How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Berzerker]

As Lexicus pointed out sometimes it's a useful tool like in the Civil Rights Movement. Boycotting also helped end Apartheid in South Africa when people joined a BDS style movement against South Africa.

This is about getting people fired over free speech, not ending Jim Crow. Your analogy equates the two. Cancel culture attacks on free speech were essential to maintaining Jim Crow.

If Roseanne had made a racist and bigoted slur about an African American on Twitter I doubt "but I'm an Obama supporter" would have helped her much. The only difference is fewer right wingers would be jumping to her defense.

Barr didn't know Jarrett was black, her comment about Planet of the Apes referred to a resemblance to Kim Hunter's hairstyle.

If you don't have either truth and merit or talent on your side it might be a good idea to be careful how you use your freedoms.

Free speech is ailing if comedians should be careful. When I was a youngster it was the socially conservative and fundamentalist crowds telling comedians to be careful. But Barr was right (truthful) about Jarrett, she looked like Kim Hunter's character. Other people made it about race, people who didn't like her because of politics.

 

[Berzerker]

And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them.

lol, jhc...

Now toss thy holy hand grenade on the count of 3

 

[amadeus]

So if the freedom of speech of a party is compromised in many of these situations, it's essentially because of capitalism.

Any brevity of this answer in no way is intended to be a slight against you:

No one's freedom of speech is being compromised, and the only alternative to a system where someone's freedom of speech could be compromised would be a system where they wouldn't already have it. I mean something like the Soviet state, where the opinion of the public had no bearing on the editorial decisions of the press.

If suppose you had an anarchic, communal society of no ownership of property including the press: would I have the unlimited ability to say things that went against the collective attitude of society, consequence-free? Could I say in an atheist journal that homosexuality was a blaspheme against God? Could I say in a black newspaper that the white man is inherently superior?

I just don't think there's an economic or political system that exists that allows freedom of speech and freedom from consequences.

 

[Perfection]

I listen to the Daily by the New York Times (I recommend it) and they had a couple good podcasts on the topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/podcasts/the-daily/cancel-culture.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/podcasts/the-daily/cancel-culture.html

One of the better insights from that is that the term "cancel culture" has become a bit like the term "political correctness", everyone defines it differently but everyone doesn't like it. It's a weaponized term.

In general I think it's better to focus on the particular cases then to get mired in abstract discussion of the overall term.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What conservatives really want is the ability to say **** and to be free of any consequences, legally, socially, physically etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

Free speech only protects you from prison.

It doesn't protect you from things like job loss.

It was thought up because you could get the death penalty for insulting the king.

What counted as insulting the king was very open ended. IIRC a knight got the death penalty in France for having sex with two of the Kings sisters.

Doesn't protect you from a punch in the face either, it's a mitigating factor here if you charge some with assault.

By that I mean the judge might call you an idiot if you insult someone badly enough and they punch you out.

Say the wrong thing to the wrong person in the workplace they can fire your ass.

 

[Commodore]

It doesn't protect you from things like job loss.

The argument could certainly be made that it should though. Back when the idea of free speech came about, most people were still self-employed. That isn't the case anymore and people rely on their wages for survival. That gives employers an unfair amount of political power when it comes to controlling the national conversation on any given issue since they can stifle opinions they don't like by threatening any employee who expressed an opinion they don't like with cutting them off from the wages they need to survive.

 

[Zardnaar]

The argument could certainly be made that it should though. Back when the idea of free speech came about, most people were still self-employed. That isn't the case anymore and people rely on their wages for survival. That gives employers an unfair amount of political power when it comes to controlling the national conversation on any given issue since they can stifle opinions they don't like by threatening any employee who expressed an opinion they don't like with cutting them off from the wages they need to survive.

We have a bill of rights here that protects political views in terms of employment law.

However if you have really extreme views they might fire your ass if you express those views.

Say I employed someone and found out they were a communist I can't fire them for that.

If they're advocating over throwing the government or purging people I can fire them for that as it's serious misconduct.

Note you get your ass fired, take a dispute out and win you're still fired you might just get some cash.

If your views are harassing or advocating violence against groups then yeah tough luck.

If you're a public figure, use social media etc yeah be careful what you say it's not hard.

 

[Commodore]

We have a bill of rights here that protects political views in terms of employment law

Free speech needs to protect more than just political views though. I don't know about New Zealand, but in the US, your employer can fire you if they see you engaging in "morally questionable" behavior that they deem might be harmful to the company. And employers are given way too much discretion in defining what constitutes "morally questionable" behavior. If your employer creeps on your Facebook and sees you party every weekend and happens to be some kind of Puritan that doesn't like that behavior, they can fire you for that.

How one chooses to live their life should also be protected by free speech laws, not just their political views. And free speech laws should also be expanded to protect employees from their employers.

 

[Zardnaar]

Free speech needs to protect more than just political views though. I don't know about New Zealand, but in the US, your employer can fire you if they see you engaging in "morally questionable" behavior that they seem might be harmful to the company. And employers are given way too much discretion in defining what constitutes "morally questionable" behavior. If your employer creeps on your Facebook and sees you party every weekend and happens to be some kind of Puritan that doesn't like that behavior, they can fire you for that.

How one chooses to live their life should also be protected by free speech laws, not just their political views. And free speech laws should also be expanded to protect employees from their employers.

Employment law in US is abysmal.

Think my Facebook is set to private and I barely use it except for D&D and fish and chip shop reviews.

I don't upload photos if me in the turps. Or photos in general.

I think I posted my face in the member thread. That's the first selfie I have ever taken, first time I've put my mug online.

 

[Berzerker]

What conservatives really want is the ability to say **** and to be free of any consequences, legally, socially, physically etc.

so you'd be okay with losing your job and getting beat up for saying ****?

 

[Lexicus]

I just don't think there's an economic or political system that exists that allows freedom of speech and freedom from consequences.

Oh, yes there is. Any kind of social hierarchy tends to allow those higher-up in the hierarchy to say what they like without facing any kind of consequences from those lower down. This is why Berzerker believes that freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything you like without social censure or any other consequences.

This dovetails into @Cloud_Strife 's point here:

What conservatives really want is the ability to say **** and to be free of any consequences, legally, socially, physically etc.

Consequences are for inferiors, not men of quality.

 

[Berzerker]

Oh, yes there is. Any kind of social hierarchy tends to allow those higher-up in the hierarchy to say what they like without facing any kind of consequences from those lower down. This is why Berzerker believes that freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything you like without social censure or any other consequences.

I thought the ruling elite just killed people who didn't like what they were saying, but they came up with free speech instead?

 

[Lexicus]

I thought the ruling elite just killed people who didn't like what they were saying, but they came up with free speech instead?

If we're doing business together and I call you a dumbass and you stop doing business with me have you inhibited my free speech

 

[Berzerker]

If we're doing business together and I call you a dumbass and you stop doing business with me have you inhibited my free speech

The social hierarchy produced free speech to suppress dissent? Did it work? No, I'd inhibit everyone's free speech if I organized a boycott and got you fired.

 

[Socrates99]

This is about getting people fired over free speech, not ending Jim Crow. Your analogy equates the two. Cancel culture attacks on free speech were essential to maintaining Jim Crow.

You said you don't like boycotting, we're showing examples of it being positive. This comes back to the merit I mentioned. You're worried about free speech because, I assume, you think something positive may get quashed by "cancel culture" right? Because boycotts end jobs right? Don't try moving the goalposts.

Barr didn't know Jarrett was black, her comment about Planet of the Apes referred to a resemblance to Kim Hunter's hairstyle.

That was her extremely weak backpedal. Jarrett doesn't wear her hair like that. Don't buy it, it's garbage.

Free speech is ailing if comedians should be careful. When I was a youngster it was the socially conservative and fundamentalist crowds telling comedians to be careful. But Barr was right (truthful) about Jarrett, she looked like Kim Hunter's character. Other people made it about race, people who didn't like her because of politics.

Repeating it doesn't make it less garbage. Google her image and Zira's image. It's garbage.

On top of that she will never hurt for money. You are living proof that people will go see her if she tours.

 

[amadeus]

Oh, yes there is. Any kind of social hierarchy tends to allow those higher-up in the hierarchy to say what they like without facing any kind of consequences from those lower down.

I don’t think this is the case. If anything, it seems to be more true in reverse: the lower one is in the social hierarchy, the freer they are to express opinions that offend simply because their influence is so unserious that giving them a @Berzerker-ian freedom of speech is rather inconsequential.

 

[Zardnaar]

The social hierarchy produced free speech to suppress dissent? Did it work? No, I'd inhibit everyone's free speech if I organized a boycott and got you fired.

If you were my employee and you said something dumb that caused a boycott putting my livelihood at stake bye bye you're fired.

I don't care to much what you say in private.

Using an example if you want to goose step down the street in full waffen SS uniform knock yourself out.

Do that working for me and yeah I could fire you for being a dumbass if nothing else.

If you done reenactment and wore the same uniform probably let it slide. Depending on the situation of course. That being the quality/context of the reenactment.

 

[aelf]

Any brevity of this answer in no way is intended to be a slight against you:

No one's freedom of speech is being compromised, and the only alternative to a system where someone's freedom of speech could be compromised would be a system where they wouldn't already have it. I mean something like the Soviet state, where the opinion of the public had no bearing on the editorial decisions of the press.

If suppose you had an anarchic, communal society of no ownership of property including the press: would I have the unlimited ability to say things that went against the collective attitude of society, consequence-free? Could I say in an atheist journal that homosexuality was a blaspheme against God? Could I say in a black newspaper that the white man is inherently superior?

I just don't think there's an economic or political system that exists that allows freedom of speech and freedom from consequences.

Well, I do agree that freedom of speech is enshrined against violence and state power (with its monopoly on legal violence), not against social or economic consequences.

But if we are to entertain the complaints about 'cancel culture', which I believe are mostly coming from conservatives and moderates, then I think we can't help but come to the conclusion that the capitalist logic that they hold dearly is actually responsible.

 

[Berzerker]

You said you don't like boycotting, we're showing examples of it being positive.

I dont like boycotting people over their speech because the effect is to inhibit speech in general. I grew up in the aftermath of McCarthyism and now the left wants to play minister of culture for a day.

You're worried about free speech because, I assume, you think something positive may get quashed by "cancel culture" right? Because boycotts end jobs right? Don't try moving the goalposts.

The positive is free speech, I limited my argument about boycotts to speech for that reason. Jim Crow and Apartheid, which is where you guys moved the goal posts, are neither positive or speech. If you said boycotting the Dixie Chicks inhibits free speech I (and Dolly Parton) would agree, not change the subject to Jim Crow.

Jarrett doesn't wear her hair like that. Don't buy it, it's garbage.
Repeating it doesn't make it less garbage. Google her image and Zira's image. It's garbage.

Yes she did... I knew immediately what Barr was talking about when she referenced Planet of the Apes, Jarrett had a short haircut and did resemble Kim Hunter. I just googled images for Valerie Jarrett and Planet of the Apes and she actually looks more like the newer Zira, the resemblance is mostly in the hairstyle. Without the similar hairdos the joke doesn't work.

On top of that she will never hurt for money. You are living proof that people will go see her if she tours.

I never liked Barr's style of comedy or her sitcoms, but she never struck me as dishonest.