41–50 of 177 posts
> Or at the very least, why hasn’t a fear of mutually assured destruction set in? I think this is the mutually assured destruction phrase. A lot of the “cancel culture” has been deployed by the Left. The Right is now using it against people on the Left. This “cancel culture” will go away when both sides see that there is no net gain, only a grinder destroying people.
Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack. When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happen…
I remember creating a Facebook account in my teenage years, most of my friends used nicknames on the account names. Why? Because the platform was so popular, the chances of your grandma finding your raunchy posts were also high. The same caution should apply to anyone before signing up for a social media account. Your misplaced, misunderstood caption/ viral post will reach your immediate social circles.
Can't turn back the tide of cancel culture. Believe me, you can't win this on a numbers level. You can only hope your ride is less bumpy. And wait for the wave to pick its next victim.
I think it is kind of stupid the whole world now lives on social media. People really do not understand what SM is at all.
Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack. When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happen…
> if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements. It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past. So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's…
Well we disagree about this. It often seems to be a certain amount of glee involved when someone posts something from someone's online past that might not have been a big issue back then but is a hot-button issue now. Or something that they might have childishly or ignorantly said back then. Or something that they have completely changed their view on now.
But it doesn't matter. They all seem to be immediately followed by calls of some sort of "punishment" to fit the past "crimes".
Who knows what hot-button issues of the future might be?
The NYT is extremely sectarian. They have been doing exactly what they now critizice for people in their right for a long time. And it is impressive what we are seeing today with corona and Wuhan lab, all those media were basically calling lunatics to those that believed in the Wuhan lab hypothesis,licking the boots of their Chinese masters, now suddenly it is ok to believe that. It is a huge problem for them, when l…
I want to point out that Vox only labeled the edits and tweeted about it after they were caught red handed stealth editing their deception. The other "usual suspects" were all attacking lab leak theory in 2020, including CNN, Washington Post and the NYT. Washington Post's chief fact checker called it "debunked". These people are quite literally controlling the flow of information, given their secret contracts with Fa…
Corporate and social culture have been hijacked by a sort of soft, insidious, growing authoritarianism and the consequences for the future of the west are severe, especially because these newly dominant voices are increasingly openly hostile to the ≈50% of the population whom they are effectively disenfranchising. Even fundraising for controversial figures who have anything remotely in common with right of center ideology is impossible between the fundraising sites and credit card companies. Something's got to give and it won't be pretty for anyone.
The big problem now seems to be thought policing by employers. Sometimes because they fear mobs, online or offine, coming after them. The secondary problem is being forced off social media for more or less random reasons.
Ironic that this is being posted by the NYT (though not as an editorial, I guess), who fired Quinn Norton within 24 hours because she'd embedded herself in Anonymous and consequently used the word "fag", years earlier. The mob framed her as anti-gay despite her having had an outspokenly bisexual life partner around that time.
Right, there are only three consistent positions here: 1) this type of firing is unfair and bad, 2) this type of firing is fair and good ("consequence culture"), or 3) "I'm a partisan who just wants my enemies to burn" Maybe 80% of the people that opine on this subject are in category 3), 19% are in 1), and only 1% actually believe this sort of thing is great even when it hits someone that's on their team. Unfortunat…
Is that really achievable for people who are political figures? That is, for someone attributed to a "side", is it actually possible to get the two sides to agree on anything? We've seen the defense of some quite spectacular indefensible behavior lately. Attempts to investigate The Jan 6 incident have been filibustered.
There's two aspects which really ought to be separated:
1) is this behavior bad?
2) has this person done that?
Much of the partisan fighting over racism and homophobia disagrees at #1. Much of the disagreement over sexual assualt happens at #2; if an event happens and only the victim witnesses it, is that sufficient proof?
Instead of self censoring and deleting our past, we should solve the problem on the recipient's side, and harden ourselves against this kind of attack. When someone is booted out of office for the wrong reasons (even though it is "the right person", i.e. someone who's views I don't agree with) I speak out against it. If I was a politician, I would pledge before elections to never step down due to anything that happen…
The moment Twitter finally went mainstream, that was the death knell for "free" speech. Your employer, government agencies, religious & community leaders are all now on Twitter. Self censorship is not obligatory, it is a requirement to use the platform. Same thing to those family Whatsapp groups. I remember creating a Facebook account in my teenage years, most of my friends used nicknames on the account names. Why? B…
Note that twitter still allows pseudonymity that you're talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, there are only three consistent positions here: 1) this type of firing is unfair and bad, 2) this type of firing is fair and good ("consequence culture"), or 3) "I'm a partisan who just wants my enemies to burn" Maybe 80% of the people that opine on this subject are in category 3), 19% are in 1), and only 1% actually believe this sort of thing is great even when it hits someone that's on their team. Unfortunat…
> if >50% of people on each of the left and the right would agree that someone has done something so egregious that they should face consequences Is that really achievable for people who are political figures? That is, for someone attributed to a "side", is it actually possible to get the two sides to agree on anything? We've seen the defense of some quite spectacular indefensible behavior lately. Attempts to investi…
Let us stop thinking about racism and homophobia for a moment and think of marijuana legalization instead. This is precisely the case when an aggresive intolerant minority used to destroy people over nothing. Most legalization projects were pushed through by ballots, where the aggressive intolerant minority could not intimidate the voters into silence.
Interestingly, the vote results usually did not align with the partisanship of the voters. There is much more ideological diversity within the parties than generally recognized.
And, as a result, many people no longer "face consequences" for smoking weed that only a vocal minority considers taboo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if >50% of people on each of the left and the right would agree that someone has done something so egregious that they should face consequences Is that really achievable for people who are political figures? That is, for someone attributed to a "side", is it actually possible to get the two sides to agree on anything? We've seen the defense of some quite spectacular indefensible behavior lately. Attempts to investi…
Well that is the point. Consequences for "bad" behavior should not be equal in cases when 90 per cent of population agrees and when 40 per cent of population agrees. Let us stop thinking about racism and homophobia for a moment and think of marijuana legalization instead. This is precisely the case when an aggresive intolerant minority used to destroy people over nothing. Most legalization projects were pushed throug…
> There is much more ideological diversity within the parties than generally recognized.
Party discipline (yes, on both sides) aims to suppress that. e.g https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/16/republicans-who-vot...
The lack of nuance on this issue, in society is shocking. We expect people to change and grow over time. People change opinions, political parties, perhaps even ideals, yet we crucify people in the public domain for opinions they once opined, and possibly still hold. At best this discourages dialogue. It discourages people from interacting in the public domain, vilifies their non-work lives, and unifies them in terri…
Maybe these things have to become so prolific that it touches a critical mass of society until we learn how to properly conceptualize people with a past and provide for a path of redemption.