Okay, so you are officially saying that you do not consider boycotts as part of cancel culture?
I’m not sure that I understand. You are accepting that someone may say that my friend is not human, should have no rights, and even in some cases should not be allowed to exist, but that I am not allowed to tell this person’s employer why I will no longer support them?
The fact that people are scared shitless should open their own eyes.
An individual boycott? No, only when you reach out to all your friends family, social media and start spreading the news and they of course being good friends family and acquaintances jump on your bandwagon because frankly they are outraged that you got waffle fries instead of shoe string fries from the local diner and low and behold YOUR boycott is causing undue grief for something frivolous.
If it were as simple as your for sure no questions asked friend who was labeled not human, then everyone would agree, we already do. But the things we are talking about ARE NOT that.
Okay, so I can boycott, I am just not allowed to tell anyone else about it. By preventing me from sharing my feelings on the matter, we assure that others have the right to free speech.
If my friends and family don’t like the waffle fries, then why do we have to eat there, rather than where the waffle fries are delicious. Are we not allowed to talk about or criticize the waffle fries?
If I get enough traction to actually hurt a business for something they have done, it is because that business has done something improper. I have some negative reviews from assholes, I didn’t get “canceled”, at least partly because they are countered by my other clients who give me praises.
Am I allowed to complain to a friend of family member that a particular fast food place put mayo on my sandwich after I specifically asked them not to? Or should I keep that to myself, in the fear that they may end up causing fiscal damage by not eating there themselves?
If it’s frivolous, you don’t get a boycott together. People will laugh at you.
Okay, can you tell me when it is okay to exercise my freedom of speech?
You say it’s not simple, and I agree, which is why I think that everyone should be able to use their own judgement as to when to speak out about some injustice that they see. You want to replace that judgment with your own, so you need to be specific as to when and where someone is allowed to be criticized.
ETA: If your friend or family demanded that you boycott the diner over something frivolous, would you? Assuming that you would not, why do you assume that others would?
If I had to make an argument, I would try for a practical argument first. But know this, I try to tailor my arguments for an audience - not for all time.
~Max
Dumb, pointless boycotts will fail. The vast majority do. They’ll only succeed if they resonate with lots of potential customers. As it’s always been in a free society.
In a free society, people can criticize businesses and people and urge others to make different choices. This isn’t going to go away unless you’re trying to restrict major freedoms in our society. This still just sounds like whining about criticism.
Much like this sounds like whining about being called what you advocate cancel culture …
A whine is a form of complaint. I see lots and lots and lots of complaining coming from you.
What is the complaint that you are accusing others of, in your feckless attempt at tu quoque?
If I may junior-mod a bit, this is, again, not a general thread about cancel culture in general, but asking about how people can future-proof themselves, which is a bit of a different tack on the subject.
That’s already been answered. Be on the right side of history.
Or at least, don’t be on the wrong side.
Or at least at least, give a good reason and an example that others can learn from as you move from the wrong side to the right side.
And, as already has been pointed out, on certain topics is impossible. Nobody knows how the future will unfold on certain issues. We’re not talking firmly-settled issues like slavery, but rather, 50-50 disputes. Currently, for instance, there is a strong dispute ongoing over whether MtF transgender people ought to be allowed to participate in women’s sports. Nobody knows which side will win in the end. Or the consumption of meat - will it still be regarded as perfectly normal decades from now, or considered unethical?
As far as I can tell, the overwhelming consensus in this thread is that you aren’t supposed to future-proof yourself. The only people who seem to think you are supposed to future-proof your actions today are you (Velocity) and possibly Cheesesteak.
The traditional slippery slope argument was that progressivism leads to eugenics. Thankfully, that did not come to pass since it turns out intelligence is a murky concept and not tied directly to race. Consider the hypothetical situation where the future science actually justifies eugenics. Assume for the sake of argument the possibility that in the future, we can significantly and tangibly improve the human race through selective breeding.
The question is now presented, should you base your decision to procreate today on some future generation’s possible embrace of eugenics? I suspect most people will answer in the negative, because they do not agree with the premise that behavior today should be based on speculations of future moral judgement.
To agree with that premise is to deny yourself moral agency. Any good that future generations might see in your actions can be attributed not to your own good nature or character, but rather, to your cowardice and powers of prediction. The hypothetical you did want to have kids; you did want to ban same-sex marriage; you did want to keep women out of the army. You weren’t a visionary, you just didn’t speak out because you were a coward. That’s not commendable except in a purely utilitarian sense, and even then it is undesirable when we start getting into unconscious bias.
~Max
What do you believe? I think that that is what you should go with.
As far as future proofing, if you make an argument like, “A transwoman with x% higher testosterone should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports” then that is something that would likely be respected in the future, either way it goes.
If you make an argument, “A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and men have no place in women’s sports”, then that opinion may not be as well respected.
If you looked in your crystal ball, and saw that in 100 years, we will pull down all the statues to straight men, including the one that we at the Dope put up for you for having the most momentus user name, would you go out and get a boyfriend?
This is just how a free society is. Doesn’t matter what I advocate for. And to be clear, all I’m advocating for is criticizing shitty speech.
You can’t. That’s the answer.
FTR, I don’t think people should future proof their activity, I was trying to suggest one way future proofing might look.
The consensus certainly was that you shouldn’t need or want to future proof yourself. But I think the entire underlying question is, as of yet, still completely unresolved.
If you do not future proof yourself, you run the risk of getting fired/action that affects your livelihood for something you may have said 30 years in the past. So i think this question is a reasonable one to ask, what steps should you take to protect that livelihood? How is that justifiable?
So it’s not cancel culture if I quit my job without saying anything, but if I say that the reason is that you’re expecting me to work for someone who thinks me or my friends is less than human, it’s now big bad ‘cancel culture’?
Personally, I’m glad that bigots are scared shitless they could lose their jobs for being bigots, I’m not sure what I should ‘open my eyes’ to besides ‘if you think women aren’t people who deserve to be treated equally and people can demonstrate that, you’re not qualified to an exec at a modern corporation if it’s one that cares about it’. The main problem is that it doesn’t happen anywhere near often enough.
You should open your eyes to the fact that not everything is on the fringe that you and others bring up to justify your position. For example, bigots should be scared! Well of course they should, they will continue to be bigots no matter what. What about all the other instances where the calls for actions haven’t been so crystal?
There were two links in the past few posts posted, how do you feel about those actions being called for for a position stated 30 years ago ?
I’m perfectly fine with considering a person who thinks that women are not full humans and wrote an article to that effect unqualified to act in any kind of managerial role over people, as ‘women’ are part of ‘people’. They wrote the article in 1987, which was three years after the first major-party female vice presidential candidate, not in some far-distant time. That’s the Boeing exec’s ‘30 years ago’ story.
As far as Sherry Sherrod goes, from the wiki entry it looks like someone posted a bunch of highly edited excerpts from her speech, then she got fired hastily. When she pushed back and pointed out that her remarks weren’t what the edited version made it appear, she ended up getting offered a better job with the feds, multiple other jobs, and got a settlement from the person who edited the excerpts from her speech. I’m not sure what this has to do with ‘live by future judgement’, as the ‘future judgement’ turned out to be ‘that’s completely fine’, and if being ‘canceled’ means ‘unemployed for a short time, then get offered better jobs and a financial statement from the person who tried to get me canceled’ then sign me up for cancellation.
I see a lot of ranging about ‘cancel culture’ and how terrible it is, but little evidence of that.
There’s a reason I don’t post under my real name or give detailed information about my background.
This kind of speaks to the opposite side of “cancel culture” or whatever it’s called. Where no one has the right to complain about something unless they take into account everyone who is worse off than they are. i.e. it’s ok for a Boeing executive to lose his job because he made a lot of money. Sure, maybe he won’t starve to death. But why should someone at the top of their career have it suddenly derailed because they had a controversial opinion 30 years ago?
Why now and not last year? Or 10 years ago? Or 30 years ago?
How progressive was Boeing as a company 30 years ago?