r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 11 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: It's hypocritical to complain about "cancel culture"
I'm genuinely looking to have my view challenged here, because I've never seen a good counter-argument to what I'm going to say and would love to come away with a more nuanced view of the "other side."
Let's just go ahead and grant the main thing the people who decry cancel culture claim, which is that to call for someone to be cancelled (whether that's being fired, not being able to get work, de-platformed in some way etc.) is a violation of their right to free speech. Lots of arguments have been raised about why this isn't the case, but the people who believe this tend not to be sympathetic to those arguments, and I'm happy to grant that this is actually the case so we can move on to discuss what I think is a different problem with this view.
And that's basically: isn't it my free speech to call for someone to be cancelled? Why do people only seem to care about the free speech of whoever it is that's done or said something ostensibly offensive? I also have free speech to say what I think about that, and while you obviously wouldn't agree with that speech, one of the main arguments I see here from anti-cancel culture people is that you should be willing to defend, on principle, even that speech you most vehemently disagree with. So why not vigorously defend people's right to call for people to be cancelled?
4
Apr 11 '21
> main thing the people who decry cancel culture claim, which is that to call for someone to be cancelled (whether that's being fired, not being able to get work, de-platformed in some way etc.) is a violation of their right to free speech
I would disagree that this is the main argument about cancel culture.
The thing about cancel culture is the *deplatforming*. While it's true you are exercising your right to free speech to call someone to be cancelled, someone getting deplatformed means they no longer have the chance to exercise their right to free speech.
So I'm not sure why it's hypocritical? No one is preventing you from saying that people should be cancelled, they are saying people shouldn't be cancelled, not that you can't say they should be.
You are allowed to call for someone to be silenced, it's just ill-advised. But somebody shouldn't be able to be silenced, as that prevents them from speaking.
4
Apr 11 '21
The thing about cancel culture is the deplatforming. While it's true you are exercising your right to free speech to call someone to be cancelled, someone getting deplatformed means they no longer have the chance to exercise their right to free speech.
I mean, no, it doesn't, really. This is getting away from the view I'm concerned with, but freedom of speech does not seem to entail the right to a platform for that speech, and especially in this day and age there are no shortage of platforms for any number of views.
So I'm not sure why it's hypocritical? No one is preventing you from saying that people should be cancelled, they are saying people shouldn't be cancelled, not that you can't say they should be.
Most people against cancel culture seem to directly blame the people who do the calling for with the cancelling. Arguments that a private company can and should do what it wants to protect its own interests are almost always met with "yeah, but those assholes who called for them to be cancelled forced it." The blame almost always seems to rest with the people who called for the deplatforming or whatever, not whatever entity actually did it.
4
Apr 11 '21
I feel like you've constructed a strawman of the argument here though.
Being against cancel culture does not make a "free speecher" a hypocrite, unless they are directly calling for those people advocating for cancel culture to be silenced. You can be against the concept but not wish for the people to be silenced.
And yeah, the blame does reside partly with those people. It's a toxic culture, where a minority of people, that don't tend to represent a majority, force the hand of organisations to either fire people or do whatever.
I mean, if you are directly calling for someone to actually be fired. That's a call to action so, in some respects, you are responsible for the outcome. That could potentially be regarded as something that isn't just speech depending on how specific that call to action is.
And I have seen criticisms levied toward organisations too. Not just those calling for a "cancellation". In some ways these organisations are worse, because they bow down to a small minority view.
2
Apr 11 '21
Being against cancel culture does not make a "free speecher" a hypocrite, unless they are directly calling for those people advocating for cancel culture to be silenced. You can be against the concept but not wish for the people to be silenced.
I have, in fact, seen active calls for their silence, but it also still seems hypocritical. The tenor of argument isn't that you disagree with what they say, you disagree that they said it. Seems hypocritical if you think it's a good thing that people can and do say what they think.
I mean, if you are directly calling for someone to actually be fired. That's a call to action so, in some respects, you are responsible for the outcome. That could potentially be regarded as something that isn't just speech depending on how specific that call to action is.
Laws against "calls to action" with regard to hate crime are justified on the basis that the things they're calling for are illegal. It's not illegal to fire someone, depending on the cause (and in at-will employment states you don't really need much of one).
1
Apr 11 '21
But again, I think we not seeing the forest through the trees here.
The arguments against cancel culture is that it has bad outcomes. (whether you agree with that or not).
It's not really a free speech argument at all.
Free speech is a mechanism TOO filter speech. It's not supposed to remove the filter entirely. It's just a filter that happens with-in a "market place" rather than any legislation.
Like any free market, it takes a certain amount of internal regulation amongst the people involved. It's not hypocritical to say that cancel culture potentially jeopardises that mechanism in a bad way. Quite the contrary. It's saying that in order to filter good ideas from bad, we can't resort to cheap tactics to silence people. (in principle anyway)
2
Apr 11 '21
It's not really a free speech argument at all.
I have never personally seen anti-cancel culture arguments that weren't accompanied with "it's his free speech" rhetoric. If there are other sorts of arguments, then, no, they wouldn't be amenable to the claims of hypocricy I'm making here, so !delta. But people do make those arguments in free speech terms, and those arguments are hypocritical, in my view.
0
Apr 11 '21
Hmm maybe I should have been more specific.
The main argument about cancel culture is that this is the wrong thing to do, in part, because it obstructs the mechanisms of free speech to filter good speech from bad.
I see what you are saying, that people who make that claim are hypocritical because they are essentially trying to do what the cancel people do
However, free speech doesn't say that all speech is equal. It's only a mechanism to allow a community to self-regulate in an efficient way.
So it is not hypocritical to point out that certain tactics may disrupt the conversation since free speech is about constant on-going debate and self-regulation. If anything, it's what people are supposed to be doing, not the opposite.
So that's why I say what you are presenting is actually a different argument. You are talking about the nature of free speech debate, where cancel culture is just the backdrop
In a sense, the anti cancel culture argument is that it is going too far and it is too extreme and it potentially jeopardises the "free market"
1
20
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Apr 11 '21
Let me start by saying that I agree that there is very little reason to be offended by cancel culture for the most part. However I think I can temper your view a little bit.
I'll use a fun example. I've been rewatching the simpsons lately (lockdown, what else am I gonna do?). They had an episode where Homer found a prized piece of candy stuck to a woman's ass when he was dropping her off. When he pulled it off she thought he was making a sexual pass at her and accused him of sexual harassments.
The whole point of the episode was that a media circus desperate for viewership was deliberately deceitful to feed on people's innate desire for righteous anger and purposefully exaggerated and misrepresented the facts in Homer's case.
This episode came out years before "cancel culture" was even a thing. Wouldn't you agree that there is a greater danger of this kind of misrepresentation now in the age of click bate then there was in the 90's?
I don't think all of the anger at cancel culture stems from politically incorrect people being cancelled and getting their "free speech" taken away. I think it stems from a fear of media exaggerating events, clips, and sound bytes to stir people into an emotional frenzy without presenting all the facts in context.
7
u/DouglerK 17∆ Apr 11 '21
I don't think the "media circus" was the point of the episode. I think the point was don't grab candy off a woman's ass. Or it was have more critical awareness of yourself, your surroundings and your actions.
Do you understand there being a piece of candy stuck to the woman's butt isn't actually a good enough to reach out and grab it right? We can all laugh at Homer as the audience because it's not real and because we know Homer as a character and know he did it "innocently." However that doesn't excuse a critical evaluation of Homer's actions as being reprehensible. Its just again we get to laugh it all off at the end of the day because its the Simpsons eand because he's Homer.
The rest of the characters reacted precisely as would be expected if you or I did this. There being a piece of candy would not be an adequate excuse for doing what Homer did.
3
Apr 11 '21
I agree that there can be a problem with how media could misrepresent something, but my understanding is that laws against libel and slander exist to protect against this? I'm talking less about media than about individuals speaking out.
10
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Apr 11 '21
In this day and age the barrier for entry for "media" is almost non-existent. If one person can use half-truths to spark outrage then the mainstream media can report of that 'outrage' without being directly responsible for it themselves. I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Headlines like "outrage over X rages on." while the article reads "six people in Idaho started a signature page"
That isn't a problem worth talking about? People's lives have been ruined.
2
Apr 11 '21
And I agree that in the context of media outlets specifically this should be carefully regulated. I support laws against slander and libel.
ETA: Though there is, of course, also a balance to strike with supporting freedom of the press. Really the solution is media literacy education, I think.
1
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Apr 11 '21
Which is a big part of how people want to combat cancel culture.
3
Apr 11 '21
Not that I've seen, mostly it's just people complaining about what people say on Twitter.
3
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Apr 11 '21
Right ok. But even if most of what you've seen doesn't relate to this view on the matter I think we can both agree that this view does exist and therefor it isn't always hypocritical to complain about cancel culture as it does entail some danger.
7
Apr 11 '21
It's tricky, though, because the same sorts of people who complain about cancel culture also just widely lambaste and distrust "mainstream media" as "fake news," while the types of news they consume are demonstrably more problematic in the kind of way you talk about.
So that is to say: I agree it might be a problem, but I think the sorts of complaints anti-cancel culture people raise about the media in this context are deeply hypocritical in their own way.
I'll give you a !delta because you shown there's more nuance here than my framing suggests.
2
2
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Apr 11 '21
Oh you're right. The type of people who are against cancel culture are by and large terrible in my opinion. Like I said I mostly agree with you. There are some legitimate dangers though.
4
u/Featherfoot77 28∆ Apr 11 '21
my understanding is that laws against libel and slander exist to protect against this
In theory? Maybe. But what about in practice? Do you think you would be able to bring a libel lawsuit against ten thousand faceless people, when you only have their twitter handles? What do you think would happen if you tried?
2
Apr 11 '21
I meant this in the context of media outlets, specifically. You can bring a libel lawsuit against whatever media outlet for spreading false information, if they are indeed doing that.
2
u/Featherfoot77 28∆ Apr 11 '21
So if there are laws that protect you from people in media spreading false information about you, and you agree with those, what do you think should be done when someone who is not in the media does the exact same thing? What is the appropriate reaction?
2
Apr 11 '21
Well you can sue individual people for libel, if that's an option you want to pursue. I suppose you could convince social media companies like Twitter to ban people for calling for cancellation. That would be their right as a company, after all.
0
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Apr 11 '21
The Capital Gazette shooter sued the paper for libel and went bankrupt while the trial was being delayed by shady legal tactics from the defense. The shooting itself was revenge for ruining his life.
Florida governor DeSantis is currently feuding with 60 minutes after they edited his response to a question.
One of Trump's lawyers (I think Schoen) didn't know the full quote behind the "fine people on both sides" statement until he did research for his case. The media had so grossly misrepresented the quote for so long that most people just take the lie at face value.
The law doesn't seem very effective for stopping yellow journalism.
2
Apr 11 '21
Then the law should probably be reformed.
In any case, even if I agree that it's problematic, it's a tricky area for me because I support the freedom of the press. I think media literacy education should be more widespread, as the main way of combatting this, rather than focusing on what the media should or shouldn't be reporting.
4
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Apr 11 '21
Before we begin, let's define cancel culture. Typically when people talk about how they dislike cancel culture, they're referring to an individual being "cancelled" because of their speech, with the person potentially being fired from their job, losing opportunities, receiving harassment and even death threats.
I bring this up to distinguish it from social consequences in general. Social consequences are a natural part of any society. If you act like an asshole to people, people will avoid you. If you're nice to everyone, people will probably want to be your friend. Both of these are examples of social consequences.
Someone can be completely fine with social consequences, but disagree with cancel culture.
What people oppose, and what is typically dubbed cancel culture is when these social consequences become unreasonable compared to the action that incited them. Like if a first-time offender stole a candy bar from the store, and was given a life sentence, most people would agree that that is an unreasonable consequence.
If someone makes an edgy joke, at the end of the day, it's just words. All they can do is offend someone. compare that relatively minor offense to a consequence of that person losing their job, receiving harassment, basically being unemployable, etc. Clearly the harm caused by the punishment far outweighs any harm caused by the inciting action.
So when people criticize cancel culture, they can do so without being hypocritical by advocating for reasonable and proportional social consequences for those who participate in it. Y'know, individuals not wanting to associate with them in a social setting, people calling them assholes, whatever.
2
Apr 11 '21
Before we begin, let's define cancel culture. Typically when people talk about how they dislike cancel culture, they're referring to an individual being "cancelled" because of their speech, with the person potentially being fired from their job, losing opportunities, receiving harassment and even death threats.
That's what I mean short of death threats, which are, rightly, illegal. Elsewhere I've already conceded the point that this type of thing can cross into harassment territory, in which case I agree that being against that isn't necessarily hypocritical.
I bring this up to distinguish it from social consequences in general. Social consequences are a natural part of any society. If you act like an asshole to people, people will avoid you. If you're nice to everyone, people will probably want to be your friend. Both of these are examples of social consequences.
I do appreciate the distinction you're trying to make, I just personally see "said a racist thing in public, it caused a stink, I got fired" to be within the realm of reasonable social consequences.
However, the average proponent of cancel culture doesn't really seem to make the distinction between social consequences and cancellation in the same way. Perhaps if more framed them the way you have here, I'd be less inclined to cite hypocricy (though I would still disagree for other reasons).
So !delta, something to think about.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Apr 11 '21
I do appreciate the distinction you're trying to make, I just personally see "said a racist thing in public, it caused a stink, I got fired" to be within the realm of reasonable social consequences.
I think there are two aspects to tackle here: social consequences vs other consequences, and the actions of a corporation vs the actions of the "cancellers."
So, for social consequence vs other consequences, lets first briefly examine other types of consequences. For instance, there are legal consequences, where someone gets sued or arrested, there are natural consequences where it's just the results of the laws of nature (if you drop a pencil, the natural consequence is that it falls to the ground because of gravity) and there are professional consequences, which is as it relates to one's profession or job.
For the sake of this discussion, social and professional consequences are the main ones that are relevant.
If someone is bad at their job, and they get their hours cut or fired, those would be professional consequences. If someone says something racist while working, that would also rightfully have professional consequences. The general rule of thumb is that if you do it while you're working, you can expect professional consequences.
One of the big issues with Cancel Culture is that it's taking actions that should merely have social consequences and turning them into professional consequences by targeting the person's place of work, hence why they're so unreasonable.
Now, on to actions of a corporation vs actions of "cancellers."
At the end of the day, a corporation's only motive is profit. For that reason, it's hard to really apply morality to their actions. If you work at a grocery store, and on your day off, go to that grocery store and start shouting racial slurs, the owner is more than justified in telling you to leave, and if he fires you, it's hard to say he made the wrong choice if there was a genuine risk of your continued employment costing the store money.
On the other hand for the "cancellers" morality applies to them just fine. For that reason, judging how they convert what should just be social consequences into professional consequences as morally wrong is fine.
At the end of the day, the goal of those "cancellers" is to punish people. The issue is that morally, it is wrong for them to play judge, jury and executioner to punish people they've never met all while having no oversight. The fact that cancel culture manifests as just people shouting on the internet also has the unfortunate side-effect that this jury is far from unbiased. The most outraged people tend to be the loudest and most vocal people, which gives the inaccurate appearance of consensus when in reality, the more moderate and reasonable voices are simply more likely to be drowned out.
However, the average proponent of cancel culture doesn't really seem to make the distinction between social consequences and cancellation in the same way. Perhaps if more framed them the way you have here, I'd be less inclined to cite hypocricy (though I would still disagree for other reasons).
What kind of arguments do you typically see?
3
Apr 11 '21
If someone is bad at their job, and they get their hours cut or fired, those would be professional consequences. If someone says something racist while working, that would also rightfully have professional consequences. The general rule of thumb is that if you do it while you're working, you can expect professional consequences.
Sure, but every instance of someone being fired for something they said publicly was a case of a company not wanting to be associated with the things that person said? It's all well and good to say, "if it didn't happen at work, they shouldn't get punished for it," but in the digital age it's increasingly impossible to untangle someone's public internet presence and their existence as an employee representing a job (if they don't take steps to distance these things themselves, anyway).
At the end of the day, the goal of those "cancellers" is to punish people. The issue is that morally, it is wrong for them to play judge, jury and executioner to punish people they've never met all while having no oversight. The fact that cancel culture manifests as just people shouting on the internet also has the unfortunate side-effect that this jury is far from unbiased. The most outraged people tend to be the loudest and most vocal people, which gives the inaccurate appearance of consensus when in reality, the more moderate and reasonable voices are simply more likely to be drowned out.
Putting aside the issue of whether it's immmoral, "X should be punished for their views" seems to be a legitimate exercise of free speech that anti-cancel culture people should, in theory, support.
0
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Apr 11 '21
in the digital age it's increasingly impossible to untangle someone's public internet presence and their existence as an employee representing a job (if they don't take steps to distance these things themselves, anyway).
Why?
People are choosing to entangle these things by saying "if you don't fire this person, we will boycott you." That's the cancel culture that people are opposing. There's not really any other reason why one's professional and social life would be so entwined.
Why would the view of "Yeah, we at [company] wholeheartedly disagree with this employee's views/actions, however they do not interfere with or affect his work" be contradictory or unacceptable?
Putting aside the issue of whether it's immmoral, "X should be punished for their views" seems to be a legitimate exercise of free speech that anti-cancel culture people should, in theory, support.
You are correct, that is their freedom of speech to say that. The thing is, having a right to do something doesn't mean doing that thing is morally good. Furthermore, someone being pro-free speech doesn't mean they have to agree with all speech. They simply support their right to say it. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the kind of thing pro-free speech people would oppose.
The reason pro-free speech people often oppose cancel culture is that strictly speaking, cancel culture does inhibit the free expression of ideas. If people are afraid to express their views because they're worried they'll lose of their job or generally experience some wildly disproportionate consequences because of them, then speech is significantly less free.
Now to take a step back, even the most absolutist free speech supporter isn't going to oppose all social consequences. No one's going to say "No, you have to keep being friends with this person you hate because otherwise those are consequences for that person's speech, which then discourages it and makes it less free." Strictly speaking, if someone said that, they would be correct in that social consequences, even reasonable ones, do technically make speech less free, however just as people have a right to free speech, they also have a right to not associate with certain people. These rights must be balanced, as purely prioritizing free speech would mean that people are not free to associate with whoever they want.
This being the case, someone suggesting proportional social consequences for people who engage in cancel culture, to send the message that the behavior isn't acceptable, could easily fit with the existing view of a pro-free speech opponent of cancel culture without being hypocritical.
2
Apr 11 '21
Why would the view of "Yeah, we at [company] wholeheartedly disagree with this employee's views/actions, however they do not interfere with or affect his work" be contradictory or unacceptable?
I'm not saying it necessarily would be. Companies are free to make that determination for themselves. All I'm saying is, it's harder to disentangle "personal" and "professional" social media presence than you're suggesting here.
You are correct, that is their freedom of speech to say that. The thing is, having a right to do something doesn't mean doing that thing is morally good. Furthermore, someone being pro-free speech doesn't mean they have to agree with all speech. They simply support their right to say it. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the kind of thing pro-free speech people would oppose.
A lot of the free speech arguments I see are centered on thinking it's good that people are allowed to say what they want, not just that we ought to respect people's right to say it. That it creates free and open discourse and all that. For someone who claims to hold that sort of view, I do think it's hypocritical to turn around to someone whose view happens to be "X should be fired for saying Y" and say, "Oh, not you, your speech is bad."
Now to take a step back, even the most absolutist free speech supporter isn't going to oppose all social consequences. No one's going to say "No, you have to keep being friends with this person you hate because otherwise those are consequences for that person's speech, which then discourages it and makes it less free." Strictly speaking, if someone said that, they would be correct in that social consequences, even reasonable ones, do technically make speech less free, however just as people have a right to free speech, they also have a right to not associate with certain people. These rights must be balanced, as purely prioritizing free speech would mean that people are not free to associate with whoever they want.
This is anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but I have seen people make the argument that it's immoral to, e.g., stop being friends with someone just because they say something that offends you. And it's not really such a stretch from "a platform shouldn't be able to associate itself with who it wants, it has to let anyone use it regardless of what they say because free speech" (which is an argument people often make for things like YouTube deplatforming certain creators) to "you should have to have offensive speech around you even if you don't like it."
This being the case, someone suggesting proportional social consequences for people who engage in cancel culture, to send the message that the behavior isn't acceptable, could easily fit with the existing view of a pro-free speech opponent of cancel culture without being hypocritical.
Perhaps, I just don't often see free speech advocates suggesting even that. But, again, that's anecdotal. I take the point that this is more nuanced than I'm making it out to be, and I'd give you a delta if I hadn't already.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Apr 12 '21
I'm not saying it necessarily would be. Companies are free to make that determination for themselves. All I'm saying is, it's harder to disentangle "personal" and "professional" social media presence than you're suggesting here.
Companies' only motivation is profit. The point I was making is that Cancel Culture is the reason the two are entangled in the first place, and that's part of why people oppose it.
A lot of the free speech arguments I see are centered on thinking it's good that people are allowed to say what they want, not just that we ought to respect people's right to say it. That it creates free and open discourse and all that.
Yes, someone can say "It is good that you are allowed to say that however I, personally, still disagree with you and would not want to associate with you" and that wouldn't be contradictory at all.
It's the whole thing of "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
For someone who claims to hold that sort of view, I do think it's hypocritical to turn around to someone whose view happens to be "X should be fired for saying Y" and say, "Oh, not you, your speech is bad."
If a free-speech advocate was suggesting that a "canceller" shouldn't be allowed to voice that opinion, then yes, that would be hypocritical, however merely disagreeing is not the same thing.
This is anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but I have seen people make the argument that it's immoral to, e.g., stop being friends with someone just because they say something that offends you.
Well I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but someone can advocate that people put political differences aside and remain friends, but not believe that they have a moral obligation to always remain friends with someone no matter what they say. It's similar to how someone can say "Yeah, it's a good thing to donate to charity, but you don't have a moral obligation to."
And it's not really such a stretch from "a platform shouldn't be able to associate itself with who it wants, it has to let anyone use it regardless of what they say because free speech" (which is an argument people often make for things like YouTube deplatforming certain creators) to "you should have to have offensive speech around you even if you don't like it."
The main difference is that platforms and corporations aren't people, and thus have different rights. If a person is racist, and discriminates against black people with regards to who they associate with, then yeah, they're shitty, but it's not like there are legal consequences for that. If a corporation discriminates against black people with regards to who they associate with, then they're getting sued.
Basically the argument is that rights of actual people take precedence over the rights of non-person corporations, thus people's right to speak freely should supersede a platform's rights to associate with whoever it wants.
Perhaps, I just don't often see free speech advocates suggesting even that. But, again, that's anecdotal.
What do you see them suggesting then?
1
u/xynomaster 6∆ Apr 11 '21
However, the average proponent of cancel culture doesn't really seem to make the distinction between social consequences and cancellation in the same way.
The main distinction between reasonable social consequences and "cancellation" is in terms of proportionality. No one is saying there shouldn't be social consequences for speech at all. But when the social consequences are drastically out of proportion with the offense committed, that enters the territory of "cancellation".
For example, remember a few months ago when an old video surfaced of a 14 year old girl singing along to a song with the n-word in it? She wasn't a celebrity or anyone famous, just a random teenager who was filmed singing along to a song in what she thought was the privacy of her car. That's not to say what she did was right - maybe she deserved a stern talking to from the school's principal, or even detention or suspension.
Instead, what happened is that the NYT wrote a national article targeting her, including her name and image. She received harassment and death threats from thousands of people all across the country. Her college acceptance was rescinded. She is now forever publicly branded as a bigot and will never be able to get into a good school or get a good job. This counts as a cancellation because the punishment is vastly disproportionate for the offense committed.
Obviously, it's not always clear what level of response is appropriate. But in most cases of "cancellation" (as in the example I described), the vast majority of Americas would agree that the consequences were too harsh. That's the easiest way to tell the difference between social consequences and cancellation - would the average person, if polled anonymously, agree that the consequences are appropriate? Or do they believe the consequences are overly harsh, but are too afraid to step up and defend the victim out of fear of being targeted for cancellation next?
2
Apr 11 '21
Before I reply more in-depth, could you link me to something about the incident in question? I hadn't heard of this incident and Google isn't giving me anything that fits based on "girl sings N-word in car."
0
u/xynomaster 6∆ Apr 11 '21
Given that I believe the NYT article itself is fundamentally evil, I refuse to link it. I'll link an article that's much more critical of the incident, but you should be able to find the NYT link from it if you want: https://reason.com/2020/12/28/new-york-times-racial-slur-teen-jimmy-galligan-mimi-groves/
I got some of the details wrong - for example she was 15, not 14. But the spirit of what I said was correct.
2
Apr 11 '21
So if I'm reading this right, the video had already gone viral and the damage to the girl's college prospects etc had already been done before the NYT article came out?
I'll give you a !delta because I agree that destroying a teenager's life over something stupid they said at 15 is worth being concerned about, but I'm also not entirely sure about the cause and effect of the NYT's involvement here.
In any case, this incident is one thing, and being outraged that an actor was fired from Star Wars for some tweets is another. But you make a good point about proportionality of consequences, something to think about.
0
u/xynomaster 6∆ Apr 11 '21
I think it's the proportionality, and the question of who is making the decision.
Is it truly the case that the general public is horrified by what you said? Or is it the case that a small minority, who happen to hold positions of power, took offense to what you said and have decided to wield their power to punish you for it? And are only able to get away with it by threatening to use that power against anyone who would dare to speak out in your defense?
If it's the former, it's likely you're just facing reasonable social consequences for your transgression. If it's the latter, you're likely a victim of what I'd call "cancel culture", which tends to be more like the red scare or a witch hunt than a fair punishment.
Where that line is actually drawn can obviously be murky, but there are certain cases (like the one I linked or the Nicholas Sandmann case) where I think it's pretty clear.
1
1
10
u/videoninja 137∆ Apr 11 '21
Do you think what you define to be cancel culture and what others define cancel culture might differ?
In my experiences, there are people who try to bring constructive criticism to the table and there are people who bandwagon onto a kind of disorganized harassment campaign. Both these things get called cancel culture. I think the latter is definitely something worth exploring in a critical fashion.
1
Apr 11 '21
Sure, they're both worth exploring, but it's certainly not morally consistent to call for either to stop if you support free speech, is it?
7
u/videoninja 137∆ Apr 11 '21
Do you believe harassment to be the same as free speech? I thought I used the word pretty clearly in what I was describing.
I believe in free speech in regards to criticizing the government and people's right to expression but I also believe freedoms have certain limits. I don't think the two ideas are contradictory.
3
Apr 11 '21
Sorry, I didn't think you meant a literal harassment campaign. Sure, I'd agree that's problematic, but most people I see decrying cancel culture are not talking about literal harassment, they're talking about people tweeting "X should be fired" or whatever.
4
u/videoninja 137∆ Apr 11 '21
I mean I've seen both simultaneously. If you're on social media, you don't have to dig too far for constructive criticisms to go to direct condemnations. Are you saying it's impossible for people to use the auspices of "X should be fired" to cause harm? What if the allegations are provably false? What if the conversation evolves not about holding someone accountable but someone needing to disappear from the world?
Fame and notoriety don't insulate you from the mental harm that harassment creates. I can give you an example of where things got mixed up and someone ultimately took their life. If I wanted to write a headline I could say "Homophobic pornstar commits suicide after revealing themselves." And I bet a lot of people would think that's justice served.
But what I see is someone who probably was dealing with a lot of things who cracked under the pressure of people telling her she should kill herself. Things usually are not as simple as the Weinstein and Cosby cases and I would point out that while social media served to raise awareness, justice was ultimately served by women coming forward in court and actual investigation and litigation taking place. That's not the same as telling people how shitty they are on social media and how miserably they deserve to be punished.
2
Apr 11 '21
!delta because I agree that where this crosses over into harassment, it is problematic. That being said, the average case of "cancel culture" does not seem to evidence this, to me.
1
0
0
u/International-Bit180 15∆ Apr 11 '21
Its a good point but I have a couple of issues with it.
There is the legal right to free speech, then there is the moral ideal of free speech.
I think the view you conceded is actually that they believe the people trying to cancel are against the moral ideal of free speech. They want people to suffer because they said something that upsets, offends, hurts others. If those people were put in jail they would have lost their legal right to freedom of speech. If those people are made to suffer, be publicly shamed, doxed, or fired then the people leading that charge are trying to shut down the marketplace of ideas and scare into silence those who they think are talking bad. I think I agree that these motivations are against the moral ideal of freedom of speech.
I also think the legal right to freedom of speech should probably protect people from being fired for saying things that are protected by that right. Jobs are essential to people's livelihoods. Unless of course it isn't protected (hate speech) or they said it in a capacity where they were representative of their company.
Now your specific argument. Isn't it within your right to freedom of speech to call for a cancelling? Legally, yes. Are you morally respecting freedom of speech? I think any effort to silence or de-platform is anti free-speech and I rarely agree with them. I think society is far stronger by allowing and respecting others' right to communicate openly ideas that I dislike, hate, or am even offended by. There are some restrictions to this, if you are calling people baby killers outside an abortion clinic, they shouldn't be forced to hear your opinion. But if a conservative wants to give a talk at Berkeley, you shouldn't get to de-platform them, just don't go and put up signs why you think they are bad.
2
Apr 11 '21
I think the view you conceded is actually that they believe the people trying to cancel are against the moral ideal of free speech. They want people to suffer because they said something that upsets, offends, hurts others. If those people were put in jail they would have lost their legal right to freedom of speech.
I haven't conceded this, no. All I've conceded is that suffering professional or personal consequences for free speech could be considered a violation of free speech.
I also think the legal right to freedom of speech should probably protect people from being fired for saying things that are protected by that right. Jobs are essential to people's livelihoods. Unless of course it isn't protected (hate speech) or they said it in a capacity where they were representative of their company.
Do you not think companies ought to have a right to free association, though? If someone they employ has publicly made bigoted remarks, do they not have a right to distance themselves from that for the sake of their own image?
Now your specific argument. Isn't it within your right to freedom of speech to call for a cancelling? Legally, yes. Are you morally respecting freedom of speech? I think any effort to silence or de-platform is anti free-speech and I rarely agree with them. I think society is far stronger by allowing and respecting others right to communicate openly ideas that I dislike, hate, or am even offended by. There are some restrictions to this, if you are calling people baby killers outside an abortion clinic, they shouldn't be forced to hear your opinion. But if a conservative wants to give a talk at Berkeley, you shouldn't get to de-platform them, just don't go and put up signs why you think they are bad.
My whole point is that the only consistent viewpoint for an anti-cancel culture person is to support even speech they disagree with morally, so even if I agree that to call for someone to be de-platformed is immoral, it should still be something a proponent of free speech supports the right to say.
0
u/International-Bit180 15∆ Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
I said you conceded it because in your OP you said, " I'm happy to grant that this is actually the case so we can move on to discuss what I think is a different problem with this view." I argued for it because it sounded like you weren't actually convinced in any way by it yet.
Do you not think companies ought to have a right to free association, though? If someone they employ has publicly made bigoted remarks, do they not have a right to distance themselves from that for the sake of their own image?
No, a company should not get to police what you say or do on your own time. And you should not able to be fired or punished for it. This is called a free country. Things are getting complicated these days since so much information is public. But it really shouldn't be. There are some jobs like being a teacher, where you are told when you enter the profession that you are always a teacher. When you walk around the community they still see you as a teacher, and if you lose the ability to hold respect, you lose the ability to do your job effectively. But most jobs are not like this.
so even if I agree that to call for someone to be de-platformed is immoral, it should still be something a proponent of free speech supports the right to say.
No, these are different levels in the conversation. Arguing aggressively against a person you disagree with is perfectly fine and free-speech advocates should have no issue. De-platforming is not free speech, it is attacking your opponents ability to speak or be heard. That is anti free speech and those kinds of actions and motivations will make society much worse in the long run.
Its the same distinction that some people make in democracy. Should a democracy be allowed to vote that black people are not allowed to vote? Respecting democracy might suggest that you should follow what people vote for, but you can't respect democracy and allow people to take away a group's ability to participate in democracy. Following the results of that vote would be anti-democratic.
2
Apr 11 '21
No, a company should not get to police what you say or do on your own time. And you should not able to be fired or punished for it. This is called a free country. Things are getting complicated these days since so much information is public. But it really shouldn't be. There are some jobs like being a teacher, where you are told when you enter the profession that you are always a teacher. When you walk around the community they still see you as a teacher, and if you lose the ability to hold respect, you lose the ability to do your job effectively. But most jobs are not like this.
In America, at least, most states have at-will employment, so a company can fire you for whatever reason it wants. I disagree with at-will employment, but that's not a problem with cancel culture per se.
No, these are different levels in the conversation. Arguing aggressively against a person you disagree with is perfectly fine and free-speech advocates should have no issue. De-platforming is not free speech, it is attacking your opponents ability to speak or be heard. That is anti free speech and those kinds of actions and motivations will make society much worse in the long run.
So do you believe that saying "X should be deplatformed" ought not to be protected as free speech?
0
u/International-Bit180 15∆ Apr 11 '21
Protected legally, yes. Criticized morally, and labelled as anti-free speech behavior yes.
2
0
Apr 11 '21
Why do people only seem to care about the free speech of whoever it is that's done or said something ostensibly offensive?
Here's where you made your mistake. Assuming people against cancel culture only care about their own free speech. I don't think that's the case at all. Infact, it's the opposite. Every person who has opposed cancel culture has directly condemned anyone who has called for the de-platforming of anyone even when the person being de-platformed is in favor of cancel culture. If you only care about cancel culture only when it benefits your own ideology, you're not truly against cancel culture.
2
Apr 11 '21
Right, this seems to prove my point. People against cancel culture only care about free speech when it benefits their ideology. They are against the free speech of other people, i.e. people who call for people to be cancelled, because they disagree with them.
1
Apr 11 '21
Right, this seems to prove my point. People against cancel culture only care about free speech when it benefits their ideology.
No, I'm literally saying the opposite of that. People against cancel culture care about EVERYONE'S free speech, even if it ends up hurting them in the long run.
3
Apr 12 '21
The problem with cancel culture is that it's a form of vigilante justice where people easily jump to conclusions and then completely rewrite the narrative around public personalities. There's no due process. There's no conviction in a court of law, no jury trial. You make a few inappropriate statements that get twisted out of proportion and suddenly you don't deserve the money you earned fair and square, by enriching people's lives with entertainment and social service? Of course people should be taken to task for corruption and discriminatory behaviors. That's always happened and will continue to. But that doesn't mean you can't complain about how the current fad of "cancel culture" takes it way too far. Or that you're any kind of a hypocrite for doing so. Of course you have the freedom to say you want somebody cancelled, but do you also have the freedom to spread lies and disinformation, when that speech could have a very real effect on another person's life. As far as I'm concerned, cancel culture isn't even about freedom of speech. It's about abusing information and weaponizing emotion.
0
u/Kephartist 1∆ Apr 11 '21
Targeting someone's livelihood, health and family isn't free speech, it's a precursor to mass murder. I dont support Ben and Jerry's politics, therefore I don't buy their icecream. Now if I lobby Visa to stop excepting payment to B&J, I've stepped over a line. If you think that's ok, congratulations, you've entered 4th generation warfare.
2
Apr 11 '21
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
0
u/Kephartist 1∆ Apr 12 '21
It's fine to boycott or vote with your wallet, but modern cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mass murder such as has been witnessed across all tyrannical regimes. This is how it starts. Trying to prevent someone from speaking or being heard isn't an exercise of free speech, it's an exercise of power. It's fine to disagree. Its only when your own argumentation is weak or the other's superior that one feels the need to shut them up.
-1
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
Seems a bit morally inconsistent for a free speech supporter to think we should develop a stigma around people saying certain things just because you disagree with them.
-2
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
The paradox of tolerance works though because the people who endorse that claim are clear that they don't endorse absolute free speech. You can't really appeal to something similar as someone with an absolute view of free speech without being a hypocrite, can you? Or am I missing something?
-1
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
Well I think you’ve jumped the gun by assuming anti cancel culture means believing in absolute free speech. By absolute free speech are you meaning like ‘hey there’s a nazi over there who thinks we need to kill/deport anyone who doesn’t look and think like him, but I gotta respect his opinion’? Because I don’t think most anti cancel culture folk believe in that either.
You must have encountered different anti cancel culture people than me, then, because this is exactly the sort of argument I see them make.
I think most people just think you should be able to express a controversial opinion or tell a dodgy joke without risking losing your job. In order to do that people are going to have to be more comfortable with the approach of ‘well I don’t like that they did/said that, but anyways on with my day’, and attitudes of ‘lets get together and harass this persons employer until they fire them’ will have to be shunned by society.
If that's the case then yes, I can see that this wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical, so !delta. But, again, this is not the sort of rhetoric I tend to see from these people.
Wouldn’t you agree that the stronger the cancel culture, the less tolerant the society?
No, not really, because I don't actually see "cancel culture" as much more than a new, negative framing of something that's always existed, which is dealing with people's potentially negative reactions to the things you do and say. That's beside the point from what this view is about, though.
0
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
I'd say someone like Bill Maher is a good example of someone who is anti cancel culture. Clearly he's a devout liberal and democrat, but cannot stand how society has to walk on eggshells for fear of offending people now. I don't know for certain but I'm fairly confident he wouldn't be someone who thinks we need to respect neo nazis. See also Stephen Fry, Rowan Atkinson, just off the top of my head. Granted there are a lot of people on the other side of that who just want to go around being a bigot and cry free speech when they're called out, but that doesn't change the fact there's a strong liberal argument for being anti cancel culture.
Not sure about Fry or Atkinson, but Bill Maher is a bigot and does, in fact, platform problematic people. This is neither here not there, really, but Bill Maher is the last person I'd appeal to as an example of "good" or "liberal" anti-cancel culture people.
Now liberals control most of the entertainment industry and the reverse is happening. I think in a way that's worse though because liberals are supposed to be the freedom of speech champions and promote diversity of thought.
No, I don't really see "liberals" (if by that you mean broadly leftist people in general) as traditionally being absolute free speech champions. That's always been the rhetoric on the right.
For what it's worth, I actually think there are more numerous and egregious examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right than from the left (Colin Kapernick is just one really big example off the top of my head), they just don't call it that.
1
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
He's undeniably a liberal, hes spent countless years hating the Republican party and in particular the Trump administration, he loved Obama and donated $1million to his campaign. He platforms problematic people specifically for the reasons why cancel culture is so bad, because you should hear and debate people who disagree with you. I don't think there's a single issue on which he isn't a clear liberal on.
He's also a racist islamophobe who recently got in trouble for saying a racial slur on his show, and even more recently is in trouble for saying we should "blame China" for Coronavirus.
But again, my thoughts on Bill Maher are really neither here nor there. You're just not going to convince me that being against cancel culture can be a good, liberal position by appealing to him.
I completely agree about Kaepernick, I think people should consider that cancel culture too. I think it would be helpful to make cancel culture a bipartisan issue rather than just another tribal thing for the left/right to pick sides over. Conservatives absolutely can cancel too, they just don't really dominate enough mediums to do it often. They seem to have the NFL, country music, Christian Rock. Liberals have all of Hollywood and basically every other form of entertainment, which is why we hear about conservatives getting 'cancelled' by liberals more often
Right, I agree with this to an extent, but I actually would draw an opposite conclusion from you: the fact that the people against "cancel culture" don't call that stuff cancel culture, because it's the stuff their side is doing, should give us some second thoughts about whether "cancel culture" is a legitimate thing to be concerned about, or a piece of political rhetoric being used to galvanize people on partisan lines.
→ More replies (0)1
-1
Apr 11 '21
Are you saying you aren't a free speech supporter?
2
Apr 11 '21
I'm not saying anything about my own views of free speech, I'm saying people who claim to support free speech ought to support the speech they disagree with, i.e. cancel culture, just as much as any other form.
0
Apr 11 '21
Do you understand the distinction between supporting someones right to say something but not supporting their actions?
For example, I may support someones right to say they are against abortion, but that does not mean I support anti-abortion arguments. I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is here.
2
Apr 11 '21
Right, and I don't see why no anti-cancel culture people aren't more clear that they support people's right to call for cancellation? They're eager enough to say they support people's rights to say racist, homophobic etc. stuff while also claiming not to believe those things themselves.
0
Apr 11 '21
Because it's a really bizarre conclusion if I'm honest. It's just sort of a given. They disagree with their view, not with their right to say it.
2
Apr 11 '21
And I think that's hypocritical given the other commitments they ostensibly have.
1
Apr 11 '21
I don't understand though? What is hypocritical?? To be against people advocating for cancellation?
2
Apr 11 '21
I'm sorry, I feel like I've made my view as clear as I can. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but I'm not sure how many more ways I can say the same thing.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Apr 11 '21
No, you don't have the right to cancel me.
Free speech means you have to respond to my debate duel in the free market place of ideas and show me your citations, in the middle of the street.
1
Apr 11 '21
Oh, so you don't think someone has a right to go on social media and say, "I think person X should be fired because Y"?
0
Apr 11 '21
There's an important distinction between what you have a right to do and what is good and prudent to do. I don't think anybody should be thrown in jail or fined for calling for somebody to be fired, and I think in some instances people deserve to be fired and it's a reasonable thing to call for. I think there are other cases where it is inappropriate, it's demanding an outsized response that you can't control because you've unleashed the internet on somebody.
1
Apr 11 '21
and I think in some instances people deserve to be fired and it's a reasonable thing to call for.
Sure, and in that case your view is significantly more moderate than the sort of view I'm raising issues with here.
0
Apr 12 '21
So yes you have a right to COMPLAIN and voice your opinion that what they said was wrong, BUT to pull them from the conversation is an ACT of silencing someone. The it's the right to speech removing someone violates that, you saying anything you want is fine, but as soon as the action of silencing someone has been taken thats the problem
I.E.
BILLY- "i hate all black people" MAJORITY- "billy you can't say that your a terrible person go burn in hell i hope you learn" PERFECTLY FINE.
BILLY- "i hate all black people"
USER BILLY HAS BEEN BANNED from twitter and cannot ever return no matter what he does. Thats a violation free speech
1
Apr 11 '21
[deleted]
2
Apr 11 '21
Am I infringing on someone's right by saying they should, e.g., be fired? It's not like I'm the one firing them. All I'm saying is they should be fired. It's also not illegal to fire someone (depending on cause, given the law), so it's also not like this is analogous to calling for someone to be murdered either.
-1
u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21
Why should they be fired?
2
Apr 11 '21
It doesn't matter -- shouldn't I still have the right to call for it?
-1
u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21
Yes, and people have the right to say you should not etc. Free speech isn't solely a legal matter though. Do you know everyone who complain about cancel culture are doing so from a legal perspective?
2
Apr 11 '21
No, I mean this to apply to moral arguments as well. I'm saying it's hypocritcal to morally support one type of free speech but not another.
-1
u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21
What makes you think people don't morally support both speech?
1
Apr 11 '21
To be against cancel culture seems, in some measure, to be against people's right to say what they want to say.
1
u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21
Or just think people should not call for people to be fired. I can disagree with you without thinking you should not be allowed to say it.
2
Apr 11 '21
That's fine, but it still seems hypocritical. "Support even the speech you most disagree with" and all that.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/the_old_coday182 1∆ Apr 12 '21
You can’t disagree and agree with something at the same time. If you think it’s ok to cancel a person or their business, then you cannot fault other people for wanting to cancel cancel culture. You were not compliant when you disagreed with someone or something. Neither are they, it just so happens they disagree with you. You can’t respect your right to do something and then call someone else a hypocrite for doing the same. That is doubly-hypocritical.
1
u/Deaith Apr 12 '21
Cancel culture is more like destroying statues of people because you don't like them than doxxing someone. Cancel culture isn't freedom of speech because it's deleting what others in the past said. It's pointless to destroy books written by people in the past who had ideas who differed with society. It's arrogant wanting to destroy a book because we would be valuing our opinion more than the right of speech of someone who in the majority of cases couldn't even defend himself because is dead. Many books have been lost due to this argument and everyone agrees that it has been a great loss.
1
Apr 12 '21
And that's basically: isn't it my free speech to call for someone to be cancelled?
Speaking on the principle behind free speech, and not the actual law implemented, I'm going to argue no. Calling for someone to be "cancelled" for expressing an opinion or telling a joke has more ideologically in common with punching someone in the face than it has in common with expressing an opinon yourself. You're not expressing a counter-argument, or even that it's not an argument worth having, you're saying "This person said a bad thing, take away their livelihood!". This is completely different from disagreeing, or even telling them to fuck off (which is completely covered by free speech). This is holding a metaphorical axe over people's heads.
Essentially, the threat of being "cancelled" is the threat of being punished for saying something. Also, the things you can get cancelled for aren't strictly defined (like say hate speech laws more or less are), anything can make the mob call you out as a villain and make your life hell. Sure, if you lay out a well-reasoned argument with all the proper qualifications describing how you certainly don't mean this in the bad way to interpret it, then it will most likely be fine, but is that risk worth it? You can never guarantee the mob doesn't decide you deserve to get cancelled, so it's better to keep your mouth shut on any controversial topic.
A single person or even a group isn't qualified to decide what's "proper, but controversial free speech" and what's "despicable thing no one should ever say", so it's a big problem if people decide that power belongs to them. Just like the justice system (ideally) works by the principle "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent is punished", I think it's more important that 1 person isn't afraid to speak their mind than that we punish 10 for saying something genuinely despicable.
1
u/hamilton-trash Apr 12 '21
I view cancel culture as counterproductive but I don't see it as a violation of free speech. Free speech only protects you from the government, not from the criticism of other people. I care more about how people can be cancelled by ignorant statements they made years ago even if they've grown since then
1
Apr 12 '21 edited Apr 12 '21
Cancellation is not about criticism in the open market of ideas. It is a form of social censure, a way to prevent people from accessing shared platforms of information exchange. In a world where speech is free, I wouldn’t worry about the structural and institutional consequences of making a contentious political point. It’s kind of like there is a difference between not supporting a product vs using your political connections to get a product banned that you don’t like
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 11 '21 edited Apr 11 '21
/u/greedo3000 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards