Cancel Culture and Canceling versus consequences for actions

In your previous comment, you sounded approving of the idea that ordinary people have gained the power to shut down opinions they don’t like. Do you think it’s a good thing or not?

You also seen to hold the somewhat-contradictory idea that people collectively can use social pressure to change or suppress beliefs, yet you don’t believe people collectively have the power to encourage support and respect for free speech. I would say if the first is true then the second must be also, and it’s what we should strive to do.

“Walking on eggshells” = “thinking about what I say”. Oh noes. The oppression.

I guess the real point here is that the government is using these laws against left-wing movements as well as right. Which is perfectly true, and a good reason for left-wingers to oppose them.

That’s not any novelty of ideological zealotry, that’s a novelty of technology-enabled artificial universal intimacy. I.e., social media.

Yes, everybody now needs to conduct themselves in public as though the whole world was watching them. Because at any given moment, the whole world might be.

That is indeed a rather irksome necessity, but it’s not the fault of “cancel culture”: it’s the fault of social media culture, in which people foolishly, but voluntarily, participate as though their actions were visible only to the people immediately around them, and those intimates they choose to share with.

Life is never actually going to be that way again, and the sooner everybody realizes that and figures out how to behave themselves in public, the better.

Movements like #MeToo happen in the first place because there is no functional due process that addresses their claims. MeToo happened because of decades of abuse from monsters like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, or Jimmy Saville that was absolutely ignored by the legal system. You’re worried about accountability, maybe start there? Two out of three of the people on that list got away scot free despite committing literally hundreds of rapes.

Yes, in the eight years since the #MeToo movement started, Woody Allen, who is currently ninety, was only able to write and direct three movies. Who knows how many more cinematic masterpieces we might have gotten from that nonagenarian dynamo, had he not been stifled by the perfidious hand of #MeToo?

And while Chris Hardwick probably got a raw deal over getting fired from The Talking Dead, he’s worked steadily since then. Sure, losing a job sucks, but again, the other side of the ledger here is literally hundred of rapes.

I agree, it would be ideal if stuff like this were handled by the legal system. But when the legal system completely fails to do anything about it, for decade after decade, what other recourse do you suggest?

It doesn’t make sense to lump Hardwick in with the likes of actual serial rapists. It also isn’t right to get someone fired and hurt their reputation and justify it by callously saying they’re just necessary collateral damage in the war against sexual predators and rapists. Movements lose credibility by doing that as well as grouping different bad behaviors and the people that engage in them under a single umbrella. A bad date or an inappropriate joke shouldn’t ever be conflated with serial rape and assault.

For the people who are saying that people have their lives ruined over cancelling: can you provide some examples? Because I can’t think of a canceled person who genuinely faced severe repercussions unless they literally went to jail. Morgan Wallen is still a huge country star. Dr Luke still has hits. Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Dave Chappelle, Chris Brown, all doing fine.

The legal system didn’t “fail”, IMHO. What failed was societal norms that tolerated various forms of bigotry and misogyny.

When societal norms changed, so did laws and legal protections. Social media initiatives like MeToo were helpful in promoting those legal changes. But they are not helpful in preventing accusations in social media with no accountability whatsoever that can tank the promising careers of blameless victims, and drive a culture of hype and provocative drama that encourages the promulgation of libel.

What legal changes do you think pre-dated the MeToo movement? My recollection is very much that any changes were sparked by the MeToo movement not the other way around.

But let’s look at a more recent example: P Diddy just got off on charges supported by dozens of women that he raped, abused, and trafficked people for decades, a clear failure of the justice system. Oh, and maybe ordered the hit on Tupac, and probably put a car bomb in Kid Cudi’s car. Is it morally wrong of me to stop supporting him, and post about his disgusting actions? If you think it is wrong, then me and you are just never going to agree. If you agree that it’s not wrong, how is that different from cancel culture?

Most people who get canceled (in one form or another) aren’t rich or famous. You just hear about them because they’re already known to the public and it’s salacious. Most people who get canceled don’t have the same resources or safety net as a celebrity. They’re normal people but you’ll almost certainly never hear about them outside of a single article (likely local). I’d like to add that cancel culture still very much exists even if it fails to completely ruin its targets every single time. Those people you named continued to be successful despite serious efforts to ruin their careers (justified or not). Deservedness aside, if I try to kill someone and fail I can’t get away with it by telling the police I didn’t do it because if I did try to kill them they’d be dead. The act is in the attempt.

To answer your question, here is a list of cancel culture examples and an article addressing the claim that it doesn’t exist. Make of them what you will.

Are you sure you’re not exaggerating the damage to Hardwick here? AFAICT, an online essay was published on June 14, 2018 making some statements that many interpreted as accusing Hardwick of abuse. On July 25, AMC announced that an investigation had failed to confirm any abuse allegations and Hardwick would be reinstated in his roles in their shows. NBC and Nerdist followed suit on July 31 and August 10, respectively.

I don’t approve of false accusations against anybody, but I think it’s reasonable to default to taking accusations seriously. And I don’t think it’s irresponsible or overreacting for the career of a wealthy celebrity to be paused for 1-2 months while accusations against him are investigated. We’re not talking death penalty here.

And I don’t think there’s anything “callous” or immoral about that attitude. Yes it sucks to have something like that happen to you, and maliciously bringing a false accusation to damage somebody is inexcusable, but no, it is not unreasonable or wrong to accept that occasionally a falsely accused innocent person will have to put up with hassle and reputational repercussions from a consequent investigation.

This. So much this.

The issue is, I also wholeheartedly agree that firing someone for something they said five years ago is ridiculous, and we need protections to keep workers from being fired for trivial reasons. Almost always, though, when this conversation comes up, it involves someone who should be at least reprimanded.

If I found out that someone on my team was part of some kind of a white supremacist rally last weekend, and word of that got out to the rest of the team, I would have no choice but to fire that individual because there would be no way to keep the rest of the team healthy after that.

Someone else mentioned promoting violence, and I’d have to fire someone for that as well because having that person at work puts everyone at risk.

But at the same time, on my team right now are two individuals who I have heard say things out of work that are definitely inappropriate. One was attacking the LGBT community pretty hard core during a get together we had about ten years ago. That’s the point where I realized I should stop attending after-work events. I ended up leading the team he is on a few years later. I have not directly addressed that event, but at the same time, I’ve made it very clear that we respect everyone on the team (even him). I also have someone on my team who, at work, made some very negative comments about “woke culture” in a team meeting. I made it clear to him that he would need to have those types of conversations in a more respectful way, and as a result, we actually now talk one on one about “woke culture” in a healthy way from time to time.

He felt like he was being singled out for being a white male. He was being singled out because of what he said and the way he said it. I helped him understand that we can have a conversation about why Latinos get their own club as long as we have that conversation respectfully.

One of my sayings used to be “if we go around calling each other Hitler all the time, then no one is gonna notice when a real Hitler shows up.”

So I created a set of rules. This is what someone needs to do in order to declare them Nazi:

  1. Spread racist, misogynist, or other type of rhetoric that creates separate classes of people
  2. Attack or nullify the independent judiciary
  3. Wage war on independent media
  4. Discredit free elections
  5. Attempt and/or support a putsch

I never thought I’d ever see all five in my lifetime, but here we are.

Mostly pretty feeble and wide of the mark, AFAICT. Taking the examples from your link in order:

Food service company employees were fired for allegedly not following company policy about celebrating Black History Month, after many diners protested. The problem wasn’t “cancel culture”, it was “corporate culture”: as in, the company had a stupid policy that a lot of its customers predictably objected to, and responded to the objections by scapegoating two singled-out employees.

Yoga studio management, apparently after years of ignoring complaints and requests from non-white and LGBTQ staff about their policy, goes broke from a combination of COVID lockdown and customer criticisms, despite introducing some “too little, too late” performatively “woke” changes.

White hospital employee posts anti-BLM Facebook video defensively fuming “See, I’m a white woman and I’m proud to be a white woman, and I’m not going to ask for forgiveness for something that my ancestors did, that I didn’t […] You can kiss my ass.” Complaints to her employer lead to her firing, despite her damage control efforts in a subsequent video claiming that “I’m angry because everybody is forcing us to support Black Lives Matter”.

(See my remark in a previous post about people figuring out how to behave themselves in public. Telling protestors against ongoing anti-Black racism and discrimination that they can “kiss [your] ass” because you’re not a slaveowner is not behaving yourself in public.

Should that sort of rude and ignorant public behavior be illegal? No, absolutely not, and nobody in this situation is trying to make it so. Should its reputational repercussions for your employer be overlooked or waved away on the grounds that it’s just your “personal beliefs” (that you voluntarily presented for the world to see in your attempt to call attention to what you think)? Nope, not really.)

A company gets boycotts and threats because of viciously racist and antisemitic social media posts made eight years previously by the owner’s teenage daughter, who subsequently cleaned up her act and took a leading role in the company business. This is IMHO the least bullshit of the listed attempts to portray damaging excessiveness of “cancel culture”, because I think children are entitled to more of a pass for past shitty behavior, because children. At the same time, though, it’s hard to argue with the anger of people upset about being expected to respect or deal with a prominent local business leader who in her adolescence, in a public forum, literally called for Jews and Blacks to be gassed, used extreme racial slurs, etc. Not to mention being expected to respect and deal with the company CEO who enabled her subsequent career success, although his leniency is understandable given his feelings as a father.

A private school teacher was fired for his weird “apology” to a student who had complained about the teacher’s mentioning in class that he thought abortion was wrong. For some reason, his apology to the student in front of the class and his supervisors contained the information that he “liked her” and considered her “a bright and engaging student”, which (not unreasonably, ISTM) was deemed inappropriately personal for the context. Given that the linked news article is from the strongly anti-abortion religiously conservative Christian Institute, and even they don’t manage to make the administrators’ decision look 100% irrationally tyrannical, I’m not at all convinced that there’s been any grave injustice done here.

The remainder of the listed examples are similar, with the occasional honest misunderstanding (e.g., a complaint that a truck driver was making a “white power” hand gesture, which he probably wasn’t, as the complainer later agreed).

Again, this whole issue is primarily about social media reach and ubiquity, not about intolerance per se. AFAICT, the vast majority of the responses in every case were simply individuals expressing their disagreement with and disapproval of the “canceled” person’s publicly expressed views. The difference nowadays is merely that enough of those individuals have access to public forums that employers are worried about reputational consequences for themselves.

That doesn’t make the individual expressions of disagreement and disapproval wrong or unethical, though. Like I said, the real problem here is not “cancel culture” but corporate culture. Companies are not giving employees adequate guidance on their behavior expectations, or doing due diligence about their own policies, and then expecting just to duck any conflicts by ditching employees who become “controversial”.

But it is not. I don’t “walk on eggshells” I just try to respect norms of coexistence and ethics and, in the end, “read the room” as to appropriateness. As people have done for ages. All the while also holding that, yes, Nazis ought to be shut down whenever they pop up.

Do some people have a broader range than I may of what ought to be tolerated? Yes. And others have a narrower one. Always been so.

(Which TBF did not have to be this way but to have prioritized privacy over connection when it all started would have meant foregoing profit and fun.) And even if not themselves doing the publishing, in much of our world they are surrounded by people with a networked media device. We are ALL on a hot mic or in a pap’s camera range, anymore.

Just looked at the first example:

“This is what it’s like to be a black student at New York University,” Nia wrote in her Facebook post. “You go to a dining hall during February and you see ‘Black History Month Meal’ plastered outside the entrance. You walk inside the dining hall only to find ribs, collard greens, and mac and cheese.

“In 2018 I literally had to explain why displaying watermelon and koolaid in celebration of Black History Month was not only racially insensitive but just ignorant.”

Nope, trying to make the intolerant to be guys to be protected is not a good example. BTW, many here are not saying that cancelling does not exist, just that many on the right are just forgetting why cancelling is sometimes justified in the past and in more recent times.

New definition of extremism (2024) - GOV.UK.

In investigating whether an individual, group, organisation or behaviour can be considered “extremist”, government has a responsibility to ensure fair and reasonable judgements are made, which are justified based on a careful consideration of the context, quality, and quantity of available evidence. Any action or ideology that may be extremist must be considered in its wider context, where possible drawing on a range of evidence, to assess whether it forms part of a wider pattern of behaviour and whether that pattern of behaviour has been conducted with the aim of promoting or advancing an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance.

Perhaps a good example might be the three students at a Catholic private school in California who got attacked for “blackface” and expelled when what they had actually done was post a somewhat silly photo of themselves in acne masks several years earlier. Yes, two of them managed to get some compensation from the school last year.

While I don’t think very highly of the Free Press, they did post an interesting interview with one of the students who managed to play college football at Drake, but who apparently felt like he could find himself going through the whole thing all over again at any time if someone decided to make an issue of the event.

Perhaps, although I see it more as school administrators being dumb.

Nowadays one has to see the very dumb and bigoted (it can be both) efforts of the current US administration, accusing every effort of fairness (like DEI) as being evil, and because of it, cancelling the livelihoods or opportunities of thousands of people in government and education too.

I think anything people say or do should be up for comment, threat of suicide regardless. That’s agency. Or consequences. That’s not punishment, any more than them not suffering consequences (the usual situation) is a reward..

It’s when the suicides come from what people are that it’s abhorrent. The inverse of your stance.

If that is to be the bright line methinks someone’s important and relevant truths are not going to be allowed.

Ask Jeremy Corbin how left-wing Labour is now…