8 ms·

It has always been the case that certain behaviors incur social opprobrium. I assume that you don't literally think that shaming or punishing someone for their

It has always been the case that certain behaviors incur social opprobrium. I assume that you don't literally think that shaming or punishing someone for their actions is categorically wrong, regardless of the situation. I've seen Harvey Weinstein's conviction for multiple assaults referred to as "cancelling". Are you suggesting that we should totally refrain from judgment? The real debate is over (a) what kind of conduct warrants "cancellation" and (b) over what standards of proof ought to be. If your response to the implication that some misdeeds merit being disgraced is to stop engaging, then you're part of the problem.

bzbarsky 6y ago
You are of course right about (a) and (b) being the real issues for people actually engaging on a good-faith basis. That said: 1) There are some incredibly wide-ranging disagreements on (a) at this point, with few people being willing to acknowledge gray areas. Witness incidents like https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scottish-poet-by-trans-activists https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scotti... (and please ignore the somewhat-inflammatory title and do read the story). I think there are quite a few people who think it's not even debatable whether Jenny Lindsay's conduct warrants the treatment she received, though they don't actually agree with each other on whether it does. 2) There is a disturbing prevalence of double-standards for purposes of applying (a). 3) In practice the answer for (b) is often irrelevant, because the behavior at issue is something someone "said", typically in electronic form, and there are saved copies everywhere anyway. 4) Most of the engagement on the issue is not in good faith to start with. I do think that there are multiple things people mean when they say "canceling", which is why I think various recent attempts to actually define what differentiates "canceling" from "criticism" or "social opprobrium" are useful. If you haven't seen https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.h... it's a pretty decent good-faith attempt to wrestle with the issues that at least tried to draw a distinction between "criticism" and "canceling", in its point 1. In that sense, Weinstein _was_ in fact "cancelled", and per item 2 appropriately...
- flamble 6y ago
  There's a lot of interesting stuff here. You're right in that there are multiple things that people mean when they say cancelling. Specifically, in the NYT article, the phrase "based on an opinion or an action" really struck me as capturing a common issue I have with use of the term, which is to lump together public shaming/pressure to fire/boycott based on e.g. sexual assault, with that based on an opinion. As you say, Weinstein was cancelled. Of course, because I have one opinion, I read the original sentence saying that cancelling is often used to refer to simply facing consequences and immediately agree, because those examples are at the forefront of my mind. True, I can think of examples of canceling I thought were unjustified, like the case of Justine Sacco. But I know that someone else will read that sentence and have it immediately conjure up a glut of examples of canceling they consider to be outrageous, and they will take exception to the implication of the sentence if not the literal meaning. I think that it can be legitimate to read an entire article and draw conclusions about the underlying message, motivation and mindset of the author. Individual sentences don't emerge immaculately from the void. Which is what I find so disturbing about the Spectator article. Completely pervaded by a flagrant attempt to twist every possible detail to fit his narrative. - It states "fake evidence was manufactured" but doesn't actually cite any fake evidence. - It eventually states, in as obscurantist a manner as possible, that Lindsay doesn't believe that trans women should be called women. The author then writes "said her condemnations of violence were not the reason for her ostracism. What then? Perhaps she had committed a micro-aggression", when he had, as I’ve just described, previously given a clear reason for the criticism. - He concedes that "Although the intolerant right dominates politics in Westminster, Washington, Warsaw, Budapest and New Delhi, and although the far right is a dangerous source of terrorism, the far left remains world beaters in the deployment of McCarthyism". This really captures the incredible asymmetry. Conservatives may hold all of the levers of power, dominate government, institutions, and the plutocratic class, but the vociferous criticism of a tiny number of fringe activists is treated as a social problem on a par with the discrimination faced by e.g. trans people, i.e. as if it were some serious social ill. - The most sinister part of it is when he writes “The police warned her and staff at the library their physical safety may be in danger. Detectives had heard that an antifa group might target them.” This is a terrifying demonstration of what is so dangerous about this sort of rhetoric. Look up how much violence has been committed by people professing to be a part of antifa. It is vanishingly rare. Now compare it to violence committed against trans people. Compare it to violence committed by far-right groups. And now consider that the police, a vast arm of the state itself completely riddled with adherents of the far right, actually accords credence to these nebulous claims. It’s this sort of manufactured fear of persecution that leads to the pre-emptive violence and state brutality which have been so rampant this year.
pitay 6y ago
I always thought of cancel culture as people facing "consequences" for their opinions, rather than their actions. Although I guess the can also be applied fairly innocuous actions that don't cause much (or any) harm. The common thing with both is that it has people make mountains out of molehills. How can you trust someone that is willing to damage someone's life for something that small or non-existent, especially if it is just an opinion. They could easily come for you if they don't like something you say or do.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  The purpose of many opinions is to gather support for some kind of sociopolitical state, and changes or maintenence of the political status quo cause harm or maintain harm respectively. For example, if I lived in 1800 and stated the opinion that "black people deserve equal rights", it would be dangerous to and greatly financially threatening to southern landowners. The added effect of these opinions would be proven out by history. And while that opinion would turn out to help far more then it harms, other opinions like "jews undermined our army in the great war" would turn out disastrous. I would say that opinions are some of the greatest powers in the world, and calling them harmless is dishonest.
tomp 6y ago
Harvey Weinstein was cancelled long before he was also convicted.

bzbarsky 6y ago

You are of course right about (a) and (b) being the real issues for people actually engaging on a good-faith basis. That said: 1) There are some incredibly wide-ranging disagreements on (a) at this point, with few people being willing to acknowledge gray areas. Witness incidents like https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scottish-poet-by-trans-activists https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scotti... (and please ignore the somewhat-inflammatory title and do read the story). I think there are quite a few people who think it's not even debatable whether Jenny Lindsay's conduct warrants the treatment she received, though they don't actually agree with each other on whether it does. 2) There is a disturbing prevalence of double-standards for purposes of applying (a). 3) In practice the answer for (b) is often irrelevant, because the behavior at issue is something someone "said", typically in electronic form, and there are saved copies everywhere anyway. 4) Most of the engagement on the issue is not in good faith to start with. I do think that there are multiple things people mean when they say "canceling", which is why I think various recent attempts to actually define what differentiates "canceling" from "criticism" or "social opprobrium" are useful. If you haven't seen https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.h... it's a pretty decent good-faith attempt to wrestle with the issues that at least tried to draw a distinction between "criticism" and "canceling", in its point 1. In that sense, Weinstein _was_ in fact "cancelled", and per item 2 appropriately...

flamble 6y ago
There's a lot of interesting stuff here. You're right in that there are multiple things that people mean when they say cancelling. Specifically, in the NYT article, the phrase "based on an opinion or an action" really struck me as capturing a common issue I have with use of the term, which is to lump together public shaming/pressure to fire/boycott based on e.g. sexual assault, with that based on an opinion. As you say, Weinstein was cancelled. Of course, because I have one opinion, I read the original sentence saying that cancelling is often used to refer to simply facing consequences and immediately agree, because those examples are at the forefront of my mind. True, I can think of examples of canceling I thought were unjustified, like the case of Justine Sacco. But I know that someone else will read that sentence and have it immediately conjure up a glut of examples of canceling they consider to be outrageous, and they will take exception to the implication of the sentence if not the literal meaning. I think that it can be legitimate to read an entire article and draw conclusions about the underlying message, motivation and mindset of the author. Individual sentences don't emerge immaculately from the void. Which is what I find so disturbing about the Spectator article. Completely pervaded by a flagrant attempt to twist every possible detail to fit his narrative. - It states "fake evidence was manufactured" but doesn't actually cite any fake evidence. - It eventually states, in as obscurantist a manner as possible, that Lindsay doesn't believe that trans women should be called women. The author then writes "said her condemnations of violence were not the reason for her ostracism. What then? Perhaps she had committed a micro-aggression", when he had, as I’ve just described, previously given a clear reason for the criticism. - He concedes that "Although the intolerant right dominates politics in Westminster, Washington, Warsaw, Budapest and New Delhi, and although the far right is a dangerous source of terrorism, the far left remains world beaters in the deployment of McCarthyism". This really captures the incredible asymmetry. Conservatives may hold all of the levers of power, dominate government, institutions, and the plutocratic class, but the vociferous criticism of a tiny number of fringe activists is treated as a social problem on a par with the discrimination faced by e.g. trans people, i.e. as if it were some serious social ill. - The most sinister part of it is when he writes “The police warned her and staff at the library their physical safety may be in danger. Detectives had heard that an antifa group might target them.” This is a terrifying demonstration of what is so dangerous about this sort of rhetoric. Look up how much violence has been committed by people professing to be a part of antifa. It is vanishingly rare. Now compare it to violence committed against trans people. Compare it to violence committed by far-right groups. And now consider that the police, a vast arm of the state itself completely riddled with adherents of the far right, actually accords credence to these nebulous claims. It’s this sort of manufactured fear of persecution that leads to the pre-emptive violence and state brutality which have been so rampant this year.

pitay 6y ago

I always thought of cancel culture as people facing "consequences" for their opinions, rather than their actions. Although I guess the can also be applied fairly innocuous actions that don't cause much (or any) harm. The common thing with both is that it has people make mountains out of molehills. How can you trust someone that is willing to damage someone's life for something that small or non-existent, especially if it is just an opinion. They could easily come for you if they don't like something you say or do.

kazagistar 6y ago
The purpose of many opinions is to gather support for some kind of sociopolitical state, and changes or maintenence of the political status quo cause harm or maintain harm respectively. For example, if I lived in 1800 and stated the opinion that "black people deserve equal rights", it would be dangerous to and greatly financially threatening to southern landowners. The added effect of these opinions would be proven out by history. And while that opinion would turn out to help far more then it harms, other opinions like "jews undermined our army in the great war" would turn out disastrous. I would say that opinions are some of the greatest powers in the world, and calling them harmless is dishonest.

tomp 6y ago

Harvey Weinstein was cancelled long before he was also convicted.