People aren't going to agree it's bad if you can't even convince people the problem exists in the first place. Let's be honest here, everyone is basing their interpretation on their feelings about a couple cherrypicked situations.

I already argued why I don’t think “convince people it’s bad” will do anything.

If you do think it exists, and you think it’s bad, but you don’t think it’s bad enough to do anything about... shut up, I guess? What are you doing here? “Kids these days”?

Culture wars are the 'opiate of the masses'. I guess if you get people really mad about Brie Larson they won't notice the larger sociological trends at hand.

I do have to say, increasing hostility to China thanks to Trump might not be the worst thing. If there's any one thing the world could unite against..

Those darn millennials with their pronouns and questioning Taiwan’s sovereignty

And what are people “complaining” about racism doing? Whining about dinosaur boomers and their regressive ways?

The idea that it’s unrealistic for civil society to bring about this change by itself is a little odd, I think, given that so much has been achieved by “woke politics” in just the past few years. It wasn’t necessary to use the law to ban the words f***** or n***** from use in polite society, but I think we can agree it’s a genuine accomplishment that children are now raised to believe that their casual use is inappropriate. The ways in which social action has made society more tolerant and accepting in just the past decade in mainstream liberal society is a good thing, despite its excesses, and it definitely shows what social change can accomplish without politics.

I don’t think we can have a productive conversation that effectively starts with ‘the civil rights movement was just people complaining about racism’.

The words ****** and ****** were banned by 'cancel culture': say ****** and lose your job. Right?

Weird, I always thought it was because engendering a hostile working environment violates title 7 of the civil rights act.

Civil rights are cancel culture

I think some sort of 'cancel culture' pretty obviously exists, since you'll clearly be able to find at least one example of it happening. I am not sure what you find objectionable about conservative editorials which bemoan it, and if I had to guess I'd almost certainly agree with your particular criticisms of them. It just seems silly to dismiss the entire concept of cancel culture (or whatever it was called before) entirely, and especially silly to tell people to shut up for suggesting it might be a bad idea. Since when is having a discussion about whether or not the prevailing attitudes of the time are encouraging or not the providence of "old men shouting at clouds" alone? Literally it is your civic duty to discuss things like this in a public sphere, long before we should expect to be brow beaten into "putting up or shutting up" about this or that legislation we support in hopes of solving the "problem" (or be told to go away). Sometimes the point of having a discussion is nothing more than to become aware of a trend that reveals distasteful or dangerous assumptions held by too many, and which need to be corrected. Dare I say, through education.

I don't understand why you keep suggesting this is a discussion about giving up legal rights. I assumed it was merely about about attitudes and norms, something you seem to be belittling (even though it is pretty much the entire point of having discourse about issues like these). Clearly the #metoo movement has shown that this is something that can change, so isn't it also obvious that this issue as well can change? And that changes in cultural norms can go too far, and that private citizens engaged in discussions like ours can help moderate revolutionary fervor that might push that change too haphazardly? Does wanting to do this make you an old man shouting at a cloud automatically?

Also, literally: this thread is now about the "outrage (Jonesassi) about [the outrage (Reiddit) about [the outrage (Conservatwitter)]]".

By the same token, then, should we have the same attitude about keyboard warriors who use the internet to convince people that social injustices are bad, that we need to change our assumptions about disadvantaged groups, and to check our privilege? I've always thought that such "social justice warriors" were really mostly good, well meaning people on average, with a few loud voices that completely pissed off and polarized also mostly reasonable conservatives, who probably rightly began belittling the entire idea of "SJWism" (at least in its caricature form).

The funny thing is that we're now seeing the very same thing in reverse: the idea that there might be a danger to blithely seeking to end the careers of people who have said things we find objectionable, valid though it may be, is being very badly represented by a few loud voices (conservatives up in arms about "cancel culture"), that completely pisses off and polarized mostly reasonable non-conservatives, who probably rightly began belittling the entire idea of "cancel culture" (at least in its caricature form).

See, I don't know what the conservative blogs are up to, or who started the current crop of "cancel culture" complaints, but in my mind, the conversation really, legitimately "started" the moment a Twitter mob unjustly caused damage to some public figure's career. Conservatives didn't invent the concept of "canceling" somebody's career (or a part of it), though they now be trumping up the issue ad ad nauseum, inventing new terminology, making stupid comments about civil rights (?), etc.

By the same token, the New York Times probably brow beat the public with the "Trump is corrupt and has various dubious foreign business dealings", but this doesn't lessen the reality that he probably is and does have these dealings!

We're having a political discussion about something we find objectionable about society (and agree exists; don't confuse me with Reid). In the context of that discussion, what I'm asking for you to do is define your friggin' end point.

Like, we agree it's bad, okay? We've pretty much hit bedrock on that discussion. So the next step is to explain what YOU think a society would look like if it didn't have this cancel culture thing.

Because, although I'm eager to be proven wrong, I'm pretty ****in' sure you can't have all three of {free speech, voluntary exchange, capitalism} without cancel culture happening automatically. As shown by the fact that this isn't at all a recent phenomenon; American Christians have been dictating terms to private businesses as long as there have been Christians living in America, so this iteration is only superficially novel because it involves a different kind of opinion voiced on a ****ty phone app.

Essentially this is what I was trying to say in fewer words. It's just that (apparently) people also need to be educated on some basic tenets of Enlightenment philosophy and respecting the autonomy of others whom we disagree with.

In all honesty? I think you've thought about this a lot more than I have. Beyond my initial (edit: dis-)agreement with Reid, I honestly couldn't say what my end point is. As much as I'd like public discourse to make a difference, I am sorry to say that these days most "free speech" advocates are often awful people who cohort with the worst racists and the like (even if for me the concept goes back to a more honorable place in my civic education).




This is now fascinating territory, and thinking about it for a minute I think you're clearly right: so long as we have the three things you mentioned, we're going to have this phenomenon. I also don't think its terrible that it goes on (and some of it is good, like shaming clearly bad actors into shaping up, like in the #metoo movement, for all its excesses). Even more interesting maybe is the realization that it has been going on for quite a while, and as you alluded to, American conservative Christians are horrible nasty hypocrites here, and its somewhat rich to see them up and arms now.

I honestly couldn't parse your first sentence (probably more my fault than yours, I'm pretty tired and can't connect your post to mine).

The point I was trying to make is - progressives throughout modern history, from today going all the way back to first wave feminism, have actually done a marvelous job organizing themselves and tackling their areas of concern holistically. Their successes didn't only come from educating the public, although that was certainly an important part. But their successes also came from lobbying, boycotting, protests, civil disobedience, and sometimes even rioting. They changed minds, won legislation, and occasionally even put the fear of God in rich people and the police. Feminists, black civil rights activists, later day progressives, - they all worked to change the people and the system, because it's never, ever going to be enough to only change one of those things.

For example, it's really nice to teach people to be compassionate towards the disabled. But regardless of how much you, me, and the workers at a business may care about people with disabilities, that business ain't gonna pay to put in a ****in' ramp. Not unless the government makes 'em do it; that's how capitalism works, dudeskis. Society never would have changed without the ADA (and corresponding legislation in other countries).

So if you really want to change society, you should probably take a lesson from the few people who have managed to do it.

It's not terribly important since I can see you understood the thrust of my post. But essentially I was trying to compare the hasty dismissal of those attempting to educate us on "cancel culture" to the hasty dismissal of those who attempt to educate us on issues of social justice.



Well, I honestly don't know what kind of activism you'd want in favor of a society that is reformed to avoid the perceived problem of "cancel culture", and I'm also not sure I'd want to live in one that implemented such reforms. About the only activism I can think of that has served as a basis for the "free speech" quorum is going to be Enlightenment philosophers and Internet activists and technologists advocating and implementing means of free expression. Since the people in either groups are (respectively) classical liberals and modern day libertarians, I imagine that their vision for social change doesn't go much further beyond what was legislated in the First Amendment, and has more to do with creating some kind of free speech haven online (rather than changing existing society to fix the problem in the mainstream). Which is fine for creating online platforms for voicing opinion that are either anonymous or attract the worst kind of racist and illegal activity, but it's clearly not a comprehensive solution, although libertarians were never good at that anyway.

Maybe the main problem I'd see this issue is exposing (im my mind) is that the very channels we use for expressing ourselves and reaching our audiences (think: Youtube, Instagram, etc.) are controlled by unaccountable corporations. Sure, we can argue whether or not it is good or bad that "cancel culture" is warranted or not, but: bringing to the fore a particular case in which, say, Google decides for or against deleting a Youtube channel, just what is the criteria used in their decision? And do we want a large chunk of what people are seeing and reading the result of the same arbitrary rules by the same corporation? Although the Internet promised to bring democratic forms of communication and discussion to the masses, in the end the old corporate media and their advertisers seems to be in control again after all.

I don't think our legal foundation for free speech (e.g., First Amendment) really foresaw large corporations making arbitrary decisions on what communications ought be permitted or not. Did the Founding Fathers think it would be a good idea for a bureaucracy to review letters published in newspapers, and to delete letters it found objectionable? Because this is essentially what Google is doing with artificial intelligence when it auto-deletes content that it flags as unfriendly to advertisers or otherwise in violation of community standards, or what Reddit does when it tries to kill subreddits which threaten their profitability by scaring away demographics they'd like to advertise to.

Hey, and speaking of chaining ourselves to the whims of unaccountable (foreign) corporations, good luck to folks in Venezuela who had a cloud account with Adobe.

I basically just think it's time to abandon the idea that corporations should exist for the sole purpose of finding profit. I don't see cancel culture as a moral failure of the people or even of foreign governments; I see it as a systemic failure of capitalism inherited by any purportedly free and just society that uses it. Cancel culture is just parts of society trying to mash these tumorous corporations into a society-like shape. If you want a less violent version of this process, put the workers in charge of the business, and give them the power to choose between profits and their values.

I agree with you in a strong sense, and also in a weaker sense: I resent corporations taking over existing technologies like email and web forums and mucking them up for profit. Get your forum account canceled by a moderator? No problem, start 4chan. Not so easy to do when you are an average Joe and your "forum" is a Facebook group, and basically nobody on your friends list even uses web 1.0 proper, outside of navigating their browser to facebook.com to access the corporate walled garden / smartphone app feed they've grown up inside.

Strawman...

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m getting at. Cancel culture is an example of civil society self-regulating without recourse to legal or political remedies, but through persuasion, shaming or social coercion. The existence of cancel culture is indicative of the effectiveness of such practices. If such practices are effective at pushing back against racism, why not against cancel culture too?

Although to be fair to Jon's point that "civil society self-regulating without recourse to legal or political remedies" might not be enough in practice, I think I remember reading that the end of segregation in the South wasn't possible without twisting the arms of many Southern governors. And then the actual Civil Rights Act, an actual piece of legislation. I mean, to this day I imagine you'll find people in the South who probably resent being forced to implement these reforms (though they might not admit it publically).

That said, I don't quite see the connection to the issue of this thread topic ("cancel culture"), unless we accept Jon's suggestion that we should look to nothing less than capitalism itself as the real source of the dilemma here. Of course, given the whimsical and fickle behavior of corporations and their willingness to cow-tow to any mob that threatens their profitability, I am inclined to agree somewhat. Especially since there will always be angry mobs.

In fact, just like Nazism is probably not actually an ethos, maybe it's wrong to suggest that a mob is really a culture. I can't imagine a situation in society where there won't be angry, non-nonsensical mobs, and just maybe no amount of education will ever stop them from cropping up.

And to this point, Jon suggested that it is liberals (not conservatives) who are most up in arms about cancel culture (witness this thread, with Eversor and myself perhaps representing the most fervent liberals, representing the upholding of Enlightenment ideals).

And although it could be that we simply need to Make the Enlightenment Great Again, could it be that the most educated and conscientious people already know that cancel culture is bad, and this literally does nothing to stop it from being a problem (simply because it is the least educated and conscientious segment of the population that foment it)?

Having said all that, if there are so-called liberals penning editorials in the NYT and on Vox engaging in some kind of intellectual apologetics for mass moral outcry and mob-instigated de-platforming (and oh ho I am sure there are, seeing that I read cringe-inducing acrobatics defending highly illiberal ideas from those claiming to be liberal seemingly everywhere these days), they certainly need to be rebutted.

conservatives are liberals cmv

I’m certainly not insisting that the law or politics has played no role in social change (or that it is “enough”). I’m saying that there has been appreciable social change that can be attributed to social action.

Something like transgender bathroom laws weren’t implemented because bathrooms are itself a super important issue, but because advocates of the laws believe that such legal changes would alter peoples’ broader perceptions about an issue, and ultimately promote transgender equality. Similarly with same-sex marriage: marriage equality would reinforce the idea that same-sex relationships aren’t a deviant behavior. There are certainly examples of legislation or legal changes leading social change (I.e., changing hearts and minds).

Oh, and by the way, we're back to the French Revolution, because we have Reid (a man of the left, and therefore I presume putatively a liberal in some sense of the word) in this thread posting literal guillotine pics as perhaps the purest of pure illustrations that so-called cancel culture is really not so much a cohesive culture, but a bipartite alliance between supposedly progressive intellectuals and a highly illiberal mob that said intellectuals gleefully cheer on in the name of the revolution, all the while shielding themselves from criticism of its excesses by retorting that conservatives were always worse, and the perhaps regrettable collateral they suffer is nevertheless a relatively negligible moral tragedy.

The "far left" of progressivism is scandalously illiberal, cmv

Incidentally, I remembered something that isn't all that on topic, but has to do with the contradictions and frustrations of left/right politics in the US.

I would personally consider myself to be center-left on economic issues, and somewhere closer to the center on social issues. What are my options for political representation in the United States? Well, we have two parties: one which is far right on both economic and social issues, and the other which is often enough far left on social issues but still center-right on economic issues! So I am left of center on economic issues but literally every party is at least center right on economic issues, which to say the least presents a problem for voters like me (although things like Occupy Wall st., Sanders, Warren becoming popular is encouraging).

My theory now is that the two parties will reinforce and further polarize both their differences and their similarities: that is, both parties will become more diametrically opposed socially, but will become more aligned economically. End result? The country is pushed further to the right on economic issues, and instead the media will be dominated by polarizing social issues.

Of course its only been happening for at several decades now (e.g., Pat Robertson's 1992 GOP convention speech), so it might be pedestrian to mention it now.

I certainly agree with you here, and I too think it's unreasonable to short-circuit the discussion by suggesting that the very next step in improving the situation is nothing less than upending capitalism itself. Changing the prevailing attitudes and norms of acceptable conduct can go a very, very long way. I can imagine a future on Twitter when it might be considered bad form to engage in cancel culture, just the same as it is considered bad form to dox somebody, although on the other hand, I can perfectly imagine that a future on Twitter where perhaps this can't really happen, and to that point I will contradict this naive optimism in the following paragraph.

The problem might actually be with the intellectuals who goad on and celebrate worse and worse elements of Twitter. In fact it seems like some kind of prisoner's dilemma scenario where we can never develop a polite society until we stop rewarding progressive intellectuals from encouraging people to sink lower than whatever standard of behavior we'd hope to establish on Twitter. Although I am still inclined to throw up my hands and say that Twitter mobs will always exist and agree with Jon that the blame lies in letting corporations to have the final say in the first place.

iow... high tech lynching!

FWIW, reading this back to myself, I am struck at how thoroughly American this point of view is: the economic system is immutable, but we have eternity to discuss everything else!

ftfy

Let's not forget that the idea of 'deplatforming' your political opponents started as a Gamergate tactic to 'punish' gaming outlets for being 'anti-gamer'. Never started with the horrid SJWs.

Hey, remember how we were talking about letting China 'cancel culture' people through our corporations is much more insidious than whatever people are freaking out about today about SJWs? First thing I find when I open the internet:

https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1181442535962632193?s=19

Instead of spilling so much ink on a topic that pretty much doesn't matter, we should probably look a little harder at this.