Ok, cool. I disagree, but I don’t really know that it changes anything.
As I noted above, I don’t think cancelling is inherently bad, I think there are situations where it’s a totally valid thing to do. I wouldn’t call someone facing consequences for being a sex criminal “cancelling”, any more than locking up a murderer or violent assaulter is “cancelling”; but if you insist on calling #metoo “cancelling” then someone facing consequences for committing rape or sexual assault would be an appropriate situation for consequences to be doled out.
Resorting to snark, as you so often do, does not advance the discussion. In fact, it can reasonably be interpreted as trolling. You need to find better ways to carry on your discussions, or stay out of them.
I’m issuing you another formal warning for engaging in a personal attack. You’re racking these up. We will escalate moderation if you continue to engage in this way.
@Babale is not the only one throwing snark in this thread. Both, dial it back. You’re not in the Pit. None of this facilitates a productive discussion on a subject that provokes high feelings.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding what a “safe space” is. By definition a safe space is not supposed to be safe for everyone, because its intended to keep out the people who are making things unsafe.
Absolutely fucking baffled how you read my last two posts and came away with, “Miller thinks autistic people are jerks.” The entire point of the analogy is they aren’t being jerks, they’re just being themselves, and if I bitched about it, I’m the jerk for going into their space and demanding they act according to my preferences.
Do you honestly feel this is accurate, or are you indulging in a bit of hyperbole? Erm, worse than murder? People are lying to you about what they perceive to be basic politeness?
There’s no “sophistry” in pointing out the amoral selfishness of capitalism when a corporation, its interests and its wealthy employee are the subjects under consideration, and the supposed beneficence of that corporation is raised as though it were a fact.
I had a similar question. What “minor failings” are treated as “worse than murder”, and by whom?
And who is lying? Basic politeness does indeed change over time. The “n word” was once generally acceptable, and is now understood to be, at best, rude in almost every circumstance. The “f word” was once always rude and abrasive, and now is often just a show of minor frustration. And i don’t know anyone who cares if you use the fish fork for your salad.
Every society has rules of politeness, and it behooves people who don’t want to be relegated to “crazy obnoxious old guy” to keep up.
This isn’t the thread to debate capitalism as a concept; snark aside, all I’m saying is that if your argument is “we can’t trust these reports because they are a product of capitalism” then you aren’t going to be making a very convincing point to anyone who is not already a dedicated anti-capitalist.
You come closer to making a fleshed out argument in this quoted post, where you explain that your objection is that the corporation is portrayed as beneficent when in fact they’re acting in their own self interest. Unlike simply pointing out that the corporation is a capitalistic entity, this explains why you think this is a problem.
However, the argument is a strawman. No one thinks that the corporation is beneficent. The corporation only cares about its own interests. What #Metoo has accomplished (beyond individual prosecutions of specific perpetrators) is a cultural shift, that caused corporations to face a large cost if they were perceived by the public to be supporting or enabling sexual predators in their ranks.
AMC may only have investigated Hardwick for selfish reasons related to their own bottom line; but if they had found evidence that he was guilty of serious wrongdoing, AMC would have happily fired him to protect their own brand.
I would guess, rather, that is they found “proof that was likely to become public” that he was guilty of serious wrongdoing, they would reluctantly have fired him to protect their own brand.
I think that if he makes money for them, so long as they were comfortable that no one would conclusively prove his guilt, they would prefer to keep him making money for them.
And that’s why i think the results of an unreleased investigation don’t tell us much. If he were provably innocent, i expect they would have released the results. And if he we’re provably guilty in a way they couldn’t cover up, i expect they would drop him and distance themselves from him. Given the actual outcome, i think we don’t know what happened.
That sounds incredibly risky to me. Look at it through a game theory lens.
If Hardwick is guilty and you investigated him and brushed it under the table, and later on evidence conclusively showing his guilt does come out - literally anything, a text, an email, a video - then AMC is in far more trouble than they would have been if they simply refused to investigate Hardwick to begin with.
Have you considered “the fallacy of the excluded middle”? That Hardwick, an imperfect human being, might have done some fairly awful things in that relationship? I’m pretty sure he did, and he in fact admitted as much.
Yeah, I’m not here to defend Hardwick or condemn Dykstra as some seem to think. What I believe is that in the complicated realities of an intense and conflicted relationship, both did some pretty despicable things. But it was clearly Dysktra – not Hardwick – who went on the offensive with that article, replete with all her own emotionally-driven biases. And it was clearly Dysktra who declined to participate in the investigation that she must obviously have known it would spawn, where she could have supported her accusations.
How about the excluded everything? Since we have literally no facts about what actually happened – only the written words of Dysktra – maybe we should just hold back any judgment at all and ensure we aren’t piling a bunch more shit on the giant mountain of shit that women facing abuse already have to deal with?
What despicable things do you believe this early 20 something woman did during her relationship with a famous man 20 years older than her? Who was also her boss.
Have you considered not speculating on a subject where you have very little actual information?
It’s entirely possible that Dykstra made everything up to harm Hardwick.
It’s entirely possible that everything Dykstra said was true, but she was intimidated into not pressing the matter.
Or it could be one of a dozen equally plausible scenarios in between, and none of us have anywhere near enough information to say which is more likely to be true than the other.
What we can say is that there was an accusation against a celebrity, the celebrity’s employer suspended them briefly while they investigated the accusation, and when it was unsubstantiated, he was able to resume working. Which sounds like exactly how this sort of thing should be handled, so I’m confused why it’s been offered as an example of a problem with “cancel culture.”
Hmm. I’m pretty sure that’s not true. IME it’s presented as a place where behaviour (usually language) is policed to protect certain groups of people. It’s not supposed to be so drastically discriminatory that you are banning people just because of who they are, even if that might be the result in practice.
It was this line:
This seems to imply that not only do non-masking autists make you uncomfortable, you perceive them as jerkish . “Everyone” is a fairly strong term to use here. Maybe you didn’t mean it, but it’s a reasonable read of your statement. I was surprised by it, I’ve gotta say.
And, you know, autistic people are not obliged to stay in some kind of segregated space, or to put on an act of normalcy outside it. Any more than queer people are. If either of those things makes people uncomfortable, that’s their problem. It’s not their business to police how other people express themselves.
I often see leftists talking about the root causes of crime, and generally making excuses for criminals. And they say prison should be about rehabilitation, and criminals should be helped to find employment, and reintegrated in society after release. And then social justice supporters demand that people be fired, and pressure their friends to denounce them, for mildly going against the progressive consensus on some issue. Seen it 100 times on Twitter. Maybe it’s not actually the same people? But it’s hard to avoid feeling that bigotry has more moral weight for these people than actual serious crimes. It reminds me of how certain Christians have a whole long list of sins to worry about, but for some reason, the only one they care about is homosexuality.
Using the fish fork for your salad has been replaced by saying ‘homeless’ instead of ‘unhoused’ or ‘BAME’ instead of ‘people of the global majority’. It’s 90% signalling that you’re part of the ‘in crowd’; only instead of seeing the ignorant as low class, you get to denounce them as immoral instead.
And people do use pleas to be polite as a way to hobble opposition - by using euphemistic language to hide what is really happening, and by defining any way to talk about a particular concept as offensive, newspeak-style: if there is no word for the concept, a heretical thought will be literally unthinkable, or at least inexpressible.