Post 17 has a link to Jon Ronson giving a Ted talk about Justine Sacco. The article I linked discussed ordinary people as well as famous ones - guess what, everyone talked about the famous ones. The knitting purity spiral article isn’t about famous people, but it’s been an uphill struggle to persuade anyone else to read it. And what’s the point if they’re just going to react like K9bfriender and dismiss every example anyway?
Of course it’s unfair. She explained her motives clearly in her essay, which most of those criticising her don’t seem to have read, and the criticism is ridiculously OTT considering what she actually said.
Tabloid journalists seem to have a pretty similar attitude - that the rich and famous don’t have feelings and shouldn’t complain as long as they still have money. Do you similarly think Harry and Meghan are ‘whining’ about their treatment by the tabloids and should shut up and take it?
@Ascenray completely butchered his reply to me and screwed up the quote tags in his post, so through no fault of your own, the things you’ve quoted me saying aren’t the things that I actually said.
Oh, sorry. I just highlighted them as usual and didn’t notice. These new quote tags are way too finicky, I’ve seen loads of people fall foul of them since the move.
@Acsenray, post #82 was supposed to be addressed to you.
I’m much more concerned about giving rhetorical assistance to assholes like Shapiro and Peterson. So far I haven’t seen an argument that specifies and criticizes their dishonesty and only focuses on those particular and relatively rare instances of online “mob action” that really do harm. Further, much of that supposed “mob action” is really things like reasonable boycotts or just assholes being called assholes, and that stuff shouldn’t be discouraged.
That’s not my argument – and further, tabloids really do often violate privacy. Similar to doxxing, which is only a very rarely appropriate tactic (i.e. feel free to doxx the white supremacists, but short of that, doxxing is almost always inappropriate).
Most of the supposed “canceling” is speech in response to speech. Someone says something, and then a bunch of people don’t like it and say so. Threats and such are always wrong, but sometimes criticism is just obnoxious, and so what? Feel free to respond to obnoxious criticism if you like, or criticize the arguments themselves. But so what if a bunch of people don’t like what someone had to say, and speak out about it?
I still hold that most of this is whining, and that’s reflected by most of your cites – most of these people you’ve cited were barely harmed. This is the internet – if you say something, lots of people may respond. Short of actually restricting speech, there’s nothing we can do about this, and rightly so.
How were Meghan and Harry harmed? You weren’t arguing the celebrities deserved it, you seem to be claiming that financial harm is the only kind that matters. (And many of the non-famous examples lost their jobs, so they did suffer financial harm as well.)
Not at all. They quit their jobs as royals and left the country; one of the main reasons was their treatment by the tabloids. I was wondering if you also think they are ‘whiners’ for making a big deal about it? Being that they are still rich and famous and all that.
I guess I’m kind of surprised you don’t think being reviled by possibly millions of people is a big deal, when you seem to care a lot about eg not upsetting people by using politically incorrect language.
It’s very relevant what exactly one means by “reviled” in any particular circumstance, and for what reason that revulsion has happened, and what exact actions have been taken, and in what way one has been harmed.
Harry and Meghan were being hounded and actually harrassed, their privacy invaded, and were constant targets of racist nonsense for the purpose of selling garbage newspapers.
As a result, they decided they didn’t want to live as public personas.
Is that what people mean by someone’s being “cancelled” and “erased” or the victims of “cancel culture”?
Who is reviled by millions? Being reviled by millions of, say, bigots, is what decent celebrities should aspire to. Being reviled by millions of decent people generally only happens to total assholes today. Those few exceptions treated unjustly aren’t whining if they complain, but what does this demonstrate? That humans are imperfect? Assholes should be reviled. Decent people shouldn’t be. Sometimes we get this wrong, and hopefully we can learn from our mistakes. But reviling and harshly criticizing assholes is not among those mistakes.
This idea seems more disturbing the more I think about it. Who is a bigot? And are bigots never decent people?
Does disapproving of gay marriage make you a bigot? Then 20 years ago most Americans were bigots and not decent people. If disapproving of gay marriage 20 years ago doesn’t make you a bigot, then in what year did that change, and a person who hadn’t altered their views at all go from a non-bigot to a bigot?
Or take another example. Does being uncomfortable with transwomen who haven’t undergone SRS using the women’s changing room make you a bigot? Then over 80% of the UK population are bigots. That seems kind of ridiculous.
How about we acknowledge that there’s a huge range of views, and people who hold a few views you consider bigoted can still be mostly decent people, not deserving of public ridicule?
As for the celebrities, you normally seem to feel that language is pretty important - just saying the wrong thing, like using an outmoded word for a disability, can hurt people and we should try to avoid that. Unless those people are rich and famous, in which case they’re just whiners making a big deal out of nothing. (Honestly, it was jarring seeing you say that.)
Or is it down to what you say? Personal insults, or telling someone the world will be a better place when they are dead are A-ok, but bringing up racist stereotypes or misgendering the celebrity would be a big no-no? Why the difference? I was always told being politically correct is about being polite and not hurting people’s feelings. But if you don’t care about people’s feelings, then why bother with being politically correct?
Peterson is hanging on by a thread to what’s left of his mental health. Shapiro is, and has always been a smacked ass. I don’t think very many liberals are clamoring to have their voices heard as part of an inclusive exchange of ideas. That nobody is attacking their dishonesty in this thread is not evidence that therefore their views are seen as valid, nor is anyone here defending them as innocent victims of “cancel culture”.
What some of us are suggesting in this thread is that there does not seem to be enough emphasis placed on ‘learning when we get it wrong’ bit. The piling on of wokeness in social media have become a bit of an Olympic event. You continue to insist that it’s no big deal as long as it’s done to the ‘privileged assholes’. I see that kind of callous disregard as a net harm to liberal values and thought.
Bigots can be decent people to those against whom they do not hold a prejudice. Doesn’t make their bigotry less deplorable.
If we are to follow the arc of social justice, trans people may gain the kind of acceptance that gays did in the past 20 years. The issue isn’t whether that should happen, because I assume you agree that it should. The issue is that it’s a more complicated issue than the normalization of gay marriage and those who think that the inherent complexities require further consideration are being shouted down and called bigots by people who either have no dog in the fight or who do not really understand the issue or the arguments being made.
This is getting way too complicated. Maybe someone can be bigoted on some issues but decent on others. People can contain multitudes. But if someone is angry at you because of their bigotry, then you’re probably doing something right. If their decency drives them to be angry at you, then you’re probably doing something wrong. If someone’s bigotry leads them to be harshly criticized, then that’s just fine with me. That’s a consequence, rightfully so, of bigotry.
Much of this post seems to respond to your ideas about me rather than my actual posts, and thus I’m not sure how to respond. If you can be specific about what I’ve written that you’re disagreeing with, I’ll be happy to respond. But I can’t tell what much of this post is responding to.
So maybe sometimes we can do better. It’d be nice if we could see the examples of this going wrong and actually hurting people unjustly, because such cites seem awfully rare in this thread.
Indeed. And the ‘learning when we get it wrong’ should also apply in another way. People who make minor mistakes like a tactless joke should be able to learn from them and move on, rather than having them turned into a whole traumatic and sometimes career-destroying public event.
I think we need to separate that it’s the views that are deplorable, not the people. Because people do change their views over time and the average person who voted for Trump is not comparable to David Duke. I find this Us vs Them attitude dangerous.
Examples have been provided. If you dismiss them as not being “cancelled” because some remain wealthy and privileged then I guess we can respectfully disagree about what harm has been done and whether more harm is required before your mind is changed.
Let’s start off by saying, yes, it is entirely possible for a majority of the people in a culture to be bigots. Nothing about the concept of bigotry makes it magically “non-bigoted” if enough people believe the same thing.
OTOH, one can be ‘uncomfortable’ with a concept and not be a bigot. It all has to do with why you’re uncomfortable. Are you uncomfortable because a person with a penis in the ladies locker room is going to cause uncertainty and discomfort for all involved, or is it because “he’s really just a perverted man who wants to ogle women, so he should take his ass over to the men’s locker room”?
Yeah, that really jumped out at me. I think it’s ridiculous to think that it’s ridiculous that a majority of people in a society would be bigots. That’s kind of how social bigotry works: it’s the norm, not the exception, in a lot of societies.
I’m not going to get into all the wild suppositions and fears about trans women in different spaces, because that nonsense got IMO downright toxic in the other thread and I don’t relish wading back into it. But if a person’s argument is that a person can’t be bigoted if they’re in accordance with the majority of their society, that doesn’t track.