Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Colon, Feb 24, 2021.
For the love of god man, please expand and make some kind of argument.
People use "cancel culture" as a replacement for "I was openly racist and suffered consequences for this" all the time, lmao.
The only cowardly bullying I see is by the Russian state. If anyone is calling Amnesty International cowardly I think they do not know what they are talking about.
That would be the accusation, isn't it? Remember, the Russians influence our elections with malice in their hearts, so we hear, over and over and over for half a decade. What makes people think they can't influence this... noble band of heroes?
Twitter isn’t a reflection of the real world and PR departments within companies shouldn’t use it as a be all, end all pulse of PR. Even before the days of Twitter, there were “cancelations” of people and corporations when they make the front page news (tabloids for celebs and newspapers for companies), even then there were chances for people and companies to redeem themselves and there wasn’t as much obsession beating the dead horse of the sins of a person/organization.
Though my only gripe with the current cancel culture is there’s no path for redemption or at least aknowlagement that people evolve, grow, and change for the better. Especially if they renounce and disavowed an old edgy tweet they made several years ago. I have my doubts that Robert Downey Jr. would be able to bounce back up in the age of Twitter since the twitterati would be more focused on his pass mishaps (his drug problems and legal issues) rather than his pathway to clean himself up to be a better person before eventually landing a gig in Iron Man after being in a few sleeper hits. He’d likely still be ostracized from the A-list in the age of Twitter.
Though that may be my own personality of giving a people a chance at redeeming themselves and that I hold Robert Downey Jr as an example of a person that manages to redeem themselves and bounce back up.
To bring it back to the reporter being canceled. For me, I’d express disappointment towards the reporter for expressing white nationalist views.
Ah, so the cowardly bullies are the people who created a 'wave of requests to "de-list" Navalny', and were initially considered "part of an "orchestrated campaign" to discredit Vladimir Putin's most vocal critic and "impede" Amnesty's calls for his release from custody" (and may still be, even if they were technically correct). That make sense, thanks.
It would probably extend as far as the "righteous stooges and liars(or whatever)" that go along with it too, hence it being a "culture." At least that's the nuance as I mostly understand it.
Can't you see it more generously, as a consequence of si paullum a summo discessit, vergit ad imum ?
missing the point by a little, has equally failed to anything else.
(likewise, if you are willing to miss the point, being mindful by how much is superfluous)
I can totally accept that AI would fail to meet some reasonable bar - I don't know much about their organization and its ratio of success-to-noise
I was talking about myself
At some point you're going to have to read. I can't do it for you.
People are openly racist w/o being cancelled pretty frequently though. Something else must explain the canceling target process.
I agree that twitter isn't a reflection of the real world, but it's used as such. There are also people who get "cancelled" on false allegations or stories taken out of context, who don't seem to have any clear recourse despite that that should in principle be an obvious slander/libel case. It would help a lot if those advocating canceling/spreading cancel cancer around got it with heavy lawsuits any time they did it with false allegations. Not just with groups/organizations, but against individuals too. That implies that situations like Covington or Rittenhouse could drop the hammer on a large number of individuals. But it seems consistent with our slander/libel laws, and those should be used.
You have not presented any argument, just series of sentences that have no relevance to the questions being asked.
So let's try this again:
The only thing that determines cancellation is popular sentiment filtered through some PR company. This is Disney we are talking about. We know they are OK with racism if it does not hurt their bottom line.
Ahh, so you were referring to a thing you didn't mention. The aggressive obtuse delivery was by the by.
AI was called to adhere to it's own standards - always painful. Doesn't have anything to do with cancel culture. I doubt the motives of many people who called out their hypocrisy, but they had a point.
Now if the far right want to criticise them they'd do far better to ask why Mandela was given a pass/ allowed to reform. You can slap them around with that, adhering to their own standards... less so.
So for Nelson Mandela they did reduce the campaign, in 1964!! That I did not know. I think you have a hard case to say they are bowing to the cancel culture trend.
When Mandela was sentenced to five years in jail (1962?), he was adopted as a prisoner of conscience.
While in prison, Mandela faced new charges alongside eight others, which included sabotage and armed struggle against the apartheid government.
The new trial saw all nine, including Mandela, convicted in 1964, and the high level of international attention helped save them from the death penalty. But for Amnesty, our dilemma was one around a core principle - that prisoners of conscience are those who do not use or advocate violence. Would Amnesty continue to declare Nelson Mandela a Prisoner of Conscience?
Our entire global membership was involved in the debate on how we should proceed. In the end we took the decision to no longer consider Mandela a prisoner of conscience. It was a deeply difficult decision to make. Many members were very distressed by his sentence, but also fundamentally felt that we could not been seen to condone violence.
This decision meant that our membership could not campaign for his automatic release as a non-violent prisoner of conscience.
Although we were not able to campaign for the automatic release of Mandela, we did make representation to the authorities in South Africa around the fairness of his trial and his prison conditions, and over the years continued to campaign for many others subjected to unfair trials and torture by the South African apartheid regime.
People being openly racist without being "cancelled" doesn't contradict what I stated.
Regardless, "targeting process" isn't a single monolithic thing. It's not "the" process. Calling it a process at all is lending it more rigour and planning than many such events or incidents contextually have.
I thought they wouldn't bow to the cancel culture of the 60's. Guess I remembered it wrong.
I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that discussion of a topic with an article linked comes after reading said article .
Having a group of people complain loudly to get someone punished who otherwise wouldn't be for things not directly related to the scope of the organization in question is textbook cancel culture stuff. Not only is it textbook cancel culture, AI straight up confirmed that it a) considered previous comments irrelevant and b) acted in accordance with mob pressure. The only way that's more obviously cancel culture junk is if AI had come straight out and said "we are cancelling this guy".
Point being that "open racism" is not a good predictor for who gets cancelled, since many open racists are not cancelled or targeted by the mob. If racism were a good predictor of cancel culture targets, we should expect to see different cancellation targets more consistently. Right now, you can get cancelled from some sites for interpreting CDC data in ways they don't like or if you question whether masks/lockdowns are even close to worth it for example.
True, mob mentality/targeting doesn't have the implied degree of organization (unless information about a particular undesirable were to be leaked perhaps). I guess it's more of a targeting algorithm or trend or something than a concrete process. Though a constant in this does tend to be a vocal minority spamming some organization with messages/calls to get rid of someone. That's the only step that could be described as a "process". In that context, some acts deserve punishment and others don't. Usually we handle this with the legal system and not mob mentality.
Allowing people to spam employers with stuff effectively creates a dual legal system. Insofar as the statements are true, I would prefer organizations to not bend over to mobs...but it's their businesses. If the statements are not true, I want to see major civil liability for libel/tortious interference as a constraint against mob rule (and basic upholding of law).
You think Navalny should sue Amnesty International?
Separate names with a comma.