Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

I think you've missed the mark in a couple ways. It's not just about social media and people profiting from their opinions. Those types could almost be considered fair game. This goes back to book burnings and McCarthy-ism through riots from the 60's to last year, and I'm sure it goes even further back. Anyone can be 'cancelled' for having a view that the people doing the cancelling don't like.

So, aren't we all saying the same thing? If someone is 'cancelled' in a spontaneous display of democratic disagreement, that's fine - even good - but if people are manipulated to express these views, it's not. Yes?

If the cancelled had bad intentions and did or said something seriously wrong, if they don't understand their error or want to change or apologize and make things right, if the mob knows enough of the facts to make a sound judgement... If. if, if, then yes.

[chewybrian]

Don't you see the importance of being able to consider controversial and difficult ideas from all sides?

Outside of internet forums, what's the use of considering controversial and difficult ideas from all sides?
I'm asking this seriously.

At some point in our history, it was not controversial to beat your wife, to own slaves, to conquer and exploit 'uncivilized' civilizations, to cast aside people for their sexual preferences or race or age or whatever. At some point, it was a controversial idea to consider that these were not just ways to live, and that we needed to change the way we were doing business. Of course, we still have lots of problems we should address, and enforcing silence is not a good way to make progress. If your own ideas are truly just, then they should be able to survive scrutiny and open conversation.

Of course. You're asking far too much of people.

Of course. You can't expect much progress, but you will get even less if you can't even ask.

[baker]

Roseanne Barr's show getting canned because of her tweet about Valerie Jarrett.

And you believe that is an example of cancel culture, and not justified action?

[Terrapin Station]

Roseanne Barr's show getting canned because of her tweet about Valerie Jarrett.

And you believe that is an example of cancel culture, and not justified action?

Of course. No one should have a show canceled just because of something they say on twitter--it could be anything imaginable. That's a ridiculous overreaction.

[baker]

Of course. No one should have a show canceled just because of something they say on twitter--it could be anything imaginable. That's a ridiculous overreaction.

I disagree.

ABC reversed its renewal decision and canceled Roseanne on May 29, 2018, after Barr likened former Obama administration official Valerie Jarrett to Planet of the Apes, in a comment on Twitter that was described by the network's president as being "abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values."[6][7][8][9][10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne

The stakeholders of the show have every right to cancel it or change it in any way, in accordance with their values, as specified in the legally binding contracts that all parties involved agreed to.
To the best of my knowledge, Barr didn't own any rights to the show, so she had no say in the matter.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course. No one should have a show canceled just because of something they say on twitter--it could be anything imaginable. That's a ridiculous overreaction.

I disagree.

As do many other people, obviously.

ABC reversed its renewal decision and canceled Roseanne on May 29, 2018, after Barr likened former Obama administration official Valerie Jarrett to Planet of the Apes, in a comment on Twitter that was described by the network's president as being "abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values."[6][7][8][9][10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne

The stakeholders of the show have every right to cancel it or change it in any way, in accordance with their values, as specified in the legally binding contracts that all parties involved agreed to.
To the best of my knowledge, Barr didn't own any rights to the show, so she had no say in the matter.

No one is disputing that it was legally above board.

[Count Lucanor]

I think that's right, being gossipy and judgy is part of us. And the anonynimity of the internet can turn it into a blood sport.

We all have our own lines of acceptability, and what ought or ought not be 'allowed' or consequence free. And we have different cultural and generational influences on that too. The ability to indulge it is now just an anonymous mouse click away, it's so easy. Just like judging people for their looks or class or education or anything else. Judging people for their actions can sometimes have merit. Deciding to boycott a company or person because of some moral position isn't bad per se. But the mob mentality and triviality of the 'infractions', with no interest in understanding or moving forward constructively, can be vicious.

It's a strange mixture of the anonymity of modern urban life and the virtual closeness, with its false sense of community, provided by the technological advances of that same society. There's the obvious 'pitchfork' mob going around, but there is also the most subtle, gossipy kind of interaction, which anyone familiar with small town culture can relate to.

Being a public figure requires a thick skin and an ability to play the games which keep you out of the cross hairs, but do we really only want thick skinned, inauthentic people to be in politics, for example?

It promotes everyone in general to be inauthentic and public relations to be run by virtue signaling and hypocrisy. If secular humanists thought we have gotten rid of imposed religion and church-like conservatism, we were in for a big surprise: they have come back disguised as liberalism and attacking the very foundations of what used to be progressive thinking. No wonder why some people that represent the old school of progressive politics have become the targets of cancel culture. The whole idea of a perfectly virtuous society is ridiculous.

[Gertie]

I think that's right, being gossipy and judgy is part of us. And the anonynimity of the internet can turn it into a blood sport.

We all have our own lines of acceptability, and what ought or ought not be 'allowed' or consequence free. And we have different cultural and generational influences on that too. The ability to indulge it is now just an anonymous mouse click away, it's so easy. Just like judging people for their looks or class or education or anything else. Judging people for their actions can sometimes have merit. Deciding to boycott a company or person because of some moral position isn't bad per se. But the mob mentality and triviality of the 'infractions', with no interest in understanding or moving forward constructively, can be vicious.

It's a strange mixture of the anonymity of modern urban life and the virtual closeness, with its false sense of community, provided by the technological advances of that same society. There's the obvious 'pitchfork' mob going around, but there is also the most subtle, gossipy kind of interaction, which anyone familiar with small town culture can relate to.

Being a public figure requires a thick skin and an ability to play the games which keep you out of the cross hairs, but do we really only want thick skinned, inauthentic people to be in politics, for example?

It promotes everyone in general to be inauthentic and public relations to be run by virtue signaling and hypocrisy. If secular humanists thought we have gotten rid of imposed religion and church-like conservatism, we were in for a big surprise: they have come back disguised as liberalism and attacking the very foundations of what used to be progressive thinking. No wonder why some people that represent the old school of progressive politics have become the targets of cancel culture. The whole idea of a perfectly virtuous society is ridiculous.

All that is fair criticism. And the pitting of class politics v identity politics plays into the hands of people who would rather we don't talk about either.

Never-the-less I want to personally be able to criticise, protest and withold my support from people, governments, companies, institutions I despise. And I'm happy to join movements which boycott companies for example to coerce change. Just like Christians do. I draw different lines, that's all.

[HJCarden]

Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."

Having had a quick read about Cancel Culture on the interweb, I can see the negative side: those who do this elect themselves judge, jury and executioner. But on the positive side, this is a way people can democratically express their disapproval of a person/company who has behaved unacceptably. If POTUS Trump was 'cancelled', for example, wouldn't this be a good and sensible thing? Historical figures and companies are universally reviled if their actions were bad enough...? Hitler and Nazis are the obvious example; there are many more.

From my observations, all of these purported benefits would be tenable defenses of cancel culture, however its little more than social pressure for these large institutions, and the victims who it works against best are often individuals who have said the wrong thing. Some young girl recently was unaccepted from a college because a young man intentionally waited with a video of her saying a racial slur, and only came out with it specifically to get her kicked out. Corporations don't care if you post an instagram story about why capitalism is evil, and cancel culture was part of the rallying cries of many young conservative Trump supporters.

The point is that this internet mob violence only works on the weak.

[HJCarden]

It seems that you have offered something I'd not thought of . Trump has attempted to make this an art form. I am sure he thinks that he is the master of this art.

Cancel Culture is wholly undemocratic.
It is counter productive. Whilst you can cancel a man, attempting to cancel the ideas that go with him is is not a good idea.

As an American youth I can tell you honestly that cancel culture was closely tied to his rise in popularity. Trump was "cancelled" by every youth social media activist, shamed in a similar manner by the media. It only fueled his popularity. In my opinion, it is because many people saw this type of discourse kick into extreme overdrive against Trump, and many seeing the issues with cancel culture took up the opposing side.

[HJCarden]

It's just a contemporary version of close-minded/conformist mobs armed with pitchforks and torches.

True, however the rapid spread of information via the internet has changed a key aspect. No one is safe from this, no matter how strong their support is around them. It often leads to discourse that is only aimed to please everyone and not step on any toes. Opinions that are potentially offense therefore are left out of argumentation, and the discourse becomes muddled as the full picture cannot properly be explored.

[HJCarden]

/.../
Personally I feel as if I create an echo chamber for myself in regards to this issue particularly, as I have been unable to convince myself of any manner in which the benefits can outweigh the negatives. Interested to hear anyones ideas or general discourse and observations.

How about what happened to Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby? Why not say that those were examples of cancel culture?

Absolutely their exposure and convictions are the positive part of things such as the Me Too movement. However, OJ Simpson walked, and so have many other powerful people. Whenever there are actual consequences that are brought about by things like this, it is often the rich, powerful, and famous that have the best chance of escaping these consequences. Not that only people who are powerful are bad, and many people who do not have any useful social status are also bad persons, however there is a clear disparity in consequences. You're still gonna buy an IPhone, but some girl got kicked out of college for saying the n word with a soft a when she was 15.

[HJCarden]

But if one reverses the coin, many acts that are not deemed as criminal per se, actually harm people's lives, and that is the case of cancel culture, which is nurtured by the objective of carrying out the social assassination of other people for their apparent cultural transgressions. Then one wonders if such people are not to be cancelled themselves, since ironically, those who actively engage in cancelling other people are the ones actually harming others. But this is precisely the toxic cycle in which cancel culture reproduces itself, where emotions take control and one is ready to punish the transgressors. Anger gives us the justification, but where's the difference?

That's part of one of my largest critiques of any sort of mob-violence system like this, it always turns its vengeful destruction into a cycle, that ends up turning inwards. I also connect Nietszche's ideas in the genealogy of morals to this, in that the ethics of cancel culture are born out of a hatred of the strong. The weak turn hateful and create "morals" to destroy what the strong knew was correct. Tangentially consider critical race theory. It boldly rejects the maxim that we should treat everyone based on the content of their hearts, and instead let someone's race and ethnic history be the main guiding force behind our cultural beliefs about what is right and wrong in situations that can be related to race (which no surprise is everything according to this theory). Cancel Culture and CRT go hand in hand, and these are the divisive tools that are wielded against our society. If these is some shadowy cabal pulling the strings on these things, they have done an excellent job at making a large portion of us throw away our moral common sense.

[HJCarden]

Does seem to be an anglophone phenomena and seemingly absent in most European countries. Wondering whether it be another example of what Huntington referred to as the 'excess of democracy' and the US's penchant for litigation, where spurious arguments are made so the legions of lawyers can make some work for themselves?

America is a vastly over-litigious society, however I had never considered the possible tie ins to cancel culture. Many personal injury lawyers brand themselves as helping the little man fight the big bad businesses. And while it is true this is often the case, this has created a society in which companies are forced to constantly watch after smooth-brained consumers and watch their backs for any potential issues that could arise, no matter how foolish they might be. Dunkin Donuts used to give out the unsold donuts at the end of the day, sometimes to homeless people. And then Dunkin got sued by some ambulance chasing lawyer. And now they just waste all of those donuts, not wanting to get sued again.

In a very similar manner, the arbiters of cancel culture often do seem to stir up things like this. One might make some outrageous claim, but then claim that opponents of it are a whole laundry list of awful things. For example, I've heard much talk that not wearing a mask in public is in fact racist, because more minorities are dying of Covid. One outlandish claim, and one thing that I personally would find abhorrent if someone truly wished for it. The broad sweeping story of the connection between these is then challenged, and anyone who challenges it is automatically put in the pile of abhorrent people.

[LuckyR]

Sorry, but to me this is much ado about not much. Folks who profit from social media do something that their audience doesn't like so the gravy train gets cut off. Who cares? It's poetic justice. No one has a "right" to social media popularity and compensation.

I do not think that this fits with some examples of cancel culture where there is a concerted effort to fight a cyber war to destory an idea or a person.
Cambridge Analytica are good at such things. Call it rent a mob.

In my opinion, the actions of corporations paid to simulate or instigate grass roots reactions on behalf of their clients, simulate cancel culture, but aren't technically an example of it.