your skillset. The climate at the moment has reached fever pitch and anyone stoking the flames shouldn't be surprised when they get burnt. That doesn't mean it's right but it's disingenuous to Tweet and then flap your hands in horror.

If you want a reasoned debate then invite someone to debate with you, face to face, on screen or in print. If a subject is important enough to warrant public discussion, then do it right.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Stephanie » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:17 pm

I should also point out that some folk on this forum would support cancel culture and social pressure, for ooh, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, me/cfs treating doctors and the like.

Seems like we all have limits to what we consider acceptable speech, on social media, in magazines in shops, speaking at universities, in certain roles, but it largely depends on our politics and interests.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:39 pm

Evidence?

I don't believe anyone here would, say, demand a 5G Covid conspiracy theorist be fired from their job.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by plodder » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:51 pm

Wouldn't it depend on what their job was?

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Cancel culture

Post by dyqik » Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:59 am

plodder wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:51 pm
Wouldn't it depend on what their job was?
Health Secretary, for example...

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:19 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:39 pm
Evidence?

I don't believe anyone here would, say, demand a 5G Covid conspiracy theorist be fired from their job.
On the old Bad Science forum, someone wrote to the GMC pointing out the medical b.llsh.t on a certain GP's website, some of which appeared to be dangerous b.llsh.t. That was a clear attempt to get someone at least disciplined, if not banned from practising medicine. People from here and the old BS forum have written to supermarkets to get WDDTY removed, have contacted people's employers to point out their social media posts (that one was about bleach). And so on.

So yes, if a GP, for instance, was a 5G covid conspiracy theorist, then I'd be entirely unsurprised and even passively supportive if people demanded the GMC investigate them.

Edit: Just another point - you might not like it, but someone writing to an employer, whether officially or on twitter, demanding they be fired is itself freedom of speech. The employer is free to acquiesce, investigate, refuse or ignore them. Or are you saying that freedom of speech should only apply to people who write extraordinarily popular books about wizards?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by plodder » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:32 am

I think what we're seeing here is a change in who gets to do the cancelling. Previously awkward people were excluded or marginalised from our newspapers and televisions, people like environmental campaigners, anti-racist campaigners, people with bright ideas at odds with the views of media moghuls.

Social media is now taking a leading role, and we see different people moving towards the shade. I'm not sure it's the end of civilisation tbh, and although it's an immature process I think there's a fair chance it might lead to an improvement in the end.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:33 am

I also wonder how many of those bemoaning the modern day "cancellation culture" also partook in the cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Cancel culture

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:35 am

And remember David Tredinnick being elected to the Health Select Committee in 2010? Pretty sure people here would've been supportive of him being refused or sacked from that position, or forced to resign from it.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:40 am

So a GP who promotes 5G covid conspiracies on twitter is legitimate?

How about a bloke who flogs sofas at DFS in Basingstoke? Should we contact his employer when he rants about face masks being designed to channel the 5G covid rays?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Stephanie » Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:10 am

plodder wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:32 am
I think what we're seeing here is a change in who gets to do the cancelling. Previously awkward people were excluded or marginalised from our newspapers and televisions, people like environmental campaigners, anti-racist campaigners, people with bright ideas at odds with the views of media moghuls.

Social media is now taking a leading role, and we see different people moving towards the shade. I'm not sure it's the end of civilisation tbh, and although it's an immature process I think there's a fair chance it might lead to an improvement in the end.
This is pretty much where I am.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:22 am

Stephanie wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:10 am
plodder wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:32 am
I think what we're seeing here is a change in who gets to do the cancelling. Previously awkward people were excluded or marginalised from our newspapers and televisions, people like environmental campaigners, anti-racist campaigners, people with bright ideas at odds with the views of media moghuls.

Social media is now taking a leading role, and we see different people moving towards the shade. I'm not sure it's the end of civilisation tbh, and although it's an immature process I think there's a fair chance it might lead to an improvement in the end.
This is pretty much where I am.
Yes, I think this is well put.

I think perhaps we're seeing a democratisation of the "cancellation" process, to the extent that there have always been boundaries on acceptable public discourse, and with that there might be some of the problems attendant in democracy.

The gatekeepers of public discourse are being challenged to think about the views of a wider set of views and experiences beyond their core readership and advertisers etc, as we're now in an age where information travels further and faster. It isn't necessarily a bad thing that they tread carefully in certain areas. It depends.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by lpm » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:37 am

You all think we're muddling through to a better place? When lesbians are being driven off twitter, when a black MP has to shut down her office because of threats orchestrated online, when the colleagues of a journalist who wrote about BLM are hounded to denounce him?

It's not going to be financially secure white men who suffer the most, the establishment are never going to be marginalised. Using chemical warfare on enemies just leads to them using it on you - and it's the privates in the trenches who are left fumbling with their gas masks. What was once incels using mustard gas on women during Gamergate has now become lefties unleashing Novichok nerve gas against the wrong sort of lefties. This isn't a conflict over great moral crimes like apartheid in South Africa, this is warfare over someone using poorly chosen words when arguing US police kill too many people.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
nekomatic
Dorkwood
Posts: 1376
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by nekomatic » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:51 am

The problem with suggesting that people who don't want to be misinterpreted should stay off Twitter is that it only works if people who influence wider opinion, like journalists and politicians, agree to follow you to wherever else you're sharing your more nuanced and considered views. Otherwise it just cedes the space to the intemperate.
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Cancel culture

Post by Bewildered » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:03 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:17 am
As I argued in another place, there always have been attempts to deny certain people an opportunity to speak.

In the 1970s and 80s there were demonstrations against far right speakers at universities and for example Labour MPs were instructed not to share platforms with National Front speakers, or racists like Enoch Powell. There was never a golden age in which people with very different views would sit down and have a civil debate.

What seems to have changed is that the targets of no-platforming or cancelling appear to have shifted. Nowadays people who regard themselves as being left wing have called for no-platforming of people who would regard themselves as being liberals, progressives or centrists. Perhaps its a generational thing, people whose beliefs were radical a few decades ago now find that there is a whole new set of people who are more radical, or perhaps radical in different ways.

For example, there is a petition with getting on for 600 signatories by "members of the linguistics community calling for the removal of Dr. Steven Pinker from both our list of distinguished academic fellows and our list of media experts" based upon the content of some things he's written.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Zq ... gmail_link

I'm not going to defend everything that Pinker wrote (and I've disagreed with some of it), but it seems to me that there is a very big gap between him and someone like Enoch Powell.
I agree that its changed that way, but i don't think only that way and specifically not only in the direction (harder or younger left -> older or more establishment figures). Maybe specifically with no platforming it is, but the letter is broader than that
But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
Whether it was right or wrong to do, I think this also describes how establishment and centrists have behaved towards further left wing people who have managed to find themselves a platform. I got the impression from one of the names mentioned here and from the reaction of the posters here that this is mostly being read in a transphobia vs feminists* context and looking at the names of the whole list I see a few that fit that and a few people that i think signed it with an islamaphobia vs liberals and/or homophobia and/or feminists* context in mind. However I could easily see it being signed by some radical voices with antisemitism vs hard left* in mind, and maybe it was (noam choamsky who is radical left in the same sense corbyn is signed it, not sure what he had in mind or even what his position on corbyn or other divisive issues on the left relating to antisemitism claims are if any). Anyway, my feeling it is just part of the political and social culture now. The right do it too I think, just over other things, or sometimes over the same things in a fairly transparent and disingenuous** attempt to portray the left as hypocrites or generate victim mentality amongst privileged groups.

* I am trying to write this (and most of my post) in a neutral way that doesn't presuppose one side is right..though i may have failed and I dpo of course have my own views on each issue/

** yeah this part is where I am deliberately not being neutral.

Post Reply