Yeah, this. I don't always agree with *who* gets canceled and *why*, but the alternative -- "don't voice disapproval or voluntarily disassociate when you believe something to be unethical" -- is a lot worse.https://twitter.com/ArthurB/status/1204469207825616896 …
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I think that voicing disapproval and not associating with people we disapprove of is healthy and often necessary. "Canceling" goes beyond that: it amounts to enforcing a general ban on approval of and association with a person, and is not sustainable in a pluralist society.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @s_r_constantin
For example, imagine a physicist has supported an initiative against gay marriage, and my values dictate that I won't be friends with that physicist. Is society better off if I also get that physicist fired, and he is now working as a Uber driver or becomes homeless?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I would consider that a calibration issue -- does opposing gay marriage really require being fired from an unrelated academic position? is it that severe, or that relevant, an offense that this consequence is good to seek?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Plinz
There *are* actions that I think would be worth firing someone over, such as violent crimes. I don't think opposing gay marriage is worth firing someone over. But I don't disagree with the principle "there exist situations when you should try to get someone fired."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I think that the process of cutting someone off from economic or cultural integration into society needs to be based on a legal process, because it has enormous consequences and costs, not just for the individual, but for society itself. Cancel culture sidesteps that.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Maybe. But *a* legal process need not be *our* legal system. (I've been thinking for a while that adjudication-as-a-private-service might be useful for situations like these.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
What do you have in mind? Should there be a network of competing private legal systems, and the subscription of your employer determines which particular political ideas get you fired this year?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I’m not sure. What you’re proposing doesn’t sound ideal, I admit.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Let me put it this way: the US criminal justice system is such a shitshow that most people hesitate to use it, out of justified concern that it will both ignore real crimes and use totally disproportionate force and cruelty against the accused.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Plinz
The "court of public opinion" is epistemically terrible compared to a real trial; but most accusations of crimes never go to trial! If you include the whole process of seeking legal justice, starting with "call the police", I'm not sure it's more fair or humane than "canceling."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Plinz
I agree that a private adjudication service that *charges a fee* would probably be biased towards corporations, since they'd be the most reliable big customers. Maybe they need to be free and donation-supported. Or randomize who they charge. I don't know exactly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.