independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > #CancelCulture stories
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 08/04/20 9:48am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Social media is mainly about lack of power. When you are alone in your room, nude, with the puter, you have the power to take down a big fish like Trump or Tucker Carlson..

A slew of us were cancelled after 9/11.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 08/04/20 9:55am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

OF4S, did you mention that Chomsky signed the Harper's letter?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 08/04/20 10:17am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

2freaky4church1 said:

Social media is mainly about lack of power. When you are alone in your room, nude, with the puter, you have the power to take down a big fish like Trump or Tucker Carlson..

A slew of us were cancelled after 9/11.

lol this is true

"a form a godliness, but denying the power thereof..."

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 08/04/20 10:18am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

2freaky4church1 said:

OF4S, did you mention that Chomsky signed the Harper's letter?



political activist Noam Chomsky were among many attached to the piece titled "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate" that was published Tuesday in Harper's Magazine.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 08/04/20 10:21am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

He said that it is idiotic to mention who signed the letter, what is in the letter is the thing, which he says is anadine

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 08/05/20 7:36am

djThunderfunk

avatar

The 1990 comedy, Kindergarten Cop is cancelled. Apparently some morons are comparing it to Birth Of A Nation (1915). Nonsense!!

https://www.dailymail.co....ation.html




ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 08/05/20 10:00am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

There's DJ. lol

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 08/05/20 10:01am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/afraid-to-speak-your-mind-maybe-were-not-as-free-as-we-think/ar-BB17B0FM?ocid=ientp

Afraid to speak your mind? Maybe we're not as 'free' as we think
Bernard Goldberg,
opinion contributor 3 hrs ago

.

It is accepted wisdom that we live in a free country. Every kid in grade school learns that. We have a free, if flawed, press. Even with the virus, we're pretty much free to assemble; peaceful protest is legal. We can worship if we want, or we don't have to if we don't want. And, of course, we have the right to vote.

So, why would anyone even seriously question whether we live in a free country?

Because, in reality, we're not nearly as free as we'd like to think.

Just because we still have free-speech rights doesn't mean we feel free to exercise those rights, to say what's on our minds. What if we're afraid to voice our opinions? Are we still free then?

Which brings us to a new study by the Cato Institute.

Let's start with this - about how a majority of Americans are so afraid of what could happen to them if they express an unpopular opinion. Nearly two out of every three Americans (62 percent) say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe - because they're worried that others might find their opinions offensive...

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 08/05/20 10:14am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Bernard Goldberg? lol

Few people actually have principle of free speech. Me and a few others. lol

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 08/05/20 11:10am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

2freaky4church1 said:

Bernard Goldberg? lol

Few people actually have principle of free speech. Me and a few others. lol

lol it's a sticky area lol like Free Speech always has to be regulated according to location

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 08/09/20 8:06am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Bernard Goldberg? lol

Few people actually have principle of free speech. Me and a few others. lol

You're for free speech? I find that hard to believe. IIRC you made a topic all mad that when a protest to stop Milo from speaking at a college turned violent that the cops took action. (and Chomsky agrees with me that violence is not okay) If you were for free speech you would have to support the protest and milo being able to speak. Much of cancel cult-ture is a bunch of 'karans' who do not want others to hear or see something they do not like.


To be for free speech it seems one would have to be willing to tolerate speech that some (themselves included) found legitimately offensive. Any list of banned words would have to be VERY short...

They would have to be opposed to any criminal application to any hate speech... any hate speech would only have social or civil consequences -never criminal.

Similarly hate crime laws would have to be limited to set a minimum penalty and NEVER add to any penalty. I would give examples but people would miss the point and make up lies about me.

"So the best way to get something done, if you, if you hold near and dear to that, you uh um, like to be able uh...Anyway." - Joe Biden
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 08/09/20 8:16am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Bernard Goldberg? lol

Few people actually have principle of free speech. Me and a few others. lol

lol it's a sticky area lol like Free Speech always has to be regulated according to location

regulated by who? and to what degree and to what standard?

and which places should have such regulations?

if I am in public then for the most part I should legally be able to say whatever I want to say. At least in terms of criminal law.

I saw a video of a woman using racist language and she was on video and people took action and when and protested at her house... as long as there is no property damage or violence that is cool--that is free speech.

"So the best way to get something done, if you, if you hold near and dear to that, you uh um, like to be able uh...Anyway." - Joe Biden
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 08/09/20 5:35pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

OnlyNDaUsa said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

lol it's a sticky area lol like Free Speech always has to be regulated according to location

regulated by who? and to what degree and to what standard?

and which places should have such regulations?

if I am in public then for the most part I should legally be able to say whatever I want to say. At least in terms of criminal law.

I saw a video of a woman using racist language and she was on video and people took action and when and protested at her house... as long as there is no property damage or violence that is cool--that is free speech.

Regulated by the OWNER of the space.

If you come to my home, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If we are friends/family, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If you work for __ you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.}
If you join the ORG or a FB group, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.

We all know there are regulations to free speech.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 08/09/20 5:59pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator


TOXIC is one of the new words of the day, along with TRIGGERED, MICROAGGRESSIONS

People are going after Tyra Banks now from episodes from 15 yrs ago, from someones hurt feelings

https://www.bloomberg.com...9Z6gAWns8g

What People Fear Most About ‘Cancel Culture’

A new survey shows that rising numbers of Americans are clamming up, regardless of age, race or even politics.

August 9, 2020, 8:00 AM EDT

“Cancel culture” is a phenomenon with almost no defenders. Instead there are people who lament and assail it, and people who deny it exists. It “isn’t real,” it’s “a patchwork monster invented to scare children,” it’s “a spooky campfire story.”

In case you missed the point, New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow put it in capital letters: “Once more: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE.” His work of persuasion not quite done, he offered an alternative explanation: “The rich and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organize their dissent.”

What this school of thought has going for it is the fuzziness of the concept of “cancel culture.” The same was true of its predecessor “political correctness,” which was also denied to exist rather than defended. The line between criticism and intolerance, like the line between sensitivity and oversensitivity, is subjective.

That’s why a recent survey about self-censorship is so clarifying. It shows that a very large number of Americans — one might call them “masses,” borrowing from Blow — are thinking twice before speaking their minds about politics; that the number of the fearful is rising; and that the fear rises as one moves right on the political spectrum.

The lines of unacceptability are constantly shifting.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 08/09/20 6:10pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

regulated by who? and to what degree and to what standard?

and which places should have such regulations?

if I am in public then for the most part I should legally be able to say whatever I want to say. At least in terms of criminal law.

I saw a video of a woman using racist language and she was on video and people took action and when and protested at her house... as long as there is no property damage or violence that is cool--that is free speech.

Regulated by the OWNER of the space.

If you come to my home, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If we are friends/family, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If you work for __ you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.}
If you join the ORG or a FB group, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.

We all know there are regulations to free speech.

Yeah I mostly agree. I was asking more about government regulations. And I have made some of these same points before too.

Most of those seem like social or civil consequences.

I get worried (as should we all) when there are criminal consequences for MOST speech including ones that are offensive. As far as I am aware there is no such thing as fighting words....


"So the best way to get something done, if you, if you hold near and dear to that, you uh um, like to be able uh...Anyway." - Joe Biden
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 08/09/20 6:41pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

OnlyNDaUsa said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Regulated by the OWNER of the space.

If you come to my home, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If we are friends/family, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.
If you work for __ you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.}
If you join the ORG or a FB group, you cannot just say whatever you want without consequences.

We all know there are regulations to free speech.

Yeah I mostly agree. I was asking more about government regulations. And I have made some of these same points before too.

Most of those seem like social or civil consequences.

I get worried (as should we all) when there are criminal consequences for MOST speech including ones that are offensive. As far as I am aware there is no such thing as fighting words....


Right, but we should be worried. People can reach back to 20yrs ago, and pull something up and attack people (especially famous people) and cause some kind of harm, reputation ruin, etc
I mean there is envy, viciousness, bitterness, and self righteousness all balled into one

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 08/09/20 7:35pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

Maybe some reputations should be ruined...People went for decades, actually centuries , saying and doing wrong or just fucked-up things...and those on the other end were told to "suck it up" or "take it", or "that's just the way it is"...Sometimes payback is a bitch

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 08/10/20 5:55am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

jjhunsecker said:

Maybe some reputations should be ruined...People went for decades, actually centuries , saying and doing wrong or just fucked-up things...and those on the other end were told to "suck it up" or "take it", or "that's just the way it is"...Sometimes payback is a bitch

some should

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 08/10/20 9:03am

SantanaMaitrey
a

OldFriends4Sale said:



jjhunsecker said:


Maybe some reputations should be ruined...People went for decades, actually centuries , saying and doing wrong or just fucked-up things...and those on the other end were told to "suck it up" or "take it", or "that's just the way it is"...Sometimes payback is a bitch




some should


But who? I don't think anyone regrets that the reputation of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein has gone down the drain, because they commited crimes, but what when it's not so easy? There is no proof that Woody Allen has commited a crime, yet actors refused to work with him, he couldn't get his films released... All because of rumours and accusations. So where does it stop, this whole trial by media thing?
If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger tool than I am.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 08/10/20 9:09am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

SantanaMaitreya said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

some should

But who? I don't think anyone regrets that the reputation of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein has gone down the drain, because they commited crimes, but what when it's not so easy? There is no proof that Woody Allen has commited a crime, yet actors refused to work with him, he couldn't get his films released... All because of rumours and accusations. So where does it stop, this whole trial by media thing?

Yeah, I mean it's an iffy thing. I'm not actually looking at 'sex abuse allegations' But some people that put out some serious hate speech should from David Duke to Prof Griff to Louise Farrahkan

For me of course it's a case by case thing. But do nothing people stalking celebs and socialites pages and shows and such and going back 15 25 yrs to misconstrue something and try to shut them down I'm against.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 08/10/20 9:41am

jjhunsecker

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

OldFriends4Sale said:



jjhunsecker said:


Maybe some reputations should be ruined...People went for decades, actually centuries , saying and doing wrong or just fucked-up things...and those on the other end were told to "suck it up" or "take it", or "that's just the way it is"...Sometimes payback is a bitch




some should


But who? I don't think anyone regrets that the reputation of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein has gone down the drain, because they commited crimes, but what when it's not so easy? There is no proof that Woody Allen has commited a crime, yet actors refused to work with him, he couldn't get his films released... All because of rumours and accusations. So where does it stop, this whole trial by media thing?


But people not working with Woody Allen or releasing his films was a CHOICE made by the individual actors and the production companies, not mandated by law. These people and organizations do have a right to choose whom or what they want to associate with
(And for the record, I don’t think Allen was guilty of molesting his daughter. I love a lot of his work, but maybe he should just retire to a quiet life at this point)

So I don’t have a real answer. I do know a lot of people got away with saying and doing fucked up things for years and got away with it. Maybe excess in the other direction is some sort of cosmic realignment... but who knows?
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 08/10/20 11:42am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

This post is deep. He covers so much you have to read it and I think you will get pulled in and see how you are affected or have been affected in various ways

"Our behaviors on these platforms are too often conflated with who we are."

We Aren’t Holding The Right People Responsible For Cancel Culture

The way we talk on the internet is broken, but users are not the ones who broke it — tech companies did that, and they did it for profit.

sub-buzz-1535-1596814745-1.jpg?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto&downsize=360:*
Ben Kothe / BuzzFeed News; Getty Images

Last week, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan asked a question at a Congressional hearing that seemed to come out of nowhere. While the biggest tech CEOs — Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Google’s Sundar Pichai — were being questioned about antitrust violations and harm they’ve done to consumers, Jordan used his valuable time to ask about...cancel culture?

The laughs came in hot. It was “the dumbest question,” internet commenters charged. Jordan quickly joined the inglorious canon of technologically challenged lawmakers who are seemingly unable to hold tech CEOs accountable with actually good questions (remember Zuckerberg’s “Senator, we run ads” moment?).

But here’s the thing: Even though the question was badly phrased (“Is the cancel culture mob dangerous?”) — and its messenger wasn’t great either — the setting was absolutely right. For all the noise that gets made about “cancel culture,” it is in fact technology companies who should have to answer for it. The way we talk on the internet is broken, and users are not the ones who broke it — tech companies did that, and they did it for profit.

The idea of “canceling” originated in Black Twitter. It first described a relatively benign form ...al boycott: a group of people making the case for others to withdraw their support from an individual or an institution. Boycotts aren’t new, obviously. But sometime within the last two years, the phrase “cancel culture” picked up steam and morphed into a monstrosity, a catchall phrase for heightened internet discourse, colored in with words like “dangerous mob.”

The panic is in part due to a wide range of behaviors that have become linked with so-called cancel culture: Run-of-the-mill boycott efforts like campaigns to encourage ot...o unfollow someone on social media or calls to withdraw someone’s invi...s to speak at events (particularly at universities) got lumped in with groups lobbying employers to fire employees for any given reason.

A few critics, like New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, have argued that these behaviors go beyond your regular ol...on boycott — that, in fact, they amount to “the expression of a political culture with consistent norms, and philosophical premises that happen to be incompatible with liberalism.” Through intimidation, these critics charge, the cancel-happy internet is threatening the founda...ism itself, creating expectations of conformity.

What we now broadly consider “cancel culture” is in fact a convergence of three relatively new forces: the easiest access to like-minded people in the history of humanity; a technology-facilitated culture of rapid feedback; and the conflation of Twitter with some sort of huge and all-important public square.

These forces are incredibly powerful, and they are changing our world. But they do not present people problems so much as they present a technology problem. And for all too many — particularly conservatives and centrists stoking the fires of the culture wars — it’s easy to mistake these problems for a single coherent ideology that really doesn’t exist.

It’s perhaps true that the stakes of being wrong in public — or at least, being perceived by somebody, somewhere, as being wrong — are higher now than they were even a decade ago. It’s also true that a lot of people feel like they can’t freely speak on social media because of those stakes. This mood is, more or less, what critics mean when they say “cancel culture.” But this mood, far from a rot at the core of liberal society, is actually a direct result of how technology companies have set up our arena of digital speech, and the consequences it has had on our institutions.

Our behaviors on these platforms are too often conflated with who we are. This is to our detriment. We forget that the platforms themselves impact behavior, mediate it, intercept it, and reframe it. Angela Xiao Wu from New York University, writing about how we analyze platform data, argues that “platform data do not provide a direct window into human behavior. Rather, they are direct records of how we behave under platforms’ influence.” It’s another way of saying that understanding ourselves based on what we do on these platforms completely overlooks the fact that the platforms themselves are not neutral.

Technology companies have goals. They have capitalist interests in how much time you spend on the platforms, how much you engage, how often you return to them again and again and again. All of these elements can be further manipulate...tical gain. The ways we congregate online is a result of a bunch of people trying to make money. That’s how we ended up here.

Facebook and Twitter have positioned themselves as the new public square. This is not a paraphrasing — both Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have referenced their platforms as such. But heralding themselves as champions of free speech on ginormous scales just obfuscates their actual purpose: to monetize our interactions in order to grow. Joan Donovan, the research director at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy, told me that social media platforms “calling themselves the public square was a clever ploy from the get-go to avoid regulation.”

It also helps them avoid any semblance of responsibility for what they have created: environments that are, by design, optimized for emotional and divisive content, and mysterious algorithms that seem to be aimed at maintaining audience attention even at the expense of damaging digital conversation. Many academics, reporters, and thinkers have argued that these platforms do far more harm than good — to the point where abolishing them may be th...y solution: “All signs point to a system beyond reform,” writes Charlie Warzel in the New York Times.

The sites on which much of the cancel culture conversation takes place are the reason this notion exists in the first place. As such, tech CEOs should absolutely be questioned on “cancel culture” — by which I mean: the consequences of the rules they’ve set up for online speech.

It is undeniably true that people who are upset at something can quite easily find more people who are upset at the same thing. This is a boring observation in 2020, but that’s only because we have entirely lost sight of how new this is. In 2003, if you belonged to a group that was mad about a newly published op-ed, the group could yell about it over MSN Messenger. If it were a particularly passionate group, you might even have a forum on a website. But that was the extent of your digital protest.

Now, you and I could latch onto a hashtag and find each other, and within a few hours, we could become a united force. But in doing so, observers risk overemphasizing strangers’ political alignment. People who are unified about one thing for a brief moment — say, disapproving of the New York Times’ editorial decision to run...nion piece by a senator — are not politically aligned forever. They don’t trade ideas on how to elect a replacement senator. There is no Cancel Party of the USA. They are not a “culture” — they are hardly a movement.

But algorithms intent on driving more emotional content to users have allowed for thriving hyperpartisan echo chambers that hinge on feeding an outrage machine. Disparate individuals who might share a few perspectives politically are lumped together indiscriminately, until they are an indistinguishable mass.

Even still, expressing frustrations with an individual or an institution’s actions aren’t new. What’s changed has been the dynamic of feedback culture. Institutions used to receive disconnected pieces of feedback you know, letters in the mail they could ignore, emails they could delete. But now, institutions can face swells of criticism in real time — and when they see their name in the unfortunate lights of the trending bar, they might feel more pressured to act.






jgLa9jwUd_large.jpg?output-format=jpg&crop=421%3A421%3B41%2C46

Posted on August 7, 2020, at 1:08 p.m. ET

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 08/10/20 11:46am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Maybe we were never meant to shout across a room of millions.

pt 2

Of course, those instances are still rare. (And there’s always the argument that digital campaigns like #MeToo have gone too far.) And all too often, companies are scared into responding to bad faith attacks.

Take, for example, the case of the Federal Reserve of Chicago, which cut ties with econo...rald Uhlig after he tweeted that the Black Lives Matter movement “torpedoed itself” by backing the idea of defunding the police. The Fed said Uhlig’s views do not match its “commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.” Uhlig’s view is hardly controversial — it’s status quo to be skeptical of defunding the police. But Uhlig’s tweet drew heat, and the decision was clearly aimed at ending a PR nightmare.

There’s also the case of David Shor, the data analyst who was fired after he tweeted a thread on the work of another professor, whose research showed why peaceful protests work. Civis Analytics, the progressive firm Shor worked for, received some blowback, and shortly after, Shor was fired.

The light-speed acceleration of feedback culture has left institutions reeling, unsure how to react to a deluge of responses. In some cases, it’s forced companies to speak where they otherwise wouldn’t, and it’s yielded some odd results. Like, it’s nice that Gushers finally weighed i...ves Matter — and that more companies and individuals are being encouraged via social media peer pressure to at least seem like they care about Black lives, regardless of what they’re actually doing behind the scenes — but I’m not sure that’s the one I was waiting for.

But here, where some see cancel culture’s insidious reach in these stories, I see only baffling cowardice. If a bank or a journalism institution or a research firm believes no rules were broken by their employees or associates, they have to figure out how to articulate that when the angry tweets come. People on Twitter do not have the capacity to hire and fire a person — HR departments do, and no number of tweets can change that. “We’re trending and worried about it” is not just cause. The villain you’re looking for — the real cancel culture — is at-will employment, and the ability of employers to dismiss an employee without legitimate reasons.

The “trending” culture that technology companies have built has created the illusion that whatever a few people are yelling about online is what really matters on any given day. It’s all smoke and mirrors: An algorithm drives a conversation to your feed, then it tells you it matters because the people it drove to your feed are talking about it. For institutions navigating large amounts of feedback, it’s created a fear of trending, a desire never to be the main character, and an incentive to cut ties with the source of social media heat — no matter that the next day some other poor sap will be at the center of the outrage machine.

These conversations almost always start brewing on a platform like Twitter. And Twitter is my home address, too, but too often those of us among “the chattering class” (journalists, politicians, academics, and media people) treat the platform as if it matters more in the real world than it actually does. Like Twitter can stop the flow of time and reverse the effects of gravity. It’s enough to make you forget that most people aren’t on the site.

Sometimes, of course, what happens on Twitter has significant real-life consequences. But for the most part, the topics that trend, and the articles that get shared, are treated as distillations of society’s most important discourse, when it’s mostly just driftwood in the sea of K-pop stans and Harry Styles fan accounts. Institutions choose to be beholden to people’s opinion if they want to be, but this does not make for a tangible culture.

Twitter is changing how I think, and I hate it. In a recent interview, Jenny Odell, author of How to Do Nothing, wonders how being Extremely Online affects our thoughts. Not the thoughts themselves, but how the thoughts get formed.

It’s a disturbing revelation — that our minds are being molded by these platforms. For some, especially those particularly concerned about so-called cancel culture, the scariest element of these changes is that an apparent epidemic of s...ip abounds, that we’re all more afraid to speak our minds than ever before. Some of the fanciest famous people signed an open letter in Harper’s Magazine to this effect last month, decrying that “censoriousness is spreading more widely in our culture.”

Well, what changed? Is it that people are suddenly shakier in their convictions? Or is it perhaps that we went from expressing views to our f...d families, people who likely wouldn’t “cancel us,” to expressing views on public platforms that could be viewed by anyone in any part of the world at any given time? Maybe we were never meant to shout across a room of millions, and maybe the people who designed the room should be held responsible for the echo that bounces off the walls perpetually until we mistake it for conversation.

read the rest here: https://www.buzzfeednews....nEHF1kr4HA

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 08/10/20 12:49pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I was having a good day and Only comes home. lol

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 08/10/20 12:51pm

SantanaMaitrey
a

jjhunsecker said:

SantanaMaitreya said:


But who? I don't think anyone regrets that the reputation of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein has gone down the drain, because they commited crimes, but what when it's not so easy? There is no proof that Woody Allen has commited a crime, yet actors refused to work with him, he couldn't get his films released... All because of rumours and accusations. So where does it stop, this whole trial by media thing?


But people not working with Woody Allen or releasing his films was a CHOICE made by the individual actors and the production companies, not mandated by law. These people and organizations do have a right to choose whom or what they want to associate with
(And for the record, I don’t think Allen was guilty of molesting his daughter. I love a lot of his work, but maybe he should just retire to a quiet life at this point)

So I don’t have a real answer. I do know a lot of people got away with saying and doing fucked up things for years and got away with it. Maybe excess in the other direction is some sort of cosmic realignment... but who knows?

Was it really a choice? Or was it fear of bad publicity? Same thing with JK Rowling when she made that comment about people who menstruate. Ohh, women. Even that is enough to create on online cancel storm and then even actors from the Harry Potter movies wanted to move away from her... The Twitter Thought Police can be vicious. And always know how to make the headlines.
If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger tool than I am.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 08/10/20 2:02pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

jjhunsecker said:
But people not working with Woody Allen or releasing his films was a CHOICE made by the individual actors and the production companies, not mandated by law. These people and organizations do have a right to choose whom or what they want to associate with (And for the record, I don’t think Allen was guilty of molesting his daughter. I love a lot of his work, but maybe he should just retire to a quiet life at this point) So I don’t have a real answer. I do know a lot of people got away with saying and doing fucked up things for years and got away with it. Maybe excess in the other direction is some sort of cosmic realignment... but who knows?
Was it really a choice? Or was it fear of bad publicity? Same thing with JK Rowling when she made that comment about people who menstruate. Ohh, women. Even that is enough to create on online cancel storm and then even actors from the Harry Potter movies wanted to move away from her... The Twitter Thought Police can be vicious. And always know how to make the headlines.

But people can CHOOSE to stand up to "bad publicity", or bend to it...

And really most of it is just a lot of noise on social media

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 08/24/20 7:21am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

https://www.deseret.com/i...tywj3NuuyY

Cancel culture is entering a dangerous new phase. But there is a key to getting out

Some people who have been ‘canceled’ can be reinstated if they make amends. But what of people canceled for an ideal?

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 08/24/20 8:33am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

There is a context to the Harper's letter. Elites who want to protect their jobs. Nobody actually believes this issue is important.

Brother Cornel got hornswaggled into it.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 08/27/20 9:12pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator





2 Karens in Central Park, Cancel Culture, and my almost-arrest in Chipotle

https://www.youtube.com/w...g46DVGHlUU

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 08/31/20 6:37pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator




yeah, um this sounds like it's a good thing, but this is some real policing of peoples lives right here

like any other app that you can give someone a bad rating or making false complaints...
Cancel a restaurant if they don't give money ... even if they are barely keeping their heads above water? or a family run -with family and trusted friends place? yeah uh no

https://www.msn.com/en-us...d=msedgntp

Black Lives Matter-Inspired Restaurant Database Aims to Keep Owners Accountable

Ashok Selvam 9 hrs ago

Eater logoBlack Lives Matter-Inspired Restaurant Database Aims to Keep Owners Accountable

For the past three months, a group of Chicago industry workers have been developing a campaign to hold restaurant owners accountable, to ensure public statements supporting Black Lives Matter are more than a public relations ploy. The effort’s called CHAAD (Chicago Hospitality Accountable Actions Database) and is run by a “decentralized, racially diverse group of queer folk, women, and men.”


They’ve launched a GoFundMe fundraiser with a $20,000 goal. Additionally, there’s another campaign that ens at noon on Monday, August 31 that includes perks from chefs including Jennifer Kim (Passerotto), Joe Flamm (Spiaggia), Zoë Schor (Split-Rail), and Palita Sriratana (Pink Salt). Logan Square cocktail bar Lost Lake is serving as the pickup point for these items. The effort began in June, founded by Raeghn Draper and Leah Ball. As bad actors in the industry routinely won honors from the James Beard Foundation and Michelin, the organizers sought accountability. Donations would fund an app powered by CHAAD’s database, where users could search restaurants to see if they are serious about anti-racism. The database tracks if a worker has levied a complaint against a restaurant on social media, how ownership has responded publicly, and if ownership has followed through on promises. Subject matter includes diverse hiring practices, donations to civic groups, or removing problematic workers.

“This will give hospitality workers needed opportunities for accountability and healing from their employers,” the site’s GoFundMe page reads. “In addition, businesses will thrive having access to fully laid out plans of action for building equitable establishments. Consumers will be able to incorporate the quality of establishments equitable practices when choosing which establishments to frequent or support.”

In the wake of George Floyd’s killing and the protests that followed, restaurants began making public statements using Instagram and Facebook to show support for Black Lives Matters. Some of the statements struck members of Chicago’s restaurant workers, — particularly those who were BIPOC (Black, Indigenous People of Color) — as insincere.

There are restaurant owners that genuinely reflected on past actions and made commitments to anti-racist actions including donating to civic organizations and taking a look at hiring practices. But there are also others without any history of promoting BIPOC workers into management. Some owners routinely kept silent on racism, but were all too happy to throw up a black square in Instagram to ride the wave of credibility. This is called performative allyship. For restaurant workers who have experienced racism in its many forms, the issue runs deeper. Many workers have been ignored when they’ve brought issues to management. When they speak out, they are gaslit and blamed for the problem.

As many restaurant workers took to Instagram over the summer to share stories of poor treatment, workers began a database to keep track of who made public statements about Black Lives Matter and if there was any tangible anti-racist actions. The database has about 100 restaurants or groups.

Folks have until noon Monday to buy one of the chef packages. Donations to the GoFundMe campaign will remain open.

  • Chicago restaurant workers take to social media to call out industry racism, sexism — and more [Tribune]
  • CHAAD Project
  • Who are the black squares and cutesy illustrations really for? [Vox]
  • How a Black chef from Englewood battled racism in Chicago’s top restaurants: ‘I was never seen as an option to rise’ [Tribune]

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > #CancelCulture stories