Is that more or less evidence that “cancel culture” is having a chilling effect on speech in general? Seems like you’re arguing this from both ends. Is cancel culture is scaring people away from speaking up in public, or is cancel culture ineffective in shutting down bigoted speech? It seems hard to square both of these being true at the same time.
That said, I like your rubber arm idea, and would like to help finance it.
54 academics signed this letter:
Which included this section:
This is the sort of cancel culture I’m most worried about, but it’s harder to find out details than with these celebrities.
I generally oppose longer sentencing, which has overwhelmingly been directed at people of color. I’m not sure if criminal behavior can be compared to legal but immoral social behavior, in terms of consequences and deterrence.
Okay, before I even dig in to this, is this the worst that cancel culture does? Because I’ve already looked at two other cases being held up, and they were big fat nothings. I don’t want to dig into this, find out that it’s nothing, and then be told, “But wait, never mind, HERE’s a REAL example of the problem!”
Or we can normalise its use and can show them how well it works as a mechanism to keep people in line.
Again, I want to point out that just 20 years ago, over 60% of Americans held the bigoted view that gay marriage should be illegal. I bet a lot of those people did and do in fact believe in fair play and treating people equally, even if they weren’t always consistent about it. There’s quite likely that some view that everyone here now holds, that will be considered bigoted in 100 year’s time. Does that mean no one in this conversation believes in fair play etc? We’re not talking about everyone turning into David Duke, we’re talking about a fairly minor shift in public opinion.
An interesting article on how whining about “cancel culture” has made Sam Harris a lot of money. This brings up another point - more than just whining by entitled people, opposing “cancel culture” and social justice in general has become very lucrative for many.
20 years ago, those bigoted views were barely challenged. Once they started to be challenged, it didn’t take long for opinion to change. Maybe some go overboard in the way they challenge bigotry, but that doesn’t mean we should refrain from challenging bigotry, including harshly criticizing those who espouse bigoted views.
How should I know? I’m not some kind of expert, I’m giving examples I’ve seen reported in the press, when I can find them again.
The real evidence is all the people saying they are afraid to speak up, but that’s not amenable to proof, is it?
That’s only proof that some people are afraid of something they call cancel culture. But in a good world, bigots will be afraid to spout bigotry. And maybe even the ignorant will be afraid to spout ignorance. So I don’t think this tells us anything at all.
Yes, but you’d be a fool to think ideas only change in one direction. There are plenty of examples, in history and the present day, of societies that have become more conservative. Most of them were motivated by the perceived excesses of the iconoclasts - like SJWs and excessive political correctness, perhaps. This is the other big risk, and seems more likely all the time.
I’m making the argument that not everyone espousing contrarian views is espousing racist views. A bunch of notable writers/thinkers cosigned a letter and have expressed separately that they feel they are being silenced unfairly. Some have called them privileged whiners and said that they brought it upon themselves by being in the public sphere. It did not always used to be the case that these people were considered such. Most have been around longer than the more recent online critic mob phenomenon. I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in light of the kinds of lines have been crossed in some notable cases already cited in this thread.
I’m also making the argument that in contrast to the above, bigots aren’t discouraged by public opprobrium. Which makes me think that “cancel culture” is backfiring on the liberal and progressives among us.
I’ll PM you for further discussion on investment options and terms.
Yes - most of the worst fascists in history were successfully able to convince big chunks of their population that the liberals and progressives were evil and trying to restrict their views. This was total bullshit, but they were still able to convince many.
Maybe a big part of why they were successful at this is because so many moderates and liberals were scared of their own shadow and chose to ally with the fascists, at least on this issue.
So, you know, don’t do that. Fight the fascists, tooth and claw, at every turn and in every way. These are the worst of humanity and they and their unwitting allies can’t be reasoned out of views that they didn’t arrive at through reason.
I think we should pull back a little and talk about things on a political level.
Many people in this thread don’t see a problem with what is termed “cancel culture” because, from what I can tell, they believe the impact of public criticism is always commiserate with the offense provoking it. I think that is debatable (current events have made me think this way), but okay. Let’s assume that justice always prevails in the court of social media.
When people are vilified and deplatformed for speech that is widely perceived as political and well within bounds of civil discourse, then this brings about culture war. It doesn’t matter if the “cancelers” and their sympathizers think certain opinions are hateful and violent; if the majority of the spectators conclude they are watching a mindless meltdown over politically sound speech, this is the shit that causes fracturing within political parties and the formation of new and unlikely alliances. The vilified voices don’t go down quietly; they amass a following from people who agree with them, are angry at their treatment, and believe a dangerous agenda is afoot. I feel like that is what is happening right now, all over the place. People feel as though literally everything is being called hate speech and subject to enemy action.
This is an article from an Indian feminist and filmmaker who believes there is an organized effort to blacklist her latest film. Not because of the work itself, but because years ago she expressed ideas about sex-based rights that conflict with the gender movement. I have no way of knowing whether her account is true, but the discourse is so toxic around this subject that I believe her. I believe she is being blackballed, not because of hate but because of non-controversial political beliefs.
Cancel culture doesn’t cause political beliefs to change. All it does is incense those who have those beliefs and causes them to work to defeat the “cancelers”. The fights that are playing out on Twitter and elsewhere are creating a lot of politically homeless people right now. It’s not a good scene as we walk into the election season.
Insh’allah.
How far are you willing to go to achieve this kind of world? Will there be guillotines?
I’m willing to take the drastic step of harshly criticizing wealthy and influential people who say dumb things and then whine about being criticized!
If they are whining, I don’t think they are sufficiently cowed into fearful silence. Are you sure you don’t want to employ just a few guillotines? Maybe just one to set an example.
Okay, one little guillotine, just to hang out in the background.
Interesting article and some valid points about the questionable route he’s chosen to express his views.
I have a couple of issues, however.
One: the comparison to Trump seems a smidge cheap and hyperbolic. Don’t you think? I mean if said to you that based on the following comment, ‘iiandyiiii is completely different… yet very much the same as Stalin’, in that he brooks no dissent from the state vision of a perfect society:
Two: Harris was wrong about his position on race and IQ. I don’t know if he maintains that position. Say he does. Does he espouse views associated with racism? Does he advocate for racist policies? Does having his facts wrong on the subject make him a racist? Is being wrong about this make him a bad person?
Uh, no. Usually they convinced people the liberals were trying to destroy society with their decadence and disregard for tradition, or were planning to overthrow the government and install anarchy/communism/socialism. Convincing people that the progressives themselves are the new fascists with their disregard for free speech and scientific truth and their intolerance of dissent is a new idea, but one that said progressives seem determined not to disprove.
Would you work with Vaishnavi Sundar and Steven Pinker to defeat the fascists? Because a heck of a lot of the ‘cancelled’ people seem to be on the left or centre themselves, and not fascists at all. The left going after it’s own certainly doesn’t help defeat the right.
It’s not a proper revolution without one!