Worry about the how means you can’t address the why?
There is nothing mutually exclusive here. In fact, a focus on the how can help reinforce the why.
No, it won’t. That is exactly why Trump is twitting out “cancel culture” in every sentence.
Sure, you can argue that if everyone were clovis8 the world would be great, but you can’t deny that in the actual reality we are in the “how matters” is used overwhelmingly by people who are interested in removing criticism for their actions.
This is a really good point and frames the debate much better than I have thus far.
I can see your point about going too far right now and it clearly has merit.
I have been focussed on the collateral damage in my argument but I do obviously see the value of the mechanism itself. I conceded that early in this discussion. I have no problem with calling people out for bad ideas. That is an undeniable good. Full stop.
I just want us to try out best to match the response to the offence and to allow people to change their minds.
I’m simply saying that if we acknowledge we go overboard once in awhile we should allow that it does matter in “how” we call out.
lol the fuck. how can someone just admit that every post he wrote in this thread was wrong and still feel like he was right all along. I swear I would kill for that ability.
3 Likes
I absolutely think that publishing Cotton’s op-ed was appropriate and five years ago no one would have batted an eye at it. That’s what an op-ed page is, publishing different viewpoints. Instead of getting the guy fired run a bunch of letters and op-ed’s responding to Cotton’s arguments. Tell us why they’re bad. But Cotton’s general thesis had something like 50% support in the country. So should a sitting US Senator be allowed to express his vision of an idea that half the country supports in the NYT op ed page? Of course. That’s what an op ed page is for (or it used to be).
I certainly think that the Times should publish a wider range of viewpoints. That would be great.
“Allow”? I’m certainly against laws banning Nazism or holocaust denial or anything like that. We should certainly allow that debate so that the very large majority of the people who are against that nonsense can decisively win that argument. Should holocaust denial or a defense of Nazism be published in the New York Times op-ed pages? Of course not. It’s an incredibly fringe view that has zero support in the country.
Because of course this didn’t happen. I read a good point and acknowledged it (gasp) which allowed me to further clarify my point (gasp).
That’s not a failing. It’s discussion working.
Just because someone is “canceled” right now doesn’t mean they are canceled for all time. They will likely have time for rehabilitation in the future if their sins are not too great and if they appear apologetic. Or maybe the bar will be lower.
If you concede that there are some behaviors worthy of being punished by social shaming, then for that punishment to be effective, it needs to be strong enough that people can’t just decide to hunker down and try to wait for the storm to pass.
People should be allowed to change their minds, but maybe they should be given the space to change their minds by putting them in a social time-out instead of carrying on as if nothing as changed. Oppressed peoples want to see their oppressors have their fair share of discomfort. I would not deny them that spectacle.
anyway, cancel culture is acceptably defined as a form of boycott. I will guess it’s a case of ok boomer type of thing, but i’m not sure, maybe I’m underestimating you.
There’s a reason why Bari Weiss is on that letter. It’s because she think that adding ‘cancel culture’ the lexicon will help her fight against Boycotting Israel. She is absolutely right.
There’s a reason why Bari Weiss whines that everything is anti-semitism, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as anti-semitism. She whines that all criticism is unfair. That doesn’t mean that none is. Contrapoints is someone who defines cancelling in a different way and it sounds pretty right and Noam Chomsky isn’t signing the letter so he can fight against boycotting Israel.
1 Like
Well said.
But you didn’t answer the question. What is your definition of “Cancel Culture” and do you think that definition is commonly accepted?
I don’t really know, but South Africa being cancelled sounds like the furthest thing off the mark. Online shaming of not powerful people seems like part of it and sometimes it’s something I’d agree with and other times not. Some professors resigning or something is probably also part of it, but just because Bari Weiss or Ben Shapiro concern trolls over it doesn’t mean it’s something that one must think is always ok.
I never fished for the question.
What? So you don’t know the definition, but the only right one is hidden inside a 90 minute youtube that you are not allowed do discuss?
Every definition of Cancel Culture includes a form of boycotting. I don’t understand why you’re posting so poorly itt, but I alluded to that in my first post here. Shrug.
Lol. So it’s always a form of boycotting means all forms of boycotting are it? Maybe you’re just a dumb kid. Your suggestion that boycotting a country is part of cancel culture is pretty far off I think.
1 Like
“you think”, yet you have no idea what the definition is and how people are commonly using the phrase, yet I’m a dumb kid.
it doesn’t appear you are interested in any debate here (like you unironically declined to argue unless someone watch a 90 minute youtube), but fwiw it will be pretty hard to insult me by saying i’m “dumb”. Good effort tho.
If you say it means a bottle of ketchup I know you’re wrong without having to define something that obviously people use differently - though no one else has ever suggested that boycotting a country counts.
I’m not asking to argue and don’t want to. I suggested watching the video because it’s a good video on the subject. If you don’t want to watch it, that’s your loss.
Meh, you are aware that “Cancel Culture” is being used by Trump and the right as a tool to fight metoo, BLM, BDS and others, correct?
I can’t tell if you’re being a useful idiot for that cause or you just trolling.
I think the ContraPoints definition is pretty good:
canceling is online shaming, vilifying and ostracizing of prominent members of a community by other members of that community.
A Wikipedia search for “cancel culture” redirects to the “online shaming” article. While boycotts, getting people fired etc are also part of the deal, the essence of it is using the threat of a mob shaming to induce people to express conforming opinions.
Edit, the opening sentence of the Wiki article is this:
Online shaming , also called " call-out culture "[1] or " cancel culture ",[2] is a form of public shaming in which targets are publicly humiliated on the internet, via social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Facebook), or more localized media (e.g. email groups).
The key word here is “culture”. The contention is not that it’s never appropriate to shame people for their opinions, the contention is that there’s a cultural movement who are far too willing to resort to this when it ought to be used more sparingly.
1 Like
Also I don’t see why we should give a shit how Trump uses the word, the phrase “fake news” has been co-opted into meaninglessness by the MAGA types, but that doesn’t mean fake news did not exist or wasn’t a genuine problem.
3 Likes