Cancel Cutlure

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: January 7th, 2021, 10:45 am OK, but given your views on free speech I would assume you'd regard any punitive reaction at all, to something like Roseanne Barr's tweets, as an overreaction?
No. I wouldn't say that. Say, for example, that she's posting on a site like this and a moderator has a problem with what she's posting and bans her. I don't have any problem with that. I wouldn't say it's a free speech violation.

The overreaction in this case is that it wound up taking away her then-current source of income.
Also: I don't immediately see the connection to the socialist views.
On my view, people are due food, housing, health care, etc. merely by the fact that they exist.
Do you object to the overreaction simply because you dislike overreactions (as you might, for example, dislike some foods) or do you regard the overreaction as morally wrong?
Thinking that something is morally wrong comes down to what's basically a disposition, preference or emotional reaction, so there's no difference.
And, morally, would you say that somebody who agrees to employ somebody else (to make a TV show) can choose to change their minds and remove the offer of employment without necessarily having to give a reason?
If I were king this wouldn't be an issue, because employment wouldn't hinge on private citizens' whims. Again, people are due things like employment simply by virtue of the fact that they exist on my view. Given the social structure that we have, I see it as a major problem that people can loose their source of income due to someone's whims as well as due to overreactions to speech and the like.
Obviously this relates back to de-platforming and whether it's morally acceptable for me to remove a speaking platform from someone simply because I've decided I don't like the cut of their jib anymore.
"Deplatforming" isn't a categorical problem. What's a problem is taking away someone's livelihood, their food, shelter, freedom (by way of imprisonment, say), and so on in response to speech.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

baker wrote: January 7th, 2021, 10:08 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:41 amMy issues with something like Roseanne Barr's show being canned because of something she wrote on twitter don't have to do with free speech, by the way. It's actually more related to general issues I have with people overreacting to various things (especially when we're talking about any sort of punitive action), and it's related to, or at least rooted in the same motivations as, my socialist views. It's not at all that I'm complaining that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated or anything like that.
Showbusiness is based on people overreacting to things. Imagine an ataraxic audience: the end of showbusiness.

It's strange to expect that people would do things on the show that they wouldn't do behind the courtains; or that one wouldn't spill over into the other.
Actually some audiences are very mellow/polite, both due to local custom and due to some artworld contexts.

(Remember that I make my living via arts & entertainment--"showbusiness," by the way.)
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by baker »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 7th, 2021, 6:01 pmActually some audiences are very mellow/polite, both due to local custom and due to some artworld contexts.
Indeed, they react to the smallest, finest things. Why not call that an "overreaction"?

Classical music, for example, concerns itself with details that the average Joe doesn't even notice, or at least doesn't consider relevant. Take, for example, the various interpretations of the Adagietto from Mahler's Fifth Symphony -- Karajan's, Bernstein's, or Rattle's? Mehta's? Lovers of classical music have strong opinions about each, while the average Joe would say they're "overreacting".

To say that something is an "overreaction", you need to establish a baseline of what is supposed to be "normal".
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:No. I wouldn't say that. Say, for example, that she's posting on a site like this and a moderator has a problem with what she's posting and bans her. I don't have any problem with that. I wouldn't say it's a free speech violation.
OK. So I guess that could be classed as "de-platforming". i.e. a person/group who owns/controls a platform for speech can withdraw access to that platform for any reason of their choosing and you would not regard that as morally wrong. So in that particular sense you don't have a moral problem with at least some aspects of what people call cancel culture.
The overreaction in this case is that it wound up taking away her then-current source of income.
Mmm, OK. I suppose that would only be an overreaction if the income derives from a contractual agreement, explicitly involving money, that she had with the platform provider (in her case the TV network or production company or whatever). For all anyone knows I could somehow be making money by posting on this site, but not by way of a contractual agreement with its owner. (I'm not of course. Fat chance.) I'm sure a lot of public speakers who are de-platformed make an income from their speaking one way or another (if only by raising their profile and thereby increasing their revenue from other activities - self-promotion) and they might argue that, among other things, the de-platforming affects their livelihood.
On my view, people are due food, housing, health care, etc. merely by the fact that they exist.
OK. I see how that fits with the socialist views now.
Thinking that something is morally wrong comes down to what's basically a disposition, preference or emotional reaction, so there's no difference.
OK, yes, you've said that plenty of times before so I guess my question was probably redundant.
If I were king this wouldn't be an issue, because employment wouldn't hinge on private citizens' whims. Again, people are due things like employment simply by virtue of the fact that they exist on my view...
Yes, that's the sense in which your views could be described as socialist and to have modified your earlier more widely libertarian views.
...Given the social structure that we have, I see it as a major problem that people can loose their source of income due to someone's whims as well as due to overreactions to speech and the like.
I also would see it as a problem if people could lose their source of income due to someone's whims, and it's why I've argued against extreme libertarians (e.g. GE Morton) and said that people's labour shouldn't be simply regarded as a thing to be traded in a free market, because, generally, people aren't free to subject their livelihood to open market forces like that. There should, in my view, be employment laws which protect people from simply being fired on a whim. And there are, although their extent varies from country to country. There could be an argument had as to what their extent should be, but that's details.
"Deplatforming" isn't a categorical problem. What's a problem is taking away someone's livelihood, their food, shelter, freedom (by way of imprisonment, say), and so on in response to speech.
OK.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

This was kind of cleared up later in your post, but just to kind of reiterate.
Steve3007 wrote: January 8th, 2021, 7:05 am Mmm, OK. I suppose that would only be an overreaction if the income derives from a contractual agreement, explicitly involving money, that she had with the platform provider (in her case the TV network or production company or whatever). For all anyone knows I could somehow be making money by posting on this site, but not by way of a contractual agreement with its owner. (I'm not of course. Fat chance.) I'm sure a lot of public speakers who are de-platformed make an income from their speaking one way or another (if only by raising their profile and thereby increasing their revenue from other activities - self-promotion) and they might argue that, among other things, the de-platforming affects their livelihood.
Nowhere, except insofar as I answered a question about it from you, was I talking about "deplatforming." That's not a term I ever use. I haven't the faintest idea how I'd define it. And I'm not interested enough in using it as a term (not at the moment at least) to bother thinking about it. Again, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by baker »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:22 amAgain, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
People get fired everyday for trifles. Barr's case just made it to the media.
Why should celebrities be spared of things that ordinary people must pay a heavy price for?

If ordinary people have to and are even supposed to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, over trifles, then why the hell shouldn't celebrities??!

Divine justice.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by LuckyR »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:22 am This was kind of cleared up later in your post, but just to kind of reiterate.
Steve3007 wrote: January 8th, 2021, 7:05 am Mmm, OK. I suppose that would only be an overreaction if the income derives from a contractual agreement, explicitly involving money, that she had with the platform provider (in her case the TV network or production company or whatever). For all anyone knows I could somehow be making money by posting on this site, but not by way of a contractual agreement with its owner. (I'm not of course. Fat chance.) I'm sure a lot of public speakers who are de-platformed make an income from their speaking one way or another (if only by raising their profile and thereby increasing their revenue from other activities - self-promotion) and they might argue that, among other things, the de-platforming affects their livelihood.
Nowhere, except insofar as I answered a question about it from you, was I talking about "deplatforming." That's not a term I ever use. I haven't the faintest idea how I'd define it. And I'm not interested enough in using it as a term (not at the moment at least) to bother thinking about it. Again, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
Not a major issue but for clarity, the show was NOT canceled, she was fired and replaced and the show renamed.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

LuckyR wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:22 am This was kind of cleared up later in your post, but just to kind of reiterate.



Nowhere, except insofar as I answered a question about it from you, was I talking about "deplatforming." That's not a term I ever use. I haven't the faintest idea how I'd define it. And I'm not interested enough in using it as a term (not at the moment at least) to bother thinking about it. Again, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
Not a major issue but for clarity, the show was NOT canceled, she was fired and replaced and the show renamed.
Noted
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by LuckyR »

baker wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:22 amAgain, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
People get fired everyday for trifles. Barr's case just made it to the media.
Why should celebrities be spared of things that ordinary people must pay a heavy price for?

If ordinary people have to and are even supposed to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, over trifles, then why the hell shouldn't celebrities??!

Divine justice.
I am not a fan of whataboutism, but you are correct in this case. When the powerful bully the weak it is called: nothing... that's considered normal. But when a large number of the weak can bully the (self described) powerful we give it a name and now a thread on a Philosophy Forum.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:Again, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
(I presume you meant "on their part" or "in my view" not "on my part".)

As you said here and in a previous post, it's understandable that the network would cancel her for financial reasons. So, given their financial motives, it's an understandable reaction; a rational solution to the challenge of protecting their income. So, as you say, if there is an overreaction, it's on the part of the public, or at least the parts of the public who (I assume) started shouting about what a terrible person Rosanne Barr is. But, of course, they're just expressing their views. Nothing morally wrong with that. Nothing morally wrong with verbal overreactions.

So we've got the public (or the media or whatever) expressing their views about Barr. No problem there for a free speech advocate. And we've got a TV network, whose income from ad revenues and stuff is dependent on public popularity, making a rational decision to protect their income. Given those two things I can see how the free speech advocate comes to that (possibly socialist) conclusion that people's income needs to be protected from the financial consequences of overreactions in speech.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

baker wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:44 am People get fired everyday for trifles. Barr's case just made it to the media.
Why should celebrities be spared of things that ordinary people must pay a heavy price for?
I don't think anyone should be fired for a tweet, FaceBook post, or speech in general. Barr was just an example because you asked for one. It was a well-known incident. So it works well as an example.
If ordinary people have to and are even supposed to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, over trifles, then why the hell shouldn't celebrities??!
Why should that be the case for ordinary people?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:56 am
Terrapin Station wrote:Again, my issue is simply that in response to (at least the public reaction) to a tweet that Barr posted, the network decided to cancel her show, which at the time was her means of making a living. That's a ridiculous overreaction on my part. It's understandable that the network would do this given the public reaction and the effect it can have, but that's part of the problem. It's a ridiculous overreaction on the public's part that's resulting in someone losing their means of income (and not just for Barr, but for everyone else who worked on the show) to a stupid tweet.
(I presume you meant "on their part" or "in my view" not "on my part".)
lol--yeah.
As you said here and in a previous post, it's understandable that the network would cancel her for financial reasons. So, given their financial motives, it's an understandable reaction; a rational solution to the challenge of protecting their income. So, as you say, if there is an overreaction, it's on the part of the public, or at least the parts of the public who (I assume) started shouting about what a terrible person Rosanne Barr is. But, of course, they're just expressing their views. Nothing morally wrong with that. Nothing morally wrong with verbal overreactions.
There's something morally wrong with

So we've got the public (or the media or whatever) expressing their views about Barr. No problem there for a free speech advocate. And we've got a TV network, whose income from ad revenues and stuff is dependent on public popularity, making a rational decision to protect their income. Given those two things I can see how the free speech advocate comes to that (possibly socialist) conclusion that people's income needs to be protected from the financial consequences of overreactions in speech.
[/quote]

Yeah, it's more the whole structure of it, where folks, including the network, have to basically walk on eggshells because of the economic and social structures we have in place.
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by baker »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:57 am
If ordinary people have to and are even supposed to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, over trifles, then why the hell shouldn't celebrities??!
Why should that be the case for ordinary people?
I don't know why it should be, I just know it is.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Terrapin Station »

baker wrote: January 8th, 2021, 12:04 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 8th, 2021, 11:57 am Why should that be the case for ordinary people?
I don't know why it should be, I just know it is.
Sure. But when we're doing ethics we're not just describing what is.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Cancel Cutlure

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:Yeah, it's more the whole structure of it, where folks, including the network, have to basically walk on eggshells because of the economic and social structures we have in place.
I think it's probably quite a hard problem to solve. It seems to me that it's a function of human nature (our collective love of passing judgement on people in the public eye), mass communications and the existence of a media and entertainment industry which is subject to market forces. You'd have to nationalize Hollywood and the TV networks in some way so as to allow them to not worry whether or not they're popular. Then the Rosanne show could keep running, and Barr et al could keep their income, even if the advertisers pulled out because they didn't want the judgmental public to associate their products with her.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021