Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You shared the Williamson article, which trotted Rapoport out as an example of cancel culture. If you had read it closely, you might have noticed it was BS. I knew more about what happened with him than what is in that NPR story -- i.e., that he had it coming, not just because he sent a single stupid tweet -- which is why I noticed that Williamson misrepresented the NPR story. I wasn't assuming anything. You're the one who thought the article added up to something.
|
I offered a couple of quick cites in response to your request for examples of cancel culture. You found one of the hundreds of instances cited and asserted that it was not accurate. I'll accept your representation that you know more about Rappoport and that he was fired for more than the tweet. Okay. What of all the others who have been subjected to abuse by lunatics for merely stating things that are not sufficiently orthodox for the left wing woke mafia?
Here's how the cancel culture debate works:
1. There are idiots out there who comprise "cancel culture" - legions of morons who freak out at anything that even slightly trips their insanely low bar for being offended. And there are organizers who will aggregate them and channel their unlettered views into a rage campaign which will get picked up by the media if the target is famous enough.
2. Everyone privately acknowledges these practices are taking place, as they are increasingly common and done in public. We all see this craziness. It's a typical moral panic where emotional people get wildly emotional about everything and act out and opportunists package their anger and use it for gain.
3. We all know it's an immature mix of trolling and virtue signalling.
4. BUT... Some of us agree with the aims of cancel culture. We think its practitioners are useful idiots. I think some of us think that we have to shut down the other side of the debate to achieve the social change some of us think is desperately needed. Ends justify the means.
5. Unfortunately, one cannot openly argue the ends justify the means (though some cancel culture defenders come quite close), or defend cancel culture in the abstract, as the concept of trying to squelch or shame opposing debate, rather than tackle it on the merits, offends a basic premise of liberal thinking: the open exchange of ideas.
6. Some of us accept 5 and wind up supporting things like the very sensible Harper's Letter.
7. Some of us don't, and find ourselves in a lousy position. We're forced to come up with a defense for immature cancel culture proponents and that unspoken "ends justify the means" mentality underpinning cancel culture.
8. These people resort to specious arguments:
a.
"No one is being cancelled. They can still speak." This is of course bullshit. Many targets lose jobs or platforms, and if not, they are browbeaten by colleagues who agree with cancel culture or wish to telecast adequate progressive bona fides to protect themselves. These targets become pariahs.
b.
"'Counter-speech' calling for firing or deplatforming is free speech." This is actually true. But this is authoritarian. On the exact same continuum as Trump calling for protestors to be beaten.
c.
"Power dynamics requires us to use cancel culture. We're underdogs. We need a bigger platform for our orthodox woke voices, and that can only be achieved by toppling some of the establishment voices and shutting down competing smaller voices that do not agree with us." Again, this is authoritarian.
d.
"We're victims, and when you challenge us, you hurt us." (The 'words are violence' argument.) This one is too frivolous to entertain. Thankfully, it's largely relegated to the fantasyland of academia.
e.
"Cancel culture is made up." Empirically, a waterfall of data and instances can be offered to dismiss this rubbish.
f.
"Cancelled people have actually been fired because they suck, not because of pressure from cancel culture proponents." This is the "Megyn Kelly Defense." NBC was indeed looking to can her for bad ratings. And Rappoport, according to your inside knowledge, is another instance of it. But these are exceptions to the rule. The usual rule is that the institution in which the target works is exposed to pressure from cancel culture nitwits and feels the need to either: (i) put the target on leave until the issue fades; or, (ii) fire or press for the individual's resignation. Corporations are the most vile manipulators and enablers of cancel culture. For more on that, look up the endless articles decrying the cynicism and opportunism of "woke capitalism."*
Cancel culture is real, and indefensible, and a practice for low minds. I remain an advocate for addressing it as follows: Roll One's Eyes and Stop Reading. Do not feed the trolls.
________
*
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...talism/614086/
