How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Traitorfish]

Silence is definitely the friend of abusers in positions of power.

You surely, surely understand that the post you are replying to is talking about corporations not feeling obliged to take political stands on Twitter.

 

[Estebonrober]

How do you think Donald Trump got elected?



Calling people names isn't presenting evidence.

Are you on the spectrum Manfred? Just curious. It would help me try to explain things better for you.

Trump LOST by 3 million votes to the worst possible candidate the democrats could have picked.

my point was you could start from a very negative place and still sway minds over time. BLM enjoys popular support now, it did not just two years ago. A lot of minds have changed.

 

[Robert Can't]

Okay then, for you, I will rephrase that to silence is the friend of political ideologies that seek to maintain the status quo.

Not taking a stance is the same as taking a bad stance. On any issue. Corporations are just as guilty as individuals

 

[Seon]

Corporations are usually by default bad

 

[Estebonrober]

Silence is definitely the friend of abusers in positions of power.

Pretend nothing is wrong, pretend that it doesn't affect your people, pretend there are no abusers, pretend the problems of the world will go away if we don't talk about them.
Don't pretend you aren't pretending.

I think silence as a business is appropriate depending on the business and the issue. Gamer gate certainly shifted my views on how this applies to say video game companies but it’s still applicable I think.

Okay then, for you, I will rephrase that to silence is the friend of political ideologies that seek to maintain the status quo.

Not taking a stance is the same as taking a bad stance. On any issue. Corporations are just as guilty as individuals

Corporations are usually by default bad

both of these statements can be accurate which is why I think silence is often their best course of action. Edit: put in “can be”.

I’m not sure I believe in this stuff so strongly actually. You can just not have an opinion on something. Like is Trump a forking moron. You can choose not to have any political stance and I think that’s fine.

my problem is that if you choose to take a stand do t be a baby about it when people tell you you suck.

I stay away from twitter, as that platform seems to be full of idiots. Plus studies have shown that the less social media you have in your life, the better. So I don't see any of the hate. I've taken a look once or twice, and it just seems to be idiots arguing with idiots, so I stay away.

Can you give me an example of what you're describing? Could be a case of the company's social media person being too daft to really understand the nuances of their job.. or.. well, who knows, depends on what was said, right?

Yes I think it’s very content specific. I used gamer gate as a template. It’s impossible for a video game company not to have a stand on feminism and work place conditions at this point. If you have a bad one well. . .

 

[warpus]

Yes I think it’s very content specific. I used gamer gate as a template. It’s impossible for a video game company not to have a stand on feminism and work place conditions at this point. If you have a bad one well. . .

I don't know much about gamergate so I can't comment on that particular whatever it was.

And depends on what you mean "stand on feminism" doesn't it? Any company discriminating based on gender hopefully gets investigated by the proper authorities.. So hopefully any company I do business with is not against gender equality. But a stand on feminism in particular? Why would a gaming company have anything to say about the feminist movement? I could understand that if they were making a game that in some way revolves around feminism. Then hopefully they have a lot to say about that particular subject. But otherwise I expect them to focus on.. gaming. The thing they are supposed to be doing

 

[Narz]

Silence is definitely the friend of abusers in positions of power.

Pretend nothing is wrong, pretend that it doesn't affect your people, pretend there are no abusers, pretend the problems of the world will go away if we don't talk about them.
Don't pretend you aren't pretending.

Okay then, for you, I will rephrase that to silence is the friend of political ideologies that seek to maintain the status quo.

Not taking a stance is the same as taking a bad stance. On any issue. Corporations are just as guilty as individuals

What horse****, you really believe the local taco shop needs to raise their voices and voice your opinion or they're "guility"?

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes I think it’s very content specific. I used gamer gate as a template. It’s impossible for a video game company not to have a stand on feminism and work place conditions at this point. If you have a bad one well. . .

The less I hear about Gamergate the better. It’s just I see it as a cringy part of my past that led me deep into the rabbit hole.

What horsepie, you really believe the local taco shop needs to raise their voices and voice your opinion or they're "guility"?

“Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.

 

[Hygro]

to the worst possible candidate the democrats could have picked

Disagree.

 

[Ajidica]

Okay then, for you, I will rephrase that to silence is the friend of political ideologies that seek to maintain the status quo.

That's pushing things. On a personal level, when topics such as trans rights and anti-racism, I try to make an effort to keep my mouth shut as it has been a frequent call by people who are part of those groups they should be allowed to tell their own story; and also that I, as a middle class straight-presenting white guy doesn't really have any useful thoughts on the issue.
On a corporate level, why should we expect corporations to be some sort of leader in civil rights? I mean, the criticism that certain businesses engage in 'pinkwashing', or "We like the gays, now please ignore our terrible behavior elsewhere" has become increasingly accepted mainstream. I accept this can be a very touchy issue, a friend of mine who is gay and in his 40s is far more accepting of 'pinkwashing' as he has far stronger memories of the casual homophobia that was considered socially acceptable into the 2000s.
Surely you can accept that this area is a lot more complex than "Anybody who is silent supports the status quo".

 

[cardgame]

You don't have to talk over marginalized people to say trans rights are human rights and black lives matter

 

[Crezth]

What horse****, you really believe the local taco shop needs to raise their voices and voice your opinion or they're "guility"?

Well someone has to do it and it isn’t Bavarian sausage makers.

 

[cardgame]

That's pushing things. On a personal level, when topics such as trans rights and anti-racism, I try to make an effort to keep my mouth shut as it has been a frequent call by people who are part of those groups they should be allowed to tell their own story; and also that I, as a middle class straight-presenting white guy doesn't really have any useful thoughts on the issue.
On a corporate level, why should we expect corporations to be some sort of leader in civil rights? I mean, the criticism that certain businesses engage in 'pinkwashing', or "We like the gays, now please ignore our terrible behavior elsewhere" has become increasingly accepted mainstream. I accept this can be a very touchy issue, a friend of mine who is gay and in his 40s is far more accepting of 'pinkwashing' as he has far stronger memories of the casual homophobia that was considered socially acceptable into the 2000s.
Surely you can accept that this area is a lot more complex than "Anybody who is silent supports the status quo".

and the point of this image response is don't let corporations be a leader in civil rights. you let this happen if you just 'keep your mouth shut'.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I am talking explicitly about the composition of elite institutions.

What Tfish was describing was just standard representation theory....

Oh, I completely misunderstood your point. I apologise.

Yes the idea that you can replace 50% of CEOs with women and call it a day is absurd. However, in general the push for diversity in organisations is a good thing. Its similar to the fact that while increasing unionisation in Capitalist businesses won't destroy Capitalism, it is a good thing that improves people's lives.

What you are describing is two groups of people using the same word, Communism, and using that word to describe the same thing, the program of the Communist movement. What they disagree on is the content of that thing. The situation I am describing is one in which two groups of people are using the same word, racism, to describe two different things: racial prejudice, and institutionalised racial prejudice, quite possibly without actually disagreeing as to the content of either. It is a semantic disagreement before it is an ideological one.

The academic of "racism" is not prior to the popular use, it as an attempt to bestow the popular use with greater precision. In academic contexts, that is fine, academics do things like that all the time. But academic language has a habit of leaking in activist circles, and then into the commentariat, who deploy this language in non-academic contexts, and this leads to miscommunication. This is simply an empirical observation.

You can't separate individual racial prejudice and institutional racial prejudice from each other. One doesn't exist without the other. Who upholds institutional racial prejudice? Racist individuals who (either consciously or unconsciously) make decisions that furthers and maintains white supremacy. And then people spread racist ideas to their children, (again either consciously or unconsciously) and the cycle continues.

And you're not just making observations, you are proposing a solution ("meeting people with the language that they are comfortable with"). And I strongly disagree with that solution.

My reference to the Red Scare was intended as an example of a moral panic with which most posters will be familiar, not as a direct analogy for "cancel culture".

The Red Scare and "Cancel Culture" are both moral panics in the same way that an elephant and an ant are both animals. While technically true, they are very different creatures and direct comparisons beyond the most base observations are not particularly helpful or informative.

Just because someone has doubts about "progressive" woke stuff, doesn't mean they agree with its right-wing critics.

If my posts were being unironically liked by people who hold views I find deeply abhorrent, I would reconsider my talking points and try and work out why that is happening.

 

[Lexicus]

You can't separate individual racial prejudice and institutional racial prejudice from each other. One doesn't exist without the other. Who upholds institutional racial prejudice? Racist individuals who (either consciously or unconsciously) make decisions that furthers and maintains white supremacy. And then people spread racist ideas to their children, (again either consciously or unconsciously) and the cycle continues.

Yeah, but see, I am not sure I actually agree with this. I'm not sure enough racist individuals exist to generate the kind of racial caste outcomes we see in the United States. I believe that even if there were no prejudiced individuals, we would likely still continue to see racially-disparate outcomes across many areas of society, because these racist outcomes are a constitutive element of capitalism, and the reproduction of capital is directly underwritten by such things as devaluing the labor performed by people of color, and pushing externalities (like air pollution and contaminated water) onto people of color.

That will continue to be the case even without any prejudiced individuals, and even if the institutions which sustain the rule of capital are made "diverse".

And it's not that I don't care about racial prejudice at an individual level (though I do question whether getting people fired, shaming them, and so on are the best tactics to get people to abandon those ideas - but that is a whole different discussion), or that I oppose efforts to increase diversity in workplaces and elsewhere (I support affirmative action and I think we could probably make stronger affirmative action laws), but the scope of those kinds of things is fundamentally limited and we will not get rid of racial caste without severely curtailing if not abolishing the rule of capital.

One practical example of what I'm talking about was mentioned in an excellent Tweet thread I saw screenshots of, pointing out that making it illegal to fire someone for being LGBTQ is great, but as long as you have at-will employment any employer with half a brain can fire someone for their LGBTQ status and easily ensure there will be no evidence if the matter is taken to court.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Are you on the spectrum Manfred?

JFC mate, being a stubborn, reactionary donkey =/= being autistic. Don't be an ablest turd.

 

[Estebonrober]

JFC mate, being a stubborn, reactionary donkey =/= being autistic. Don't be an ablest turd.

meh I'm spectrum and sometimes I get turned around depending on things, he was seeming to have trouble comprehending my wording which I thought was clear. Then I thought it was me. Anyway I was not trying to be dismissive or ablest or whatever.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Yeah, but see, I am not sure I actually agree with this. I'm not sure enough racist individuals exist to generate the kind of racial caste outcomes we see in the United States. I believe that even if there were no prejudiced individuals, we would likely still continue to see racially-disparate outcomes across many areas of society, because these racist outcomes are a constitutive element of capitalism, and the reproduction of capital is directly underwritten by such things as devaluing the labor performed by people of color, and pushing externalities (like air pollution and contaminated water) onto people of color.

That will continue to be the case even without any prejudiced individuals, and even if the institutions which sustain the rule of capital are made "diverse".

And it's not that I don't care about racial prejudice at an individual level (though I do question whether getting people fired, shaming them, and so on are the best tactics to get people to abandon those ideas - but that is a whole different discussion), or that I oppose efforts to increase diversity in workplaces and elsewhere (I support affirmative action and I think we could probably make stronger affirmative action laws), but the scope of those kinds of things is fundamentally limited and we will not get rid of racial caste without severely curtailing if not abolishing the rule of capital.

One practical example of what I'm talking about was mentioned in an excellent Tweet thread I saw screenshots of, pointing out that making it illegal to fire someone for being LGBTQ is great, but as long as you have at-will employment any employer with half a brain can fire someone for their LGBTQ status and easily ensure there will be no evidence if the matter is taken to court.

I think we broadly agree with all these points. Yes, Capitalism is bad no matter who is in the driver's seat. Racism is inherently profitable, so as long as Capitalism exists racism will continue. One can't meaningfully dismantle White Supremacy without also dismantling Capitalism and vice-versa.

I worry though that a lot of "Cancel Culture" discussion on the Left (not Liberals) have been hijacked by (usually some combination of white, cishet and male) Class Reductionistist who dismiss every issue unique to minority groups and women as "idpol garbage". To be absolutely clear I don't think that you subscribe to that kind of thinking in the slightest. I have been concerned by some other supposedly Left-wing posters takes on this and related issues, however.

meh I'm spectrum and sometimes I get turned around depending on things, he was seeming to have trouble comprehending my wording which I thought was clear. Then I thought it was me. Anyway I was not trying to be dismissive or ablest or whatever.

I get how you feel but you're giving EE a bit too much benefit of the doubt. Generally people who have avatars that proudly display the Union Jack, an emblem that represents an Empire that was responsible for dozens of genocides and other horrific atrocities around the globe, are not speaking in good faith about issues such as these.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No knock warrants are BS for everyone, and **** they have ballooned over the past few decades. Not quite as badly ballooned as civil forfeiture, but still awful. Outside of something like an armed hostage situation I don't see much legitimate basis for them. They're unduly dangerous to residents and the police. What are people SUPPOSED to think if they don't hear the cops announce themselves (assuming they do at all) and then bust into a house with firearms? To me the only reasonable basis not to shoot in that kind of situation is being outnumbered and thus attempting to escape if possible.

Racism is inherently profitable

The implications of that statement on the face of it look pretty heavy. Care to explain why racism is inherently profitable?

 

[cardgame]

black people were paid less before minimum wage

black people are paid less after minimum wage

black people don't ask for raises as often

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/13/stu...-lower-offers-during-salary-negotiations.html

Give society an underclass and you can exploit them.