‘I think you’re wrong, I think you are a bigot, and I think I’m going to do everything I can to make sure you lose your job because of it.’
That’s justice to you?
“Justice” is a weird word for it, but “fair play” might be, if someone’s posting things that threaten violence against a demographic. See my previous post.
Agreed.
Depends. If Twitter existed in the 60s, perhaps Sheriff Connor’s men would have been reluctant to follow his abominable orders if they were worried they might be publicly identified and doxxed.
Here’s the tweet in question
tweet
Definitely offensive, but not exactly promoting genocide.
I know you think it supports your position but it doesn’t. These extreme examples are not what we’re talking about and we don’t need to look to the 60’s. Derek Chauvin had no trouble convincing three police officers to assist or stand by while he killed George Floyd. Nor were they discouraged by Twitter.
“You look like a typical Mexican whose ass I’d enjoy kicking,” coupled with some racist nonsense about Mexicans. So, yeah, it’s intended both to intimidate the target with violence, and to generalize that intimidation into an entire ethnic group via stereotypes.
It’s not promoting genocide, but it’s espousing racist violence. If he’s gonna use his free speech rights to do that, I’m okay with other people using their free speech rights to contact his employer. And when Wokal spends a bajillion tweets criticizing the latter but none criticizing the former, that tells me a lot about Wokal.
I’m curious: folks that are offering examples of Cancel Culture, do you believe you’re offering the most egregious examples?
Because if you are, we’re seeing America’s most famous linguist not losing even the tiniest bit of professional recognition, and a guy that threatens racist violence maybe losing his job or maybe not. And I’m just not feeling the terror.
If you’re not offering the most egregious examples–if you’re deliberately offering real weaksauce examples–could you maybe switch up your game a little? Show us the worst examples of the depredations of terrible Cancel Culture, so we can talk about those. That might be a little more persuasive.
I imagine it would be upsetting to pour yourself into some idea or piece of work only to have it misrepresented, misunderstood and then used to mislead others into organizing against you and punishing you publicly, personally (and perhaps financially). And to add insult to injury, to be dismissed as a “whiner” because you dare to object from your position of “privilege”.
I think what some of us are saying is that this is a recent phenomenon which may have the effect of silencing controversial opinions, (JKR being the most prominent at the moment). There are examples of writers and thinkers saying they are observing or experiencing a similar chill on their ability to express ideas without being subjected to threats or insults.
What those who find this concern lacking in evidence offer in return are examples of actually horrible people saying or doing horrible things and claiming that whatever consequences they suffer are justified. As if anybody has disagreed with punishing racists, bigots and assholes. Such examples are not a refutation that there is a legitimate concern about an emerging chill on liberal discourse. What it is, is a denial that the same tactics used on bigots and assholes is being turned on those whose ideas are not in line with the most liberal, most progressive, most woke ideology. The presumption being that if you are being called out, you must have done something to deserve it.
Now, I can accept that few if any “privileged” people, who have not deserved it, have been truly “cancelled”. I mean, maybe they aren’t as shiny as before but they are still plenty rich and famous, right? Okay. But are you so sure that this blunt instrument isn’t being used to shut down voices that are not rich, famous and impervious to criticism? And are you sure because we can’t provide you with abundant examples, or because you are sure it cannot/will not happen?
This isn’t a recent phenomenon. Any time you engage in any sort of public discourse, there will be people who deliberately or unintentionally misunderstand and misrepresent what you’re saying. I mean, it sucks when people don’t understand, but that’s not some brand spanking new thing.
You might make an argument that the coordinated efforts of young people on the left to make people lose their jobs is new. Okay, sure. And sometimes that’s appropriate: people who in the past could have been terrible with impunity no longer have that impunity. And sometimes that’s inappropriate: young people have never been famous for having perfect judgment (unlike old farts who are known everywhere for their excellent judgment, if you ask other old people).
But what’s lacking, and what’s crucial to the idea of Cancel Culture, is that these coordinated efforts by young people are successul in stifling the voices of people who aren’t just being terrible people. There’s all kinds of supposition that young academics, seeing how much Pinker was criticized, might be unwilling to (say) compliment David Brooks; but that supposition is wholly unsupported by evidence.
And it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Academics see that Pinker suffers zero consequences for his actions, because the letter got repudiated, and based on his zero consequences are intimidated?
I don’t think anyone is denying that sometimes people get shitty when it comes to calling out supposed bigots. What I’m having trouble believing is that it’s anything like a serious threat that we need to be concerned with. And what I notice is that certain people spend way more time calling out the critics of bigots than they spend calling out bigots themselves; and that looks to me like a much greater chilling effect on free speech.
So we need to do more. Cops should be afraid to do terrible things (or stand by and allow terrible things). There are multiple paths to make this more likely – legal/criminal consequences being the most prominent example. But social consequences could also be very useful in such cases… the problem is, there are still oodles of Americans who are fine with brutalizing black people.
And, as, hypothetically, this guy’s employer, I think it would be reasonable to do nothing, and it would also be reasonable to fire the guy, considering that I might well have now or in the future Hispanic employees. If I was at all concerned about safety for all employees, I’d dump this guy in a heartbeat.
Just out of interest, is this also your approach with other crimes, including murder? Increase the consequences - longer sentences for example?
This is a good point. If we take a strong stance against social opprobrium now, we can trust the bigots in society to reciprocate should they ever be on top. After all, what are the defining traits of bigotry, but a devotion to fair play and treating people equally?
Exactly. This is why we must be nice to bigots (excuse me, “bigots,” mustn’t forget the ironiquotes to indicate that they’re really the victims here) and refrain from mistreating them. Keeping quiet about their poor behavior is the only way to stop it. Shut up, activists! Shhh! Nope! SHHHHHH!!!
With regards to people in the public eye . . . they have made a choice, generally, to follow a career that reaps the benefits of having thousands or millions of people paying attention to what you have to say. Of utilizing “mob mentality” to sell books, music, opinions, etc. Having millions of people potentially hate you is, I think, literally a potential consequence you sign up for when you decide to put yourself out there in front of that many people.
For those who aren’t really in the “public eye” (like the tweet in post 246, I think the issue is that people have a hard time appreciating that public comment is really public comment for the millions. Social media allows us to say whatever we want whenever we want to millions of people. Pursuing public expression has always entailed an element of risk. What folks fail to internalize is that by choosing a soapbox where millions of people can hear you means that not only might you get amazing adulations, but you also may end up scorned or ridiculed by more people than you could ever imagine.
If you don’t want to risk millions of people telling you how awful you are, don’t engage in conversation with millions of people.
If you choose a career that amounts to “I say things to a large number of people with the hope that a large number of them will like what I’m saying and they will reward me for it” then it is only fair that you bear the possible consequence that a large number of people might dislike what you’re saying and withhold any rewards, to the extent that it might affect y our ability to earn a living from that career.
You miss my point. There is little evidence so far that opprobrium via social media has a significant corrective effect on bigotry. People who lack a conscience don’t let twitter stand in the way of their terrible thoughts and actions. By all means, let’s do more. How about a heavy rubber arm that comes out of the back of the screen and slaps the user every time they post a bigoted comment? We can’t change the hearts and minds of Trump supporters, but perhaps we can knock them senseless. We have the technology.
Of course we can’t trust bigots to do the right thing. Does that mean we can’t be slightly more circumspect in what we do and how we punish people who say things we may disagree with? I’m not talking about the vilest bigots – It’s too easy to use them as justification for the harshest opprobrium we can dole out.
Sounds good to me!