This isn’t directly tied to this “cancel culture” topic, but it is definitely part of the fight for social justice – I want to highlight a tweet about a study that shows just how insidious and powerful our white supremacist culture is:
“when Black newborns are cared for by Black MDs, the mortality penalty they suffer as compared with white infants is HALVED. Furthermore, the more complicated the case, the effects manifest more strongly.”
Most of these non-black doctors probably have no idea of how their own biases can affect the lives of their patients. I think it’s fine if they’re told directly – others can try to break it more gently, or more diplomatically, and that’s fine too. But this shit is real and it’s significant, and I’m not going to pretend that most Americans are unbiased and completely non-racist just because it might hurt some feelings to describe things accurately.
Lol, no. Purity isn’t the issue. When you use ugly tactics, you look ugly. People stop caring about how pretty your point is when you use ugly tactics. Some people can get away with it because they are reaching out to ugly people. You will not get away with it because you are trying to appeal to people’s good side.
Stalin beat the fascists. It’s not much of a victory if you replace fascism with something else that’s just about as bad. You’re so fixated on the ends that you aren’t willing to consider the damage the means are doing.
I’ve seen it work. Some people are swayed by calm, gentle reason. Some by mockery – they hate to be laughed at, and it forces them to consider their views. And some need a shock to the system – like being compared with something terrible (like, say, a racist). It doesn’t work for everyone, but I’ve personally seen it work. Maybe you haven’t, and that’s fine. You can use whatever tactics you like, and I’ll support you for it, as long as you’re arguing for decency.
You’re right. Purity tests ARE important, and everyone should have told Stalin to fuck right off. The Allies should have cancelled Stalin instead of working with him however uneasily to fight the Axis powers.
I’ve asked the mods to look at closing it. When we’re re-stating our objection while accusing someone of mis-quoting a quote of a quote, a thread kinda falls in on itself.
Or, we can just merge these two, but that would mostly just double the kindness and good faith factor in GD. We don’t wanna upset the balance.
The meaning of “erasure” is clearly evolving in today’s usage of the word. What are your thoughts on people saying that denying someone’s gender identify is trans erasure? Is that a scare word meant to evoke imagery of trans people being whisked away to the gulags?
First off, I think it’s unlikely that being rich and influential somehow makes you more immune to verbal assaults than poor irrelevant people. Would you similarly discount the seriousness of physical assault against someone just because they are rich? “Oh, it’s no big deal that George Clooney was stabbed by someone, he’s rich and can easily afford good health care.” Unless your stance is actually that nobody could really feel any negative effects from millions of people calling them horrible? Or are you assuming that having a lot of people also supporting you somehow negates the harm caused by other people calling you horrible names? If so, how can anyone be harmed by being called a racial epithet when the majority of society would have their back by repudiating that behaviour?
So calling a celebrity the n-word in private only causes trivial harm, because it’s not viewed by broader society? Would calling a random homeless person the n-word somehow cause greater harm than calling a celebrity one? They seem equally harmful to me.
Look, I agree that many celebrities aren’t likely to suffer any significant financial harm from “cancellation”. But it seems like they can still suffer from psychological harm (Taylor Swift, Nick Cannon, Natalie Wynn among others have come out and described their experiences with it). It sounds like you are saying psychological harm isn’t a particularly big deal.
I’ll assume this was sarcasm and that the Allies were right to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler.
With that in mind, when we talk about “cancel culture” (whatever that happens to mean to whomever), who are we speaking about when we speak about applying Purity tests? And should we be applying purity tests or trying to work with people with whom we may have disagreements about things that we can probably work through, as long as we don’t label them fascist-adjacent.
I’m responding to post that specifically said that while Stalin beat the fascists, it wasnt much of a victory because he was almost as bad. The Allies worked with Stalin to beat the Axis powers, and so that wasnt much of a victory. Since this is a thread about cancel culture, and the dangers of purity tests have been raised- i thought it was related to that whole concept.
I guess not. I guess purity tests are always bad, so I’m not sure the relevance of whether Stalin was almost as bad isn’t a statement against identifying a common enemy and using different approaches to defeat them.
We don’t have a tradition here of the OP calling for closure of a thread, unless the thread was about a very personal topic that the OP has become uncomfortable seeing people discussing es personal life. I doubt the mods will get involved unless this thread is approaching a rule violation. My suggestion is that you let it go.
But we agree on this – we just might disagree on some of the specifics. I assume, anyway – unless you’re saying there’s absolutely nothing that a friend of yours could say that would cause you to stop being their friend? Or nothing your employer could say that would cause them to be fired? Or to lose a grant? Or even to be publicly identified?
I think it’s more the specifics than any philosophical disagreement.
I’ve been busy, but so has this thread. Got a lot to catch up on.
The article is not published by BBC4, is it?
You are using the fact that the author has had a few pieces published on BBC4 as giving him credibility for things that are not on BBC4
I said specifically, an average joe losing his livelihood over a poor joke.
I even admitted that if I were to put up an Anti-Trump sign in my window, then I would probably lose 90% of my clients.
Do you consider that to be cancel culture? I don’t.
However, if someone found out my name and went on my local social media and started posting some of my posts there to show what an ebil librul I am, then that would be.
Do you have any examples of that?
Oh, and I would not count Siobhan Prigent either. As much as you dislike mobs, it seems as though you would be against her leading an actual phyisical mob against someone.
I’m not a big fan of Trump, or of Trump supporters, and if we are on opposite lines of a protest, I’d scream all kinds of invective at him without feeling the slightest bit of guilt.
But what she was doing was stoking a mob. Even after he had been assaulted, she continued to egg them on. If I had not figured that he probably was not hurt, as that would have been the lead on the article, I would have watched that with a great deal of fear from that crowd.
I still don’t get the whole knitting thing. Basically, some people wanted to talk politics, others didn’t, people were insistent, and there were bad feelings all around.
Is this an example of cancel culture? I used to run 4 RPG’s a week, each with 6-12 people. Then, in 2012, my roommate put an Obama sign in the yard. I didn’t even know about it. But, when my players showed up that day, they did. There was quite a bit of commentary about the sign, and I lost a bunch of “friends” that day.
That’s pretty much how I see the knitting story. Can you explain why it is more than just a group that didn’t get along?
Would a celebrity denying the existence of people be considered to be bullying?
People shouldn’t talk politics at work.
I think that freedom of speech says that I can say almost anything I want about anybody, including celebrities. It also means that they are free to whine about it. And it also means that I’m free to call them whiners.
It is fair to say that if someone has sufficient wealth, and after attempts at canceling them, they have even more wealth, then they were not cancelled.
I have not “dismissed” every example. I have meticulously examined each example proffered, and found them lacking.
About the only thing you have involving “regular people” is a bunch of people that go in an argument socially. Some people didn’t want to talk politics at all, and others wanted to do nothing but.
And I don’t agree with her excuses. What she actually said was to mock transgendered people. She denied their existence in a way that can cause real harm. She has an enormous platform, and many followers.
It’s a risk you take when you want to be famous and have millions of people know your name.
I think it does. I’ve seen this happen quite a bit. It is when they refuse to apologize that things become traumatic and potentially harmful to a career.
When a white person gets a cold, a black person gets pneumonia.
So, to bring it up without knowing it’s context would be the sort of rushing to judgement that is being discouraged here?
JKR “poured herself” into her tweet? Is that how she came up with 3 mocking misspellings of “woman”?
Abundant? I’ll go with just one.
Hmmm, Still got nearly 200 posts to get through, I’ll try to pick this up in the morning.
To be clear, I abhor bullying and I don’t particularly want to align with someone I see as a bully. I think that rebuffing Stalin or fighting directly against him as well as the Axis powers would have been a bad idea. But calling it “not much of a victory” sounds like an endorsement of a purity test process.
I am glad I personally don’t have to make such decisions myself. I try not to cancel, or bully, or attack. I reserve the right to object to something that bothers me, even if other ideas of the same person are agreeable to me.
I’m certainly not talking about a purity test process, I’m here to argue against purity tests for chrissake. I’m not talking about allying with Stalin, I’m saying it matters how we fight fascism because if we adopt bad tactics we’ll end up with a bad society even if we win. Is that clearer?