Liberals, progressives and conservatives of note sign open letter to end cancel culture. (Noam Chomsky/J.K. Rowling/Gloria Steinem/David Brooks etc.)

[Buyetyen]

Ideally we'd get rid of Facebook while sacrificing Mark Zuckerburg to an obscure volcano god.

 

[Agema]

Ideally we'd get rid of Facebook while sacrificing Mark Zuckerburg to an obscure volcano god.

If Facebook did not exist it would be necessary to create it.

Although we certainly could consider sending its CEOs volcanowards until one arrives who'd like to make it a little less socially destructive.

 

[Trunkage]

If Facebook did not exist it would be necessary to create it.

Although we certainly could consider sending its CEOs volcanowards until one arrives who'd like to make it a little less socially destructive.

What do you actually like a 'good' CEO would do? Also, remember that profits is the most important KPI

 

[Revnak]

If Facebook did not exist it would be necessary to create it.

Although we certainly could consider sending its CEOs volcanowards until one arrives who'd like to make it a little less socially destructive.

I am fine with sacrificing rich white kids to volcanoes forever.

 

[Cheetodust]

If you've got the clout to get major magazine interviews and published letters and book deals, you aren't cancelled.

Sinead O'Connor got canceled, for ripping up a picture of the pope in protest of the Church's coverup of child rape
The Dixie Chicks got cancelled, for saying the Iraq war, which was started on abject lies, was bad and the George W Bush was an idiot at best.
Most of these powerful folks *love* cancel culture. They just hate that us proles have a tiny amount of organizing power.

Cancel culture is when a trans artist gets "doxed" by kiwi farms and deletes her social media
Cancel culture is when a child black artist shares that they're a ********* as a coping mechanism and bigoted idiots (and hypersensitive "friends") immediately jump to thinking ********* was "pedophile"

Cancel Culture doesn't happen to anybody with any amount of clout. People with clout are just mad they're being held even slightly accountable.

It's always amused me when you see comedians make their 3rd Netflix special about how you can't get away with saying the stuff they've said in every one of their Netflix specials. When what they mean is "I'm sick of being criticised by people for saying these things." People like Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle have had pretty successful runs saying things you supposedly can't get away with anymore. Meant while Lenny Bruce literally killed himself because of how much of his time and money was spent in court defending himself from censorship. It's funny, they're right people are more sensitive nowadays. They just don't realise they're talking about themselves.

 

[Agema]

What do you actually like a 'good' CEO would do? Also, remember that profits is the most important KPI

Well, fundamentally, "good" is a very limited term because profit is the institutional incentive of corporations, so even the most benign CEO is really doing little more than preventing the worst abuses.

If I were to characterise Facebook (and Twitter, etc.) as sympathetically as I could, it's that it's enthusiastically grown massive with no real insight or consideration into the role it might have in society - and that perhaps it would be unfair to have expected it to predict how it might be abused with the novelty of social media and lack of precedent. However, it seems to me that even as things have been going wrong, Facebook seems mostly just flummoxed. Zuckerberg puts on a nice suit, talks very seriously and soberly to the public, and then marches his company straight into the next clusterfuck. I get the impression that when confronted with a problem, Zuckerberg sucks his breath between his teeth, thinks, "Oooh, that's not good"... and then basically makes up an argument nothing's really wrong because he loves his baby and his naive ideology too much to accept he's created Mr. Hyde along with Dr. Jekyll.

Bluntly, I don't think they know what they are doing. Facebook is huge, and full of managers and directors thinking "How do we make $$$ from this?", and very few people thinking "How is this likely to go wrong and bite us (and the world) in the arse?". I don't think company directors can effectively scrutinise all the ways it's flogging its users data, and I think FB is effectively arguing that it isn't its responsibility to. It's just grudgingly reacting if it gets too much flak. One could almost view it as the Wild West: big tech and data is the new frontier, and it's better to stake out your land and sort out the law and order as an afterthought than carefully plan expansion and let others get there first. If it means a few minorities get genocided along the way, well, they've got a sad face emoji for that.

 

[Agema]

I'm not worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. I'm not even that worried about the Lin Manuel Mirandas of the world, or the J.K. Rowlings of the world, because even though Hamilton and Harry Potter are deemed insufficiently woke (despite the fact that they WERE deemed sufficiently woke 5 and 20 years ago respectively), I'm sure they'll be fine. What worries me more are the little people. Y'know, likes James Gunn, who got fired because someone dug up something he'd said over a decade ago. People like Amelie Zhao, whose debut novel was nearly cancelled because some people are idiots. People like Kosovo Jackson who, despite being a hypocrite, shouldn't have had his own novel temporarily pulled because he wasn't in the right identity group to write about the people in said novel. Heck, even people like Alexander McCall Smith who, if he tried to pitch No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency today, would have been rejected by his publisher because he was a white man writing about black female protagonists. This isn't me saying this, this was straight from the horse's mouth.

We're already at the stage where people are flirting with the idea that in voice acting, your complexion should match the complexion of the person you're portraying. We're at the stage where people, like Jackson, are seriously suggesting that one should only write inside their own "identity group." We're at the stage where in the space of five years, Hamilton of all things, is in the cancellation crosshairs.

Again, I'm not worried about the Hitlers of the world. I'm worried about reasonable people who are punished for things they've said in the past, or go outside the borders as to what they can and can't write. That isn't the biggest problem in the world, but if we want to solve the biggest problem facing humanity, then we should all be working on a way to survive the heat death of the universe.

I'm inclined to agree and be somewhat sympathetic to the writers of the letter.

I think what bothers me is a sort of knee-jerk censoriousness and abuse. It seems that someone goes from whatever to zero shockingly rapidly when being out of line. "Cancel culture" whatever the fuck that really is, I don't really know or care. But it is the attitude of intolerance. I've read a few comments sections in response to this letter, and I think what bothers me is the rapid default to contempt and abuse towards the content and signatories. A bunch of irrelevant old farts clinging to their privilege and ignorance of social media - well then, discussion over, nothing of worth there. They've deigned to argue so they're not just wrong, therefore they're fools, elitists, useful idiots, etc. Now let's reach for the "punish" button and burn their back catalogue, they're dead to us now.

I've always been a little reluctant to argue so because I don't really want to help the right which hammers this for all it's worth despite the hypocrisy of it's own vast burdens of censoriousness, but I can't help but feel elements of the left have been drifting off into increasing intolerance and demands for moral purity for years, and mostly what it seems to accomplish is to alienate and fracture people into smaller camps. It feels like a denial of the complexities of humans and human visions of the world.

* * *

So I have recently, stung by BLM and reading a very thoughtful letter put out by a director of the NHS trust my wife works at on BLM, to try to reflect about my own relationship with diversity. And I think by that, I mean to really delve into it, and not fob off with relatively superficial claims of good intentions and "right on" notions, and I think it's a difficult place to go with some harsh realities to face. But the thing is, I expect that's true for everyone, if they dig deep enough. And I wonder whether the knee-jerk is a form of superficiality - bland but zealous declarations of ideological correctness because it's easier than facing the insecurity that we might not be as good as we like to think. A part I think of reflection is to see the flaws observed in others exist in oneself to some degree, is also have some empathy with them, and then to consider that if we are to understanding and working past those flaws to deal with ourselves, we can hardly be screaming denunciations and scaring other people into superficial compliance.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's always amused me when you see comedians make their 3rd Netflix special about how you can't get away with saying the stuff they've said in every one of their Netflix specials.

Wouldn't have said "amused" myself, but yeah.

 

[Breakdown]

I feel when you dismiss the people who signed the letter as wealthy, privileged elites, you're kind of missing the point. Yeah, people like JK Rowling and Margaret Rowling are too big to effectively be cancelled, they're always going get publishing deals and so on. They can sign this letter without worrying too much about the consequences, because their privilege will protect them to an extent, although they will obviously take a load of shit on twitter. But there are other, less privileged people who would like express these sentiments but can't, because of the consequences for their careers. The signatories are taking the hit on behalf of these others.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I feel when you dismiss the people who signed the letter as wealthy, privileged elites, you're kind of missing the point. Yeah, people like JK Rowling and Margaret Rowling are too big to effectively be cancelled, they're always going get publishing deals and so on. They can sign this letter without worrying too much about the consequences, because their privilege will protect them to an extent, although they will obviously take a load of shit on twitter. But there are other, less privileged people who would like express these sentiments but can't, because of the consequences for their careers. The signatories are taking the hit on behalf of these others.

Yes, someone like Noam Chomsky kind of has a point beneath all the liberal blather of it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Noam Chomsky is one of the few on that list that I can actually trust isn't just whining about being criticized.

 

[Gergar12]

As a progressive, I agreed with this. Liberals want to cancel conservatives, and conservatives want to cancel liberals.

To the progressives, and liberals who like to cancel culture. I give you the quote that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

You may be very woke, and or progressive today, but in the future, YOU may get canceled.

Do you do one of the following things?

Eat meat?
Drive a Car?
Buy fast fashion?
Buy from Amazon?
Buy from a superstore who gets their products from a 2nd or 3rd world country?
Have multiple houses?

 

[Zeke davis]

I feel when you dismiss the people who signed the letter as wealthy, privileged elites, you're kind of missing the point. Yeah, people like JK Rowling and Margaret Rowling are too big to effectively be cancelled, they're always going get publishing deals and so on. They can sign this letter without worrying too much about the consequences, because their privilege will protect them to an extent, although they will obviously take a load of shit on twitter. But there are other, less privileged people who would like express these sentiments but can't, because of the consequences for their careers. The signatories are taking the hit on behalf of these others.

Discover Substack Newsletters

Find great things to read on Substack. Browse top publications, find writers you follow, or search by topic.

theobjective.substack.com

Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift. (Published 2020)

An open letter published by Harper’s, signed by luminaries including Margaret Atwood and Wynton Marsalis, argued for openness to “opposing views.” The debate began immediately.

www.nytimes.com

Vague principle shouting doesn't seem to do that to protect weaker people.
Especially when it turns you apparently don't care too much the little guy beyond a possible token mention. The incident the guy who spearheaded(he's in the NYT link) cites are 50/50 bougie non-profit drama and prestige journalists. Now David shor was done dirty and i don't know his class but the others? that ain't it cheif.

Being vague as fuck , showing off signatures of people complicit in cancel culture without acknowledgment, and flat out lying about what the letter makes it very easy to dismiss as virtue signaling by people who only want their lane defended while okay with doing the same onto others.

As a progressive, I agreed with this. Liberals want to cancel conservatives, and conservatives want to cancel liberals.

To the progressives, and liberals who like to cancel culture. I give you the quote that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

You may be very woke, and or progressive today, but in the future, YOU may get canceled.

Do you do one of the following things?

Eat meat?
Drive a Car?
Buy fast fashion?
Buy from Amazon?
Buy from a superstore who gets their products from a 2nd or 3rd world country?
Have multiple houses?

Being wrongly offended and yelling at people isn't an coherent ideology even if you narrow down to a wing.
I doubt anyone cares if the crime is just "Consuming where there's no ethical consumption."

Like when did this stuff even happen in a big way? I don't see everyone who worked in weinstein's place get cancelled for example.

 

[Gergar12]

Discover Substack Newsletters

Find great things to read on Substack. Browse top publications, find writers you follow, or search by topic.

theobjective.substack.com

Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift. (Published 2020)

An open letter published by Harper’s, signed by luminaries including Margaret Atwood and Wynton Marsalis, argued for openness to “opposing views.” The debate began immediately.

www.nytimes.com

Vague principle shouting doesn't seem to do that to protect weaker people.
Especially when it turns you apparently don't care too much the little guy beyond a possible token mention. The incident the guy who spearheaded(he's in the NYT link) cites are 50/50 bougie non-profit drama and prestige journalists. Now David shor was done dirty and i don't know his class but the others? that ain't it cheif.

Being vague as fuck , showing off signatures of people complicit in cancel culture without acknowledgment, and flat out lying about what the letter makes it very easy to dismiss as virtue signaling by people who only want their lane defended while okay with doing the same onto others.


Being wrongly offended and yelling at people isn't an coherent ideology even if you narrow down to a wing.
I doubt anyone cares if the crime is just "Consuming where there's no ethical consumption."

Like when did this stuff even happen in a big way? I don't see everyone who worked in weinstein's place get cancelled for example.

Technically you do have a choice.

You could be a vegan
Use public transportation
buy clothing ethically
buy stuff from mom, and pop stores
And have one house/apartment

And future generations will likely view you as monsters for not doing so.

 

[Gergar12]

Discover Substack Newsletters

Find great things to read on Substack. Browse top publications, find writers you follow, or search by topic.

theobjective.substack.com

Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift. (Published 2020)

An open letter published by Harper’s, signed by luminaries including Margaret Atwood and Wynton Marsalis, argued for openness to “opposing views.” The debate began immediately.

www.nytimes.com

Vague principle shouting doesn't seem to do that to protect weaker people.
Especially when it turns you apparently don't care too much the little guy beyond a possible token mention. The incident the guy who spearheaded(he's in the NYT link) cites are 50/50 bougie non-profit drama and prestige journalists. Now David shor was done dirty and i don't know his class but the others? that ain't it cheif.

Being vague as fuck , showing off signatures of people complicit in cancel culture without acknowledgment, and flat out lying about what the letter makes it very easy to dismiss as virtue signaling by people who only want their lane defended while okay with doing the same onto others.


Being wrongly offended and yelling at people isn't an coherent ideology even if you narrow down to a wing.
I doubt anyone cares if the crime is just "Consuming where there's no ethical consumption."

Like when did this stuff even happen in a big way? I don't see everyone who worked in weinstein's place get cancelled for example.

Also this, and I quote.

"David Shor, who tweeted a summary of an academic paper by Professor Omar Wasow and was then fired from his job at Civis Analytics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research firm"

 

[Zeke davis]

Technically you do have a choice.

You could be a vegan
Use public transportation
buy clothing ethically
buy stuff from mom, and pop stores
And have one house/apartment

And future generations will likely view you as monsters for not doing so.

Given that our current generation hasn't decided that any won who wore Slave-made cotton must be a monster i'll dismissing your claims as hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[Zeke davis]

Also this, and I quote.

"David Shor, who tweeted a summary of an academic paper by Professor Omar Wasow and was then fired from his job at Civis Analytics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research firm"

So it was 75% "Bougie non-profits" then. I don't see how that rebuts my point when i already said he was done dirt.

He's an Ivy league grad. I don't think that changes whether he deserves but it does mean they weren't standing for the little guy.

 

[Gergar12]

Given that our current generation hasn't decided that any won who wore Slave-made cotton must be a monster i'll dismissing your claims as hyperbolic nonsense.

Except there have been people in the fringes of society that have said this or have hinted at this

"Meat is murder" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/well/family/children-kids-vegetarian-vegan-recipes.html

'Driving is wrong' https://www.gq.com/story/why-people-pick-public-transit-over-driving

'anti-fast fashion'
Amazon, and Walmart.... nuff said, but if you insist '

7 reasons why I refuse to shop on Amazon — even during the coronavirus lockdown

Before the coronavirus, the writer refused to purchase items on Amazon because he hates waiting and paying for delivery. Lockdown hasn't changed his opinion.

www.businessinsider.com

Criticism of Walmart - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The resurgence of buy-to-let housing is morally wrong | Penny Anderson

Penny Anderson: Amateurs who own and let out homes as a get-rich-quick investment leave tenants and first-time buyers at their mercy

www.theguardian.com

So YOUR morality is different from my morality is different from a future person's morality.

Grant laws do matter, but most aren't controversial like firing someone for having a different opinions is.

 

[Hawki]

Gergar does have the right of it - morals do shift over time. Some of those morals he lists are morals I already try and follow to some extent - I drive as little as possible, try to reduce meat, barely buy clothes, etc. We look on people of the past as being out of touch and ignorant, but people of the future are going to look on us in the same way.

On the other hand, shutting down debate isn't the best way to change hearts and minds IMO.

 

[Zeke davis]

Except there have been people in the fringes of society that have said this or have hinted at this

"Meat is murder" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/well/family/children-kids-vegetarian-vegan-recipes.html

'Driving is wrong' https://www.gq.com/story/why-people-pick-public-transit-over-driving

'anti-fast fashion'
Amazon, and Walmart.... nuff said, but if you insist '

7 reasons why I refuse to shop on Amazon — even during the coronavirus lockdown

Before the coronavirus, the writer refused to purchase items on Amazon because he hates waiting and paying for delivery. Lockdown hasn't changed his opinion.

www.businessinsider.com

Criticism of Walmart - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The resurgence of buy-to-let housing is morally wrong | Penny Anderson

Penny Anderson: Amateurs who own and let out homes as a get-rich-quick investment leave tenants and first-time buyers at their mercy

www.theguardian.com

So YOUR morality is different from my morality is different from a future person's morality.

Grant laws do matter, but most aren't controversial like firing someone for having a different opinions is.

All these link just say "thing deeply inbedded in society is bad" and do not actually frame it like "If you're in this society and interact with those bits you are a monster ."

You're literally exaggerating people positions and are acting wrongly offended at them. AOC hasn't been cancelled by any of these people and neither do meat eaters.

Your idea of die by sword sounds more like eye for an eye.