Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I disagree. You don't actually have to lose your job for this to seriously affect you, in terms of your social standing, your work, and your psychological well-being. Lee Fang is still employed, but he was also raked over the coals for days and publicly castigated as a racist, and was allowed to continue in his employment only a) after prostrating himself before the mob and begging forgiveness, and b) on the condition that he not say anything that offends anyone again. This, for posting an interview in which someone else said something his co-worker didn't like. He didn't get out of his episode of "cancel culture", (or "callout culture", or "cultural authoritarianism" or "ctrl left" or whatever we're calling it now) unharmed.
It's not the case that there are only two options, cancellation or everything's totally fine. Cases in which peoples' careers aren't completely destroyed can still involve significant harm and don't "muddy the waters". The issue is the same. There are just different degrees to which the victim of the social media (and normal media) mob is innocent, and different degrees to which the victim is harmed. As long as those differences are acknowledged, any of these cases is worthy of discussion.
|
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying, since I don’t believe there are only two options, and I fully agree with the rest of your post.
Lee Fang would be an appropriate example. Do Live PD and Jimmy Fallon fit “appropriate”? One is a show that’s been taken off the air, given it’s focus on police and it’s filming of someone dying. The other wore blackface and apologised and... seems perfectly fine.
My point is that discussing the errors of cancel culture is a worthwhile discussion, but not if the differences aren’t acknowledged and examples that don’t even fit the idea of “an overstep or cancel culture” make up half your argument.