Cancel culture strikes again

[Birdjaguar]

^^^ We are a sick country.

 

[Rashiminos]

Behold the accountability.

 

[Lexicus]

I trust you do.

Big mistake, snake

 

[Rashiminos]

For what? An application of "cancel culture" that I might dislike? Remember, my objection is with the term and how it is used. Specific applications attributed to the label I may already find objectionable, but it's hard to tell if we never discuss said specifics.

Maybe. You're partial to seeing this from the framework of ingroups/outgroups and related dynamics. Not sure a label highlighting the nouns has the same catchiness as a verby label. You don't like though. Substitution(s)?

I trust you do. That has nothing to do with my question, though. Did you mix up a reply somewhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

I've been waiting over half a decade in some cases for accountability. It doesn't happen. That's why people get frustrated, and in a large part why the actions attributed to "cancel culture" end up happening. Because established processes aren't enough to hold provably abusive people to account.

Yes, I'm aware the criticism of such things being leveraged against targets that aren't proven of anything. Just to head things off there. But if you're interested in causation (which if you want less of it, you should be), you need to understand why, and you need to accept the validity of why it became a "thing" in the first place.

In my experience, causal declarations are part of the dynamics and once they get under way it doesn't tend to attenuate the phenomena. As to why I might "need" to accept the validity of a particular cause, maybe you could clarify? Invent new processes as you deem necessary. If you're lucky, maybe you'll get the patent before they get reverse-engineered.

I assumed you were talking about the English word, not the French. As we're, y'know, speaking English

It was based in an analogy for why an often politicized term might not carry well across political lines, or why someone might not be partial to a certain label.

You don't describe anything in particular, so your reference to locations is mostly hypothetical at this stage (and throughout, really). If you refuse to accept that arguing indirectly is going to result in a meandering discussion, that's not on me. I like specifics. If I don't get them, and I limit the scope of my assumptions by default, you're going to think I don't "get it". That's your assumption, though.

I was brief on some particulars. I know I have a tendency to meander, Cuts down on fixation. Points, constellations, maps, pictures, wandering... (I'll come back to this).

Insofar as I prefer direct arguments and you don't, sure, we are. I guess that constrains the statement too much for your liking, though.

A bit. "Where appropriate"

So why point to the previous natural conclusion? If we can keep on going again (and again), and we're both okay with the other's engagement . . . what was the need to comment on the apparent tiredness you have of repetition?

At some point if I feel I have already answered your questions adequately I will refer you to my previous posts. I can recycle.

I'm pretty sure they are, but I'm not here to convert, simply explore. I have limited time on here throughout the week, so I will frame my replies in terms of having a good block of time to think them through. "right now" is a pretty superfluous term, really.

You're doing a thorough exploration with that rut while I have "meandered" away from it.

Contradictory. If it hasn't been one way I wouldn't need to catch up, nor would you talk about how the value you obtain could be exclusive (relative to an apparent lack of my own).

Contradictory to what? We're using two different metrics. From what I gather the difference between my metric and yours is, you need to put in a bit more effort to get more out of it, hence "catch up." On the other hand, maybe you aren't noticing some things.

But it is funny to see you refer to it as an exercise. I once knew someone who described that as his method of debate (exactly). No way are you two the same person, or at least, that would be a silly assumption, but it does lead me to assume that your goal isn't actually to see any point through to a conclusion. In crude terms, you treat it as a way to advance yourself, and it's other folks' fault if they can't "play" by the same rules.

That person sounds interesting. Crude terms... Having a specific point as a goal can be a limiting factor. It's not I won't ever see a point to its conclusions, but that having a goal can put unnecessary expectations on the conversation. It may go off in a direction I did not expect, and by meandering around the conversants may arrive somewhere they were not intending to go. What points they visit along the way and how they traverse the distances between them... who knows. I imagine that other guy also has some appreciation for the scenery.

I'm not placing a value judgement on this approach, I'm simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong?

Not even.

• So why limit yourself to "mostly"? To test my reaction?

  I thought saying "completely" would have been in error and "mostly" best approximates the mixture.

• Sure. But you didn't qualify it, and as such I reject the simple assertion.

  I felt it too.

• The search actually misses the start - you were right, but not by the search (which misses your saying, or possible typo (both are valid), of "maneuvre" the post before, which replies to me saying it spelled the other way). This stems from the whole "rut" thing anyhow, so nevermind.

  Technically I used the word "maneuver" in post 1627. I used it response to something you said in 1626. I'm not interested in who brought it up first so much as you later saying you never brought it up. That's simply incorrect. If I thought this was intentional instead of an accident I wouldn't even say you were being "mostly genuine." My question is this: Does it concern you that you typed it and later said you didn't? Tunnelvision.
  

• Some are, but they're relatively individual qualifiers. We're not going to understand each other for as long as things remain implicit, which is why I'm glad you've become less so, at times.

  Step-by-step.

• In my experience, it depends entirely on the intentions of the poster. If they're here to answer questions, even a poor question will still be answered to the best of the answerer's ability. If they're not, well, then, they don't. You're reinforcing the latter. I could've asked what the conclusion was two pages ago, and the discourse would've taken a different path. I can't rewind time, though. So it's the loops for us instead.

  "To the best of the answerer's ability." Which comes from where?

There's no semantic difference. One relates to the other in a capacity that makes it fair for debate. It doesn't matter that this thread wasn't specifically about the thing we were then discussion. Moot.

I'll give a short reply to this, and a longer one if you still think we're talking about the same set, and you talking about a subset of that set. When I say something is an instance of cancel culture, I'm saying cancel culture, a concept, has a relation to sequence of events (namely various forms of cancellation) involving groups of people, and probably a location. The set I'm relating cancel culture as a concept to does not contain itself. You may be thinking about topics and subtopics, where that subset relation would apply. The "is a subset" relation is distinct from the "is an instance of" relation. The word "number" in conventional usage is not an instance of a number.

The two other possible answers don't answer the very simple "yes" or "no" (for any partial no, or lack of interest, or the like). Really, "yes" is the only relevant answer here. Either it matters to you regardless of who is targeted, or it only matters to you when select groups are targeted. I mean, there is room for nuance I guess, but it relates to power dynamics, and the concepts of "punching up" vs. "punching down".

False dichotomy with a twist and umbrella please.

But we can only have that nuance if you clarify the scope of your concern.

"Multi-level"

 

[Samson]

UK news launched on Sunday vowing to fight cancel culture. Today Kopparberg (who make flavoured ciders) cancelled them. Kopparberg claim that they were running adverts on them without Kopparberg knowing.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We want to make it clear to everyone that our ad ran on this channel without our knowledge or consent. Kopparberg is a drink for everyone and we have immediately suspended our ads from this channel pending further review of its content

 

[aelf]

UK news launched on Sunday vowing to fight cancel culture. Today Kopparberg (who make flavoured ciders) cancelled them. Kopparberg claim that they were running adverts on them without Kopparberg knowing.

I can already imagine the outrage in certain quarters. Maybe an allusion or two to how those journalists are workers who are being cancelled by a company.

In other news, the same kind of false equivalence that gives rise to talk about 'cancel culture':

North Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending Ivy League school

As American educational institutions continue to be called into question, a North Korean defector fears the United States' future "is as bleak as North Korea" after she attended one of the country's most prestigious universities.

...

Those similarities include anti-Western sentiment, collective guilt and suffocating political correctness.

Link

American universities are North Korea. People disagreeing and calling others out for things is cancelling. Right-wing snowflakes best snowflakes.

 

[Gorbles]

Maybe. You're partial to seeing this from the framework of ingroups/outgroups and related dynamics. Not sure a label highlighting the nouns has the same catchiness as a verby label. You don't like though. Substitution(s)?

The label isn't particularly relevant to why I need to "stay tuned". Catchiness is second (or third, or fourth) to the particulars.

Not that I'm aware of.

Still not answering the question as to why the earlier questions you put forward were rhetorical. Alright

In my experience, causal declarations are part of the dynamics and once they get under way it doesn't tend to attenuate the phenomena. As to why I might "need" to accept the validity of a particular cause, maybe you could clarify? Invent new processes as you deem necessary. If you're lucky, maybe you'll get the patent before they get reverse-engineered.

It's as simple as "understand your enemy" (for whatever mild-to-severe definition of "enemy" you'd prefer). You're never going to successfully argue against "cancel culture", or even any particulars associated with it, without understanding causation. And this needs to go deeper than "people I don't like did a thing I don't like" (which, ironically, is sometimes how proponents of "cancel culture" describe acts of "cancellation").

Contradictory to what? We're using two different metrics. From what I gather the difference between my metric and yours is, you need to put in a bit more effort to get more out of it, hence "catch up." On the other hand, maybe you aren't noticing some things.

Contradictory to your claim that this isn't a one-sided discussion. "effort" is something that only makes sense to your metric, but it is still something I need to put into something I was at the time viewing as rather one-sided. If I need to invest more (unspecified) effort (to unspecified parts of the conversation, generally), then this is one-sided. Playing "catch up" is not how you have a balanced discussion. It's a power dynamic. Same goes for your quip on my noticing of things

• I thought saying "completely" would have been in error and "mostly" best approximates the mixture.
• I felt it too.
• Technically I used the word "maneuver" in post 1627. I used it response to something you said in 1626. I'm not interested in who brought it up first so much as you later saying you never brought it up. That's simply incorrect. If I thought this was intentional instead of an accident I wouldn't even say you were being "mostly genuine." My question is this: Does it concern you that you typed it and later said you didn't? Tunnelvision.
  
• [skipped]
• "To the best of the answerer's ability." Which comes from where?

• Except said mixture had to be explained because there are a number of ways the single-word answer could be taken. Which is why I said: to test my reaction? I stand by it.
• Cool.
• I know, I covered the technicalities in the quote you just replied to here. Regardless, I said you were right, so I don't quite get why you made the question? Did you not understand my conceding of the point? It's a long, meandering discussion. I made a mistake.
• Their competence, generally. But we've already established your preference for the scenery. You have the competence regardless, you're simply exercising the ability to choose to not get stuck in a perceived rut over specifics. In your language.

I'll give a short reply to this, and a longer one if you still think we're talking about the same set, and you talking about a subset of that set. When I say something is an instance of cancel culture, I'm saying cancel culture, a concept, has a relation to sequence of events (namely various forms of cancellation) involving groups of people, and probably a location. The set I'm relating cancel culture as a concept to does not contain itself. You may be thinking about topics and subtopics, where that subset relation would apply. The "is a subset" relation is distinct from the "is an instance of" relation. The word "number" in conventional usage is not an instance of a number.

I didn't realise we were discussing mathematics. But yes, the important semantics here are when you say "when I say something". It's your idiolect. But that's not necessarily translatable.

I was indeed thinking about topics and subtopics, because the general context was the thread (topic), and what things fell under its umbrella. If that wasn't clear, hopefully it is now.

False dichotomy with a twist and umbrella please.

Not at all. I was specifying the boundaries because you kept on dancing around the point. I appreciate your preference, but this was something I was looking for a straightforward, non-meandering answer on. You calling it a false dichotomy doesn't inspire me with much confidence that you want to give such an answer.

Why? Specifically, why is it so difficult for you to plainly state whether or not you personally believe that "cancel culture", as described by you, is a problem regardless of who it affects? You've said that it is a problem for the demographic it targets at the time, but you haven't said whether or not you believe this to be a problem.

For example, to pick on a particular problem I see as being real (because naturally, I don't believe "cancel culture" is, as a label or even generally when actions are attributed to it. Specific cases, perhaps, but only specific cases, debated on their own merits), I believe poor worker protections are a problem for all workers regardless or not of whether I agree with their personal beliefs. Across the board. Otherwise it would undermine my own advocacy for stronger worker protections.

"Multi-level"

"Not an answer". At least not by itself

 

[Rashiminos]

The label isn't particularly relevant to why I need to "stay tuned". Catchiness is second (or third, or fourth) to the particulars.

Okay.

Still not answering the question as to why the earlier questions you put forward were rhetorical. Alright

It was the answer I gave whether you found it satisfactory or not.

It's as simple as "understand your enemy" (for whatever mild-to-severe definition of "enemy" you'd prefer). You're never going to successfully argue against "cancel culture", or even any particulars associated with it, without understanding causation.

Mmhmm. I think Sun Tzu also advised knowing oneself, but sure, understand your neighbor.

And this needs to go deeper than "people I don't like did a thing I don't like" (which, ironically, is sometimes how proponents of "cancel culture" describe acts of "cancellation").

In context that framing is useful, but deeper is going to lead to choice-response dynamic. People don't think alike, (un)ironically.

Contradictory to your claim that this isn't a one-sided discussion. "effort" is something that only makes sense to your metric, but it is still something I need to put into something I was at the time viewing as rather one-sided. If I need to invest more (unspecified) effort (to unspecified parts of the conversation, generally), then this is one-sided. Playing "catch up" is not how you have a balanced discussion. It's a power dynamic. Same goes for your quip on my noticing of things

I said this was a two-sided discussion, yes? In order to entertain your belief that this discussion is one-sided some of my responses are distorted to fit that framework. Like you "catching up." More specifically, I'm making the claim that you're not aware that this is a two-sided discussion, hence the claim. Subconscious Gorbles is a bit quicker on the uptake. The perceived unbalance has a slightly different explanation from my perspective.

• Except said mixture had to be explained because there are a number of ways the single-word answer could be taken. Which is why I said: to test my reaction? I stand by it.

  Okay...

• I know, I covered the technicalities in the quote you just replied to here. Regardless, I said you were right, so I don't quite get why you made the question? Did you not understand my conceding of the point? It's a long, meandering discussion. I made a mistake.

  I think you fumbled the concession when you tried to claim I wrote the word maneuver before you wrote manoeuvred. Anyways, that's a technical detail. A mistake. In the course of a long discussion. One that you may or may not surmise has gotten off course.

• Their competence, generally. But we've already established your preference for the scenery. You have the competence regardless, you're simply exercising the ability to choose to not get stuck in a perceived rut over specifics. In your language.

  Okay. Having sourced the origin and forms of my answers, do you think I consider answering this question of yours in the form you would have it answered in represents the best of my ability?
• Let me modify that question. Yes or no?

I didn't realise we were discussing mathematics. But yes, the important semantics here are when you say "when I say something". It's your idiolect. But that's not necessarily translatable.

It was used to illustrate the distinction. If my idiolect isn't translatable to yours, or to a more formal lexicon between us and/or others, than it's not a good indication of semantic equivalence. If we were describing the same concept with different labels, it would be translatable for those words.

I was indeed thinking about topics and subtopics, because the general context was the thread (topic), and what things fell under its umbrella. If that wasn't clear, hopefully it is now.

I hope it's clearer that while I have talked about how certain subtopics branched off from the main topic, there are other aspects of the tree I would prefer to discuss, interesting as that branch may be.

Not at all. I was specifying the boundaries because you kept on dancing around the point. I appreciate your preference, but this was something I was looking for a straightforward, non-meandering answer on. You calling it a false dichotomy doesn't inspire me with much confidence that you want to give such an answer.

I have already said some things to this effect, but to reiterate: The whole frame in which the question was asked is flawed. The whole frame. Either of those two answers would be wrong. The assumption that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive is unsound. If you want to pretend I answered in one way or the other, flip a coin and knock yourself out. Better yet, flip it as many times as you need to get both results.

Why? Specifically, why is it so difficult for you to plainly state whether or not you personally believe that "cancel culture", as described by you, is a problem regardless of who it affects? You've said that it is a problem for the demographic it targets at the time, but you haven't said whether or not you believe this to be a problem.

I have, multiple times, on multiple levels. The waters rise.

For example, to pick on a particular problem I see as being real (because naturally, I don't believe "cancel culture" is, as a label or even generally when actions are attributed to it. Specific cases, perhaps, but only specific cases, debated on their own merits), I believe poor worker protections are a problem for all workers regardless or not of whether I agree with their personal beliefs. Across the board. Otherwise it would undermine my own advocacy for stronger worker protections.

And the activists who engage in what you would definitely not label "cancel culture" don't believe in such worker protections. "Toleration is for decent employees. We don't employ Swifties here." Worker protections would lead to such embarrassing situations as being unable to get a "Swiftie" fired for being a "Swiftie." No one is being "cancelled," just held "accountable" for "Swiftism."

"Not an answer". At least not by itself

Luckily it came with company.

 

[Farm Boy]

^^^ We are a sick country.

Using 8 minutes of free time to intentionally watch the PA state legislature seems a pretty reliable indicator. What am I supposed to be oh so shocked by?

Edit: Ah, more people fighting about who is hwhite. Yup, most boring **** possible. Yup, sick and stupid for hwatching it.

 

[Berzerker]

I can already imagine the outrage in certain quarters. Maybe an allusion or two to how those journalists are workers who are being cancelled by a company.

In other news, the same kind of false equivalence that gives rise to talk about 'cancel culture':

Link

American universities are North Korea. People disagreeing and calling others out for things is cancelling. Right-wing snowflakes best snowflakes.

she said we were heading down that path, she would know better than I

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cancel culture at Fox

 

[Bugfatty300]

she said we were heading down that path, she would know better than I

Ha, yeah...based on her vast experience of life in both NK in the US... oh wait, never mind she fled NK when she was a kid and has only been in the US for four years.

But it's not like you have much standards when it comes to someone bleating out bullcrap that you already believe.

 

[FriendlyFire]

she said we were heading down that path, she would know better than I

Iam sure that you defer to "scientist" on things like global warming, and medical science since they know more then you do. Right ? RIGHT ?
That Liberal University are against teaching "Critical thinking" which is the cornerstone of science and churns out Athiest is one of the craziest things I have read.

She accused American higher education institutions of stripping people's ability to think critically.
"That is what is happening in America," she continued. "People see things but they've just completely lost the ability to think critically."

 

[Berzerker]

Ha, yeah...based on her vast experience of life in both NK in the US... oh wait, never mind she fled NK when she was a kid and has only been in the US for four years.

But it's not like you have much standards when it comes to someone bleating out bullcrap that you already believe.

I dont have experience in NK and American universities, she does. Do you? How long does she need to spend in college here before recognizing trends and patterns she saw back there?

Iam sure that you defer to "scientist" on things like global warming, and medical science since they know more then you do. Right ? RIGHT ?

I believe in global warming

That Liberal University are against teaching "Critical thinking" which is the cornerstone of science and churns out Athiest is one of the craziest things I have read.

I dont think she was talking about math and science courses

 

[Edmund Ironside]

If anyone has a bit of time to spare and wants to take a deeper dive into cancel culture, I would recommend this video by Lindsey Ellis, a liberal who got 'cancelled.'

 

[FriendlyFire]

If anyone has a bit of time to spare and wants to take a deeper dive into cancel culture, I would recommend this video by Lindsey Ellis, a liberal who got 'cancelled.'

She should not have been cancelled for one tweet about Asians. However a short look at her wiki shows she has definitely courted controversy in the past
Hopefully she gets re-instated on Twitter.

 

[Samson]

If anyone has a bit of time to spare and wants to take a deeper dive into cancel culture, I would recommend this video by Lindsey Ellis, a liberal who got 'cancelled.'

I have only got 20 minutes in, but flaming on twitter is now cancelling? Or do we find out later that she lost some gig?

 

[Traitorfish]

I have only got 20 minutes in, but flaming on twitter is now cancelling? Or do we find out later that she lost some gig?

She's describing an attempt to impose a state of pariahdom, which could realistically have significant personal and professional consequences.

In this case the attempt seems to have been unsuccessful because the outrage was so nakedly manufactured, but it still serves as a case study of the process.

 

[aelf]

Wikipedia describes what she went through as "harassment". So does harassment falls under 'cancelling' now too? What a flexible term.

That's not to say that harassment is okay, of course.

 

[JollyRoger]

Manifest Destiny