See, this is exactly why it is impossible to discuss these issues. Seemingly without even realizing, you have just dismissed one side's concerns as "a chip on [their] shoulder" and making them appear irrational and unreasonable.
How productive do you think a discussion of grievances is going to be when those grievances are prima facie dismissed as irrational and irrelevant, as "upper class snowflakes being triggered" and therefore only worthy of casual mockery?
Conversations can get heated, yes, but I didn't dismiss anyone's side - or at least not the content or substance of anyone's argument. I'm only dismissing the attitude.
Stepping back a bit and looking on how we got on to this side discussion, I recall in your post #34, you responded to this quote:
Another problem is that the characteristic of "cancel culture" and the shaming language that comes with it is that it is way too reliant on people's emotions and doesn't do enough to demonstrate critical thinking, logic, or reason.
That's great talk if you have no skin in the game and therefore don't care about the outcome. I wonder what people who are actually interested and involved in these issues would have to say about that, though.
I'm basically saying the same thing as saying they have "a chip on their shoulder." You didn't seem to deny this earlier, and in fact, you're as much as saying that it's okay that they have a chip on their shoulder, because they have "skin in the game."
And all I've been doing since then is trying to clarification from you. I've asked direct questions that you continually duck or refuse to answer. I haven't dismissed yours or anyone else's position at all. All I've been trying to do is probe and ask questions to find out just what in the heck your position is.
If you boycott anyone, you are censoring them and destroying their livelihoods. That is literally what the open letter castigates as wrongdoing and wrongthinking:
"[...] it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought."
"We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement."
Boycotting is not censoring. I don't recall the letter saying anything like that, although apart from boycotting, some writers, artists, and journalists who work for a publication might get fired if they become a target of cancel culture. I think that's what they were referring to, not just boycotting. You also mentioned deplatforming, which is dependent upon the owner of whatever platform it happens to be.
But regardless of how it is done or by what method, there's still the question of whether the reaction is appropriate to the offense. As the saying goes, the punishment should fit the crime.
Yes, I saw that. But from reading the link provided by
@Left Coast, I see that they weren't actually being "shut down." They're employees of a publishing company who ostensibly refused to do any work involved with Rowling's book. In so many words, the company said to their employees, you work for us, and they told them they have to do the work they were hired to do. If they want to quit, they can quit. I suppose another option is that they could go on strike and demand that the publisher drop Rowling. I don't know if that would work, but they could try.
But I wouldn't underestimate anyone's propensity to retaliate. That's what cancel culture ultimately leads to. Those who want to play the boycott, deplatform, and cancel game should remember that everyone can play that game. It doesn't actually solve anything, but it just further entrenches and polarizes people in different camps. That's a major reason why such tactics should be avoided.
Publishers and celebrity authors are not powerless victims in this situation. They are the ones with the power over their employees - they can hire and fire people, and even in the case of boycott or criticism, they have access to vast and robust support networks that most of their critics - being largely random schmoes from the middle class and below - simply do not have, and will never have. The wealthy and the corporations simply are not going to be phazed by critical voices.
I never said they were powerless victims, although not everyone targeted by cancel culture is wealthy or powerful. As for corporations being fazed by critical voices, it often depends on what it is. Many corporations spend a lot on PR and advertising, and they have to be somewhat politically aware. They also have to keep lawyers on retainer and be prepared for anything in our litigious society.
People from marginalized communities, on the other hand, are already more vulnerable even than the average person due to their marginal status in society, which is further amplified when we pit them against the vast network of supporters and hired staff, journalistic outlets, public institutions and private companies that multimillionaire celebrities like JK Rowling are able to leverage for their interests.
That may be true for Rowling. I'm not particularly worried about her, as it seems she'll get by well enough. But as I mentioned above, this isn't really about Rowling.
That's the problem; you're sorry because I made a fuss about it, not because you think there was anything wrong with dismissing people's concerns out of hand and assuming up front that their grievances are irrelevant nonsense only worthy of ridicule and mockery.
You might have a point if that was the
only thing I wrote, or if it was in any way central to the point I was making. That you blow some tiny little quip waaaay out of proportion is an example of the process at work here.
I find your reaction actually an interesting parallel to the signatories of the open letter:
They believe that they alone are entitled to a platform of debate - and, moreso, should be allowed to dictate the circumstances of the debate, its rules and its boundaries, while their opponents cannot be even let into the discussion without acknowledging their submission to these demands up front.
They believe all that, do they?
It seems that they're the ones calling for open discussion and debate. But those who want to cancel and boycott - they obviously don't want any discussion at all. They've closed the door and decided it's pointless to discuss anything. It's much easier to shun and hate people rather than sit down like civilized adults and discuss their differences.
And here you are assuming control over the circumstances of the debate, and assuming a position of authority to dictate the rules and boundaries of discussion, and pretending to be a neutral and disinterested party when you are clearly the exact opposite of that.
I'm not assuming control over anything here. You're ascribing a power to me which I simply do not have. I'm not dictating any rules or boundaries. I'm stating my opinions and I've been asking you about yours. I can sense that you're angry with me for some reason, but all I've really asked you to do is offer more clarity. If it's all because I said "upper class triggered snowflakes," then come on. Seriously?
But even then, it still doesn't support this claim of yours that I'm trying to "control" or "dictate" anything here. We're just talking.
I have already pointed out above that I consider this assessment a false one.
Well, all you have to do is cite a single example to demonstrate that it's false. The only example thus far was the one above, but if the employees of that publishing company really wanted to boycott Rowling, they should quit the company entirely. No one would have prevented them from doing so. Therefore, my assessment stands.
As opposed to dismissing them out of hand with a humorous quip?
Well, again, you'd have a point if that was the
only thing that I wrote. I write a lot in my posts. Sometimes they go on for quite some time, longer than I should. However, I try to cover all the bases if I can, if only to demonstrate that I'm
not dismissing anyone or anything out of hand, even despite the occasional humorous quip. We at least gotta keep it interesting, you know?
I'm actually pretty tame compared to some of the posters here. I'm really not your enemy, unless you want me to be.
Communication is a two way street, so if you refuse to make even a token attempt at understanding the issues you have so casually dismissed as nonsense, then I don't see the point of engaging with you on this topic.
This is just not true, as I have repeatedly asked you direct questions and clarification. I haven't "dismissed" anything, because you have yet to present a position for me to dismiss. I can sense that you're mad at me, but you don't want to tell me why. Okay, that's cool, if that's how you want to be. But don't try to make it out like it's my fault. I've made much more than just a "token attempt," so my conscience is clear.
