If that's all what you able to take from my posts here, that's unfortunate.
Cancel culture strikes again
- Thread starter Colon
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
Hey if you want to spend your life feeling bad about extra stuff like jokes you overhear, you can do that. Just remember that the bottom line with employment is that employers generally shy away from folks who create unnecessary conflict or are perceived to be a PITA. In this case, with both folks being fired, we have a great example illustrating this point.
Apologies - you did indeed say it was expected - I somehow missed it.
Sure. But if that "bad PR" is actually hurting the company, then why shouldn't they be allowed to fire the responsible employee?
One might argue that if such protections were in place, it would serve to make all kinds of public boycotts and "cancellations" pointless, but I'm afraid they would just become a tool of "revenge"/"punishment", rather than "pressure to change"
No. I described - imho - entirely objective reasons why I find it preferable. It is because it does not involve inviting people without firsthand knowledge of the situation to "take action" after the situation is long over.
People on social media (unlike people physically present and around them) would not know whether these guys were obnoxiously loud or just talking normally. They would not know whether their jokes were sexist or she misheard or misinterpeted. And, in any case, it's too late for reasonable intervention. Being loud during a presentation is rude and merits being asked to quiet down. It hardly merits public doxing and firing. Yes, that last part is only my subjective opinion, but the first part isn't.
Generally, cultural phenomena predate specific terms invented to describe them. And companies protecting their bottom line is entirely reasonable behavior that only becomes problematic when they are subjected to unreasonable pressure.
Let's summarise, then.
- You linked an article from 2013 about a dude getting fired in a thread about "cancel culture".
- You flat-out stated the woman, however, deserved to be fired. Got what she deserved, right?
- You said you would defend the woman if she had said something similar and gotten fired.
Your perspective is rooted your belief of how bad, or in this case, not bad, a joke is. I made multiple posts on why this was a completely dead-end topic. You know I try to engage with a point in mind, and I don't like to be drawn on things I've explicitly stated are pointless.
What do you want me to say? Just remember that the bottom line is also that employers generally shy away from folks who make dumbass jokes publicly in such a way that reflects badly on them? Or from employees that do the same in-office?
My entire point was that the problem was a company's ability to drop employees easily. I've made it several times
No worries, it happens (and this is all moving pretty fast at the moment).
It would damage public boycotts (insofar as they lead to people being fired) and "cancellations", I agree. This has been discussed before, but my stance is that people do that because it is a way to hold people to account for crappy behaviour. It isn't ideal, and it is abused. But it's only possible because of how easily companies can drop their employees in the first place.
If you make that more difficult / require valid, documented reason, then this entire myth of "cancel culture" evaporates. Does it mean that toxic people could technically do more harm before they're ultimately dismissed? It does, yes. I struggle with that personally. But it also means that the people upset over said (actual) toxic behaviour can't also be dismissed for making an (understandable) scene. I'm talking about something completely separate to the article from 2013 now, to be clear.
People on social media don't exist in a vacuum. People at the conference could've all been on the same social media platform at the time it all went down. What do you know? This is what I mean when I say it's just your perspective.
The same goes for "doxxing". Samson raises a good point about modern times and AI software that can track people, but this was then. They weren't identified by name, only by picture and their presence at a conference. Was the conference open? Did it have a public delegates list? Do you know? I don't know! The article didn't say, as far as I'm aware. But regardless, that's getting into the validity of the act itself, which to me is pointless. I could just as easily say: why is it on the woman to try and get the dudes to stop being asses? Why put the pressure on the people (arguably) upset?
Your point is valid in that she could've reacted differently. My point is also valid in that the guys could've quite as easily chosen a number of approaches that wouldn't have risked anybody even glancing at them.
Which is exactly why I wanted to focus on the worker protections thing. It's a far more substantial thing to try and explore and get peoples' perspectives on, especially when I know various posters and how they're going to respond to something like "woman in tech finds a remark objectionable" without even reading their posts. Not you, to be clear, but other posters.
Oh, of course. But the entire thing about "cancel culture" is how it's a zeitgeist-y thing; how it's changed since some people were young, etc, et al. It's wishful conservative thinking about the "good old days". It's rooted, specifically, in a timeframe, which makes establishing the timeline useful. If it's just how things have always been, it's not a specific culture by itself. It just is, and should be debated on its own merits instead of being attached to some random phrase that people thought would sound good to "own the libs".
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
My quote quite clearly considered this side of the coin. I think you need to pick it up and examine both ends of it. I'm simply warning that as much fun it is to be on the right side of history, those who are perceived to be too easily transgressed upon may find themselves just as unemployable as their transgressors.
I have to ask. Did you watch any of the videos I posted? What do you think of them? I know they are NSFW so maybe you have to wait a bit to watch them. Do you disagree with Maher's premise?
Wouldn't it therefore be wonderful if employers required actual, evidenced fault to make someone unemployed? Wouldn't that be beneficial? That way people fired would be fired for more ironclad, far-less-arguable cause, and all of this palaver wouldn't exist. That seems sensible, no?
Honestly, it seems like sometimes people complain about the results of a system, and then complain when people ask for the system to be changed. Do you think I've haven't considered both ends of it?
I disagree with Maher basically any time he opens his mouth. I haven't watched the videos, no. That's not specifically Maher's fault though; I have very little time for videos. I type fast and I read fast, but I can't watch things fast (as easily).
Whatever point Maher is raising, if they're vaguely-related to "cancel culture", then I'm very likely to disagree with them. If he doesn't mention anything about how easy it is for anybody to be fired (especially in the US), then I'll definitely disagree with him.
WHILE-TYPING-EDIT
I've just had a quick look at the last two posted to read their video descriptions. No, I don't think it's unfair to update art based on modern times. Art is contextual to the time it was made, which means as times change, so will peoples' impressions and acceptance of said art. And no, I don't think the Democrats need to do anything about reigning in progressive causes (the video, naturally, words it in a massively exaggerated and indeed conservative manner). They're right-wing enough as it is, which means abandoning what few left-wing principles they may have (however nominal) is going to further degrade the point of having a party that opposes the Republicans.
If the videos themselves make a more nuanced point than the written video description of what will be discussed, they're still at fault for starting with poor premises. It's very much "guess what the conservative is going to say about progressivism".
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
You really ought to watch them, Gorbles. You might not put "cancel culture" in quotes if you did.
If it makes you more apt to have an open mind (which your post above pretty clearly says you won't, which I find surprising for you), here's the second paragraph of the first video I posted:
So, it would seem the two of you might agree with that eh? Give them a shot and review them when you have a chance.
If it makes you more apt to have an open mind (which your post above pretty clearly says you won't, which I find surprising for you), here's the second paragraph of the first video I posted:
So, it would seem the two of you might agree with that eh? Give them a shot and review them when you have a chance.
The entire principle is rooted in the validity of the phrase, which I object to in general. It's not about having an open mind, I have a very well-read and comprehensive view on the topic in general, but it's just a bit pointless to get into because even with the best of intentions I get people like you coming and patting me on the head about having an open mind
"cancel culture" has enough cultural recognition now that Merriam-Webster has an article on being "cancelled". It exists. I simply wish it didn't, because it's overwhelmingly used as a cover for something else. And the few instances where we could actually make a serious discussion out of bettering society by giving companies less power over deciding the lives of their employees, people just don't get interested. At all. There's literally zero interest (Yeekim aside) in my suggestion of better workplace protections for employees. You've avoided it every single time I've mentioned it!
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
Oh yeah, I'm patting you on the head alright. How horrible of me to take these quotes and draw a conclusion that someone is being a bit closed minded.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
Oh he's absolutely grating but there aren't many tv persona's out there so willing to silence their own audience. He's not exactly kind to Republicans but he also calls the left out on their considerable **** as well which is why I respect him.
Edit - I'd disagree with you on the intellectual piece though. At least as far as news shows go, he's up there. But then I find that he, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Jon Stewart, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan and other comedians are worth their weight in gold compared to what I have available on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.
An issue is that he seems to become curiously docile when the issue is Israel. Then he doesn't feel like calling out anyone who is in favor of up to genocide of palestinians ^_^
Still, the US tv (and I am sure many others) is filled with this kind of thing.
If we do not like cancel culture, what should we do about it? It seems that the primary action you could take is to commercally engage with actors who's views you dislike. What does that really look like?
I am on the pro cancel culture side, but the only thing I have personally actively "canceled" is Nestlé. Should I do less of that?
I am on the pro cancel culture side, but the only thing I have personally actively "canceled" is Nestlé. Should I do less of that?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
A good start might be to hire people to follow SJW's around all day and whisper in their ears, "you are not a god."
Didn't say you were being horrible. You seem a bit off today compared to usual, unless I've forgotten something in the recent past.
Your problem is assuming that my tendency to disagree is purely reactionary. It isn't. It's just not for the thread and I'm not here to invalidate what you think of him, so there's very little reason to get further into it.
Lexicus
Deity
"maybe we should treat people with a little more respect"
=
"i am a god"
weird, that
You boycotted a company. You did not try to do a harm to a person because you disliked his/her views or comments.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,793
Well, we're both basically saying the other is off so it's just as easily in my head as anyone else's. I don't disagree with you about the employment piece to be honest and neither do I think someone should be protected if they're egregious. I'm against the absurd ones, and those videos I posted are chock full of them.
Maher's basic premise, by the way, is that - like it or not, fair or not - Democrats are -- at least in public opinion-- and I quote -
He argues that this is the reason that Democrats have such trouble winning elections and implores people to cut the crap so they can actually accomplish their agenda. He's on point.
There is a very good point that if the Democrats do a Corbyn then they will lose their chance to make a difference. None of the examples in this thread would seem to be that though.
Last edited: