7 ms·

Good that they didn't suffer any long term consequences, but that does not diminish the point made.

by plzbo 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago
Yes and no. One of the concerns about cancel culture is that it results in people's lives being ruined/ended. This (usually) is not the case, even among the most egregious examples that people can come up with.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Because social protections haven't eroded enough to get to the point where lives are actually ruined. Why wait to speak out against cancel culture until it's actually ruining lives?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously, especially when the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now. "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      Was Damore a bigger guy?
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Compared to the generic "woman at Google", I'd argue yes. But even if you disagree in that one case, that doesn't invalidate what I said. It allows upward facing action.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        But it has a pretty bad record of targeting "upward" and those few 'upward' targets suffer much less than the many 'downward' targets. "Ineffective in the best case" is not a very compelling argument.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Does it? Consider the numerous celebrities, comedians, and even The New York Times. If your argument is that powerful people land on their feet even when they face accountability, then yes that's true. But at least they're facing accountability and the value of powerful people actually having to face consequences when they do bad things can't be understated. It changes the culture of power.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Honestly you're making generic arguments in favor of mob rule. I get the appeal, but it's reprehensible and I can think of precious few things as boring as debating its merits. Let's just say we agree that cancellation is as good as mob rule and part ways.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious. > the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now I could hazard a guess as to what you're alluding to here, but it hardly matters--if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it. > "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. You have it completely backwards. You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd). > Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious. It is not. We know how viruses work. We also know how they don't do good things. Are you willing to provide specific falsifiable predictions on the harms that Cancel Culture will cause in 6 months or a year and how it will be so great? Trying to explain away a slippery slope fallacy by comparing it to the well documented and well understood exponential growth of a communicable disease isn't good reasoning. > if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it. Exactly! To allude to anther example: someone tweeting "@FSF, you should fire Richard Stallman because he is a bad man" is simply exercising their right to free expression. Why are you criticizing that? > You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd). Lindsay Shephard doesn't fit the definition of cancellation. There was no social media, there was an anonymous complaint to her university, who did something, and when the public was involved the university reversed course. "Cancel Culture" is characterized by a boycott or threat of boycott, or at least distributed criticism. Imagine that instead the members of her class had taken to twitter to urge the university to remove her from her position, and encouraged others to stop donating to the school if they didn't do so. That's cancellation. What you described is a bad thing, but it's also a non sequitur. And note the difference: her pupils (the non-authority) pulling in popular support to provide consequences to the authority figure when normal channels of feedback failed. > "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism. You're going to have to elaborate on how decentralized movements are authoritarian in nature, that's a relatively unique claim.
- 65536 6y ago
  And how about the psychological effects on these people of being bullied by a large group of people online? I don’t know what I’d do if it happened to me, but I know it would leave me in an even worse state mentally than I am in, because I know how it feels like to feel that other people don’t want you around.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I agree that online bullying of individuals is bad.

Good that they didn't suffer any long term consequences, but that does not diminish the point made.

by plzbo 6y ago

Good that they didn't suffer any long term consequences, but that does not diminish the point made.

Yes and no. One of the concerns about cancel culture is that it results in people's lives being ruined/ended. This (usually) is not the case, even among the most egregious examples that people can come up with.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Because social protections haven't eroded enough to get to the point where lives are actually ruined. Why wait to speak out against cancel culture until it's actually ruining lives?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously, especially when the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now. "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Was Damore a bigger guy?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Compared to the generic "woman at Google", I'd argue yes. But even if you disagree in that one case, that doesn't invalidate what I said. It allows upward facing action.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        But it has a pretty bad record of targeting "upward" and those few 'upward' targets suffer much less than the many 'downward' targets. "Ineffective in the best case" is not a very compelling argument.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Does it? Consider the numerous celebrities, comedians, and even The New York Times. If your argument is that powerful people land on their feet even when they face accountability, then yes that's true. But at least they're facing accountability and the value of powerful people actually having to face consequences when they do bad things can't be understated. It changes the culture of power.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Honestly you're making generic arguments in favor of mob rule. I get the appeal, but it's reprehensible and I can think of precious few things as boring as debating its merits. Let's just say we agree that cancellation is as good as mob rule and part ways.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious. > the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now I could hazard a guess as to what you're alluding to here, but it hardly matters--if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it. > "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. You have it completely backwards. You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd). > Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious. It is not. We know how viruses work. We also know how they don't do good things. Are you willing to provide specific falsifiable predictions on the harms that Cancel Culture will cause in 6 months or a year and how it will be so great? Trying to explain away a slippery slope fallacy by comparing it to the well documented and well understood exponential growth of a communicable disease isn't good reasoning. > if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it. Exactly! To allude to anther example: someone tweeting "@FSF, you should fire Richard Stallman because he is a bad man" is simply exercising their right to free expression. Why are you criticizing that? > You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd). Lindsay Shephard doesn't fit the definition of cancellation. There was no social media, there was an anonymous complaint to her university, who did something, and when the public was involved the university reversed course. "Cancel Culture" is characterized by a boycott or threat of boycott, or at least distributed criticism. Imagine that instead the members of her class had taken to twitter to urge the university to remove her from her position, and encouraged others to stop donating to the school if they didn't do so. That's cancellation. What you described is a bad thing, but it's also a non sequitur. And note the difference: her pupils (the non-authority) pulling in popular support to provide consequences to the authority figure when normal channels of feedback failed. > "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism. You're going to have to elaborate on how decentralized movements are authoritarian in nature, that's a relatively unique claim.
65536 6y ago
And how about the psychological effects on these people of being bullied by a large group of people online? I don’t know what I’d do if it happened to me, but I know it would leave me in an even worse state mentally than I am in, because I know how it feels like to feel that other people don’t want you around.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I agree that online bullying of individuals is bad.