Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I still see a healthy range of opinions. I'm suspicious of yours, because you seem to want to be able to say "these are deserved consequences", while at the same time saying, "I'm just not rooting for him, I'm not calling for anything specifically bad to happen to him". I don't see that as very honest.
When I say, "everyone who is okay with this", I'm clearly referring to those among the healthy range of opinions who hold the opinion that this is okay - that this outcome was deserved. In this case, those people won the day. They got what they were after. I don't see how that's contradictory. Those people presumably want similar consequences for other people in similar circumstances. That is not "this entirely separate thing", it's the logical outcome. Stop lying about my position. In particular:
Don't try to lump me in with other posters and mix my views in with theirs. That's slimy, mendacious crap. I speak for myself and only for myself. And I'm pretty sure I've never used the words "cancel culture" in this thread. I don't see this as the same thing. He didn't lose his job and life because of his views or something he said or some minor error. He committed a heinous act that was subject to legal consequences. Whether those legal consequences should have been publicly known is a question that has been debated in this thread, but that's a separate issue.
Certainly, internet mob justice is at issue here - can anyone deny that with a straight face? Does anyone think that absent the internet mob calling for harsh sanctions, this would have happened? Come on.
My view here is pretty simple: given the information we have about the acts committed, the impact on the victim, the age of the perpetrator, his actions since that time, the punishment he has received (at the time and now), and what's likely to happen to him going forward, I think the punishment was overly severe. I think that's generally true in cases where an internet mob gets involved. I wouldn't want this sort of outcome to be the rule in cases like this. That's really it. It's not a complicated point of view, nor is it "performative". That's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse me of given what I've posted in here.
You really do love to lazily oversimplify things in a way that flatters your position. I'm not sure why you think it's rhetorically effective, though. Maybe try characterizing them in the worst possible light for your view, instead, just as an exercise. It will be just as easy to do.
|
Being ok with something and actively seeking or demanding it are two entirely different things. Why you need to lump them together to make your point is beyond me, and considering both your internet mob crutch and "they must all want Criminal Code changes!" rely on it, your view, however simple, is nonsense.
Apologies for lumping you in with the others, you're right, it wasn't fair. But to that end, I would actually think critically about the group you're lumping together and calling "society" or the "internet mob" and providing the same respective nuance, instead of gross generalizations that "they" called for it, that "they" got their wish. Who is they? Do you even know? How many people is enough to be the mob, and how do you decide on lumping people into the mob and then not only assuming what they asked for, but what their reaction is, and what they must all then logically want, because you have decided it must be? If we're talking about lazy oversimplification, you hit the jackpot. It's a lazy well and go to it if you want, drink up, but it's just so unbecoming of someone like yourself who generally does have really interesting and well-thought-out opinions. "The mob!" Really? From you? It's sad, man. That's the kind of schtick I expect from people who barely put two thoughts together. It's performative.
The power of "the mob's desires" is entirely overrated and it's pretty sad to see people just going to that well, because it dismisses the range of validity and nuance that exist in all the people who get lumped in. I can tell you from a PR perspective, "the mob" i.e. people who are irrationally upset and specifically call for a company to take action, is measured equally across the people who just think it's a negative thing to begin with. The quantity of negative reaction has more weight than the context and wishes in those reactions. And that includes everyone from "embarrassing draft pick" to "THE NHL SHOULD BAN HIM FOR LIFE." Doesn't make "embarrassing draft pick" part of the mob, nor does it mean that any reaction is catering to the mob. It's about getting away from bad PR as cleanly as possible, and for public figures, it's usually a severance of the relationship. That's just life. If you think any negative reaction about the pick was the mob, or should be seen as such, then I respectfully disagree. And if you don't, but you think the mob is the main power broker, then we'll have to disagree on that too.