Cancel Culture

Am I wrong, or is this just another version of "political correctness"?

The people arguing from these positions always babble on about "free speech is supposed to to be battle of ideas. let us speak!".

But when their crappy ideas lose the battle, all they do is whine that no one wants to listen to them.

in my experience, the terms "SJW", "political correctness", and now "cancel culture" have mostly been used to belittle.  It's generally a sign that the person doesn't really want to have a discussion of the issue at hand.  It's dismissive.

The latest of course is the Goya CEO, and all the Trumpers upset that the guy is being "canceled" by "SJWs."  I don't think that this instance is one in which white liberal guilt (another dismissive term) is at play very much. I didn't even know about the issue until I saw an angry tweet about Goya from a Latin American friend of mine.  Then I looked it up and saw that their CEO had said the U.S. was "blessed" to have Trump as president.  A guy who has been fanning intense bigotry against people who make up the bulk of Goya's revenue base. So my friend sees this as a betrayal, and I can't see that she's wrong. 

But the Trumpers are upset that this dude is being "canceled" for saying nice things about the Donald.  And they are now pledging to buy lots of Goya in support.  But my response to that is why support a guy who is obviously not a smart businessman.  He obviously was clueless about a big segment of his customer base, and his defensive response to the criticism means he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about his company's brand.  So in the marketplace, why should bad business practices be rewarded?

Anyhow, to answer your question, it does seem that all these dismissive terms are used by people who really aren't interested in the "marketplace of ideas" as much as they want other people to just shut up about these issues.

It's only "cancel culture" if it's the other guys doing it.

nohero said:

It's only "cancel culture" if it's the other guys doing it.

exactly.  Next time a conservative rages about "canceling" we can ask that person if he/she ever heard of the Dixie Chicks?

I would really like to see trumpsters in the Goya aisle buying frijoles negros...

How about the NFL boycott after players took a knee? Or Nascar, after they dropped confederate flags?

https://www.insider.com/map-of-us-states-boycotting-nascar-after-confederate-flag-ban-2020-6

Jaytee said:

I would really like to see trumpsters in the Goya aisle buying frijoles negros...

 the ones I've seen are saying they are ordering them online and having them shipped to food banks.  While it's good for them to be making donations to the needy, it also strikes me as trollish.  But if Trumpers trolling the libtards means donations to the food deprived, troll away.

At least they’re not buying cans and dropping them from windows, like Keurig machines, or Setting fire to them like Nikes.

Jaytee said:

I would really like to see trumpsters in the Goya aisle buying frijoles negros...

ISWYDT 

The Goya boycott is particularly appropriate because the ones running the company and who made the statements are the grandson(s) of the man who founded the company.  So it's not some rogue CEO espousing values that are at odds with the company's.  

ml1 said:

Jaytee said:

I would really like to see trumpsters in the Goya aisle buying frijoles negros...

 the ones I've seen are saying they are ordering them online and having them shipped to food banks.  While it's good for them to be making donations to the needy, it also strikes me as trollish.  But if Trumpers trolling the libtards means donations to the food deprived, troll away.

I saw that as well.  Someone I know who "friended" me on the Facebook had a notice "_______ is raising money for a charitable cause."  I went to the post, which was a rant about the "libs" boycotting Goya, so he was urging people to support Goya by ordering online and donating the food to the Community Food Bank of New Jersey.

I was not about to get into a dispute on the Facebook about it, but that irked me.  It wasn't about the charitable donations at all, since you can donate to the food bank from many online sources.  It's a cheap way to spread one's cheap shots, and it's wrong to use the good name of a charity to do that. 

With restaurants closed and people cooking more at home what could be dumber than a food company creating a controversy? 

Cancel culture certainly has failed to take hold on MOL, as evidenced by the banquet that is served up on a daily basis to our oldest and most vile troll.

A lot of our purchasing decisions are based on brands. Brands carry a certain message, they can be about value for your money, quality, style, social values, anything. So I think it is perfectly fine for people to stop buying a brand if they do not agree with what that brand represents. I don't care if conservatives stop buying Starbucks or go to NFL games or Nascar races because they have gotten too liberal, I also don't care if sane people boycott Goya because they are in bed with Trump. And I also don't care if conservatives start buying Goya for the same reason, especially if they donate the products to food banks.

That being said, I seriously doubt if there will be a significant sales uptick from the latter (other than some purchases that will be shared on social media). I do think there could be a serious downside for Goya from Hispanic people that know very well that Trump is a racist and is out to get them. I find it a very strange move from a business perspective. The CEO is lucky that Goya is a private company, because if it was a public company he would already have been fired.

nohero said:

I saw that as well.  Someone I know who "friended" me on the Facebook had a notice "_______ is raising money for a charitable cause."  I went to the post, which was a rant about the "libs" boycotting Goya, so he was urging people to support Goya by ordering online and donating the food to the Community Food Bank of New Jersey.

I was not about to get into a dispute on the Facebook about it, but that irked me.  It wasn't about the charitable donations at all, since you can donate to the food bank from many online sources.  It's a cheap way to spread one's cheap shots, and it's wrong to use the good name of a charity to do that. 

Yes. Using a charity to troll people is wrong, but if it means people get fed, it's better than the typical conservative trolling.  

here's a rejoinder to the Harper's article

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/07/harpers-letter-free-speech/614080/

and another response:

Don’t Fall For The ‘Cancel Culture’ Scam 

Anecdotes are not data, free speech is not under attack — and elite journalists should find something else to write about.

While the letter itself, published by the magazine Harper’s, doesn’t use the term, the statement represents a bleak apogee in the yearslong, increasingly contentious debate over “cancel culture.” The American left, we are told, is imposing an Orwellian set of restrictions on which views can be expressed in public. Institutions at every level are supposedly gripped by fears of social media mobs and dire professional consequences if their members express so much as a single statement of wrongthink.

This is false. Every statement of fact in the Harper’s letter is either wildly exaggerated or plainly untrue. More broadly, the controversy over “cancel culture” is a straightforward moral panic. While there are indeed real cases of ordinary Americans plucked from obscurity and harassed into unemployment, this rare, isolated phenomenon is being blown up far beyond its importance.

drummerboy said:

here's a rejoinder to the Harper's article

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/07/harpers-letter-free-speech/614080/

 Thanks.

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

That's your freaking example? No one seems to know why she was fired.

Anyway, people sometimes get fired for sh!tty reasons. You believe in "at will" employment, right?

This is the problem with you guys on this issue - you think you have proof of some massive (or at least significant) suppression of ideas, but you don't.

Even the Harper's letter made absolutely no case that anyone was actually suffering from this.

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

 it's a very big country.  Any of us can come up with an anecdote (or ten) to make any point we want. 

But a lot of people make very good livings saying things like that, and things that are even more offensive to even more people.  So how is our language being hemmed in?  There are entire TV networks and hundreds of websites devoted to spreading messages exactly like that.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

That's your freaking example? No one seems to know why she was fired.

From the article, the employer declined to comment on why she was to be moved from the position of dean to a faculty position.  Which is what happens with personnel matters.

Most of the article is about how nobody knows why an outside group decided to claim that the individual was disciplined for writing "BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE’S LIFE MATTERS”.  The reason why the outside group would do that seems obvious - so people could cite it as "cancel culture" in discussions like this.

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

 I would like to introduce you to the world of Public Relations and Communications. There's no way her email should have gone out without being run through at least one person in the UML Comms team, and based on one of her letters it looks it wasn't. 

ml1 said:

exactly.  Next time a conservative rages about "canceling" we can ask that person if he/she ever heard of the Dixie Chicks?

Have you heard of The Chicks?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/why-the-chicks-dropped-their-dixie

ml1 said:

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

 it's a very big country.  Any of us can come up with an anecdote (or ten) to make any point we want. 

But a lot of people make very good livings saying things like that, and things that are even more offensive to even more people.  So how is our language being hemmed in?  There are entire TV networks and hundreds of websites devoted to spreading messages exactly like that.

 And we can also write them off one at a time.  There are plenty examples of this.  Here's a sampling.   And what do you mean by "messages exactly like that".  Look, you can rationalize it and even see this as a positive.  However, it is odd that anyone would deny that this is happening. 

ridski said:

terp said:

Are we making the claim that our language is not being hemmed in?  Does it strike anyone as odd that you can lose your job for saying "everyones life matters"?  Its really not ok to say things like that any longer.  That doesn't strike anyone as a tad strange?

 I would like to introduce you to the world of Public Relations and Communications. There's no way her email should have gone out without being run through at least one person in the UML Comms team, and based on one of her letters it looks it wasn't. 

 What would you have changed?

Basil would be surprised to know that his icon is a symbol of racism.

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

exactly.  Next time a conservative rages about "canceling" we can ask that person if he/she ever heard of the Dixie Chicks?

Have you heard of The Chicks?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/why-the-chicks-dropped-their-dixie

 I have

College Student may lose acceptance to university due to pro Trump tik tok video

terp said:

 And we can also write them off one at a time.  There are plenty examples of this.  Here's a sampling.   And what do you mean by "messages exactly like that".  Look, you can rationalize it and even see this as a positive.  However, it is odd that anyone would deny that this is happening. 

 a lot of things happen among the 330 million people in the U.S.  Lots of bad and unfair stuff among the things that happen.  But does it need to be said again that anecdotes (and from what I saw, many of them unverified first-person complaints) are not data.  Not to mention how many of those accounts seem to be from Canada, not the U.S.