Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Multiple threads over many weeks and we still can't get an operational definition from you about what exactly "Cancel Culture" is. Can you at least pleeaseeee define it?

At its most basic, it's about silencing people rather than refuting  arguments. Saying "This person is wrong, and this is why...." isn't cancel culture. Saying "This person is wrong, and should be fired for saying such a thing" is cancel culture. It isn't confined to one end of the political spectrum; it has a long tradition in religious circles where people were punished for blasphemy. It's the idea that certain statements cannot be made publicly, or that even certain questions cannot be asked.(In the absence of cancel culture, there can still be statements or questions that may be considered in bad taste, or poorly worded, but in that manner they are violations of etiquette, rather than violations of laws or formal codes of conduct.)

Still, anyone has the right to say "You know what? I don't feel like engaging in discussion with you any more. And frankly, you are being toxic and dragging the conversation into the pits of heck instead of moving it forward. So... kthxbye."

Is that Cancel Culture? Or just natural consequences to behaving like a tool?

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

[ciao_yall]

There actually is a Merriam-Webster definition of "cancel culture":

At a Republican National Convention where speakers' rage about cancel culture has been clear, former Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann used his speaking slot to introduce himself as "the teenager who was defamed by the media."
— Hunter Woodall

He was hardly "defamed" if he is speaking at the RNC. So looks like cancel culture is failing miserably.

[Wahoo Redux]

Multiple threads over many weeks and we still can't get an operational definition from you about what exactly "Cancel Culture" is. Can you at least pleeaseeee define it?

At its most basic, it's about silencing people rather than refuting  arguments. Saying "This person is wrong, and this is why...." isn't cancel culture. Saying "This person is wrong, and should be fired for saying such a thing" is cancel culture. It isn't confined to one end of the political spectrum; it has a long tradition in religious circles where people were punished for blasphemy. It's the idea that certain statements cannot be made publicly, or that even certain questions cannot be asked.(In the absence of cancel culture, there can still be statements or questions that may be considered in bad taste, or poorly worded, but in that manner they are violations of etiquette, rather than violations of laws or formal codes of conduct.)

Still, anyone has the right to say "You know what? I don't feel like engaging in discussion with you any more. And frankly, you are being toxic and dragging the conversation into the pits of heck instead of moving it forward. So... kthxbye."

Is that Cancel Culture? Or just natural consequences to behaving like a tool?

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

Honestly, Marshy's explanation is pretty good.

I have no problem with talking back to someone or disagreeing, loudly if need be, but it is dangerous for all of us to threaten people's livelihoods or safety or online personas. 

Can't we see that we are on thin ice when our opinions are curtailed out of menace and fear?

[ciao_yall]

Multiple threads over many weeks and we still can't get an operational definition from you about what exactly "Cancel Culture" is. Can you at least pleeaseeee define it?

At its most basic, it's about silencing people rather than refuting  arguments. Saying "This person is wrong, and this is why...." isn't cancel culture. Saying "This person is wrong, and should be fired for saying such a thing" is cancel culture. It isn't confined to one end of the political spectrum; it has a long tradition in religious circles where people were punished for blasphemy. It's the idea that certain statements cannot be made publicly, or that even certain questions cannot be asked.(In the absence of cancel culture, there can still be statements or questions that may be considered in bad taste, or poorly worded, but in that manner they are violations of etiquette, rather than violations of laws or formal codes of conduct.)

Still, anyone has the right to say "You know what? I don't feel like engaging in discussion with you any more. And frankly, you are being toxic and dragging the conversation into the pits of heck instead of moving it forward. So... kthxbye."

Is that Cancel Culture? Or just natural consequences to behaving like a tool?

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

I used to work at a company where one of the founders had a rather right-wing blog with Islamophobic themes. Many who worked at the company were Muslim.

Should the founder, even as a private citizen, be permitted by the company's board, to say hateful things about his own employees?

Could the employees point to discrimination on the basis of religion? And sue?

Would talented candidates, upon seeing this drivel, choose to work elsewhere? And, would that hurt the company, other employees, the investors?

When is it "cancel culture?" And when is it saying "This is inappropriate and we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior?"

[dismalist]

Multiple threads over many weeks and we still can't get an operational definition from you about what exactly "Cancel Culture" is. Can you at least pleeaseeee define it?

At its most basic, it's about silencing people rather than refuting  arguments. Saying "This person is wrong, and this is why...." isn't cancel culture. Saying "This person is wrong, and should be fired for saying such a thing" is cancel culture. It isn't confined to one end of the political spectrum; it has a long tradition in religious circles where people were punished for blasphemy. It's the idea that certain statements cannot be made publicly, or that even certain questions cannot be asked.(In the absence of cancel culture, there can still be statements or questions that may be considered in bad taste, or poorly worded, but in that manner they are violations of etiquette, rather than violations of laws or formal codes of conduct.)

Still, anyone has the right to say "You know what? I don't feel like engaging in discussion with you any more. And frankly, you are being toxic and dragging the conversation into the pits of heck instead of moving it forward. So... kthxbye."

Is that Cancel Culture? Or just natural consequences to behaving like a tool?

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

I used to work at a company where one of the founders had a rather right-wing blog with Islamophobic themes. Many who worked at the company were Muslim.

Should the founder, even as a private citizen, be permitted by the company's board, to say hateful things about his own employees?

Could the employees point to discrimination on the basis of religion? And sue?

Would talented candidates, upon seeing this drivel, choose to work elsewhere? And, would that hurt the company, other employees, the investors?

When is it "cancel culture?" And when is it saying "This is inappropriate and we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior?"

That is an an instructive example of the consequences of discrimination from animus.

Muslim workers would presumably like less to work for such a person. He would have staffing difficulties and have to pay people more. His profits would be  lower. He'd find it harder to get bank credit, and so on.

The discriminator loses income. People like that tend to disappear.

On that logic, discrimination from animus is not so much present. What's surely present is statistical discrimination.

[ergative]

That is an an instructive example of the consequences of discrimination from animus.

Muslim workers would presumably like less to work for such a person. He would have staffing difficulties and have to pay people more. His profits would be  lower. He'd find it harder to get bank credit, and so on.

The discriminator loses income. People like that tend to disappear.

On that logic, discrimination from animus is not so much present. What's surely present is statistical discrimination.

You may well be right about the long-term consequences and systemic issues. However, I am cynical enough to believe that people are very happy to take a personal hit to their finances if it serves their bigotry, so I'm hesitant to conclude that the detrimental consequences of discrimination from animus are sufficient to ensure it peters out.

But regardless, whether or not the discrimination is statistical or motivated by animus, the consequences for the targets of it are the same: Muslim workers do not have access to a job for which non-Muslims get paid higher wages. Knowing that the company might go bankrupt in a year or five years is not much comfort if I need to pay my rent this month.

If there are not explicit consequences for this sort of behavior, then losing this company due to economic forces will not prevent another company from being started by another bigot with the same practices. There's no shortage of bigots refusing to hire Muslims, and as long as they're learning the hard way that they shouldn't discriminate against Muslims, there are Muslims being shut out of a portion of the job market. Why should it be on them to wait for the 'natural' consequences of discrimination by animus to clear it out of the workplace? (if it can be cleared out in the first place, which, as I've said, I don't think is likely.)

[marshwiggle]

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

I used to work at a company where one of the founders had a rather right-wing blog with Islamophobic themes. Many who worked at the company were Muslim.

Should the founder, even as a private citizen, be permitted by the company's board, to say hateful things about his own employees?

A company can have policies about employees (including the CEO) saying negative things in public about the company or any of its other employees. This would work both ways, so if employees publicly said nasty things about a supervisor they could also be subject to sanctions.

If there are not explicit consequences for this sort of behavior, then losing this company due to economic forces will not prevent another company from being started by another bigot with the same practices.

As I said above, an organization can have consequences for members of that organization publicly saying bad things about other members of the organization. That's a far cry from firing someone for saying something negative about people who share a characteristic with some members of the organization.

(And in that case, as Dismalist indicated, the more widely known those comments are the more likely they are to negatively affect the organization. Most people don't like bigotry in general, like any other rude behaviour, and will avoid it.)

[Wahoo Redux]

If there are not explicit consequences for this sort of behavior, then losing this company due to economic forces will not prevent another company from being started by another bigot with the same practices. There's no shortage of bigots refusing to hire Muslims, and as long as they're learning the hard way that they shouldn't discriminate against Muslims, there are Muslims being shut out of a portion of the job market. Why should it be on them to wait for the 'natural' consequences of discrimination by animus to clear it out of the workplace? (if it can be cleared out in the first place, which, as I've said, I don't think is likely.)

What, then, is your solution?

At what point does this become Orwellian?  And at what point do we all become afraid to speak our minds?

We all have prejudices.  I do not like or respect Trump voters as a group, not necessarily on a one-to-one basis.  The rhetoric and politics of certain fundamental religious groups really bother me.  Except for the Eagles and some "horse with no name" type songs, I hate, hate, hate '70s "soft rock."  My opinions are based on lived experience and media coverage. 

I do not discuss these opinions in the classroom (or whatever career might come next) as they are not germane to what I do and would be inappropriate.  So my opinions are separate from my job.

Am I not allowed to express these thoughts anywhere else because someone might not want to work with me of their own accord?

[Wahoo Redux]

The other problem with the thought police is that the patrol does not stop with bigots who run companies but bleeds out into many other parts of life.  This problem becomes particularly acute now that the Internet holds our thoughts in a kind of limbo, potentially forever.

I am glad to see that cancel culture does not always work:

IHE: 'African Studies Review' Won't Retract Autoethnography Essay.

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't know if this belongs here, but I stumbled over this on Reddit:

Reddit: Students are upset about use of the n-word, what should I do?

[dismalist]

Don't know if this belongs here, but I stumbled over this on Reddit:

Reddit: Students are upset about use of the n-word, what should I do?

Here is John McWhorter's disquisition on the word. Looks like words come and go into taboo.

Slurs have become our profanity.

Treat the n-word as you would the c-word and the f-word.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/john-mcwhorter-n-word-unsayable.html

[marshwiggle]

Don't know if this belongs here, but I stumbled over this on Reddit:

Reddit: Students are upset about use of the n-word, what should I do?

From the link:

One student specifically stated, "In a different class, one of my Black classmates who had heard of this incident had broken down in tears that this white history professor, who was teaching the human rights unit this week, chose to say the n–word in front of Black freshmen students who felt that they could not share their uncomfortableness out loud."

This is one of the most asinine parts of cancel culture- someone who did not even directly hear the offensive word is distraught due to the mere knowledge that it was uttered somewhere.
God help them if people like that ever see the news.

[dismalist]

I don't think it's asinine, Marsh, but rather religion-like. Imagine the reaction of a western European in the middle ages upon learning that there were infidels abroad [and that perhaps he should go on a crusade ...] .

But the wider point of McWorther is that usage does change, so I sympathize, at least a little.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think it's asinine, Marsh, but rather religion-like. Imagine the reaction of a western European in the middle ages upon learning that there were infidels abroad [and that perhaps he should go on a crusade ...] .

But the wider point of McWorther is that usage does change, so I sympathize, at least a little.

It's definitely *religion-like. But it's not like someone hearing about infidels for the first time; the person here obviously knew "the word" was used historically, and presumably also knew that historical documents would contain "the word", and so anyone reading one of those documents would see "the word". It's more like the reaction when Harry Potter first innocently said Voldemort, rather than He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

(*And as McWhorter says, it's a bad religion.)

[ciao_yall]

Multiple threads over many weeks and we still can't get an operational definition from you about what exactly "Cancel Culture" is. Can you at least pleeaseeee define it?

At its most basic, it's about silencing people rather than refuting  arguments. Saying "This person is wrong, and this is why...." isn't cancel culture. Saying "This person is wrong, and should be fired for saying such a thing" is cancel culture. It isn't confined to one end of the political spectrum; it has a long tradition in religious circles where people were punished for blasphemy. It's the idea that certain statements cannot be made publicly, or that even certain questions cannot be asked.(In the absence of cancel culture, there can still be statements or questions that may be considered in bad taste, or poorly worded, but in that manner they are violations of etiquette, rather than violations of laws or formal codes of conduct.)

Still, anyone has the right to say "You know what? I don't feel like engaging in discussion with you any more. And frankly, you are being toxic and dragging the conversation into the pits of heck instead of moving it forward. So... kthxbye."

Is that Cancel Culture? Or just natural consequences to behaving like a tool?

Any individual is completely welcome to ignore, avoid, whatever someone they think is "behaving like a tool". It only becomes cancel culture when they try to enlist a mob, the person's employer, the government, etc. to punish the person for "behaving like a tool". Among other things, it reflects a strong self-righteous streak to say that just because I think something is offensive, I don't think someone else should be allowed to say it.

I used to work at a company where one of the founders had a rather right-wing blog with Islamophobic themes. Many who worked at the company were Muslim.

Should the founder, even as a private citizen, be permitted by the company's board, to say hateful things about his own employees?

Could the employees point to discrimination on the basis of religion? And sue?

Would talented candidates, upon seeing this drivel, choose to work elsewhere? And, would that hurt the company, other employees, the investors?

When is it "cancel culture?" And when is it saying "This is inappropriate and we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior?"

That is an an instructive example of the consequences of discrimination from animus.

Muslim workers would presumably like less to work for such a person. He would have staffing difficulties and have to pay people more. His profits would be  lower. He'd find it harder to get bank credit, and so on.

The discriminator loses income. People like that tend to disappear.

On that logic, discrimination from animus is not so much present. What's surely present is statistical discrimination.

Here is the problem. We hope that there are natural consequences from behaving badly. But, there are not. Or those at the wrong end of the bad behavior tend to be hurt more, because the founder of the company was already a wealthy man and the Muslim employees had to decide how much crap they were going to take from him to keep their jobs.

Another example - this bizarro system we have of declaring some people "illegal." What does it cost our economy in law enforcement, lost wages, lost taxes and imprisoning people who are caught and deported simply for the reason of existence?

Imagine if we allowed anyone who wanted to immigrate to register for a Social Security number, register with the local authorities, get a job, pay taxes, send their kids to school and eventually become citizens?

No border control, no deaths in the Rio Grande, taxes would be paid, real crimes could be reported because victims wouldn't fear being exposed...

The fact is, a few people selfishly benefit from this system, but it hurts the undocumented workers, their families, and frankly, the overall US economy.