“Cancel culture” is a tactic, nothing more. It can be used for good or for ill. I’m in favor of using it for good and against using it for ill.
I think—perhaps hope—that’s a false dichotomy: to get rid of racism once and for all, it won’t suffice to create a culture that merely suppresses racist views, but that instead openly challenges and exposes them. Because the danger of having a rampant streak of suppressed racism running through society is that at some point, things boil over, and people elect Donald Trump, and PoCs will indeed suffer the consequences. Racism suppressed isn’t racism eliminated. We’ve repainted the walls, but the rot is still in the stonework.
Which is precisely the opposite of what I’m trying to argue for.
And again with the ‘it’s always been this way, so that’s the way it’ll always be’. With that attitude, no social change at all will ever be effected.
The fact that you think it must be simple and that my point is that it ought not be that simple, is where we can’t seem to reach an understanding. IMO.
So closing a sandwich shop and making the employees redundant is good, in your opinion?
And driving a Youtuber credited with deradicalising young men from the alt-right off twitter is a good thing?
And bankrupting small businesses selling knitting supplies is a good thing?
Depends on the circumstances. Can be good, bad, or meh.
On the face of it, that sounds bad. But that was threats and harassment, not what I’m advocating for. Threats and harassment are always bad.
Could be good, bad, or meh, depending on the circumstances.
Isn’t the racism being openly challenged and exposed NOW? During the Trump era? But there are a lot of people who think the open racism, which is challenged and exposed, sounds pretty good. And the challenging and exposing is wrong. So I don’t actually believe it to be a false dichotomy at all - the Trump era is where racism is in the open and being openly challenged and exposed.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the world is a better place than 10 years ago? Do you think your tactics are working? Because I don’t. The right is stronger than ever, and the left has turned on itself. Both sides have apparently abandoned any kind of commitment to reality. How can you think this is a good thing?
This both sides crap is just nonsense. No, the left and liberals are not to blame for Trump and the racists. I don’t buy that the right is “stronger than ever”, at least not based on a single election (2016). 2018 took us back towards reality and decency, and hopefully 2020 will continue this.
“Could be good, bad or meh”, is a really lazy way to think, or a deliberate attempt to avoid acknowledging the problems on the left.
Look, we all want to be rid of Trump. But let’s try to look beyond the immediate goal. Neither Biden nor the next generation of democrats will usher in a new era of comity. If we, as liberals, do not learn to pick our battles and the way we choose to fight them, we are going to be up to our necks in enemies and battles we cannot win.
Sounds fine to me. Sandwich shops aren’t going to be the battleground, and thus don’t require more than a tiny bit of consideration.
EDIT: Also, this sounds like a tactical disagreement. That’s fine – let’s find the best tactics to beat Trump and co.
This reminds me so much of the debates about #MeToo – people (mostly men) worried it was going too far, and would backfire. That was and still is nonsense – finally we have a chance as a society to start treating sexual assault and rape (and generalized mistreatment of women) with the seriousness it deserves. Maybe some #MeToo advocates have made mistakes, but these are absolutely minuscule compared to what’s going on on the other side (the Trumpian treat-women-like-shit side).
Liberals just can’t leave each other alone – everything has to be a fight with each other. #MeToo is right. The most strident opponents of Trump and co are right. The enemies are the obvious – Trump and co. That’s where the problem is, not with his critics and opponents.
It’s not. It’s an ethical disagreement first, and a tactical one second. Ruining people’s lives and livelihoods because of a small ideological disagreement is wrong.
I agree with this. But choosing a different sandwich isn’t ruining people’s lives and livelihoods. And Trump vs his opponents is not “a small ideological disagreement”.
Uh, you don’t think it has backfired?
Not even close. There’s been tons of pushback – but the choices were “push hard for women to be treated decently despite the pushback” or “stop pushing so hard”. There’s a lot more progress that needs to be made, but we’ve made a lot of progress in the last few years, and this was precisely because #MeToo advocates pushed so hard.
I agree that the enemies should be obvious but it doesn’t seem that people agree based on how they (haven’t) altered their rhetoric over the past 12 years as outright racism has been increasing in visibility. There are still a whole lot of people who blame what they perceive as lukewarm liberals for the lack of progress rather than the people who started to come out of the woodwork when Obama became president.
Of course it’s possible that I’m mistaken, after all, as I’ve pointed out before, even a large change in attitudes is difficult to subjectively notice, since only hearing an argument half as much as before still leaves plenty of room to think it’s still as prevalent. It’s possible that there are a lot of people who are no longer waving their hand vaguely and saying “YOU are the problem! YOU need to reform your thoughts and your actions because YOU are the reason that there hasn’t been progress!”, but if there aren’t, there should be.
Agreed. I don’t understand people who think #MeToo has backfired. Encountering some pushback doesn’t negate some of the incredible gains made. A lot more people are going to be a lot more cognizant of sexual harassment in the work place.
It’s not a single election. What about Brexit, Boris, the AfD and all the other right-wing parties in Europe? Have you seen what’s happening in Hungary and Poland?
But that’s exactly what it did. Each snowflake contributed to the avalanche. And some of the other cases mentioned definitely were small ideological disagreements.
A lot of men are shit-scared of this movement, and not because they are big sexual harassers. They think any innocent action could be misinterpreted by a paranoid or malicious woman and get them in huge trouble. It has definitely pushed a lot of them towards the right.
European politics is weird. But I’m talking about American politics, and what I’m saying accurately describes our politics.
Oh come on – are you saying that every time I choose a sandwich I have to consider which shop most needs my business to protect lives and livelihoods? Or can I please just make a decision based on whatever minor criteria I prefer for my sandwich needs?
What a joke. Any men scared by #MeToo are either abusers, harassers, or so fucking ignorant of the reality of how women are mistreated that they probably routinely sexually harass women without even realizing it.
I think that is the problem that we sometimes have in understanding eachother. We tend to think that people are being unethical if the are working to bring about a world that we don’t want to live in.
Problem is, if you come from that approach, then you are assuming that they are acting unethically, and if they just understood the consequences of their actions, then they would change their behavior. They do understand the consequences of their actions, that’s why they do them.
So yes, a racist, in wanting to bring about a segregated society, is acting ethically, from their point of view.
Morals are what we need people to do to keep society functioning. That’s the broader view, and what we are trying to change one way, and the racist the other.
I’m not sure what we are talking about “open debate.” With who? Where at? We are debating right now, aren’t we, openly and freely.
Where did people use to have public debates that they are being shut out of now?
I’m not sure if I share the same concern that racists may be hesitant to speak out because they are worried about being thought poorly of by their peers.
So, before this can go much further, I suppose we need to define some terms. What is open debate? Where does this happen? Who is not participating that used to, what is being stifled?