Philosophy Discussion Forums

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 4:24 am

HJCarden wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 1:32 am As I'm sure that any of you that frequent the internet know, cancel culture is one of the hottest issues in the political social sphere in the US, and im sure it is present in many other nations. I would be willing to bet that most of us easily can see what the issues with "cancelling" someone and calling in a virtual mob to destroy their reputation. Theres a laundry list of reasons to believe that cancel culture has negative effects, and I am convinced that the cons far outweigh what is gained by cancel culture.

Because of this, I would be very interested in anyone's ideas who

1) genuinely believes that cancel culture does more good than harm

2) Can give a good defense of the positive aspects of cancel culture

3) feels as if they have an interesting take on why cancel culture is bad for our society

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.

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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 4:24 am 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 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.

It's not their own audience that tends to go after the target, but the other side. People at all levels of society get 'cancelled' because they said or did something, often unintentionally, in opposition to someone else's hot button issue. There is often no legitimate outrage at the actual comment or action that sparks the cancel. Rather, they lurk and wait for a mistake which can be exploited to take out their target. It's not about the terrible thing you've said or done, but about an opportunity for your opponents to silence you, or frighten others with similar opinions from speaking out.

Who cares? People who value free speech, and I would think philosophers are near the top of that list. Don't you see the importance of being able to consider controversial and difficult ideas from all sides? When one off-handed comment can be taken out of context to destroy someone, then everyone is less likely to even address difficult topics, and problems can't be solved because they can't even be considered.

This argument confuses dissent with punishment. The victims of cancel culture are generally not powerful people. They are often vulnerable people who suffer devastating harm. A previous post discussed an African American school security guard who was fired for using the N-word in the course of telling a student not to direct that word at him. (Thankfully, he was eventually re-hired after a national furor erupted.) The same post discussed a teacher who was fired for inadvertently failing to address a student by his self-identified gender pronoun. The security guard and the teacher each have four children to support and lost their health insurance as well as their income when they were fired. They are hardly examples of the rich and powerful.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstm ... 93258e63f4

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 7:31 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 4:24 am 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 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?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:02 am

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 7:31 am

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?

Although whether it's "democratic" or not, I'm not a fan of moralizing, and "canceling" someone comes down to moralizing.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 6:17 pmIt's how I'd describe a lot of the sexual harassment accusations that have been made. I never explored the details on Weinstein or Cosby in any depth. I normally don't spend a lot of time learning about details re daily politics or news in general, partially because it just tends to annoy me, because of the stuff that people care about versus don't care about, because of conventional opinions and attitudes about a lot of stuff, etc. I focus my attention elsewhere, on work and leisure stuff that interests me.

Then your comments on cancel culture in general have no application.

baker wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:34 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 6:17 pmIt's how I'd describe a lot of the sexual harassment accusations that have been made. I never explored the details on Weinstein or Cosby in any depth. I normally don't spend a lot of time learning about details re daily politics or news in general, partially because it just tends to annoy me, because of the stuff that people care about versus don't care about, because of conventional opinions and attitudes about a lot of stuff, etc. I focus my attention elsewhere, on work and leisure stuff that interests me.

Then your comments on cancel culture in general have no application.

What does it even mean for my comments to "have application" or not?

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 7:31 amDon'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.

People tend to be cognitive misers. Anyone who wants to successfully bring about some social change, or even just not get in trouble with people, needs to bear this in mind and act accordingly.

When one off-handed comment can be taken out of context to destroy someone, then everyone is less likely to even address difficult topics, and problems can't be solved because they can't even be considered.

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

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:38 amWhat does it even mean for my comments to "have application" or not?

You can't comment on actual examples of cancel culture. By your own words, "I normally don't spend a lot of time learning about details re daily politics or news in general". So, you don't know what the actual examples of cancel culture are, or why they are deemed so by some people.

You have a theoretical understanding of cancel culture, but you don't apply it to actual examples. Why is that?

baker wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:48 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:38 amWhat does it even mean for my comments to "have application" or not?

You can't comment on actual examples of cancel culture. By your own words, "I normally don't spend a lot of time learning about details re daily politics or news in general". So, you don't know what the actual examples of cancel culture are, or why they are deemed so by some people.

You have a theoretical understanding of cancel culture, but you don't apply it to actual examples. Why is that?

You asked me for my opinion on two cases. You're reaching the conclusion that I can't comment on ANY case due to me saying that I don't have enough information about those two cases to have an opinion on the legal trouble that Cosby and Weinstein got into, and me saying that normally I don't pay a lot of attention to news/daily politics?

Gertie wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 6:05 amBeing 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?

Do we really only want to be thick skinned, inauthentic people to begin with?

Putting up pretenses for the sake of putting up pretenses does get lame eventually.

Zarathustra66 wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 6:38 pmDoes 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?

Oh, this is taking root in Europe as well!

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:54 amYou asked me for my opinion on two cases. You're reaching the conclusion that I can't comment on ANY case due to me saying that I don't have enough information about those two cases to have an opinion on the legal trouble that Cosby and Weinstein got into, and me saying that normally I don't pay a lot of attention to news/daily politics?

I'm saying that you can't comment on any cases due to your saying that you "normally I don't pay a lot of attention to news/daily politics" and that you aren't interested in such things.

It's one thing if you're not familiar with the Weinstein or Cosby cases (but presumably are familiar with others). It's another matter if you're not familiar with news/daily politics and aren't interested in them altogether.

baker wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 9:07 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 8:54 amYou asked me for my opinion on two cases. You're reaching the conclusion that I can't comment on ANY case due to me saying that I don't have enough information about those two cases to have an opinion on the legal trouble that Cosby and Weinstein got into, and me saying that normally I don't pay a lot of attention to news/daily politics?

I'm saying that you can't comment on any cases due to your saying that you "normally I don't pay a lot of attention to news/daily politics" and that you aren't interested in such things.

It's one thing if you're not familiar with the Weinstein or Cosby cases (but presumably are familiar with others). It's another matter if you're not familiar with news/daily politics and aren't interested in them altogether.

You're aware that:

(1) "Normally I don't do x" doesn't imply "I never do x"
and
(2) "I don't do x a lot" doesn't imply "I don't do x"

Right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 9:13 am (1) "Normally I don't do x" doesn't imply "I never do x"
and
(2) "I don't do x a lot" doesn't imply "I don't do x"
Right?

Right. Now pick an actual example of what you believe to be an example of cancel culture and explain why you think it is cancel culture, and not justified legal action, or other justified action.

baker wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 9:25 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2021, 9:13 am (1) "Normally I don't do x" doesn't imply "I never do x"
and
(2) "I don't do x a lot" doesn't imply "I don't do x"
Right?

Right. Now pick an actual example of what you believe to be an example of cancel culture and explain why you think it is cancel culture, and not justified legal action, or other justified action.

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