"One way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign is to temper your conversation. Refrain from overheated rhetoric and calls for violence."
There is no way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign because everyone out there has their own bug-a-boos about what it is heretical, offensive, or inappropriate.
I'm okay with enforcing your boundaries and attacking back (defending yourself) to the person who attacked you. But with a lot of these people, they're attacking the wrong targets.
Like, if someone says something mean about Trump (wanting him dead), the person attacked is Trump. People who identify with Trump feel as if it's about them too. But it's about Trump. The person who should be defending himself is Trump in that case. He doesn't care enough to fight back, so why does everyone else care on his behalf?
People are aware that the Home Depot lady didn't attack them personally, but see her as a representative of the people who do. They're choosing the wrong target. They don't feel as if they can go up against the people who directly hurt them so they attack the more vulnerable target to feel better. That's blame shifting and it's not "defending yourself."
If you are posting things like "We should [fedpost] Trump" or "Somebody should put a rope around Biden's neck and hang him on the White House lawn," you greatly increase your risk of getting called out for that post and losing your job, getting a visit from law enforcement, etc. Whether or not this is fair is an irrelevant discussion. We have to deal with things as they are.
People can definitely create cancel campaigns over silly things. We've seen people lose jobs over OK hand signs, for example. We've also seen people punished for decade-old posts that were perfectly acceptable when they were written. You can't avoid getting caught up in that stuff any more than you can avoid getting hit by a meteor. But you can avoid being the kind of low-hanging fruit that gets picked by law enforcement and social media influencers.
I agree with everything except the last line. As of right not social media influencers will go after people who have different beliefs, not just those who are posting threats or saying they wish someone died.
It is not social media influencers job to get people fired, it's their employers. It's also not social media influencers job to get people thrown in jail. There are law enforcement people out there looking. People are trying to take on responsibility that is NOT theirs.
I appreciate your wanting to establish a dialog about the cancel culture phenomenon. This is good, and I hope the conversation continues.
But as far as I know, the ones who began all this have never begun or had a dialog questioning whether cancel culture is right, or appropriate; or self-reflecting over what this does to your society at large or your inner man. If one good thing could come out of the current situation it would be that this starts happening.
My own personal stance is this: We are forced to deal with many of our fellow citizens who are basically adult toddlers. They shriek and pitch a fit over everything they don’t like, and act as bullies to get their way. The world has in some ways turned into a gigantic school yard. Maybe it’s been that way for a long time, and we are only now realizing it.
When we were raising our kids, we taught them not to be bullies, and don’t pick on other people. Don’t start trouble. But if some other kid starts trouble with you, you have our permission to end it.
Perhaps in an imperfect way, the scales are rebalancing themselves in our imperfect society. I pray that the process may not further damage things. And that grace for repentance and restoration may be manifested in the hearts of all.
“One way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign is to temper your conversation.” I view these cancel instances from the right as putting civic guardrails and norms back in place. The cancel instances from the left were in service of moving the Overton window further left. Now the pendulum is swinging back.
Free speech refers to constraints on government control of speech. It does not mean there should be no societal consequences for offensive speech.
Cancelling is a tool that we are entitled to pick up when appropriate because it has been used against us for so long, but a weakness with the usage of "punch back" or the use of the prisoner's dilemma/reciprocity as an explanation is it tends to instill the idea that you MUST use the same tool.
Imposing a cost for horrible and abusive behavior does not mean you have to use the same tools they do. That said, it's the easy and readily available option until there's a better or more proportional idea
Also - you are what you focus on. You may _have_ to do reprisals of some sort and should, even in the Home Depot lady's case**, but in the end, we should focus more on building.
** Sure, she "just" mouthed off on Facebook- but that mouthing off was literally wishing someone dead even if it was "just" an edgy joke, in the full expectation that her associates on FB would cheer her on in equal bloodlust or laugh or say "right on". She has chosen to ally herself with a blood crazed mob or to appear to do so for clout. The specific reprisal that happened? Maybe not. But then simply telling these people to stop being mean hasn't worked either.
“Your world was not worse for not knowing Ms. Pinckney. Your world did not become better for your snarky reply or your call to her former employer. If you think otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.”
Keep emotion out of it, always. Reply with facts, not rhetoric. If you don't have facts, learn, do research and buttress your knowledge. Never stoop to using ad hominem attacks. As soon as prejoratives are used, cease communication - it means you are not talking to a serious person, just a brainwashed ideologue whose mind is completely closed. If someone wants a discussion, great; discuss. You may learn something. The best stragedy of all: refuse to engage. It is a complete waste of time to argue on the internet. It's only a fight if two people are involved. Just move on.
“But no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, understand that we have entered an age when online words can have life-changing consequences. You don’t have to like it. But you had best accept it and post accordingly. “
Isn’t this exactly what happened to Home Depot granny?
True, but everyone should probably be a little more responsible. And the right got doxed for arguing that there are two genders and that we shouldn’t have tranny story time in kindergarten. That dumb granny whisked death on a presidential candidate and former president. Wish death on Biden and the Feds kick your door in. You’re comparing apples to oranges. And tens of thousands of conservatives were targeted. We’re all worked up over a one dumb ass Home Depot employee? This almost seems like a purposeful distraction. There’s nothing here.
Since it's people's beliefs that cause them to be offended and you have no control (or responsibility) over their beliefs, you can't have any responsibility over whether or not someone gets offended.
I respectfully disagree, but we all have our way of looking at thing depending on our experiences. The world isn’t a nice place and some people need to learn the hard way that the 1st amendment is supposed to protect you from the govt, not consequences of being a dumb ass.
"One way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign is to temper your conversation. Refrain from overheated rhetoric and calls for violence."
There is no way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign because everyone out there has their own bug-a-boos about what it is heretical, offensive, or inappropriate.
I'm okay with enforcing your boundaries and attacking back (defending yourself) to the person who attacked you. But with a lot of these people, they're attacking the wrong targets.
Like, if someone says something mean about Trump (wanting him dead), the person attacked is Trump. People who identify with Trump feel as if it's about them too. But it's about Trump. The person who should be defending himself is Trump in that case. He doesn't care enough to fight back, so why does everyone else care on his behalf?
People are aware that the Home Depot lady didn't attack them personally, but see her as a representative of the people who do. They're choosing the wrong target. They don't feel as if they can go up against the people who directly hurt them so they attack the more vulnerable target to feel better. That's blame shifting and it's not "defending yourself."
If you are posting things like "We should [fedpost] Trump" or "Somebody should put a rope around Biden's neck and hang him on the White House lawn," you greatly increase your risk of getting called out for that post and losing your job, getting a visit from law enforcement, etc. Whether or not this is fair is an irrelevant discussion. We have to deal with things as they are.
People can definitely create cancel campaigns over silly things. We've seen people lose jobs over OK hand signs, for example. We've also seen people punished for decade-old posts that were perfectly acceptable when they were written. You can't avoid getting caught up in that stuff any more than you can avoid getting hit by a meteor. But you can avoid being the kind of low-hanging fruit that gets picked by law enforcement and social media influencers.
I agree with everything except the last line. As of right not social media influencers will go after people who have different beliefs, not just those who are posting threats or saying they wish someone died.
It is not social media influencers job to get people fired, it's their employers. It's also not social media influencers job to get people thrown in jail. There are law enforcement people out there looking. People are trying to take on responsibility that is NOT theirs.
I appreciate your wanting to establish a dialog about the cancel culture phenomenon. This is good, and I hope the conversation continues.
But as far as I know, the ones who began all this have never begun or had a dialog questioning whether cancel culture is right, or appropriate; or self-reflecting over what this does to your society at large or your inner man. If one good thing could come out of the current situation it would be that this starts happening.
My own personal stance is this: We are forced to deal with many of our fellow citizens who are basically adult toddlers. They shriek and pitch a fit over everything they don’t like, and act as bullies to get their way. The world has in some ways turned into a gigantic school yard. Maybe it’s been that way for a long time, and we are only now realizing it.
When we were raising our kids, we taught them not to be bullies, and don’t pick on other people. Don’t start trouble. But if some other kid starts trouble with you, you have our permission to end it.
Perhaps in an imperfect way, the scales are rebalancing themselves in our imperfect society. I pray that the process may not further damage things. And that grace for repentance and restoration may be manifested in the hearts of all.
“One way to avoid getting targeted in a cancel campaign is to temper your conversation.” I view these cancel instances from the right as putting civic guardrails and norms back in place. The cancel instances from the left were in service of moving the Overton window further left. Now the pendulum is swinging back.
Free speech refers to constraints on government control of speech. It does not mean there should be no societal consequences for offensive speech.
Cancelling is a tool that we are entitled to pick up when appropriate because it has been used against us for so long, but a weakness with the usage of "punch back" or the use of the prisoner's dilemma/reciprocity as an explanation is it tends to instill the idea that you MUST use the same tool.
Imposing a cost for horrible and abusive behavior does not mean you have to use the same tools they do. That said, it's the easy and readily available option until there's a better or more proportional idea
Also - you are what you focus on. You may _have_ to do reprisals of some sort and should, even in the Home Depot lady's case**, but in the end, we should focus more on building.
** Sure, she "just" mouthed off on Facebook- but that mouthing off was literally wishing someone dead even if it was "just" an edgy joke, in the full expectation that her associates on FB would cheer her on in equal bloodlust or laugh or say "right on". She has chosen to ally herself with a blood crazed mob or to appear to do so for clout. The specific reprisal that happened? Maybe not. But then simply telling these people to stop being mean hasn't worked either.
“Your world was not worse for not knowing Ms. Pinckney. Your world did not become better for your snarky reply or your call to her former employer. If you think otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.”
Nail on the head. 💯
Keep emotion out of it, always. Reply with facts, not rhetoric. If you don't have facts, learn, do research and buttress your knowledge. Never stoop to using ad hominem attacks. As soon as prejoratives are used, cease communication - it means you are not talking to a serious person, just a brainwashed ideologue whose mind is completely closed. If someone wants a discussion, great; discuss. You may learn something. The best stragedy of all: refuse to engage. It is a complete waste of time to argue on the internet. It's only a fight if two people are involved. Just move on.
“But no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, understand that we have entered an age when online words can have life-changing consequences. You don’t have to like it. But you had best accept it and post accordingly. “
Isn’t this exactly what happened to Home Depot granny?
Yes, and it's exactly what could happen to anybody who happens to run afoul of some ragebait site on either side of the political spectrum.
True, but everyone should probably be a little more responsible. And the right got doxed for arguing that there are two genders and that we shouldn’t have tranny story time in kindergarten. That dumb granny whisked death on a presidential candidate and former president. Wish death on Biden and the Feds kick your door in. You’re comparing apples to oranges. And tens of thousands of conservatives were targeted. We’re all worked up over a one dumb ass Home Depot employee? This almost seems like a purposeful distraction. There’s nothing here.
It's not our responsibility to not offend people. People offend themselves. https://www.thedramaofitall.com/p/the-real-reason-youre-offended
Since it's people's beliefs that cause them to be offended and you have no control (or responsibility) over their beliefs, you can't have any responsibility over whether or not someone gets offended.
I wish the world were that way Barbara.
It is this way. People are just responsibility or blame shifting.
I respectfully disagree, but we all have our way of looking at thing depending on our experiences. The world isn’t a nice place and some people need to learn the hard way that the 1st amendment is supposed to protect you from the govt, not consequences of being a dumb ass.
Those who live by the REEE!, die by the REEEE!.
Stay off social media
She should’ve got canceled because of her use of “they” when the shooter was clearly a male.
The government will have us all calling each other “they” if we are not vigilant to watch for this!!
Get wise to snitch culture, its a communist thing:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/bpIIJ25r9Lb