150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Liriena]

So, again: "cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and?

Cancel culture sucks? Yes... and don't go out actively ruining the lives of people who run their mouths and outed themselves as bigots, today or years ago.

Calling them out by saying, "no... what you said isn't acceptable because no one deserves to be discriminated," should be enough.

It often isn't, though. It certainly wasn't enough in J.K. Rowling's case. She's already been told her TERFism wasn't acceptable multiple times, yet she keeps doubling down and peddling transphobic pseudo-science. So what can we do that actually keeps the people whose lives she is helping ruin safe? Hell, how do we even engage with her in a truly fair debate? Force her to hold a Twitter debate with another billionaire author?

We spend a lot of time defending bigots' right to debate their views, but a lot of the time bigots refuse to participate in fair, honest debates. Instead, they choose to use the platforms we as a society give them as unilateral megaphones with no way to immediately and effectively counteract them.

[Liriena]

Actually, I think I'm going to bypass responses entirely because I'm not satisfied with my own arguments and I don't think they're a hill worth dying on.

A lot of y'all's criticisms of "cancel culture" are legitimate. I have expressed my own criticisms, as have many left-wingers. If there is a better alternative to deal with people whose actions and speech are harmful to the dignity and safety of others, I welcome it.

That's my main concern, though: the "yes... and?" of this topic.

"Cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and? What's next? What is, specifically, no longer ok once we accept that basic premise? What do we want instead? What sort of climate are we trying to create after that? What sort of climate are we going to create?

Ostro invoked Gamergate. He has already talked at length over the years on why he supported it and why he thought it was a good thing. But one thing that I feel never crosses his mind is that the subculture born from Gamergate actually made the internet, and specially the gaming corner of the internet, feel very hostile to LGBT people, including myself. Some Gamergate supporters will claim to be progressive, liberal and welcoming, and that these feelings aren't based on anything real or, that if they are, Gamergate had nothing to do with it... but it did. And the same goes for this backlash against "cancel culture". We see it clear as day in how OP framed the issue, and how Trump framed the issue as well: a lot of people see in the backlash against "cancel culture" an opportunity to intensify the ongoing "culture war" on everyone to the left of Jeb!, a war which the left didn't start but gets constantly blamed for. And if anyone thinks that reactionaries, conservatives and liberals won't go beyond just trying to talk "cancel culture" out of existence, they need to remember that the right has never wasted an opportunity to turn a moral panic or outrage into an excuse for far-reaching policy which obliterates the human rights of millions of innocents.

So, again: "cancel culture" sucks? Yes... and?

And it's time to limit the damage. And I think we can approach it in terms of employment and workers rights.

Much like The Civil Rights Act gave businesses a shield against the mob and a stick to threaten them when it came to hiring/not firing black people, it's time to give them the same when it comes to those targeted by the mob.

It'll still suck. But if you're enduring a torrent of abuse and still have your job, you can effectively ride it out. In the current climate, they go after everything - not only harassing you and threatening you with death, but taking away your livelihood with the goal of making you destitute.

This really needs to be thought of in terms of workers rights. With workers rights, you can ride out the hatred and abuse from the mob. Without, it can effectively be a life ending experience.

But in what terms would you implement that, though?

"You cannot fire an employee for being the epicenter of a public controversy?"

Mind you, banning employers from basing their decisions on political disagreements with employees would be the final nail in the coffin of Christian conservatives' excuses for stuff like refusing to cover birth control or trying to act like their refusal to hire LGBT people is just a "political disagreement" and not bigotry. Which would kinda own.

[Diarcesia]

Cancel culture sucks? Yes... and don't go out actively ruining the lives of people who run their mouths and outed themselves as bigots, today or years ago.

Calling them out by saying, "no... what you said isn't acceptable because no one deserves to be discriminated," should be enough.

It often isn't, though. It certainly wasn't enough in J.K. Rowling's case. She's already been told her TERFism wasn't acceptable multiple times, yet she keeps doubling down and peddling transphobic pseudo-science. So what can we do that actually keeps the people whose lives she is helping ruin safe? Hell, how do we even engage with her in a truly fair debate? Force her to hold a Twitter debate with another billionaire author?

If that is the case, J.K. is not really looking to debate and instead she's out to convert. I think it's justifiable to ignore her attempts, like how one would ignore a bully as long as they ain't violent.

We spend a lot of time defending bigots' right to debate their views, but a lot of the time bigots refuse to participate in fair, honest debates. Instead, they choose to use the platforms we as a society give them as unilateral megaphones with no way to immediately and effectively counteract them.

I would say deplatforming is ok in this scenario. Again, it's different from stuff like pressuring their employer to fire them and the like.

[Luminesa]

And it's time to limit the damage. And I think we can approach it in terms of employment and workers rights.

Much like The Civil Rights Act gave businesses a shield against the mob and a stick to threaten them when it came to hiring/not firing black people, it's time to give them the same when it comes to those targeted by the mob.

It'll still suck. But if you're enduring a torrent of abuse and still have your job, you can effectively ride it out. In the current climate, they go after everything - not only harassing you and threatening you with death, but taking away your livelihood with the goal of making you destitute.

This really needs to be thought of in terms of workers rights. With workers rights, you can ride out the hatred and abuse from the mob. Without, it can effectively be a life ending experience.

But in what terms would you implement that, though?

"You cannot fire an employee for being the epicenter of a public controversy?"

Mind you, banning employers from basing their decisions on political disagreements with employees would be the final nail in the coffin of Christian conservatives' excuses for stuff like refusing to cover birth control or trying to act like their refusal to hire LGBT people is just a "political disagreement" and not bigotry. Which would kinda own.

I mean, people are always going to have disagreements. They shouldn't be forced into poverty simply because they disagree. I don't really know the political opinions of Noam Chomsky or Gary Kasparov, but they should not have their careers taken away simply because I disagree with them. People should, rather, encourage each other to discuss their views and to learn about each other. Twitter is a terrible platform for this, and has allowed people to simply throw angry comments at each other, and it needs to be destroyed.

[Galloism]

And it's time to limit the damage. And I think we can approach it in terms of employment and workers rights.

Much like The Civil Rights Act gave businesses a shield against the mob and a stick to threaten them when it came to hiring/not firing black people, it's time to give them the same when it comes to those targeted by the mob.

It'll still suck. But if you're enduring a torrent of abuse and still have your job, you can effectively ride it out. In the current climate, they go after everything - not only harassing you and threatening you with death, but taking away your livelihood with the goal of making you destitute.

This really needs to be thought of in terms of workers rights. With workers rights, you can ride out the hatred and abuse from the mob. Without, it can effectively be a life ending experience.

But in what terms would you implement that, though?

"You cannot fire an employee for being the epicenter of a public controversy?"

Mind you, banning employers from basing their decisions on political disagreements with employees would be the final nail in the coffin of Christian conservatives' excuses for stuff like refusing to cover birth control or trying to act like their refusal to hire LGBT people is just a "political disagreement" and not bigotry. Which would kinda own.

Can't be fired for actions that take place outside of work unless it specifically impacts the performance of the specific type of work you do (narrowly tailored and construed). It's also an abomination that employees are expected to represent the company without pay when they're not at work.

And SCOTUS did rule that the latter is bigotry.

Or illegal, anyway.

[Liriena]

But in what terms would you implement that, though?

"You cannot fire an employee for being the epicenter of a public controversy?"

Mind you, banning employers from basing their decisions on political disagreements with employees would be the final nail in the coffin of Christian conservatives' excuses for stuff like refusing to cover birth control or trying to act like their refusal to hire LGBT people is just a "political disagreement" and not bigotry. Which would kinda own.

Can't be fired for actions that take place outside of work unless it specifically impacts the performance of the specific type of work you do (narrowly tailored and construed). It's also an abomination that employees are expected to represent the company without pay when they're not at work.

And SCOTUS did rule that the latter is bigotry.

Or illegal, anyway.

True and true.

[Liriena]

But in what terms would you implement that, though?

"You cannot fire an employee for being the epicenter of a public controversy?"

Mind you, banning employers from basing their decisions on political disagreements with employees would be the final nail in the coffin of Christian conservatives' excuses for stuff like refusing to cover birth control or trying to act like their refusal to hire LGBT people is just a "political disagreement" and not bigotry. Which would kinda own.

I mean, people are always going to have disagreements. They shouldn't be forced into poverty simply because they disagree. I don't really know the political opinions of Noam Chomsky or Gary Kasparov, but they should not have their careers taken away simply because I disagree with them. People should, rather, encourage each other to discuss their views and to learn about each other. Twitter is a terrible platform for this, and has allowed people to simply throw angry comments at each other, and it needs to be destroyed.

I agree with the underlined as a matter of principle. Poverty should never be used as a form of punishment, directly or indirectly. Poverty shouldn't be a thing, period.

[Galloism]

Can't be fired for actions that take place outside of work unless it specifically impacts the performance of the specific type of work you do (narrowly tailored and construed). It's also an abomination that employees are expected to represent the company without pay when they're not at work.

And SCOTUS did rule that the latter is bigotry.

Or illegal, anyway.

True and true.

In this way, when someone picked on by the mob when they are not at work representing the company, it is illegal for the company to fire them for it.

It will help mitigate the effects of the mob, because the company can say "Sorry, that's illegal to retaliate in this manner."

I used it when I became a specialist at DOMA strikedown amendments with the Civil Rights Act.

[The Black Forrest]

True and true.

In this way, when someone picked on by the mob when they are not at work representing the company, it is illegal for the company to fire them for it.

It will help mitigate the effects of the mob, because the company can say "Sorry, that's illegal to retaliate in this manner."

I used it when I became a specialist at DOMA strikedown amendments with the Civil Rights Act.

Question: Are you suggesting an employee who faces the public can’t be held accountable for being a white supremacist rally chanting vile things? Especially when your customers are pretty mixed?

[Luminesa]

I mean, people are always going to have disagreements. They shouldn't be forced into poverty simply because they disagree. I don't really know the political opinions of Noam Chomsky or Gary Kasparov, but they should not have their careers taken away simply because I disagree with them. People should, rather, encourage each other to discuss their views and to learn about each other. Twitter is a terrible platform for this, and has allowed people to simply throw angry comments at each other, and it needs to be destroyed.

I agree with the underlined as a matter of principle. Poverty should never be used as a form of punishment, directly or indirectly. Poverty shouldn't be a thing, period.

Like...if you want to make people somehow better, you don't take everything away from them and continue to say they are bad forever. You have a dialogue, and you try to improve each others' understanding. That's the thing about cancel culture, and I think something that is highlighted I think in this sudden hatred toward Margaret Atwood, specifically. So many people hailed The Handmaid's Tale as this progressive landmark. People went to pro-life marches dressed as the characters from the story to protest the marches, or so I saw (I never saw them in person, and the local marches don't tend to have much opposition). Suddenly, Atwood, an old-school feminist, is now on the receiving end of a beating from the New Guard. I don't necessarily mean to say whether or not I agree with either Margaret Atwood or her critics, I've never read the books, and my sig probably makes clear how I feel. However, the lack of conversation and the profuse desire to just make her not exist is kind of shocking. Why not just...talk things out, instead of screeching on Twitter?

[Galloism]

In this way, when someone picked on by the mob when they are not at work representing the company, it is illegal for the company to fire them for it.

It will help mitigate the effects of the mob, because the company can say "Sorry, that's illegal to retaliate in this manner."

I used it when I became a specialist at DOMA strikedown amendments with the Civil Rights Act.

Question: Are you suggesting an employee who faces the public can’t be held accountable for being a white supremacist rally chanting vile things? Especially when your customers are pretty mixed?

If he wasn’t on the clock, the company has no right to police his behavior. If they want to police his behavior 24/7, they need to be paying him 24/7.

Employees are employees hired to do a job. Not slaves.

It would be just as inappropriate as it would be to fire someone for writing a “God is Dead and Religious people are idiots” opinion article to the newspaper - even if your customers were predominantly religious.

[The Black Forrest]

Question: Are you suggesting an employee who faces the public can’t be held accountable for being a white supremacist rally chanting vile things? Especially when your customers are pretty mixed?

If he wasn’t on the clock, the company has no right to police his behavior. If they want to police his behavior 24/7, they need to be paying him 24/7.

Employees are employees hired to do a job. Not slaves.

It would be just as inappropriate as it would be to fire someone for writing a “God is Dead and Religious people are idiots” opinion article to the newspaper - even if your customers were predominantly religious.

Soo? If by his actions he is hurting his employer? He is exempt? Sorry there are ramifications for actions. Just as a community can punish you so should an employer. Especially with hateful actions.

Your solution is simply turning things over to the employee. Not exactly a solution. Being off the clock doesn’t give you the right to sticking it to the employer. Especially in such hateful manor.

The problem is not as simple as you would think. There has to be give and take.

[Costa Fierro]

They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

There's no need for debate.

The reason why people are claiming that this "cancel culture" is a thing is because they've previously said things that are hateful, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. that society no longer accepts or condones. And these people fully believe the opinions that they have and express, but cannot understand why it would cause hurt to people whom they are directed at. It's not surprising that we have people like J.K Rowling and Margaret Atwood signing these petitions, they're old, and still set in ways in which they believe their opinions and beliefs to be correct.

More to the point though this is not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech discussions are never about the right to say something. They're always about people responding to what they say. Hence why I say it is not a freedom of speech discussion but a freedom from consequences. Because they want to be able to say things without being criticised. For them, criticism is tantamount to censorship and suppression, and therefore they believe that free speech should be speech that cannot be criticised.

Do not be fooled into thinking that they are defending a noble freedom enshrined in most constitutions around the world. They are defending their perceived right to be free from criticism and the consequences of their actions.

[Galloism]

If he wasn’t on the clock, the company has no right to police his behavior. If they want to police his behavior 24/7, they need to be paying him 24/7.

Employees are employees hired to do a job. Not slaves.

It would be just as inappropriate as it would be to fire someone for writing a “God is Dead and Religious people are idiots” opinion article to the newspaper - even if your customers were predominantly religious.

Soo? If by his actions he is hurting his employer? He is exempt? Sorry there are ramifications for actions. Just as a community can punish you so should an employer. Especially with hateful actions.

Your solution is simply turning things over to the employee. Not exactly a solution. Being off the clock doesn’t give you the right to sticking it to the employer. Especially in such hateful manor.

The problem is not as simple as you would think. There has to be give and take.

The problem is this line of reasoning is that you just justified firing people who participate in pride parades, or blm rallies, supporting the black panthers, or participating in a demonstration that devolved into a riot, or any one of a hundred million other political actions.

He or she won’t be hurting their employer if the public understands the law is on the side of the worker, just as, with time, people who punished businesses for hiring black people or openly gay people or such gradually stopped. Because the law that protects workers from retaliation also protects employers from their customers when they all broadly refuse to engage in unjust and illegal retaliation. It worked with the Civil Rights Act, and it’s all the more appropriate to have a civil rights act that protects the civil rights of workers, even when used poorly.

And a person who does something uncouth while not representing their employer should be seen as a reflection on the employer, and we shouldn’t trust capitalist businesses to act in society’s best interests (both in general and every specific sense), or to punish privately enacted anti-social behavior. It’s not their job, nor is it appropriate, nor do they have the proper protections to protect the innocent or motivations to do it well.

Basically, you shouldn’t give greedy amoral narcissists loaded guns, point at people that you think you need killin’, and offer to pay them to do the job.

And no one believes you when you protest it’s all a horrible misunderstanding.

[The Black Forrest]

Soo? If by his actions he is hurting his employer? He is exempt? Sorry there are ramifications for actions. Just as a community can punish you so should an employer. Especially with hateful actions.

Your solution is simply turning things over to the employee. Not exactly a solution. Being off the clock doesn’t give you the right to sticking it to the employer. Especially in such hateful manor.

The problem is not as simple as you would think. There has to be give and take.

The problem is this line of reasoning is that you just justified firing people who participate in pride parades, or blm rallies, supporting the black panthers, or participating in a demonstration that devolved into a riot, or any one of a hundred million other political actions.

They people are seeking to exclude or intimidate people like the white supremacists.

He or she won’t be hurting their employer if the public understands the law is on the side of the worker, just as, with time, people who punished businesses for hiring black people or openly gay people or such gradually stopped. Because the law that protects workers from retaliation also protects employers from their customers when they all broadly refuse to engage in unjust and illegal retaliation.

How is it protecting the business. Bob is a white racist and I won’t shop here anymore.

It worked with the Civil Rights Act, and it’s all the more appropriate to have a civil rights act that protects the civil rights of workers, even when used poorly.

The white racists are the ones who caused those acts to happen.

And a person who does something uncouth while not representing their employer should be seen as a reflection on the employer, and we shouldn’t trust capitalist businesses to act in society’s best interests (both in general and every specific sense), or to punish privately enacted anti-social behavior. It’s not their job, nor is it appropriate, nor do they have the proper protections to protect the innocent or motivations to do it well.

Businesses tend to want to fit in the communities. If the community is saying white supremacists antagonizing people is a bad thing......he should be free of consequences?

[Grenartia]

All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.

If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.

[Geneviev]

All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.

If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.

The real problem is that people can change their minds. They shouldn't lose their jobs over something they don't even believe anymore.

[Grenartia]

All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.

If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.

The real problem is that people can change their minds. They shouldn't lose their jobs over something they don't even believe anymore.

The real question comes when you have to figure out whether or not they actually have changed their minds, or are simply lying to avoid the consequences.

[Krasny-Volny]

One of the greatest pieces of advice someone gave me was that saying stupid things aloud is bad enough. Immortalizing them on paper is a huge mistake.

And so is immortalizing them on the web.

You don’t want to get taken to task for your idiot/unpopular/problematic private opinions? Don’t feel the need to share them with the world through your computer.

Back in the old days, nobody talked about religion or politics. That was between them and God, or them and the voting booth. My grandparents never discussed politics outside the family because they were well aware that being open Republicans in the Democrat-controlled, politically turbulent 1960s South could cost them friendships, business connections, and even that spot on the school board. Yes, discrimination and public criticism based on one’s politics is nothing new. It existed then and existed now.

The difference is, now people can’t shut up on Facebook/Twitter/whatever trendy social media is the new normal. It’s a two way street. You share, you will get called out and open yourself to the possibility of discrimination and public criticism for expressing your opinions. What modern internet users want is the ability to share their opinions online with zero consequences, and the real world simply doesn’t work that way.

[Geneviev]

The real problem is that people can change their minds. They shouldn't lose their jobs over something they don't even believe anymore.

The real question comes when you have to figure out whether or not they actually have changed their minds, or are simply lying to avoid the consequences.

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

[The Black Forrest]

All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.

If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.

You not liking something doesn’t make it shitty. People make assumptions and dismiss those who suggest that might not be true.

Cancel culture is just a mark of laziness.

[Costa Fierro]

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

It does if there is a demonstrated and genuine change in belief that those people do not have those same opinions.

J.K Rowling has been spurting stupid shit for a while now, and is only a victim of her own arrogance and stupidity.

[Galloism]

The problem is this line of reasoning is that you just justified firing people who participate in pride parades, or blm rallies, supporting the black panthers, or participating in a demonstration that devolved into a riot, or any one of a hundred million other political actions.

They people are seeking to exclude or intimidate people like the white supremacists.

Or got scared after being threatened with violence repeatedly and made a poor decision. Or made a bad choice in Halloween costume. Or was against racism against white people, or special privileges for black people.

Or any one of a million other things.

He or she won’t be hurting their employer if the public understands the law is on the side of the worker, just as, with time, people who punished businesses for hiring black people or openly gay people or such gradually stopped. Because the law that protects workers from retaliation also protects employers from their customers when they all broadly refuse to engage in unjust and illegal retaliation.

How is it protecting the business. Bob is a white racist and I won’t shop here anymore.

Yes you will - just as people who hated gay people or black people learned to shop at places where they were employed post the civil rights act, you would learn to do the same.

It worked with the Civil Rights Act, and it’s all the more appropriate to have a civil rights act that protects the civil rights of workers, even when used poorly.

The white racists are the ones who caused those acts to happen.

White racists caused the civil rights act?

In a manner of speaking I guess. And it was a huge success. We should really expand it to cover free time actions, particularly when such actions are political.

California actually already legally protects political opinions of workers by law. The sky hasn’t fallen.

And a person who does something uncouth while not representing their employer should be seen as a reflection on the employer, and we shouldn’t trust capitalist businesses to act in society’s best interests (both in general and every specific sense), or to punish privately enacted anti-social behavior. It’s not their job, nor is it appropriate, nor do they have the proper protections to protect the innocent or motivations to do it well.

Businesses tend to want to fit in the communities. If the community is saying white supremacists antagonizing people is a bad thing......he should be free of consequences?

If he is not doing it at work, then it is not an employment infraction, and thus irrelevant to his employment. if the employer expects certain standards 24/7, they should also be held liable for back pay for the employee’s entire tenure for 24/7 of employment. If he’s a 24/7 representative, that means you have to pay for it.

That’s 6686 hours of overtime per year, btw.

If the employer is so dedicated to having their employees represent them 24/7, they must pay them 24/7.

[Grenartia]

The real question comes when you have to figure out whether or not they actually have changed their minds, or are simply lying to avoid the consequences.

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

The only people I see actually facing any serious consequences are the well-off. Actual, unironic millionaires. People who could live comfortably the rest of their lives without a job.

[Galloism]

When there are real consequences, it's better to assume that they're honest than ruin an innocent person's life. Cancel culture doesn't even give people that opportunity, and it should.

The only people I see actually facing any serious consequences are the well-off. Actual, unironic millionaires. People who could live comfortably the rest of their lives without a job.

I’m sure you have proof that the lady that dressed up as Megyn Kelly in blackface who lost her job was a millionaire.