What about "X should be fired, and here's why".
Well that depends on the "why" part. Like, what did they do, and what's my rationale for saying it?
Most of the examples in this thread are of people writing/saying something. We're not talking about actual crimes.
Because that's what we're actually talking about, and that is speech. It's literally just speech. The only power it has is the possibility that someone might listen to it. Again, where exactly is this magical line where speech somehow becomes more than speech?
I don't know if I'd use the metaphor of "more than speech," but I'd say the line is when one form of speech is used to shut down another form of speech, rather than contesting it.
Like, if there's a person I disagree with, I can either:
a) Contest the idea
b) Prevent them from expressing the idea
I'd say there's a line between those two concepts. It's a line that's not always clear, but it's a line that exists.
I mean, at absolute best its both, but not really.
Also, you still need to define what exactly we're dealing with, because I'm not engaging in this bizarre idea that speech can magically become more than speech if it has negative consequences for someone you think we should care about.
I've defined it over and over, and set the line. You don't see a line. I mean...okay, sure, but that does mean that again, we're at a crossroads.
Also, "someone you think we should care about." Okay, first of all, it's clear that there's some overlap as to the people we do care about - you care about Ellis, and while she isn't the first person who would come to mind for me (as I said, she really didn't need a 1hr video), you and I agree that what happened was shit, so we're not really in the extent of mutual disagreement you seem to imply.
Second, there's lots of people on this thread that I don't particuarly care about. That isn't the point. It's the principle. Because if I'm operating on the principle of "well, it's only bad when it happens to X, but sucks if it happens to Y," then that isn't really a principle that's being applied.
Believe it or not, I can see what's going on in this thread, and I can see that you're not convincing anyone, not that you've really tried.
Okay, hand on my heart, in all sincerity, I don't know what you mean.
You...think this is some kind of self-preservation thing? Am I worried that people in my 'group' are suddenly at risk? I can sort of infer that, but again, hand on my heart, it isn't. Most of the people on this thread live in different countries, are of different backgrounds, with a sizable portion of the opposite gender, and different ethnicities. I've always been aware of cancel culture in form, if not in name (book banning, social ostracization, etc.), but I honestly thought that society was getting past that. Then Gamergate happened, and since then, it hasn't really abated. Maybe it's never reached that level of intensity, but the practice has become solidified. What's more, judging by this thread, a lot of people either don't see it, or at worse, endorse it.
As I laid out below, what sucks about cancel culture is that the less power you have, the less protection you have against it. I'm also not fond of the idea of shutting down debate, because that's not how ideas should be discussed. And while this has kicked into overdrive in two key countries (the US, and UK), that does make me worried for a number of reasons. First, what happens there will eventually come here, and I dread to think if I actually had to live through the toxic polarization of the US, and now, according to recent reports, the UK. Second, I do have some emotional investment in the UK since I'm British on my father's side, so yes, I've only been there a few times in my life, but I have a level of emotional investment as to what goes on. Third, I'm no stranger to bullying, and while I'm not calling myself a victim, cancel culture pisses me off because not only is it so often cruel, and petty, and vindictive, it's done under the veneer of being just, and often assumes the worst in people (by extension, this ties into the idea of intent vs. impact, and the idea of the former being irrelevant). There's no shortage of people in the world who've suppressed ideas and ostracized people with, at times, the best intentions, so why would we endorse that practice now? Fourth, it's a disaster for discourse - I've read no shortage of letters from professors and teachers (almost always published under pseudonyms) who are basically treading on eggshells lest they do something that offends their students. Fifth, and from a purely partisan point of view, while the right is no stranger to cancel culture, how does it look when the left engages in the same practice? When you have mobs of screaming students on campus, or infighting and cancellation on people who'd actually agree, how does that go down in politics? I mean, you live in the UK, how's Labour doing these days?
Obviously not everyone in history has had the same access to voice their thoughts and opinions, but if you want to level the playing field, it strikes me as a terrible idea to do so by tearing people down rather than raising other people.
Whether you believe me or not is up to you, but that's the honest truth. Cancel culture, at this point in time, is very unlikely to affect me, even if I'm aware of the possibility. It's everyone else I'm concerned about, and yes, that does mean everyone.
If you believe that, then fine, but do you not feel some compelling need to defend to the death my right to have a warped definition of racism?
Don't know if I'd do it to the death, but absolutely I'd defend your right to that definition.
Like, the point isn't that you don't understand free speech and that's inherently bad and laughable, the point is that you seem on one hand you have this idea that you are a paragon of free speech, that unlike me with my puritanical black and white mentality you can see the shades of grey and find the value even in positions that you disagree with. But you're also concretely and obviously not doing that, at least in this case.
Well first, I'm hardly a paragon, though I've certainly felt it on this thread at times. FFS, I can't even get GX to condemn what happened to Zhao, and no-one has yet answered the question of whether I wrote/said something the equivalent of what's got other people fired. Like, I could at least appreciate the moral consistency there.
Second, I don't think you have a puritanical black and white mentality per se, if anything, it's all grey. For instance, as has been established, I believe cancel culture is a thing, and hate speech is a thing, and while the lines can often be blurry, the lines are SOMEWHERE. You, however, seem to have this view of "speech is speech." Which, taken to its conclusion, means anything goes. If you're giving a lecture, and I do everything in my power to shut you down, I don't think you'd appreciate the excuse of "well, I'm just executing my right to free speech."
You're upset because people made a criticism of Richard Dawkins that you don't agree with and which you don't think should have happened. Now, to me that's normal, it's a normal expression of a normal opinion. It's exactly what the people criticizing Dawkins were themselves doing. What's weird to me is that you have made it very clear that you don't see this as normal behaviour, that it somehow crosses some line. So, where is the line?
The criticism of Dawkins for that specific tweet isn't the issue, it's the double-standards that the whole affair represented that irritates me.
Dawkins has been criticizing Christianity for ages, and no-one bat an eyelid. I mean, okay, maybe some people did, but it never really set off a controversy. Then he started criticizing Islam. Again, not really sure how much of a controversy it stirred, but probably not much. However, then we get to this one, single tweet, where Dawkins states that he prefers church bells to the adhan. That's what sets off the controversy. I mean, really? This guy's been criticizing Christianity and Islam for years, you're only now going to start calling him an Islamophobe? And if you are calling him an Islamophobe, then explain his anti-Christian stance. He's been equally scathing of both religions (actually, more anti-Christian, at least by time), but it's the "Islamophobia" that sets you off?
Peering into the outrage and the articles penned, I looked around and saw a clear pattern. People didn't have any real problem with Dawkins criticizing Christianity (if they did, they never mentioned it), but Islam? That's what set off the alarm bells for people. You can't hide hypocrisy forever.
The
Batley Grammar School incident is another example of both cancel culture and hypocrisy. I thought we were well past the days when Christian puritans had power to dictate what was taught in schools (intelligent design) or wasn't (sex ed), but now people are bending over backwards and allowing another Abrahamic religion to call the shots. The act itself is bad enough, but like I said, double standards.
No, I'm not. Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I don't think cancel culture exists at all. I'm just trying to understand why you keep insisting it does, because we seem to be on agreement on this. Speech is speech and violence is violence, and despite the fact they sometimes overlap that doesn't mean that speech can somehow become more than speech, or become some form of implied violence deserving a response beyond that of speech itself.
The contradiction in your position is that, to you, condemning someone for things they say is antithetical for free speech. However, that statement, in and of itself, is condemning someone for their speech. Therefore, you're trying to invent this category of speech that is not really speech (cancel culture) that it's okay to condemn while still being consistent with free expression.
You keep trying to imply that this "cancelling" is more than just speech by trying to equate it with violence or coercion, but it literally is just speech. Many of the examples you're using are literally just people criticizing someone in ways you think they shouldn't.
Well, again, we're at a crossroads. I've laid out how I'd define cancel culture numerous times. You may disagree, but I can't really elaborate any more on my position that I already have.
I don't think I've made myself entirely clear, so this is probably a good time to explain. I'm not telling you how I think society should be. I'm telling you how I think society actually is, and how it has always been for as long as anyone can remember. There is always a window of acceptable discourse, and stepping outside that window is always dangerous. The idea that saying the wrong thing can result in you getting mobbed or losing your job is nothing new.
So why support the practice then? If we agree that it's bad (and we seem to), why not try and alleviate it?
The main difference in recent years, and the only possible explanation for the sudden panic around "cancel culture", is that the internet has made public discourse more accessible to a broader range of people. Back when the only way to speak publicly was through newspapers and television, it probably looked as if there was less conflict in society because conflicting opinions were kept out of the media, but that was absolutely a lie. The same conflicts which exist today also existed then, people with the wrong opinions were just deliberately suppressed. The only reason it might ever have seemed like that it wasn't no holds barred is because the people whose holds were being barred couldn't tell you about it.
That's what makes this so ironic to me as a defence of free speech. You're literally seeing a world in which people previously denied any voice or expression are suddenly allowed to speak through the magic of the internet, in a way that was previously only available to a tiny minority. It is probably the greatest expansion of the actual capacity for public free expression in history.
You know, I actually agree with you that the Internet has been a net positive, in that, among other things, it's allowed more voices to be added to the overall discussion, including voices that may not have had platforms originally. However, two things. One, if you suddenly have the power to wield influence, it doesn't excuse you using that influence for malign purposes. Two, a lot of the examples of cancel culture aren't really 'good' targets. I mean, say you're against some 'ism or 'obia or whatever. Say you want it to end. Okay, fair enough, that's a sound goal. How the hell is going after stuff like Ellis, Zhao, Gunn, or so many other people listed here, actually going to help?
I mean, I can either put this to the other side of the political spectrum. You have Sarkeesian, who claims that games are full of misogeny. You get outraged, attack her, try to cancel her, and in doing so, are proving her point. Well done, genius.
I don't believe in the idea of "no bad tactics, only bad targets," but FFS, how is this helping anyone? It would be bad enough by itself, but attach a cause to it, and, well, there's no shortage of disasters in history that were caused by good intentions, and that remains true on the micro-scale as well.
Was Dawkins criticizing Islam, or was he just expressing his preference in music? It can't be both.
If he was criticizing Islam, what was the criticism?
In that specific tweet, making a music comparison.
Like, I can entertain the notion of someone seeing it as Islamophobic. There's a train of logic you can follow. But why that tweet? Why now?
Again, say you want Islamophobia to end. Okay, sound goal - "Islamophobia" is a term that's used way too much IMO (same way people may cry out anti-semitism as a method of shielding Israel from criticism), but any harassment of someone based on their religion is harassment I'll never condone. Okay. So your means to alleviating Islamophobia is...attacking someone for preferring church bells to the adhan.
I haven't really touched on the 'tactics side' of thing this thread, but there's no shortage of dunderhead moves that people have made when following a cause.
She posted a photo of Jewish people being beaten in the streets by their neighbours, she claimed that the Nazi party "made their own neighbours hate Jews" and then asks how this is different from hating someone for their political beliefs. Which political beliefs do you think she is talking about? Because if you think she is talking about the republicans accusing anti-racist and left-wing activists of being part of some secret communist plot to destroy the country (something which the Nazis, by the way, also actually did) then I've got some magic beans to sell you.
I should not have to explain to you, a supposed adult, the sheer, unbelievable stupidity of that tweet. The Nazis had political beliefs. The idea that Jews were inferior, parasitic beings who needed to be ethnically cleansed was one of their political beliefs. Hating people for their political beliefs is actually kind of important and a thing you absolutely should do. I really struggle to imagine a person so sheltered that they can adopt the facetious position that all hatred is equally unjustified.
I've said that I wouldn't make the Holocaust comparison, because as bad as things are in the US right now, it hasn't reached 1930s Germany levels of hatred. However, I do stand by the sentiment of the tweet.
Like, for reference, here's the tweet:
Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children... Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"
To me, the sentiment is clear. Polarization in the US is high, to the point where Democracts and Republicans (or people generally on either side of the spectrum) hate and distrust each other so much that they see the other side as being a threat to the country (you can check the surveys, this isn't an exageration). Clearly, one 'side' doesn't have power over the other to the extent that they can round them up at will, and Carano is likely more concerned about her own 'side' than the other, but what's objectionable? If you have a situation where people loathe one another to the extent that they do, in a country as divided as this...maybe that's something to worry about?
Heck, I worry about it, and I don't even live in the US. I've made no secret of my disdain for the GOP, but I'm not going to cast everyone who falls on the right as an inherent monster/enemy to the country.
I don't at present, I'm currently taking some time out and will probably end up moving out of academia. But if I was still working in a university, I assure you I'd have bigger things to worry about than the possibility of getting "cancelled".
Alright, but that doesn't answer the question.
If I make all effort to get you removed/censured, using any and all means possible (including things you might have said a decade ago, and/or presenting stuff you've written/said in the worst possible light), you don't think that maybe, possibly, I wasn't acting in good faith? That there wasn't a difference between that and me simply giving views in opposition to yours?
www.theguardian.com
