Cancel culture test case?

[smallcleanrat]

This is what happens when you try to argue with political slogans. What does "cancel culture" even mean anymore? If it just describes people getting in trouble for things they have said or done because their employers bow to public pressure, that's so broad as to be meaningless. This isn't something that was invented four years ago. I also find it odd that that this is something one is for or against. It depends what someone is being "cancelled" for and who is doing the "cancelling." This case strikes me as a pretty clear violation of academic freedom, but it it isn't at all the same as someone getting fired from their job at a baseball team for sending explicit texts to coworkers or something.

I guess it's kin to labelling anything and everything an "attack on free speech" regardless of whether the government is involved or even whether anyone is actually being censored/fired/boycotted/whatever.

I once listened to my dad rant about "the liberal agenda to eradicate free speech" based on something he somewhat remembered reading about "a law against saying 'man and wife'; if you say it, they throw you in jail!" I don't remember the details, but the gist of the real story was something about replacing the use of the phrase "man and wife" in legal documents to reflect the fact that, due to legalization of same-sex marriage, a married couple does not necessarily consist of a "man and wife." I recall not being able to find anything about being thrown in jail for non-compliance, so that was possibly some slippery-slope style catastrophizing.



I think the bowing-to-public-pressure element is the most significant in identifying something as a "cancel culture" issue, but I don't know if that's always the case.

I don't think use of the term always involves an implication that an individual or an institution is violating some law or policy.
Sometimes I think the term is used as an expression of contempt for the specific public opinions driving such pressure. As in, "People are upset about that?!? That's ridiculous and it's even more ridiculous to expect everyone else to play along."

Suppose a TV show's writers tone down aspects of a character that viewers have complained is an offensive racial stereotype. Some people will cry "cancel culture" and may even begin predicting the death of artistic expression based on their perception that contemporary culture encourages people to find everything offensive and to demand all of society to bow to their whims.



I do get the impression the phrase is used more by conservatives annoyed by "political correctness", but that's just a notion gleaned from personal experience.

Suppose the writers for a children's TV show decide to scrap a storyline which would have featured a same-sex couple due to a high volume of complaints that doing so would be "indoctrinating" children by "normalizing deviant sexual behavior."

I can imagine a lot of commentary from liberals/progressives expressing disgust and anger about the writers "catering to the demands of bigots" or something. But I would be surprised if they actually used the term "cancel culture."

[mahagonny]

Yes, the 'cancel culture' charge sticks to the left more than to the right. It should. As long we are still legally able to talk about what's going on.
The left then tries to say 'but you're doing it too.' The term 'cancel culture' irritates them because they are being busted for bullying.
Here's a clue: the new liberal orthodoxy says

(1) being a racist is the worst thing anyone can be. It's the worst thing human beings do to each other [this is not even true most of the time] Therefore all racism must be eradicated, and we mustn't rest until that is done.
(2) Even though racism is no longer in our laws, racism is everywhere. We need to understand that all white people are racist, because they have been inundated with racist thinking since childhood. The proper way to exonerate yourself of the charge of racism, as a white person, is to admit you are racist.
(3) POC can sound like they hate white people, but it's not racism when they do. It's the pain of being oppressed every day by white society
(4) We should try to empathize with this pain, but it is offensive to suppose out loud that we are capable of doing so.

[mahagonny]

con't

double posting so you can see that I haven't edited the previous one

The radical left is now enforcing preemptive cancel culture through mainstream corporate employment. For example the CEO of CVS pharmacy hires Kendi to give a seminar which is followed by or includes instructions for how to interact and speak in the workplace. It works like this:
'You may never say: " _________ _______ _______ ."
'You will say instead: "________ ________ _________."

You can easily look this up. I don't have links right in front of me. Christopher Rufo has been energetically following these developments and reporting.

[marshwiggle]

Yes, the 'cancel culture' charge sticks to the left more than to the right. It should. As long we are still legally able to talk about what's going on.
The left then tries to say 'but you're doing it too.' The term 'cancel culture' irritates them because they are being busted for bullying.
Here's a clue: the new liberal orthodoxy says

(1) being a racist is the worst thing anyone can be. It's the worst thing human beings do to each other [this is not even true most of the time] Therefore all racism must be eradicated, and we mustn't rest until that is done.
(2) Even though racism is no longer in our laws, racism is everywhere. We need to understand that all white people are racist, because they have been inundated with racist thinking since childhood. The proper way to exonerate yourself of the charge of racism, as a white person, is to admit you are racist.

No; there you're wrong. Al Sharpton said so:

"They kept on marching and let us know that all whites are not racists and all the Blacks are not worthless," he said.

Try to imagine if a white person had made that same quote.

[smallcleanrat]

con't

double posting so you can see that I haven't edited the previous one

The radical left is now enforcing preemptive cancel culture through mainstream corporate employment. For example the CEO of CVS pharmacy hires Kendi to give a seminar which is followed by or includes instructions for how to interact and speak in the workplace. It works like this:
'You may never say: " _________ _______ _______ ."
'You will say instead: "________ ________ _________."

You can easily look this up. I don't have links right in front of me. Christopher Rufo has been energetically following these developments and reporting.

So...I get having a problem with specific instances of this, but the way you write it here makes it seem as though you take issue with any restrictions on what you can say at work. What?

[mahagonny]

con't

double posting so you can see that I haven't edited the previous one

The radical left is now enforcing preemptive cancel culture through mainstream corporate employment. For example the CEO of CVS pharmacy hires Kendi to give a seminar which is followed by or includes instructions for how to interact and speak in the workplace. It works like this:
'You may never say: " _________ _______ _______ ."
'You will say instead: "________ ________ _________."

You can easily look this up. I don't have links right in front of me. Christopher Rufo has been energetically following these developments and reporting.

So...I get having a problem with specific instances of this, but the way you write it here makes it seem as though you take issue with any restrictions on what you can say at work. What?

I don't. But the way it is conveyed to the employees is that they must speak only in certain ways because they self-identify as white. Since they are, or report being, white, 24/7, it could easily mean that they could be considered in violation at any time. in their personal time, on social media, for example. One should especially take this interpretation as the 'training' is not pitched as workplace rules but urgently needed moral improvement of society. Kendi, et al, are not merely making rules for how you can speak in the workplace. they are overtly inserting his fame and attributed moral authority into your inner thoughts. They are doing this to people who already have a religion they belong to, which the 'antiracism' religion is supposed to supplant. I expect, and hope for, legal challenges.
I might as well proudly admit even apart from what the employer's legal rights to require this or that while at work, and apart from what it would mean about how you may spend your personal time, in my opinion it's a toxic, counterproductive, divisive idea to sort people into categories by skin color and then to make specific rules that apply to people of only one color, even if it only applies during work hours.
The basic problem is that it's the end of The Golden Rule, but it's even worse than that. It is being enacted by a very sordid bunch of individuals.
It should really be no one's business what race you are, or think you are, or whether you elect to identify one way or another at all, in the first place. A transexual or non-binary person does not have to display their reproductive organs. It is no one's right to declare what gender you are.
perhaps interesting tangentially, restaurants are now rethinking the 'the customer is always right' idea.
Perhaps we can find some agreement in some of this.

Yes, the 'cancel culture' charge sticks to the left more than to the right. It should. As long we are still legally able to talk about what's going on.
The left then tries to say 'but you're doing it too.' The term 'cancel culture' irritates them because they are being busted for bullying.
Here's a clue: the new liberal orthodoxy says

(1) being a racist is the worst thing anyone can be. It's the worst thing human beings do to each other [this is not even true most of the time] Therefore all racism must be eradicated, and we mustn't rest until that is done.
(2) Even though racism is no longer in our laws, racism is everywhere. We need to understand that all white people are racist, because they have been inundated with racist thinking since childhood. The proper way to exonerate yourself of the charge of racism, as a white person, is to admit you are racist.

No; there you're wrong. Al Sharpton said so:

"They kept on marching and let us know that all whites are not racists and all the Blacks are not worthless," he said.

Try to imagine if a white person had made that same quote.

It only works as long as you keep on marching. Ten - hut!!

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, the 'cancel culture' charge sticks to the left more than to the right. It should.

I think you once posted that you do not, in fact, read Breitbart or that ilk, but you should.

If you did, you would see that the far-right is absolutely about cancel culture.  They simply don't call it that.  In fact, readers' opinions are so fierce on these propaganda blogs that they rely on threats of civil war and accusations of uncited, unfounded criminality regarding anyone who disagrees with them.  Literally, your average Breitbarter proposes jailing (and sometimes even "executing") "liberals" and liberal politicians.  The average Breitbarter is convinced that the end of civilization has come because Joe Biden is in the White House.  True hysteria.

smallcleanrat's anecdote regarding "man and wife" made me think of the hyperbolic mindset of many "conservatives" and their rather paranoid, violent version of cancel culture.

I am referring only to a specific demographic, of course, but you are fitting in with this bunch, mahagonny. 

Happy Thanksgiving all.

[mahagonny]

Yes, the 'cancel culture' charge sticks to the left more than to the right. It should.

I think you once posted that you do not, in fact, read Breitbart or that ilk, but you should.

If you did, you would see that the far-right is absolutely about cancel culture.  They simply don't call it that.  In fact, readers' opinions are so fierce on these propaganda blogs that they rely on threats of civil war and accusations of uncited, unfounded criminality regarding anyone who disagrees with them.  Literally, your average Breitbarter proposes jailing (and sometimes even "executing") "liberals" and liberal politicians.  The average Breitbarter is convinced that the end of civilization has come because Joe Biden is in the White House.  True hysteria.

The value of speculating what is the 'average' this or that can be overrated. I would expect people who read a particular news outlet from time to time fall into a range of views they hold.
As an academic trained in critical thinking you really ought to be capable of better posts than this one. Try not to be a turkey.

[Parasaurolophus]

I guess it's kin to labelling anything and everything an "attack on free speech" regardless of whether the government is involved or even whether anyone is actually being censored/fired/boycotted/whatever.

I once listened to my dad rant about "the liberal agenda to eradicate free speech" based on something he somewhat remembered reading about "a law against saying 'man and wife'; if you say it, they throw you in jail!" I don't remember the details, but the gist of the real story was something about replacing the use of the phrase "man and wife" in legal documents to reflect the fact that, due to legalization of same-sex marriage, a married couple does not necessarily consist of a "man and wife." I recall not being able to find anything about being thrown in jail for non-compliance, so that was possibly some slippery-slope style catastrophizing.

Yeah... I once attended a talk by Margaret Somerville on "political correctness" run amok. Most of the other attendees didn't have questions to ask, so I got to ask a lot in the Q&A. I pressed her on what she meant by "political correctness", and in the end she basically just said it was anything conservatives disagree with. I also pressed her on her specific examples of what would today be called "cancel culture", which involved things like students in Australia protesting a talk by a trans person critical of trans issues, etc. In every instance, it turned out that the speaker got to give their talk. There were also wild misrepresentations of the Canadian law on medically-assisted death.

So... uh... powerful stuff, these misrepresented anecdotes. =/


I later heard that she gave the same talk somewhere else and whined about how hostile we'd been as an audience. (Which can only have been a comment about me.)

I'm sorry she felt that way, but (1) she invited us to ask questions during the talk as well as after, which is bad news if you're planning to get the underlying facts wrong, (2) I was perfectly nice and didn't make any statements at all (except to observe that the fact that the speakers in question got to give their talks seemed like a free speech success by her mettrics rather than political correctness run amok). I just asked questions. It's not my fault her arguments couldn't withstand basic questioning about the underlying factual claims, and (3) this was a talk to a philosophy department, and she claims to be a bioethicist (despite having no such credential); if she were a bioethicist, she'd be a philosopher, and if she were a philosopher, she'd know our Q&A sessions are notoriously hostile--and that this one wasn't.

So, you know. Once again, a conservative baby couldn't handle someone "just asking questions", like they like to claim to be doing. If you want to be taken seriously, then be serious. And if you aren't serious and you get (ever-so-gently) pwned by someone forty-odd years your junior, don't go crying snowflake tears. Buck the fuck up and present at least a B+-quality argument instead of this D-rivel.

[mahagonny]

I guess it's kin to labelling anything and everything an "attack on free speech" regardless of whether the government is involved or even whether anyone is actually being censored/fired/boycotted/whatever.

I once listened to my dad rant about "the liberal agenda to eradicate free speech" based on something he somewhat remembered reading about "a law against saying 'man and wife'; if you say it, they throw you in jail!" I don't remember the details, but the gist of the real story was something about replacing the use of the phrase "man and wife" in legal documents to reflect the fact that, due to legalization of same-sex marriage, a married couple does not necessarily consist of a "man and wife." I recall not being able to find anything about being thrown in jail for non-compliance, so that was possibly some slippery-slope style catastrophizing.

Yeah... I once attended a talk by Margaret Somerville on "political correctness" run amok.

When was that? Attitudes have changed for example about same sex marriage. Maybe hers changed too.

Wahoo: It looks to me like you'd like to pick a fight with someone who reads Breitbart regularly. Since no one like that is around, maybe you'd like to expose yourself to thoughtful people who disagree with where the left wants to take society at this time. I recommend Substack or The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.

[Parasaurolophus]

When was that? Attitudes have changed for example about same sex marriage. Maybe hers changed too.

Oh, I dunno exactly. 4-6 years ago? I was still a PhD student at the time.


She definitely hasn't changed her mind about stuff. But that's not what actually matters: what matters is that her arguments are (1) bad, and (2) based on transparent and self-serving lies. The facts don't actually care about her feelings, as conservatives are wont to say.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo: It looks to me like you'd like to pick a fight with someone who reads Breitbart regularly. Since no one like that is around, maybe you'd like to expose yourself to thoughtful people who disagree with where the left wants to take society at this time. I recommend Substack or The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.

Oh it is plenty easy to pick a fight with peeps at Breitbart.  All one has to do is go to Breitbart.  You just remind me of these people.

You are no longer a thoughtful person.  I worry about your mental health actually.

[smallcleanrat]

When was that? Attitudes have changed for example about same sex marriage. Maybe hers changed too.

Oh, I dunno exactly. 4-6 years ago? I was still a PhD student at the time.

She definitely hasn't changed her mind about stuff. But that's not what actually matters: what matters is that her arguments are (1) bad, and (2) based on transparent and self-serving lies. The facts don't actually care about her feelings, as conservatives are wont to say.

Yes, this is such an extremely frustrating aspect of the "cancel culture" disputes. It's too readily used as a shield to deflect any criticism or questioning. I'm not sure if this is best explained as a deliberate diversion tactic or a genuine inability to distinguish critiques of your arguments from personal attacks.

Whether it's claiming discrimination based on race, religion, politics, or whatever, there are always dubious, disingenuous or outright false claims weakening the signal-to-noise ratio.



Many people who are quick enough to poke holes in claims like sexism being the one and only explanation for why there are more men than women in certain professions or academic programs don't seem quite as willing to believe that someone claiming to be a target of "cancel culture" is "playing victim." And vice versa.

People who rely heavily on catchphrases like "I'm sorry reality offends you" or "Facts don't care about your feelings" tank their own credibility when they cry persecution or bullying if anyone challenges them with, "Those statements are not facts. Here is evidence that counters your claims..." or "How do you know those are facts? What is your evidence? What is your reasoning?"

It's hard to take someone seriously if the best defense they can come up with to specific critiques related to the truth of their claims or the validity of their arguments is "I have a right to say this, whether you like it or not."

You have a right to claim the moon is made of almond flour held together by fairy dust. However, your rights are not being trampled just because no serious scientific journal wants to publish your manuscript on that topic.



And has anyone else encountered people who frequently assume automatic victory if met with:

1) Any form of emotional response or value judgment ("That's offensive." "That's a disgusting attitude." "That's cruel.")
           or
2) Any implication that widespread dissemination of particular viewpoints will cause harm.

As if it's impossible for either of these reactions to coexist with legitimate critiques, or that this justifies dismissing any critiques offhand as "biased" and beneath consideration...

Might look something like:
-Aha! See? I've struck a nerve.  You're only getting upset because you know I'm right. Someone who simply wants to bring these matters out into the open for discussion wouldn't get you so worked up unless you knew they would expose truths you find unpleasant.

-Oh, my claims are "dangerous pseudoscience?" You've just showed your hand. That's exactly what someone who wants to suppress free inquiry and protect the established orthodoxy would say.

[mamselle]

P.C. = polite and considerate.

That is all.

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

Walker steps down