Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
popehat.substack.com
Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
1–10 of 633 posts
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#2[dead]
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#3>"Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan."
Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us has our own conception of a term - wordfeel, if you will - and virtually no one actually knows or holds to the literal dictionary definition. We hear words and apply them if they seem right to us. Even if you managed to precisely define cancel culture, people would easily try to claim that some alleged cancelling event it is actually something else, "accountability", "showing you the door", etc.. Never underestimate someone's ability to lawyerly redefine what something is or isn't.
Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here:
>"Saying we should “end cancel culture” means we’re saying some people should refrain from some exercises of speech and association to promote other people feeling more free to speak."
No rights are actually being infringed by this. It is possible to have cultural mores that are in the spirit of free speech. The opposite stance, not calling on people to end cancel culture, is also accepting a reduction in speech. Even so, by Popehat's own worldview, because the government is not restricting cancel culture this shouldn't be seen as some infringement of liberty. I don't know what Popehat actually wants here.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#4There has to be some kind of term for making your case against the absolute least sympathetic adversary ("We're allowed to boycott giant corporations right?") while using the same word that describes the absolute most sympathetic cases ("Are all companies allowed to get together and jointly refuse to sell food to farm animal rights activists?")
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#5> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…
> I don't know what Popehat actually wants here.
For people to stop calling it "cancel culture" whenever they face reasonable consequences for actions they take that harm others would be a good start.
People not wanting to patronize or associate with you when you cause harm to people they care about is really not a bad thing, and it's not new either, and yet it is what gets called "cancel culture" by a lot of people.
Contextless social media that encourages misunderstanding, a lack of ability to find retractions, and the ability to dig up old sins and present them as present views are an issue, and result in people piling onto others over misconceptions. It's a real problem. That's almost never what actually gets talked about, it's just "I should get to say whatever I want without people disliking me".
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#6There has to be some kind of term for making your case against the absolute least sympathetic adversary ("We're allowed to boycott giant corporations right?") while using the same word that describes the absolute most sympathetic cases ("Are all companies allowed to get together and jointly refuse to sell food to farm animal rights activists?")
[deleted]
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#7> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…
Without the definition, White says, the appeal to an "end cancel culture norm" is, overtly, a call to broadly restrict people's speech. If you dismiss the demand for clarity, you can't coherently rebut his assessment of what "end cancel culture" means.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#8https://taibbi.substack.com/p/worlds-dullest-editorial-launc...
Matt Taibbi's great post on this same topic.
'This Times editorial is watered down almost to the level of a public service announcement written for the Cartoon Network, or maybe a fortune cookie (“Free speech is a process, not a destination. Winning numbers 4, 9, 11, 32, 46…”). It made the Harper’s letter read like a bin Laden fatwa, but it’s somehow arousing a bigger panic.'
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#9Cancel culture happens because it works, and it not even be true. Until businesses, universities, and institutions say no to the digital mob, it will continue.
Re: Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
#10> "Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan." Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us h…
Cancel culture is...
targeted at individuals,
for the loss of their job, invitations, or positions,
for offenses that are minor in comparison to historical offenses,
or offenses that are based on guilt by association or speculative inference,
often for things in the past,
which were things many people accepted at the time,
and often which the individual disavows today.