Cancel Culture Mobsters

[Roobaba]

I suppose it had to come up at some point, possibly it has already but then I'm new here and to be honest have not put in any effort and tried the forums search to look up on 'cancel culture'. I have a recent edition of Prospect Magazine here beside me, the main front page title is How Cancel Culture Became a Blood Sport - I guess 'Cancel Culture Mobsters' are out looking for a fight, albeit here a fight using words.. I do like to 'throw in a verbal hand grenade' and retire to a safe distance to watch (or read) the outcome. I will do so on this occasion!

For some reason I really couldn't resist it, so here it is..

This is a tell-tale sign of a "cancel-culture" mobster. Sy Borg, the best way to prove me wrong, is to prove me wrong. Putting out slanderous comments (like above) is not very professional.

Good Day Sy Borg.

The thread this quote comes from here in the Philosophers' Lounge forum has been closed/locked.

As an aside, I only just noticed.. The main 'serious' forums are the ARGUMENTATIVE PHILOSOPHY FORUMS I was quite amused by this

Maybe the Argumentative Philosophy Forums will extend their civility to the friendly and courteous Philosophers' Lounge, I do hope so..

The Argumentative Philosophy Forums..

Argumentative General Philosophy

Argumentative Epistemology and Metaphysics

Argumentative Ethics and Morality

Argumentative Philosophy of Politics

Argumentative Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology

Argumentative Philosophy of Science

Argumentative Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts


COMMUNITY & OFF-TOPIC - The Friendly and welcoming Philosophers' Lounge, so nice to be here.

Community & Off-Topic (or on topic) or whatever..

What do we think about Cancel Culture, what are our considered opinions of it?

(Good Day Sy Borg.. is a polite way for RJG to have signed off there.)

[Sy Borg]

I note that those who complain about cancel culture are usually the ones who dominate conversations. When their dominance is questioned, they cry "cancel culture".

Consider Marjorie Taylor Green, who believes the idiotic claims of Qanon. She undeservedly gained office, with no record of accomplishment, no actual work - just through blind devotion to Trump. She then gains masses of attention around the world with her extreme views, gaining a level of attention 99.999% of people can only dream about. But she pushed COVID misinformation on social media again and again, finally breaching Facebook's three strikes policy and had her account suspended.

Her response was predictable - claims that she was "cancelled".

RJG had considerable say on his thread, which could have been shut down but I let it run, because this is a place of debate, not cancellation. He has had a louder voice on the forums than most. If he had not done some certain things behind the scenes, the thread would be still be going. Ideally, though, philosophy forums are not for claims that people with antibodies Hoover up most of the viruses and kill them, thus sparing others.

Most debate here would seem unlikely to cause serious harm to others, but one must be careful with COVID, just as we are careful at airports. It's an unforgiving milieu. I also note that large social media companies face fines of up to $10m for allowing COVID misinformation, and I doubt the actual posters of the misinformation would wear the cost, just those responsible for the platform.

So I have been accused of cancel culture after 1) allowing the thread to run 2) debating the points 3) trying to protect the forum and myself ands 4) by moving a thread that is about science, but not the philosophy of it, from the Philosophy of Science forums.

Nowadays, as forum Admin - AKA a hated faux authority figure - I am a target for angry people on the alt-right and extreme left, who see my existence as an impediment to free speech. I already had to change my UN because I kept being given sexist abuse (especially ripe in the PMs!), and it's quite uncommon for those with extreme left or right views to "test their power to overthrow the elites" by going for my metaphorical jugular, blatantly breaking forum rules to test my "authority". It's like people who throw abuse and objects at police for the crime of being police, daring them to react.

The most galling aspect is being accused of that which I deplore. I am "old school" and have no time for cancel culture - mobbing and howling down people for making honest observations, misguided or not. COVID is different though, because if someone is harmed and claims that they were influenced by this forum, it could become a legal issue. While I am holding the baby, so to speak, I don't fancy taking pointless risks.

[LuckyR]

Cries of Cancel Culture always make me smile. There aren't a huge amount of things as satisfying as listening to folks with an inflated opinion of their right to broadcast on a technology, having to deal with well known aspects of that same technology that they didn't bother to consider.

[chewybrian]

The thread this quote comes from here in the Philosophers' Lounge forum has been closed/locked.

As an aside, I only just noticed.. The main 'serious' forums are the ARGUMENTATIVE PHILOSOPHY FORUMS I was quite amused by this

Maybe the Argumentative Philosophy Forums will extend their civility to the friendly and courteous Philosophers' Lounge, I do hope so..

...

What do we think about Cancel Culture, what are our considered opinions of it?

(Good Day Sy Borg.. is a polite way for RJG to have signed off there.)

I don't see that the thread you say was locked is in fact locked. I don't see that the poster in question has been cancelled. It's quite the opposite, as he has been allowed to post multiple threads on the same topic, bringing the same wacky ideas to the top of the page over and over, pushing down some actual discussions of philosophy.

I think the idea of "cancel culture" is a way for people to play martyr when their ideas are not widely accepted by others. If you are an overt racist, for example, and people threaten to boycott sponsors of your show, this is sometimes considered a 'cancelling' by the racist and his or her apologists. However, this is only the free exercise by others of the rights the racist wishes to retain for himself. But calling out a crack pot theory for just what it is does not even rise to that level of a boycott. This is simply free speech and honest opinion. Further, if the calling out is factually correct, as it seems to be in this case, then it would be irresponsible not to speak up. Some gullible people might be swayed by the crackpot ideas and unnecessary deaths and suffering would result. The calling out is all that has been done, and the least that should be done in response to dangerous misinformation.

[Sy Borg]

I think the idea of "cancel culture" is a way for people to play martyr when their ideas are not widely accepted by others.

Well captured in few words. Those who complain are usually the loudest voice, and they vigorously defend their privileged position, sometimes by playing the victim.

In context, I think the rise of China and its excessive censorship has made people nervous. Any attempt for a government to do its job - regulating activities to various extents - is interpreted as Big Brother. To be fair, governments for some decades, with their promotion of extreme economic inequality and sly erosions of freedoms and privacy, have eroded any trust they may have enjoyed.

Still, in terms of productive interactions, it helps to avoid culture war clichés that are not largely meaningless grab bags for whatever the writer wantsa them to be, such as cancel culture, red pilling, woke, bleeding hearts, snowflakes, SJWs, cisgender, patriarchy, and so forth.

[Astro Cat]

"Cancel culture" is one of those terms that might have real applicability, but has been co-opted by actors with no honest intentions when they use it.

For instance, in the USA at least, the Venn diagram of people that cry about "cancel culture" and the people that, say, wanted to "cancel" football players for not kneeling for the flag during a game is a circle.

Another example of a term with real applicability that's been co-opted by bad actors (in fact, the same bad actors as those that co-opted "cancel culture") is virtue signaling. Any discussion of taking action on a social issue is denounced as "virtue signaling" by bad actors, failing to realize that some talk is backed up by actions, and some talk is necessary for raising awareness. Yet it would be useful to use the phrase to denote people that are in fact not earnest about their stated intentions (e.g., slapping a rainbow on a brand during Pride but not protecting workers from discrimination).

So like with virtue signaling, some cancel culture is real and could be called such. Goofballs have just co-opted the term and call every deplatforming they don't like "cancel culture."

[Astro Cat]

While I'm on my soapbox, a term that's been co-opted in the other direction by some people is mansplaining.

Real phenomenon. Annoying phenomenon. But some people have gotten it into their heads that if someone is explaining something and they're simultaneously a man, that it must be mansplaining. But that isn't what the term is for. And everybody that uses the term wrong cheapens the term for when it really does need to be used.

[Sy Borg]

"Virtue signalling" claims are bizarre. It's as if they think people are incapable of feeling compassion, so any good they try to do is just display behaviour.

It may be that they themselves are incapable of compassion and so they cannot imagine anyone else feeling it. It seems to me that psychopathy is increasing as populations grow and other people increasingly become impediments to be removed rather than potential friends. I note that many of the most admired movie heroes and loved villains behave like psychopaths. The less they care about those they kill and maim, the more loved and admired they are.

[Pattern-chaser]

The 'cancel culture' I support and subscribe to goes like this:

I disapprove of X, quite strongly. I don't think ideas like X should be around to pollute innocent minds (or whatever). So I refuse to listen to Rev. J. C. Bigot, when he preaches that X is the One and Only Truth. I disapprove so much that I ask my friends and neighbours if they, too, would refuse to give this preacher an audience. This is courteous and democratic. You can call it 'cancelling' if you must, I suppose.

A formal attempt to ban Rev. Bigot from publicly preaching about X would be a bigger step. Perhaps it would be permissible, or even desirable, in some circumstances, but it would require careful consideration. Freedom of speech is not as sacred as Americans would have you believe, but it does offer value and utility, and should not be thoughtlessly set aside.

All IMO, of course.

[Astro Cat]

The 'cancel culture' I support and subscribe to goes like this:

I disapprove of X, quite strongly. I don't think ideas like X should be around to pollute innocent minds (or whatever). So I refuse to listen to Rev. J. C. Bigot, when he preaches that X is the One and Only Truth. I disapprove so much that I ask my friends and neighbours if they, too, would refuse to give this preacher an audience. This is courteous and democratic. You can call it 'cancelling' if you must, I suppose.

A formal attempt to ban Rev. Bigot from publicly preaching about X would be a bigger step. Perhaps it would be permissible, or even desirable, in some circumstances, but it would require careful consideration. Freedom of speech is not as sacred as Americans would have you believe, but it does offer value and utility, and should not be thoughtlessly set aside.

All IMO, of course.

People confuse platforming with freedom of speech a lot. If someone is disinvited from a private conference, people cry "that violates freedom of speech," but it doesn't: the government isn't responsible for the disinvitation. No one's rights were violated.

[Sy Borg]

Those who decry cancel culture are usually those with the loudest voice, who are already being heard more than anyone else.

In their insatiable greed for control of conversations, every attempt to shut them up to allow quieter people to have a say is treated as 'cancel culture". Such people should be called out for their selfishness.

[Pattern-chaser]

Those who decry cancel culture are usually those with the loudest voice, who are already being heard more than anyone else.

In their insatiable greed for control of conversations, every attempt to shut them up to allow quieter people to have a say is treated as 'cancel culture". Such people should be called out for their selfishness.

Yes, it's like the bullies who, when accused of being bullies, claim that they are being bullied by that accusation! They seek to avoid culpability by claiming to be victims, not wrongdoers. This is the absolute and despicable opposite of accepting responsibility for your own actions!

The attitude you describe seems much the same. ... And it makes my blood boil, more than almost anything else!

[Sy Borg]

Those who decry cancel culture are usually those with the loudest voice, who are already being heard more than anyone else.

In their insatiable greed for control of conversations, every attempt to shut them up to allow quieter people to have a say is treated as 'cancel culture". Such people should be called out for their selfishness.

Yes, it's like the bullies who, when accused of being bullies, claim that they are being bullied by that accusation! They seek to avoid culpability by claiming to be victims, not wrongdoers. This is the absolute and despicable opposite of accepting responsibility for your own actions!

The attitude you describe seems much the same. ... And it makes my blood boil, more than almost anything else! 😤🤬

It is known as DARVO ... Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, it's like the bullies who, when accused of being bullies, claim that they are being bullied by that accusation! They seek to avoid culpability by claiming to be victims, not wrongdoers. This is the absolute and despicable opposite of accepting responsibility for your own actions!

...it makes my blood boil, more than almost anything else!

It is known as DARVO ... Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

I didn't know there was a word (acronym) for it. But I have seen it here, on this very forum, when a contributor was accused of less-than-courteous behaviour. Despicable! If you do/say something, own it, as our American cousins say.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, it's like the bullies who, when accused of being bullies, claim that they are being bullied by that accusation! They seek to avoid culpability by claiming to be victims, not wrongdoers. This is the absolute and despicable opposite of accepting responsibility for your own actions!

...it makes my blood boil, more than almost anything else! 😤🤬

It is known as DARVO ... Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

I didn't know there was a word (acronym) for it. But I have seen it here, on this very forum, when a contributor was accused of less-than-courteous behaviour. Despicable! 😥 If you do/say something, own it, as our American cousins say. 👍

Taking responsibility for one's actions is out of style. Ever more, people just dig in and play rhetorical games to cover for their ignorance and ill will.