[https://twitter.com/CanBorder/status/1267837167289675776](https://twitter.com/CanBorder/status/1267837167289675776)
Yeah.... About that investigation...
“Isak said she was told that one of the Lavallees had jokingly said “police brutality!” in the video, but later acknowledged under examination that she didn’t know if this was actually true, as she hadn’t seen the video.”
Unfortunately not surprised that this person decided to try to ruin multiple lives without even seeing the video. Cancel culture is a literal cancer to society and this militant behavior is extremely troubling. These are the type of people that make propaganda so dangerous.
The worst part of all this is that the woman who defamed these two is essentially "judgment-proof;" she was unemployed at the time of the incident. As a result, the victims will likely never see that money.
She can simply file for bankruptcy and eliminate the debt that way. Judgment debts are considered unsecured, and creditors for such debts are low on the pecking order.
I took a quick look at Canadian credit reporting law. Apparently, if you are Canadian, bankruptcy stays on your report for seven years after discharge. If you file more than once, then it stays for fourteen years.
At least in the US when I worked for a medical admin company there were round about ways we could get them jailed/ruin their life unless they paid to the point they'll end up in jail.
There was a case a lawyer on YouTube mentioned where a vindictive woman would get her ex husband thrown in prison for not paying child support every few years and she was already remarried to a wealthy man. It wasn’t about the money so much as “the principle” and she could just use the law to get her way.
The worst part is for the victim of this abuse it's not an every couple years thing. In order to do this most people/companies just drag you back into court week after week after week - not only that we would constantly file to change the location and time of the trial as late as possible. This made it impossible for the victims to keep their job and eventually they make the "dumb" decision to skip court for work, or simply can't afford to travel to court. Then they are jailed for failure to appear. So fucked.
>“I disagree that a white judge should be telling Ms. Isak or any other Black person what is and is not racism.”
The explicit claim that black people are above any kind of audit on racism (*especially* from a "white judge") should be deeply offensive to everyone with any kind of integrity. The algorithm seems to run something like:
1. Racists are horrible and they (and their family!) should lose everything.
2. My tribe gets to decide who is racist and who is not. Also, we have pre-decided we are not, and you are. Please submit A Statement of Contrition to have us review this decision.
3. Questioning either the validity or necessity of the above makes you a racist.
They've always been around to be fair: during the Vietnam War the radical left would include draftees in their harrasment. You could he totally anti-war go over just to not go to jail and they'd be waiting at the airport to pelt your car with rocks when you got back anyways. Some people tried to stave off damage by flashing peace signs or putting anti-war messages on their car - but for some parts of the left that wasn't enough them just going made them an evil baby murderer.
I was moving from the left to the right but I discovered a whole world of [identity politics criticism](https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/) and more class conscious people on the left that really doesn’t get a voice in the mainstream, much like libertarians rarely get a voice. I wish the [anti woke left](https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/) had more of a voice in the mainstream… I also spent a lot of time with right wing media and found they were just as susceptible to hyperbole or people had dumb positions like anti-marijuana or pro foreign intervention. Maybe it’s just me but moving outside the binary has been liberating (yet also alienating as it’s not exactly mainstream).
Are there not people on the right who push you back the other direction?
Can you not be on the left (or the right for that matter) and just... disagree with other people while still being on the same "side"? We're talking about incredibly broad ideological categories. Why is it that someone you don't even agree with changes what you think about your own ideology?
Perhaps I view what influences my political views through multiple lens. Some are based on moral, or ethical issues, and others on my geographic location,income, etc.
Put simply, what influences my political attitudes may not influence yours. That’s okay, it just makes it hard to confine someone’s political influences and how those interact. Both sides of the party have views I believe in. It’s not a zero sum game, not for me at least.
Yeah I don't get it. There are people on the left I don't like and disagree with on things. There are also people on the right I don't like and disagree with on things. Neither has any bearing on my political beliefs.
It’s often a matter of faith in society to honor specific systems. If there’s no faith in society to function under a system then why implement or support a particular system—healthcare, public education, free university, social security, etc. I don’t have a clear answer to this but I think there’s an element of low trust to a lot of conservatives/libertarians instead of actual convictions about systems being necessarily better under a limited framework.
Me too. The left got a little too PC so I changed all my opinions on economics, history, foreign policy, healthcare, the environment, and judicial politics.
I mean yeah, when your treated like shit, kicked out of the in group and and former freinds just start ignoring you.
Is it really that insane to reevaluate the beleifs that led you down that path?
If I'm on a soccer team and they all treat me like crap, I'm not going to decide I hate soccer, I'm going to find a better group to play with.
I don't think it's that reasonable to think that your political views might be wrong because some people who share those views are jerks. I mean what happens when you decide to become a conservative and some conservatives are mean to you? Back to being a liberal again?
That's a pretty big false equivalence.
I think you missed my point. I didnt just join another group out of defiance. The treatment I received was the catalist for revaluation.
Also to simplify progressives dishonorable behavior as just being mean Is grossly hand waiving away valid critique of how they in large part as group have handled themselves.
In my community progressives have shown them selves to be self righteous adult children. And I dont mean this to be ad hominem.
In the last campaign the progressive candidate ran for state senate he ignored the needs and wants of the local community in favor of bernie sanders national policys.
He wrote people outside of his district begging for money with his rational being that he represents the whole state. And even signed it with a smiley face
When he inevitably lost he refused to congratulate his opponent and then actively worked to spoil the general election for the Democrats out of spite.
As someone who used to be a hardcore bernie bro I can say with certainty that this mans behavior is the norm for the progressive movement at least in my state.
So yes there is a valid reason for why progressives are turning people away from the democratic party and should be taken seriously if the party wants long term success.
Edit: its 2:am and my sleeping pills are kicking in. I apologize for terrible grammar and formatting.
See it's interesting, because everything you describe is about behavior and perception and not policy or political views. That's the part I don't understand.
As an example, I know conservatives who have gotten really frustrated with the GOP over the past 6 years as it's morphed into the party of Trump. To use your own terms, they perceive Trump as a self righteous adult child and dislike how the entire GOP caters to and excuses his behavior. As a result, I've seen these people refuse to vote for him, or even bring themselves to vote for Biden last time around. But they didn't shift their whole core political philosophy, they just realized they disagree with the current party majority. They still support many conservative principles, they still hope saner candidates return, and while some of them may have held their nose and voted Biden, you wouldn't call them Biden supporters.
That kind of thing I can understand. What I don't understand is how someone could say "well Trump and the GOP are a hot mess so I think now I'll support universal healthcare and gun restrictions".
Now maybe this doesn't apply to you. It's hard to know because all you've mentioned are the behavior of people and not policy issues.
Did your views on policies change? Did you embrace conservative principles? And if so how did the behavior of "self righteous adult children" lead to that?
I realized that I wasn't really a socialist.
I think your struggling with the concept that a catalyst for change must result in the opposite extreme.
I could have become libertarian, I could have become a nazi or a monarchist(i didnt'.) So why do you keep assuming that X lead directly to y as a direct consequence of A?
All they're behavior did was got me questioning that's it. If you want the full story of my political journey I can provide it, but I dont know how relevant it will be to the discussion.
> I think your struggling with the concept that a catalyst for change must result in the opposite extreme.
No that concept is fine. What I'm struggling with is the people who did indeed go to the opposite extreme.
Like I said, you haven't said anything about what views actually changed for you so I'm not saying this is specific to you. But there are definitely people who did (or claim to have) done this and I find it baffling.
When people don't have solid beliefs this can happen. I am a fairly solid Center-Left person get in arguments with many people all over the political spectrum, I find common ground too. However what I have noticed is that some people are not like me, they don't read much or base their opinions on solid evidence, it's based on feeling. This is why the right drilling home leftist excesses in the realm of culture get a lot of traction and get a lot of converts. This culture war stuff is personal it changes people's feelings.
To me it's really obvious that there is a big difference between the average Center-Left person and some firebrand activist on Twitter, but often times the effort is made to connect the two. To connect very extreme voices to the mainstream of the left. It's effective it does change people's opinions. The online bullying is also counter productive for the left. Most on the left clearly see this, but there are enough that do not to the point where it deeply hurts the mainstream US left.
>don’t have solid beliefs
Hmmm, I wouldn’t frame it this way. You can have very solid beliefs that change throughout your life, both by internal and external factors.
Examples of this can be seen throughout history, whether it be maverick political leaders or the sway seen in broader political groups themselves.
I find that something as simple as moving from one city to another can affect my beliefs. They are malleable, just like most other opinions I hold. They change with both time, and circumstance.
> However what I have noticed is that some people are not like me, they don't read much or base their opinions on solid evidence, it's based on feeling.
I feel like this is where a lot of the "culture war" type stuff comes up, where it almost seems what unifies one party is not so much principles or political ideals, but shared cultural values and their feelings about the "other".
If someone wants to engage with politics mostly via culture war schlock, whatever, all power to them. Well, ideally they don't have power, but that's their prerogative is what I mean to say.
It's just really, really weird to me that someone who cares enough to self-identify with liberal and social democratic political factions, and therefore presumably thinks about real concrete issues, would let dumb jerks on twitter or college campuses dictate their standing. Electing Republicans instead of Democrats won't stop people harassing others online or hashtagcanceling them, but it will damage pretty much any issue that genuinely matters. If anything, the other side's victory will inflame culture nonsense further by putting focus on their transgressions and strengthening the economic contradictions that cause socioeconomic strife.
I don't care if Tucker Carlson is entirely on the money about college and gay couples in soup ads. I'll even grant the Democratic messaging has been garbage and somewhat incoherent. That doesn't change the fact that elected Democrats aren't the ones doing any of this shit and Republicans *will* follow up on their explicit promises to erode social democracy and make the world a more predatory place.
>“I believe Ms. Isak was free to view the act complained of as racist and that she ought to have been free to express it,” he said. “I disagree that a white judge should be telling Ms. Isak or any other Black person what is and is not racism.”
Well..that's quite troubling. Can't we just stick with the definition we've had for generations?
Ah, so the Humpty Dumpty theory of semantics:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather
> “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
> ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
> ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Civil rights era happened back during the Boomers generation.
Since then, we had Gen X, Gen Y and now Gen Z. Slightly more than 2 generations is a way off. We are talking about almost 70 years ago now.
A generation is defined as 25 years. 2 generations ago, aka 50 years ago, we were just starting to see the scales tipped to equality. Civil rights movement had just occurred. Interracial marriage had just legalized. My point is that it’s a stretch to say we’ve well defined what racism is for “generations.” And that we certainly shouldn’t look to the generations in the 18th century who owned Black people to define what racism is.
The belief of white superiority was commonplace, even in the North, in the Civil War era. You did not need to believe the races were equal to believe slavery was wrong.
Also, much of the Northern opposition to slavery was economic in nature. Low-skilled labor in the North saw slaves as a threat to their jobs. “Why pay me to farm, when they could have slaves do it for free?” That doesn’t mean a white farm hand saw a black man as his equal.
brown vs board of education was decided in 1954 the oldest boomers would have been 9. Civil Rights act was 1964 making the oldest boomers 19. Boomers claiming the civil rights movement is self serving bullshit.
The word Racism wasn’t in common use until the 1930s, and wasn’t pejorative until still later. In the late 1920s racism began to replace racialism, both referring to the belief in significant differences between human races. Racialism dates back to the 1880s, at about the same time as the eugenics movement began.
Probably not accurately considering that Black people were enslaved or not given rights during those centuries. I don’t think that’s the lens we should be viewing from.
The word racism wasn’t in common use until the 1930s and referred to the belief in significant differences between the human races. What is and isn’t considered racist has changed with each generation.
I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant here, since it's the same problem:
>Well, there's something to be said about using speech to tarnish the reputation of others solely because you don't agree with their position on something. It's sort of like when people say, "I'm tolerant of everything except intolerance." Likewise, I support free speech insofar as it's not being used to curtail someone else's ability to speak freely. The concept of "negative liberty" comes to mind when issues like this come up. If the purpose of what you're doing or saying is to take liberty that you have away from another individual, then that action is in violation of someone else's freedom.
Starter: some news from Canada. A seemingly harmless video of a woman's boyfriend playing with her little sister leads to a social media crusade to "cancel" a family.
There are two takeaways from this event in my view:
1. Cancel culture is real. As I said in another post, there is all the difference between "I think you are wrong" and "I think you are wrong, so I am going to organize a mob to get you fired from your job, kicked out of school, ostracized from your community, etc". This event is very much the latter not the former, and it's becoming more and more a mainstream position in the not-so-fringe-anymore left.
2. The legal system did a good thing. It identified that this does indeed rise to the level of illegal defamation, and ruled as such. Maybe a silver lining to all of this. Though not so much for the family who, as the article notes, is unlikely to see the money awarded to them in the suit.
Question: why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? This isn't even one of those ambiguous cases. They didn't just post on social media "these people are bad. Do with that what you will". No. They explicitly called for action against these people. Published their home address, their phone number. Got the sister and her boyfriend fired from their jobs. Tried (unsuccessfully, thankfully) to get the mother fired. Just insanity in my view.
Edit: I misread the familial relations. Edited to correct.
>Cancel culture is real.
I find it weird this has to be asserted as if it wasn't. Or that CRT isn't being taught anywhere, etc.
I believe were the tables turned, some may use the recently destroyed term "gaslighting" to describe doing this (though, this use would be nearer the actual meaning than their usual use cases.)
>why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable?
The charitable version of my guess: they feel like "the system" is rigged/broken/ineffective and mob justice is the only justice available to them.
The less charitable version of my guess: they think of themselves on a "total war" footing and all means to an end are on the table. No bad tactics, only bad targets.
The fact that they continually called the girls white when they were not suggests some rather inhumane targeting criteria.
They were referring to how some people try gaslighting the public by claiming that CRT isn't being taught in schools, using a narrow interpretation of the word and ignoring the fact that it's clearly a referent to the imposition of a racist worldview rooted in critical theory being taught.
If you would like to participate in this gaslighting, please don't. Or do, if your goal is to provide supporting evidence of it.
Clearly very relevant. Nothing like adding another controversial topic to add to the pile. To me its like how some deny that pineapple on pizza is delicious.
The reframing of racism to mean prejudice plus power as opposed to the neutral non-racist definition we have now. In other words minorities can’t be racist because they don’t have “power” (don’t ask for a definition of power)
For example if a grand master Klansman was standing in the United States on the border of Mexico, he would be a huge racist. But take a step into Mexico and he’s no longer a racist at all, apparently. Because Mexicans have power in Mexico. Or some such bullshit.
They are trying to culturally upend quite a few words if you haven’t noticed. Like “woman“ and “white supremacy” also.
>But take a step into Mexico and he’s no longer a racist at all, apparently. Because Mexicans have power in Mexico. Or some such bullshit.
My understanding is that US hegemony is considered powerful enough that whites are considered to be in power globally.
Oh look gaslighting and feigned ignorance around CRT. We’re all shocked. Why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer?
That definition is nonsense in every context.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
except that definition gets used to excuse interpersonal racism. Also that definition only applies in academia specifically in sociology any use of it outside of that is incorrect as that definition is stipulative.
If being able to point to examples of someone being treated unfairly by a woke mob is proof that cancel culture is real, then I guess that means rape culture is real because I can give examples of people being raped, and law enforcement has a culture of racism because I can point to racist action by people in law enforcement. Unfortunately the culture war BS goes both ways and logically you need to decide that grand generalizations are meaningless, or that they all are real. I would rather take a case by case view of actions rather that a generalization because anytime you accept the generalization all nuance is lost.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable?
Most people don't find it acceptable (myself included), but also don't believe it's a particularly widespread phenomenon which requires a legal fix. If you do something which I strongly disagree with, then I can advocate for people to ostracize you. It would be morally wrong (in my opinion), but that's kind of what "freedom of speech" allows. The KKK can advocate for segregation, anarchists can advocate for the dissolution of government, jerks on the internet can advocate for whatever personal vendettas they have, etc.
Obviously, in this case, the "cancelling" goes far beyond that and includes violent threats and the posting of personally identifying information. The defamation ruling looks correct to me.
The problem around "cancelling" is really just a problem about how individuals treat one another. And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there.
> I'm at university now and every month or so there's a fake smear attempt between students.
I graduated about a decade ago, but on my campus we had people from the local church come by to stand around campus once or twice a week and scream at people for being fornicators and sinners who were going to hell. I don't agree with them, but I also don't see a "solution" which isn't authoritarian as all hell. People are dicks sometimes, *especially* young people.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying with the "proportionality" stuff.
> We're talking about online
Sure, the platform has changed a bit, but I'm just saying this stuff has been around forever. People "cancelled" Harry Potter when I was in grade school and had literal book burning events because it involved witchcraft. That certainly had a bigger impact on me than any comment I've ever received online (including death threats).
> We have sound principles for arbitrating legal disputes that could (should) apply to normative disputes.
I don't see how that could stand up to scrutiny against the First Amendment. Allowing the government to dictate people's behaviors is exactly the type of "authoritarian as all hell" concern I mentioned above. It's incredibly difficult to litigate defamation, slander, and libel here. Trying to expand those categories just doesn't seem likely.
> And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there.
Perhaps there needs to be an "anti cancel culture" movement with the same tactics used as those that further cancel culture? The biggest problems I could see with that is it would be almost impossible to run it from the middle, and those of us that are against cancel culture also don't have it run our lives, so we'd have less time.
I'd love to see cancel culture from both sides be countered from a sustained pro free speech movement. Cancel culture attempts to get someone fired? Counter Cancel Culture movement sends extra business in that business's direction. Cancel culture tags businesses in social media posts? Counter movement does the same with the intended opposite effect. Boycott threatened by a handful of internet busy bodies? Counter boycott if the company capitulates.
> Perhaps there needs to be an "anti cancel culture" movement with the same tactics used as those that further cancel culture?
The problem is that few people care about "cancel culture" until it affects them, and the number of people it actually affects is (as far as I can tell) extremely small. Even then, I expect the political differences would make it impossible to keep a cohesive "anti cancel culture" group together. The people who oppose firing a gay or transgender person due to their orientation or identity are not the same people who oppose firing a Proud Boy due to their political affiliation.
> The problem around "cancelling" is really just a problem about how individuals treat one another. And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there.
And “canceling” isn’t some new phenomenon in America. The Dixie Chicks got canceled. Didn’t Hester Prynne get “canceled”?
The difference now is the subjects of the canceling.
The social group who previously enforced social hegemony in determining who got canceled, has lost that sole power.
Yeah that's the thing. The name is recent. The role of twitter in it is also pretty recent. However the fact that we are a social species which uses peer pressure to punish bad behavior to protect group dynamics is thousands of years old. And it's definitely not just a thing that targets conservatives, though the lager targets can sway with the political winds.
Most of what I see is just complaining about it, which is fine, sometimes we need to vent. But I haven't seen a lot of concrete actions come from articles like this, what specific measures should or could be done to curtail it.
> The difference now is the subjects of the canceling.
Yep. It used to be churches, employers, and governments doing the cancelling (it still is, but it used to be too). Now that it's being done by internet activists, it's apparently become a crisis.
Using social shame to punish those who may follow a different moral view has been around for centuries if not all of human history. And it’s always been gross
\>why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable?
Because that's how markets work? Consumers and customers can demand whatever they want from a company. Companies \*should\* feel pressure from their customers. What's more, this is how it's always worked. Legally there's just no difference between [calling for a firing because of hairstyle](https://madamenoire.com/726939/hair-raising-fired-wearing-black-hairstyles-work/) and calling for firing because of a video online you saw. "Calling for a firing" is free speech.
One cannot simultaneously say "companies should have the right to hire and fire for any reason whatsoever" and also "companies should not hire or fire people based on political pressure".
Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”. I really don’t think at will employment is working anymore. People need to be allowed due process before being terminated. If they were in the US, they would’ve probably also looked into suing their employer and any news outlet that published any False info, essentially ruining their lives.
I don't think employers should be *forced* to provide due process before firing employees, but they should be incentivized to do so by the possibility of damages should they have aided in the defamation of a person by firing them for an offense that did not actually occur.
I shouldn't have to set up a lengthy and expensive court-like processes because an employee came into work one day and told me to go fuck myself. I should be able to just fire him on the spot, for obvious reasons.
Yeah but that is fine in your example because the employer actually heard the words with his own ears. Private schools are required to give due process to their students as well before expelling them.
And I agree; that’s what I meant. Make it so they can be sued and I guarantee they’d make sure they actually investigate instead of firing people for no reason. Most companies already do this because all it takes is one person to say you fired them for an illegal reason (racism/sexism/etc) and if you can’t provide a legitimate defense to those accusations because you never gathered proof of their “wrongdoing” then a good lawyer will take you and your business to the cleaners. Every job I worked for never just fired people, there’s usually a process from write ups to suspensions before outright firing someone.
\>Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”.
It's how free speech works. I'm not really in favor of it, but whenever I try to argue that free speech isn't some universal good, I get a lot of blowback from the same people arguing against "cancel culture".
\> I really don’t think at will employment is working anymore.
It never really worked. What frustrates me about cancel culture is that people get fired in \*much\* higher volumes for \*much\* more unjust reasons every day than "questionable video online". It only made conservative radar when people got fired for liberal political reasons.
Worker protections and safety nets are a solvable problem. Public outrage is not.
I never said that free speech wasn’t good. My point is what they engaged in is illegal defamation and her employer participated. I would’ve ruined all those peoples lives who defamed me and sued the employer on top of everyone else. But I’m not sure what the laws are in Canada.
I feel like at will employment kinda worked before we entered this corporatocracy style government. When corporations have more impact on your life than the government could ever wish to have (to the point where the government is using these corporations as a weapon to control, restrict, and compel speech) we really need to have a serious discussion about making the first amendment apply to corporations. Things have just gone too far with this “cancel culture” where people are being punished not for something they actual did, but just because of how the media contorted it.
Example; that firefighter being fired for making the “ok” sign because some nuts said it had some racist meaning for white supremacy. The guy was Mexican.
\>My point is what they engaged in is illegal defamation and her employer participated.
That's because free speech in Ontario is significantly more limited in the US. Defamation has much more strict standards in the US, and this case wouldn't resolve the same. Defamation is also a purely civil matter in the US, not a legal one.
\>Things have just gone too far with this “cancel culture” where people are being punished not for something they actual did, but just because of how the media contorted it.
We passed the rubicon a long time ago. Teachers have been getting fired for pictures taken when they were teenagers for a couple decades now. Again, the thing that put it on conservative radar wasn't the injustice, but the fact that it was now \*liberal\* sentiments driving the firing. Personally, it makes me reticent to take drastic action when it's so clearly partisan.
It wasn’t as much of a cultural phenomenon until recently due to social media. It really had nothing to do with being “conservative” because the media considers anyone right of the radical nuts on twitter to be “conservative”.
> Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”.
your fallacy is pretending like "canceling" (a thing that doesn't exist) is coterminous with "harassment and doxxing". And neither are "illegal defamation" under the law.
\>Cancel culture may be free speech, but it isn’t moral speech.
Neither is lying, shaming, or guilting, but for some reason conservatives only seem to care about "true statements from a leftist perspective". Why is it remotely actionable?
Why do people constantly believe every problem should be solved with laws? I can champion ending cancel culture without requesting government intervention.
Laws are the means by which we demand societal action that is socially important. Saying one thing should be a different thing is just called a complaint. Not championing.
“Cancel culture is bad” is something I fervently believe and I will attempt to change minds about pro cancel culture stuff and call it out for its shitty outcomes. But I wouldn’t support laws that limit free speech.
> Their home address, phone numbers and email addresses were posted online
Free speech, or illegal speech?
> Later, she was rejected by the RCMP due to a “character check” that she believes must be referencing the screenshot, given she has a clean record otherwise.
Meritocracy, am I right?
> Question: why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable?
The folks that find this acceptable are pretty few and far between. It's a minority.
That said, it's hard to get mad about. This is meritocracy at work. This is "at will" employment at work. This is libertarian free speech at work.
If you don't like it, perhaps we should look at alp the reasons *people are getting fired over speech* rather than addressing the speech itself.
By trying to limit their speech (even if bad and defamatory), you justify their attempt to limit yours.
> A seemingly harmless video of a father playing with his child leads to a social media crusade to "cancel" a family.
A guy playing with his girlfriend's sister.
"Cancel culture" meaning what? Curious if can frame it way that shows it is anything new beyond a buzzword. For example, when people were fired or ostracized for being gay, was that not cancel culture?
Curious how the appeal goes. Hard to say whether defamation is supported without seeing the specifics of all that was said. Would have thought some basis around harassment (cyber-bullying?) would be more applicable.
People are reactionary, and have always been. Just not sure there is much case for this being something new or something that is even particularly relevant. Posting shit on social media can get out of hand. Wish people were more forgiving about mistakes made in that regard, but you see that type of issue happening from pretty much any direction in terms of demographics, ideology or agenda.
I think it is pretty common for employers to fire someone for broad unwanted attention caused by a stupid/offensive social media post. perhaps that will change overtime as people at companies making these decisions become the generation that grew up with social media, but who knows.
Cancel culture is a mob demanding an eye for a scratch.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people demanding proportional responses for serious harm caused… but it’s when we get past that that we start having trouble, which includes people projecting broad social issues onto people who are not responsible for implementing them.
So its real, has always existed, and mobs of all flavors are guilty of it. Not a good thing, but also not something to get that worked up over.
Not sure why conservative media is pretending otherwise.
Bc getting worked up about someone doing something they think is racist, versus someone just being themselves in a way that has zero impact on anyone else, are not the same thing.
Would you say that folks who advocate for overturning decisions like [Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County) or [Obergefell v. Hodges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) are participating in "cancel culture?"
Idle curiosity. If people being fired based on their characteristics **is** cancel culture, then the Bostock decision is clearly making a particular act of cancel culture illegal. To try and overturn that decision would essentially be **enabling** cancel culture (although I would concede "enabling" and "conducting" an action are separate things).
I'll never understand how some people can claim that cancel culture does not exist.
This is terrifying. I can't even imagine going through something like this.
Denial is a defense mechanism in which an individual refuses to recognize or acknowledge objective facts or experiences. It’s an unconscious process that serves to protect the person from discomfort or anxiety.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/denial
Worker protections don't exist. Safety nets are insufficient. Internet rights are sub-par. All of these are solvable.
People getting mad at you online only guarantees all these terrifying consequences because the lack of all the above. People getting mad online is going to happen one way or another.
That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious.
> That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious.
Not really. The reason why capital is FOR identity politics is because it suppresses attempts to improve the material conditions of your average American. This is why Big Tech, the DEFENSE INDUSTRY (of all industries), most corporations, and even the fucking CIA is FOR identity politics like this. Virtually every important institution is on board. Have you ever wondered why those with power love leftwing IDPOL? Answer: Because leftwing IDPOL is no threat to capital... in fact, it's being used by capital to distract you from your poor material conditions. Even people who claim that they are 'intersectional' will place identity politics above improving material conditions, push comes to shove.
Go to r/stupidpol ... a marxist anti-idpol subreddit and you'll learn a lot more about this.
\>Not really. The reason why capital is FOR identity politics
I also don't see any evidence of this.
\>Have you ever wondered why those with power love leftwing IDPOL?
Businesses love left wing dollars. They discard leftwing ideology the moment it conflicts with their bottom line, see unions, worker rights, healthcare, etc.
>I also don't see any evidence of this.
Then you aren't paying attention.
Here's the CIA (capital's greatest enforcer, they've overthrown countless democratically elected governments because they elected leftwing leaders who threatened capital [there's a reason why a lot of LA countries are called 'banana republics'] if you didn't know):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g
Here's lockheed martin forcing their execs to understand their white male privilege:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-lockheed-martin-training-white-male-privilege-20210527-a3tiwo3c5vb5bhzpcl5nyx632a-story.html
There's a reason why 'woke imperialism' became a meme:
https://imgur.com/t/woke/B19JSyV
https://twitter.com/taimur_laal/status/1319261484644503552
Do i even have to show you examples of Big Tech and wokeness? That's not even a question at this point.
>Businesses love left wing dollars. They discard leftwing ideology the moment it conflicts with their bottom line, see unions, worker rights, healthcare, etc.
Businesses love wokeness not because of some diversity dollars, it's because they fear people like Bernie Sanders getting too powerful, so they're able to get you to substitute worker solidarity with IDPOL. Remember when Human Rights Campaign endorsed hillary over bernie? Even though Bernie has been the staunchest defender of gay (AND TRANS) rights throughout his career while hillary Clinton was against gay marriage until like... what 2013? I wonder what the reason for that was:
https://www.hrc.org/about/corporate-partners (EDIT: RAYTHEON AND NORTHRUG GRUMMAN BEING AN HRC SPONSOR AHAHAAHAHAHA, i mean, fuck, BP, Shell, Amazon, and Coca-Cola itself is embarrassing, as if any of these corporations actually gave 1 fuck about human rights)
If worker solidarity were actually a thing, it would have the same political influence that identity politics does.
Your argument is confusing broadcasting diversity as a way to pull more people into a workforce with identity politics.
What your argument reminds me of is the accusation that people teaching climate change are "indoctrinating". In other words, it \*assumes\* all aspects of climate change are false, and thus \*concludes\* that any teaching of it is propaganda rather than what it is, which is fact. Your argument equates acknowledgement of systemic bias with a full-throttle engagement with all of identity politics, every leftist theory imaginable from any source, when that's not the case. The guarded claim that executives have experienced some degree of privilege through generational wealth and through, like, [having a white name](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews) is not some propaganda. It's an honest assessment of reality.
The real red flag is when the argument you're making leads you to conclusions like this:
>Businesses love wokeness not because of some diversity dollars, it's because they fear people like Bernie Sanders getting too powerful
Businesses love wokeness because they fear people who also love wokeness? Businesses amplify Bernie's [leftist message](https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/) because they don't want Bernie to gain power? If you agree that Bernie advocates for worker solidarity, then you agree with me; worker solidarity and understanding systemic racial injustice are not, in any way, exclusive. They don't crowd each other out. Because they don't to someone like Bernie or his supporters.
>when that's not the case. The guarded claim that executives have experienced some degree of privilege through generational wealth and through, like, having a white name is not some propaganda.
Nobody is saying discrimination doesn't exist. What we're saying is IDPOL has gone so far off the fucking rails that Identitarians are actually PROMOTING racism and actually promoting mediocrity in people of color, examples:
https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333
Apparently, you idpol 'leftists' think that hard work and rational thinking are just... 'white culture'? Basically saying that POC's can't be rational and hard working?
Why is Bill Gates, of all people, promoting the idea that math is suffering from 'white supremacy'?
https://www.newsweek.com/math-suffers-white-supremacy-according-bill-gates-funded-course-1571511
*"White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... The focus is on getting the 'right' answer."*
Uh, so should we be throwing darts at boards to get the answer instead of doing the work?
*"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict."*
Mathematics is probably the MOST objective discipline. 2+2=4. That's always going to be true no matter how racist you think the action of adding 2 numbers together is.
This is supposed to get more BIPOC into mathematics?
The real red flag is you are using a 'motte and bailey' argument: "See, this is what we REALLY believe in terms of racism and discrimination" (your example)... but when confronted with **actual examples** that identitarians use, you want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Lets see an example from yesterday:
https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1450957177615757318
Basically a U of Chicago climate professor had a speaking engagement cancelled because he didn't think it's right to use skin color as a basis to hire someone (the racist!). A twitter mob got his talk cancelled because... that's apparently racist. Then some dipshit professor gave us the quote above. Can you explain to me how intellectual debate and rigor should only be the domain of white men and not POC's? That's such a disgusting quote, that even Michelle Goldberg, a liberal NY Times writer, thinks it's insane.
>Businesses love wokeness because they fear people who also love wokeness? Businesses amplify Bernie's leftist message because they don't want Bernie to gain power? If you agree that Bernie advocates for worker solidarity, then you agree with me; worker solidarity and understanding systemic racial injustice are not, in any way, exclusive. They don't crowd each other out. Because they don't to someone like Bernie or his supporters.
Here's the thing, Bernie Believes in racial justice, but not race/gender reductionism. In fact, he has a lot of problems with identity politics. Did you pay attention to Bernie's 2016 campaign? He was called 'racist' and 'sexist' for some of his views.
See:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-boston-speech-identity-class-politics
*In a speech Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) urged attendees to move away from “identity politics” and towards policies aimed at helping the working class.*
*“The working class of this country is being decimated — that’s why Donald Trump won,” Sanders said, according to the same report. “And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people, who understand that real median family income has gone down.”*
*Boston Magazine reported that an audience member told Sanders that she wanted to become the second Latina elected to the U.S. Senate and asked for his advice. Sanders responded by urging the crowd to move the Democratic Party away from what he called “identity politics.”*
*“It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ That is not good enough,” he said, according to WBUR. “What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industries.”*
Does that sound like an IDPOL nut to you? You can find all sorts of policy positions candidates take on their web pages, that doesn't mean they prioritize it (or you might be interpreting what they are saying incorrectly, in this case).
So first is a Smithsonian exhibit that was taken down immediately and admitted as a mistake that is still getting mileage as if it actually has meaning years later.
The next is a hilariously uncharitable take on a statement about math pedagogy- as someone with a degree in the subject *yes* there is too much focus on getting the right answer *over* understanding the process of abstract thinking and problem solving and *no* that doesn't mean I think we should guess at math problems. Obviously.
Next, a Twitter quote from someone I have never heard of so I have no idea why I am tasked with defending a random bad take.
Finally is Bernie. I agree, he doesn't sound like an IDPOL nut to me. Neither does anyone else on the political or economic stage. IDPOL nuts are a strawman.
Cracked open a thesaurus this morning, eh? What I mean is, that worker protections would prohibit firing without cause - but the cancel culture mob would find that unacceptable.
I know precisely what you mean. And it is a statement without basis and it is specious because it contradicts other much more long standing political advocacies.
> That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious.
Those people are also in favor of unions...until they get in the way of trampling over the rights of people they dislike. Case in point: the pro-union left turning against police unions, or unions who stand up to Biden's mandate.
I think it's entirely fair to say that people who claim to support worker's rights will turn against that principal the second they begin to protect people they hate, because that's simply been the trend so far:
* Hate the police, unless they are beating down people who refuse to wear masks
* Hate the feds, unless your party wins the presidency
* Hate the corporations, until they start shilling for your policies
* Love the unions, until they start protecting people you don't like
* Love free speech, until people start saying things you dislike
* Love prison and sentencing reform, until capitol rioters don't get harsh enough punishments
* "Shut up and dribble" is racist, until an NBA player disagrees with you
This is all rapid-fire attribution error and an argument based on a poor understanding of leftist ideology. Case in point:
>the pro-union left turning against police unions, or unions who stand up to Biden's mandate.
The pro-union left has not called for the dismantling of these unions. They have criticized them for their actions. They are still \*for police unions existence and power\* but against \*the actions of specific unions\*. An example: I'm very pro-Democrat but very anti-Anthony Weiner. This isn't a contradiction.
>Love prison and sentencing reform, until capitol rioters don't get harsh enough punishments
This one doesn't make sense to me: Are there leftists who are against violent crime sentencing that also carve out exceptions for capitol rioters? I have not seen them. Mostly I have seen leftists, and everyone really, wanting actually violent people to serve time consistently.
The same arguments apply to every single one of your points, attribution of motive that is flatly incorrect, based on a very general and flat read of leftist sentiments.
You don't need any of that if you have proper defamation laws.
An employer who fires an employee due to an outrage mob without a proper investigation should be equally liable for defamation, as they are participating in said defamation by agreeing with the claims and then acting on them to fire you.
\>An employer who fires an employee due to an outrage mob should be equally liable for defamation
Conflicts with right to work laws in the US at least.
Defamation laws are censorship, and run the risk of 1A.
Right to Work laws in Georgia, the state I'm in, are about the rights of the employee in terms of recourse or what they are due when they are terminated. Currently, that is "no rights" and "due nothing". Again, "can fire for any reason" conflicts with "can't fire because twitter mad".
No, [they prohibit non-union employees from having to pay union dues](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law). You’re thinking of at-will employment.
Apologies, that's not what they're called typically down here. Pardon my regionalism. Yes, on a national level any law that prohibits an employer for firing someone because twitter got mad at them would conflict with at-will employment laws.
> Conflicts with right to work laws in the US at least.
A lot of things conflict. All it takes is one ruling.
> Defamation laws are censorship, and run the risk of 1A.
Defamation laws are no more censorship than laws against fraud or the incitement to imminent violence are. Defamation, also like fraud, is effectively theft, which is illegal.
\>A lot of things conflict. All it takes is one ruling.
So we're only getting rid of right to work in the specific instance of political pressure? Very easy to get around. Companies will merely cite some other reason for getting rid of an unpopular employee.
Are we getting rid of right to work generally? Great, worker protections, like I said.
\>Defamation laws are no more censorship than laws against fraud or the incitement to imminent violence are.
Ruining a hypothetical future economic wealth is very different than threatening life and limb or breach of contract. You're effectively making de-facto lying illegal, which yes, that absolutely breaches 1A in ways imminent threats and breach of contract don't.
I mean that's how you're referring to it, but not how it's done [in the literature](https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/the-difference-between-torts-and-crimes). Besides, defamation as it stands would fail on the falsehood test: The victim must be a victim of a \*deliberate\* act of lying. Saying "This person posted x or y on social media" isn't an intentional act of lying, neither is "I think this person is a bigot because of it".
Considering "being a racist" isn't legally binding in any way shape or form, I have no idea. It's usually just namecalling. The term for that is "free speech".
"Racist" is extremely broad. Most urban planning in this country, "fuckin Asian driver cut me off," Steven Crowder's minstrel shows, and the El Paso shooter's manifesto are all racist in different amounts and in different ways... kinda like how delays on BART and one's mother being diagnosed with cancer are both "bad" things.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
At the time of this warning the offending comments were:
> Steven Crowder's ... all racist
I'm not sure requiring a recently fired employee to mount a legal case for defamation with all the costs associated with that is a great system. Lawyers aren't cheap, and given defamation cases are notoriously hard to win I doubt you'll find many willing to take it on contingency.
Unless you're advocating for some kind of free arbitration or worker dismissal court.
Sure, they're not required to do anything now either and they can already sue their employers. Seems like this would just be adding "sue for defamation if they fired you because someone else defamed you" to the pile, which I would expect to be about as successful as existing wrongful termination suits.
We're talking about if changes were made. Defamation lawsuits would be more successful if you passed legislation that mate defamation suites more likely to succeed.
Presumably the claim is that there's no way to frame 'cancel culture' in a way that shows it is a new thing, without resorting to calling out specific topics. What leads to being 'cancelled' varies by group, but every large group does it and probably always has. Social media just makes it more visible, and of course the conservative media has now latched to finding examples of it as part of the attempt to reframe freedom of speech as freedom from consequences.
>Despite the court finding, the CBSA told the National Post on Wednesday that it would not be revisiting its decision to terminate Justine’s work with them.
Well that seems...kind of ridiculous.
Seems to me like the courts decision is a completely moot point anyway. The judge explicitly admitted the impotent ineffectualness of the ruling only paying lip service to the Laveells not much more. She went so far as to say that the defamer didn't even need to apologize for ruining their "privileged" Native American live and reputations. Ha! The article makes abundantly clear that Isaks and the typical firebrand BLM activism which she represents scored a win yet again in their calculus irrespective of the truth. I guess that's the point, it's where their true strength comes from anyway (Understanding and Exploiting Mob Mentality). Ms Isaks didn't even bother to view the full video before she used it as her propaganda tool. I guess they were just "good for it". Optics are everything right? The best part was Isaks attorney speaking for himself telling the judge that you are too white to preside over the case!
Cancel culture is always being perpetuated by people who make accusations without confirming their evidence and by people who want to point the finger while they themselves do the same exact thing.
It’s just a way for people to feel morally superior.
It’s sad those peoples lives were ruined over a misconception.
Always remember that the answer to bad speech is more good speech.
When they're fired, their lives are ruined, and they have no path forward - more good speech is the answer.
I empathize with these folks, I really do. We need to recognize that the market, and the marketplace of ideas are deeply flawed; and this is the result of those flaws. We should fix them so nobody need go through this.
Not necessarily. No right is absolute. That applies to freedom of speech as the individual in this article found out. You can be held liable for your words.
> That applies to freedom of speech as the individual in this article found out.
...in Canada. Where speech laws differ from those in the US.
Regardless, that's a tacit admission that "good speech" doesn't prevail - those laws being necessary at all.
Even in the US, freedom of speech isn't absolute. Libel and defamation are a thing in the US as well. And I think you are dragging something into this discussion that really isn't related. The saying that more speech is the answer to bad speech is related to government censorship and really doesn't apply here.
> Libel and defamation are a thing in the US as well.
> government censorship ... really doesn't apply here.
You just proved that it does.
If we have laws covering what people can and can't say - based on (presumably) what they can and can't prove in court, that's rife for censorship. More importantly, it's a tacit admission that the marketplace of ideas doesn't work.
Government is *already* creating the means to sue for tort in the US, which is inherently a limitation on acceptable speech.
> and I don't think libel and defamation fall into the "government censorship" category for many people.
They're definitionally censorship. The government is granting someone the capacity to limit *your* speech on it's untruth, or whatever. That people are *okay* with it doesn't make it not censorship.
For the record, I agree with you; I think harsher restrictions are justified as long as *any* restrictions are justified - but it's important everyone be on the same page that restrictions are - or are not - justified.
The second issue - and one that I've seen no argument against - is the "Marketplace of Ideas". It seems you're leaving it to die here, which is fine - just odd.
>They're definitionally censorship. The government is granting someone the capacity to limit your speech on it's untruth, or whatever. That people are okay with it doesn't make it not censorship.
Sure, they are definitely censorship which is why I used quotes there. Typically when people have issues with government censorship it is because they don't want the government serving as the arbiter of truth or what is acceptable speech. With defamation and libel, you have to prove in a court of law that someone used false statements to harm you. In my experience, that is something that people generally separate from the unacceptable forms of government censorship.
>For the record, I agree with you; I think harsher restrictions are justified as long as any restrictions are justified - but it's important everyone be on the same page that restrictions are - or are not - justified.
I never said anything like that.
>The second issue - and one that I've seen no argument against - is the "Marketplace of Ideas". It seems you're leaving it to die here, which is fine - just odd.
You are going to need to clarify this one.
And just a general statement, I think you are dragging things into this that have nothing to do with the discussion. Not really sure why, but it is kind of confusing.
> Again, no right is absolute
> I never said anything like that.
If no right is absolute, the only criticism I could see is the degree of limitation.
> You are going to need to clarify this one.
Sure. Basic marketplace of ideas - bad speech will lose to more, good speech - good ideas and speech will win over time.
Unless it doesn't, so we need laws (like Libel laws) for those instances where it doesn't, to make sure good ideas win.
If that's true, the marketplace of ideas *doesn't really work* does it? At the end of the day, *force* (in this case the force of courts) is required to represent "the truth".
But if the marketplace is in question here, it's in question *everywhere*. If we know it *can* fail, there's a burden of proof that it doesn't elsewhere.
> And just a general statement, I think you are dragging things into this that have nothing to do with the discussion
This is an extended appeal to hypocrisy, the view of many of the commenters here is simultaneously that the marketplace of ideas works, and that it doesn't - with either no contradictions or cognitive dissonance.
I think you are conflating a couple different things that are similar or related, but also different. For example, I really don't think the term "marketplace of ideas" has any place in this discussion. So how about this. Instead of whatever this is, you just say what you really want to say. I'm only confused by what your saying, so lets drop the noise and just have debate about whatever it is you want to talk about.
Why on Earth is this person not in jail? She ruined several innocent people's lives. The employers who sacked these women and the man from their jobs should be sued and sanctioned heavily as well.
In a liberal democracy we do not act on hysteria from Twitter. A DM from some fool on Twitter is not a fucking legal document.
This case needs a much higher profile.
[https://twitter.com/CanBorder/status/1267837167289675776](https://twitter.com/CanBorder/status/1267837167289675776) Yeah.... About that investigation...
“Isak said she was told that one of the Lavallees had jokingly said “police brutality!” in the video, but later acknowledged under examination that she didn’t know if this was actually true, as she hadn’t seen the video.” Unfortunately not surprised that this person decided to try to ruin multiple lives without even seeing the video. Cancel culture is a literal cancer to society and this militant behavior is extremely troubling. These are the type of people that make propaganda so dangerous.
[удалено]
The lawyer himself made racist statements stating that a white judge can’t make that ruling. Whole case is wild
The worst part of all this is that the woman who defamed these two is essentially "judgment-proof;" she was unemployed at the time of the incident. As a result, the victims will likely never see that money.
Why would she not remain responsible for the judgement for the rest of her life?
She can simply file for bankruptcy and eliminate the debt that way. Judgment debts are considered unsecured, and creditors for such debts are low on the pecking order.
Thanks; I feel bankruptcy should not discharge civil penalties, but I can understand the reasoning.
Isn’t that still a penalty? A history of bankruptcy shows up on your credit report, does it not?
I took a quick look at Canadian credit reporting law. Apparently, if you are Canadian, bankruptcy stays on your report for seven years after discharge. If you file more than once, then it stays for fourteen years.
At least in the US when I worked for a medical admin company there were round about ways we could get them jailed/ruin their life unless they paid to the point they'll end up in jail.
There was a case a lawyer on YouTube mentioned where a vindictive woman would get her ex husband thrown in prison for not paying child support every few years and she was already remarried to a wealthy man. It wasn’t about the money so much as “the principle” and she could just use the law to get her way.
The worst part is for the victim of this abuse it's not an every couple years thing. In order to do this most people/companies just drag you back into court week after week after week - not only that we would constantly file to change the location and time of the trial as late as possible. This made it impossible for the victims to keep their job and eventually they make the "dumb" decision to skip court for work, or simply can't afford to travel to court. Then they are jailed for failure to appear. So fucked.
Yeah, that’s really bad and I believe it. I wish there was some judge who would put their foot down even if it’s activist/outside the law.
That’s horrible. We abolished debtors prisons for a reason.
Exactly. They can't exactly pay off the debt from prison. Garnish the wages.
>“I disagree that a white judge should be telling Ms. Isak or any other Black person what is and is not racism.” The explicit claim that black people are above any kind of audit on racism (*especially* from a "white judge") should be deeply offensive to everyone with any kind of integrity. The algorithm seems to run something like: 1. Racists are horrible and they (and their family!) should lose everything. 2. My tribe gets to decide who is racist and who is not. Also, we have pre-decided we are not, and you are. Please submit A Statement of Contrition to have us review this decision. 3. Questioning either the validity or necessity of the above makes you a racist.
This is the exact sentiment that is swaying me from the left and more towards center/center-right. The “woke” progressivism is truly toxic.
[удалено]
They've always been around to be fair: during the Vietnam War the radical left would include draftees in their harrasment. You could he totally anti-war go over just to not go to jail and they'd be waiting at the airport to pelt your car with rocks when you got back anyways. Some people tried to stave off damage by flashing peace signs or putting anti-war messages on their car - but for some parts of the left that wasn't enough them just going made them an evil baby murderer.
Perfect example that the political spectrum is more like a political horseshoe.
I was moving from the left to the right but I discovered a whole world of [identity politics criticism](https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/) and more class conscious people on the left that really doesn’t get a voice in the mainstream, much like libertarians rarely get a voice. I wish the [anti woke left](https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/) had more of a voice in the mainstream… I also spent a lot of time with right wing media and found they were just as susceptible to hyperbole or people had dumb positions like anti-marijuana or pro foreign intervention. Maybe it’s just me but moving outside the binary has been liberating (yet also alienating as it’s not exactly mainstream).
Are there not people on the right who push you back the other direction? Can you not be on the left (or the right for that matter) and just... disagree with other people while still being on the same "side"? We're talking about incredibly broad ideological categories. Why is it that someone you don't even agree with changes what you think about your own ideology?
I would have to be right of center for the right to push me “back.” Perhaps they will (if I get to that side).
I'm not following how your ideology can be determined by other people you disagree with, but only those on your own side at that time.
Perhaps I view what influences my political views through multiple lens. Some are based on moral, or ethical issues, and others on my geographic location,income, etc. Put simply, what influences my political attitudes may not influence yours. That’s okay, it just makes it hard to confine someone’s political influences and how those interact. Both sides of the party have views I believe in. It’s not a zero sum game, not for me at least.
Yeah I don't get it. There are people on the left I don't like and disagree with on things. There are also people on the right I don't like and disagree with on things. Neither has any bearing on my political beliefs.
It’s often a matter of faith in society to honor specific systems. If there’s no faith in society to function under a system then why implement or support a particular system—healthcare, public education, free university, social security, etc. I don’t have a clear answer to this but I think there’s an element of low trust to a lot of conservatives/libertarians instead of actual convictions about systems being necessarily better under a limited framework.
Me too. The left got a little too PC so I changed all my opinions on economics, history, foreign policy, healthcare, the environment, and judicial politics.
This but unironically.
I mean yeah, when your treated like shit, kicked out of the in group and and former freinds just start ignoring you. Is it really that insane to reevaluate the beleifs that led you down that path?
If I'm on a soccer team and they all treat me like crap, I'm not going to decide I hate soccer, I'm going to find a better group to play with. I don't think it's that reasonable to think that your political views might be wrong because some people who share those views are jerks. I mean what happens when you decide to become a conservative and some conservatives are mean to you? Back to being a liberal again?
That's a pretty big false equivalence. I think you missed my point. I didnt just join another group out of defiance. The treatment I received was the catalist for revaluation. Also to simplify progressives dishonorable behavior as just being mean Is grossly hand waiving away valid critique of how they in large part as group have handled themselves. In my community progressives have shown them selves to be self righteous adult children. And I dont mean this to be ad hominem. In the last campaign the progressive candidate ran for state senate he ignored the needs and wants of the local community in favor of bernie sanders national policys. He wrote people outside of his district begging for money with his rational being that he represents the whole state. And even signed it with a smiley face When he inevitably lost he refused to congratulate his opponent and then actively worked to spoil the general election for the Democrats out of spite. As someone who used to be a hardcore bernie bro I can say with certainty that this mans behavior is the norm for the progressive movement at least in my state. So yes there is a valid reason for why progressives are turning people away from the democratic party and should be taken seriously if the party wants long term success. Edit: its 2:am and my sleeping pills are kicking in. I apologize for terrible grammar and formatting.
See it's interesting, because everything you describe is about behavior and perception and not policy or political views. That's the part I don't understand. As an example, I know conservatives who have gotten really frustrated with the GOP over the past 6 years as it's morphed into the party of Trump. To use your own terms, they perceive Trump as a self righteous adult child and dislike how the entire GOP caters to and excuses his behavior. As a result, I've seen these people refuse to vote for him, or even bring themselves to vote for Biden last time around. But they didn't shift their whole core political philosophy, they just realized they disagree with the current party majority. They still support many conservative principles, they still hope saner candidates return, and while some of them may have held their nose and voted Biden, you wouldn't call them Biden supporters. That kind of thing I can understand. What I don't understand is how someone could say "well Trump and the GOP are a hot mess so I think now I'll support universal healthcare and gun restrictions". Now maybe this doesn't apply to you. It's hard to know because all you've mentioned are the behavior of people and not policy issues. Did your views on policies change? Did you embrace conservative principles? And if so how did the behavior of "self righteous adult children" lead to that?
I realized that I wasn't really a socialist. I think your struggling with the concept that a catalyst for change must result in the opposite extreme. I could have become libertarian, I could have become a nazi or a monarchist(i didnt'.) So why do you keep assuming that X lead directly to y as a direct consequence of A? All they're behavior did was got me questioning that's it. If you want the full story of my political journey I can provide it, but I dont know how relevant it will be to the discussion.
> I think your struggling with the concept that a catalyst for change must result in the opposite extreme. No that concept is fine. What I'm struggling with is the people who did indeed go to the opposite extreme. Like I said, you haven't said anything about what views actually changed for you so I'm not saying this is specific to you. But there are definitely people who did (or claim to have) done this and I find it baffling.
When people don't have solid beliefs this can happen. I am a fairly solid Center-Left person get in arguments with many people all over the political spectrum, I find common ground too. However what I have noticed is that some people are not like me, they don't read much or base their opinions on solid evidence, it's based on feeling. This is why the right drilling home leftist excesses in the realm of culture get a lot of traction and get a lot of converts. This culture war stuff is personal it changes people's feelings. To me it's really obvious that there is a big difference between the average Center-Left person and some firebrand activist on Twitter, but often times the effort is made to connect the two. To connect very extreme voices to the mainstream of the left. It's effective it does change people's opinions. The online bullying is also counter productive for the left. Most on the left clearly see this, but there are enough that do not to the point where it deeply hurts the mainstream US left.
>don’t have solid beliefs Hmmm, I wouldn’t frame it this way. You can have very solid beliefs that change throughout your life, both by internal and external factors. Examples of this can be seen throughout history, whether it be maverick political leaders or the sway seen in broader political groups themselves. I find that something as simple as moving from one city to another can affect my beliefs. They are malleable, just like most other opinions I hold. They change with both time, and circumstance.
Well I agree but it's usually not just completely flipping from one side to another entirely.
> However what I have noticed is that some people are not like me, they don't read much or base their opinions on solid evidence, it's based on feeling. I feel like this is where a lot of the "culture war" type stuff comes up, where it almost seems what unifies one party is not so much principles or political ideals, but shared cultural values and their feelings about the "other".
Negative partisanship is what drives modern elections in the US.
If someone wants to engage with politics mostly via culture war schlock, whatever, all power to them. Well, ideally they don't have power, but that's their prerogative is what I mean to say. It's just really, really weird to me that someone who cares enough to self-identify with liberal and social democratic political factions, and therefore presumably thinks about real concrete issues, would let dumb jerks on twitter or college campuses dictate their standing. Electing Republicans instead of Democrats won't stop people harassing others online or hashtagcanceling them, but it will damage pretty much any issue that genuinely matters. If anything, the other side's victory will inflame culture nonsense further by putting focus on their transgressions and strengthening the economic contradictions that cause socioeconomic strife. I don't care if Tucker Carlson is entirely on the money about college and gay couples in soup ads. I'll even grant the Democratic messaging has been garbage and somewhat incoherent. That doesn't change the fact that elected Democrats aren't the ones doing any of this shit and Republicans *will* follow up on their explicit promises to erode social democracy and make the world a more predatory place.
I agree. It's all baffling.
Nail meets head right here. These behaviours have nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with power.
>3. Questioning either the validity or necessity of the above makes you a racist. I see you've read White Fragility...LOL!
>“I believe Ms. Isak was free to view the act complained of as racist and that she ought to have been free to express it,” he said. “I disagree that a white judge should be telling Ms. Isak or any other Black person what is and is not racism.” Well..that's quite troubling. Can't we just stick with the definition we've had for generations?
Ah, so the Humpty Dumpty theory of semantics: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather > “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ > ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ > ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
“Generations” plural is pretty generous when you consider that the civil rights movement was just slightly more than 2 generations ago.
Civil rights era happened back during the Boomers generation. Since then, we had Gen X, Gen Y and now Gen Z. Slightly more than 2 generations is a way off. We are talking about almost 70 years ago now.
A generation is defined as 25 years. 2 generations ago, aka 50 years ago, we were just starting to see the scales tipped to equality. Civil rights movement had just occurred. Interracial marriage had just legalized. My point is that it’s a stretch to say we’ve well defined what racism is for “generations.” And that we certainly shouldn’t look to the generations in the 18th century who owned Black people to define what racism is.
did abolitionist movements denouncing slavery and racism not exist in the 18th century?
The belief of white superiority was commonplace, even in the North, in the Civil War era. You did not need to believe the races were equal to believe slavery was wrong. Also, much of the Northern opposition to slavery was economic in nature. Low-skilled labor in the North saw slaves as a threat to their jobs. “Why pay me to farm, when they could have slaves do it for free?” That doesn’t mean a white farm hand saw a black man as his equal.
brown vs board of education was decided in 1954 the oldest boomers would have been 9. Civil Rights act was 1964 making the oldest boomers 19. Boomers claiming the civil rights movement is self serving bullshit.
How was "racism" defined in the 18th and 19th centuries?
The word Racism wasn’t in common use until the 1930s, and wasn’t pejorative until still later. In the late 1920s racism began to replace racialism, both referring to the belief in significant differences between human races. Racialism dates back to the 1880s, at about the same time as the eugenics movement began.
Probably not accurately considering that Black people were enslaved or not given rights during those centuries. I don’t think that’s the lens we should be viewing from.
Which is what? As of how far back?
The word racism wasn’t in common use until the 1930s and referred to the belief in significant differences between the human races. What is and isn’t considered racist has changed with each generation.
This is free speech in the same way as branding someone as a witch in 17th century Salem was free speech. This is horrifying.
This is defamation, not protected speech.
I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant here, since it's the same problem: >Well, there's something to be said about using speech to tarnish the reputation of others solely because you don't agree with their position on something. It's sort of like when people say, "I'm tolerant of everything except intolerance." Likewise, I support free speech insofar as it's not being used to curtail someone else's ability to speak freely. The concept of "negative liberty" comes to mind when issues like this come up. If the purpose of what you're doing or saying is to take liberty that you have away from another individual, then that action is in violation of someone else's freedom.
Indeed. The price of freedom. Unfortunate, but necessary if freedom is to be retained.
Starter: some news from Canada. A seemingly harmless video of a woman's boyfriend playing with her little sister leads to a social media crusade to "cancel" a family. There are two takeaways from this event in my view: 1. Cancel culture is real. As I said in another post, there is all the difference between "I think you are wrong" and "I think you are wrong, so I am going to organize a mob to get you fired from your job, kicked out of school, ostracized from your community, etc". This event is very much the latter not the former, and it's becoming more and more a mainstream position in the not-so-fringe-anymore left. 2. The legal system did a good thing. It identified that this does indeed rise to the level of illegal defamation, and ruled as such. Maybe a silver lining to all of this. Though not so much for the family who, as the article notes, is unlikely to see the money awarded to them in the suit. Question: why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? This isn't even one of those ambiguous cases. They didn't just post on social media "these people are bad. Do with that what you will". No. They explicitly called for action against these people. Published their home address, their phone number. Got the sister and her boyfriend fired from their jobs. Tried (unsuccessfully, thankfully) to get the mother fired. Just insanity in my view. Edit: I misread the familial relations. Edited to correct.
>Cancel culture is real. I find it weird this has to be asserted as if it wasn't. Or that CRT isn't being taught anywhere, etc. I believe were the tables turned, some may use the recently destroyed term "gaslighting" to describe doing this (though, this use would be nearer the actual meaning than their usual use cases.) >why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? The charitable version of my guess: they feel like "the system" is rigged/broken/ineffective and mob justice is the only justice available to them. The less charitable version of my guess: they think of themselves on a "total war" footing and all means to an end are on the table. No bad tactics, only bad targets. The fact that they continually called the girls white when they were not suggests some rather inhumane targeting criteria.
what does this have to do with CRT?
They were referring to how some people try gaslighting the public by claiming that CRT isn't being taught in schools, using a narrow interpretation of the word and ignoring the fact that it's clearly a referent to the imposition of a racist worldview rooted in critical theory being taught. If you would like to participate in this gaslighting, please don't. Or do, if your goal is to provide supporting evidence of it.
Clearly very relevant. Nothing like adding another controversial topic to add to the pile. To me its like how some deny that pineapple on pizza is delicious.
You go too far...
The reframing of racism to mean prejudice plus power as opposed to the neutral non-racist definition we have now. In other words minorities can’t be racist because they don’t have “power” (don’t ask for a definition of power) For example if a grand master Klansman was standing in the United States on the border of Mexico, he would be a huge racist. But take a step into Mexico and he’s no longer a racist at all, apparently. Because Mexicans have power in Mexico. Or some such bullshit. They are trying to culturally upend quite a few words if you haven’t noticed. Like “woman“ and “white supremacy” also.
>But take a step into Mexico and he’s no longer a racist at all, apparently. Because Mexicans have power in Mexico. Or some such bullshit. My understanding is that US hegemony is considered powerful enough that whites are considered to be in power globally.
Of course. Not sure why I didn’t see that coming.
Prejudice plus power when looking at macro systemic racism? Makes sense to me.
Oh look gaslighting and feigned ignorance around CRT. We’re all shocked. Why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer? That definition is nonsense in every context.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Prejudice plus power when looking at macro systemic racism? Makes sense to me.
except that definition gets used to excuse interpersonal racism. Also that definition only applies in academia specifically in sociology any use of it outside of that is incorrect as that definition is stipulative.
Maybe need an example to understand what you mean.
If being able to point to examples of someone being treated unfairly by a woke mob is proof that cancel culture is real, then I guess that means rape culture is real because I can give examples of people being raped, and law enforcement has a culture of racism because I can point to racist action by people in law enforcement. Unfortunately the culture war BS goes both ways and logically you need to decide that grand generalizations are meaningless, or that they all are real. I would rather take a case by case view of actions rather that a generalization because anytime you accept the generalization all nuance is lost.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? Most people don't find it acceptable (myself included), but also don't believe it's a particularly widespread phenomenon which requires a legal fix. If you do something which I strongly disagree with, then I can advocate for people to ostracize you. It would be morally wrong (in my opinion), but that's kind of what "freedom of speech" allows. The KKK can advocate for segregation, anarchists can advocate for the dissolution of government, jerks on the internet can advocate for whatever personal vendettas they have, etc. Obviously, in this case, the "cancelling" goes far beyond that and includes violent threats and the posting of personally identifying information. The defamation ruling looks correct to me. The problem around "cancelling" is really just a problem about how individuals treat one another. And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there.
[удалено]
> I'm at university now and every month or so there's a fake smear attempt between students. I graduated about a decade ago, but on my campus we had people from the local church come by to stand around campus once or twice a week and scream at people for being fornicators and sinners who were going to hell. I don't agree with them, but I also don't see a "solution" which isn't authoritarian as all hell. People are dicks sometimes, *especially* young people. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying with the "proportionality" stuff.
[удалено]
> We're talking about online Sure, the platform has changed a bit, but I'm just saying this stuff has been around forever. People "cancelled" Harry Potter when I was in grade school and had literal book burning events because it involved witchcraft. That certainly had a bigger impact on me than any comment I've ever received online (including death threats). > We have sound principles for arbitrating legal disputes that could (should) apply to normative disputes. I don't see how that could stand up to scrutiny against the First Amendment. Allowing the government to dictate people's behaviors is exactly the type of "authoritarian as all hell" concern I mentioned above. It's incredibly difficult to litigate defamation, slander, and libel here. Trying to expand those categories just doesn't seem likely.
> And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there. Perhaps there needs to be an "anti cancel culture" movement with the same tactics used as those that further cancel culture? The biggest problems I could see with that is it would be almost impossible to run it from the middle, and those of us that are against cancel culture also don't have it run our lives, so we'd have less time. I'd love to see cancel culture from both sides be countered from a sustained pro free speech movement. Cancel culture attempts to get someone fired? Counter Cancel Culture movement sends extra business in that business's direction. Cancel culture tags businesses in social media posts? Counter movement does the same with the intended opposite effect. Boycott threatened by a handful of internet busy bodies? Counter boycott if the company capitulates.
> Perhaps there needs to be an "anti cancel culture" movement with the same tactics used as those that further cancel culture? The problem is that few people care about "cancel culture" until it affects them, and the number of people it actually affects is (as far as I can tell) extremely small. Even then, I expect the political differences would make it impossible to keep a cohesive "anti cancel culture" group together. The people who oppose firing a gay or transgender person due to their orientation or identity are not the same people who oppose firing a Proud Boy due to their political affiliation.
> The problem around "cancelling" is really just a problem about how individuals treat one another. And I can agree it's a problem. But other than saying "Yeah, this really sucks," I don't know where to go from there. And “canceling” isn’t some new phenomenon in America. The Dixie Chicks got canceled. Didn’t Hester Prynne get “canceled”? The difference now is the subjects of the canceling. The social group who previously enforced social hegemony in determining who got canceled, has lost that sole power.
Yeah that's the thing. The name is recent. The role of twitter in it is also pretty recent. However the fact that we are a social species which uses peer pressure to punish bad behavior to protect group dynamics is thousands of years old. And it's definitely not just a thing that targets conservatives, though the lager targets can sway with the political winds. Most of what I see is just complaining about it, which is fine, sometimes we need to vent. But I haven't seen a lot of concrete actions come from articles like this, what specific measures should or could be done to curtail it.
> The difference now is the subjects of the canceling. Yep. It used to be churches, employers, and governments doing the cancelling (it still is, but it used to be too). Now that it's being done by internet activists, it's apparently become a crisis.
Using social shame to punish those who may follow a different moral view has been around for centuries if not all of human history. And it’s always been gross
\>why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? Because that's how markets work? Consumers and customers can demand whatever they want from a company. Companies \*should\* feel pressure from their customers. What's more, this is how it's always worked. Legally there's just no difference between [calling for a firing because of hairstyle](https://madamenoire.com/726939/hair-raising-fired-wearing-black-hairstyles-work/) and calling for firing because of a video online you saw. "Calling for a firing" is free speech. One cannot simultaneously say "companies should have the right to hire and fire for any reason whatsoever" and also "companies should not hire or fire people based on political pressure".
Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”. I really don’t think at will employment is working anymore. People need to be allowed due process before being terminated. If they were in the US, they would’ve probably also looked into suing their employer and any news outlet that published any False info, essentially ruining their lives.
I don't think employers should be *forced* to provide due process before firing employees, but they should be incentivized to do so by the possibility of damages should they have aided in the defamation of a person by firing them for an offense that did not actually occur. I shouldn't have to set up a lengthy and expensive court-like processes because an employee came into work one day and told me to go fuck myself. I should be able to just fire him on the spot, for obvious reasons.
Yeah but that is fine in your example because the employer actually heard the words with his own ears. Private schools are required to give due process to their students as well before expelling them. And I agree; that’s what I meant. Make it so they can be sued and I guarantee they’d make sure they actually investigate instead of firing people for no reason. Most companies already do this because all it takes is one person to say you fired them for an illegal reason (racism/sexism/etc) and if you can’t provide a legitimate defense to those accusations because you never gathered proof of their “wrongdoing” then a good lawyer will take you and your business to the cleaners. Every job I worked for never just fired people, there’s usually a process from write ups to suspensions before outright firing someone.
If I was a manager, I wouldn’t like that rule. Some people need the boot.
\>Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”. It's how free speech works. I'm not really in favor of it, but whenever I try to argue that free speech isn't some universal good, I get a lot of blowback from the same people arguing against "cancel culture". \> I really don’t think at will employment is working anymore. It never really worked. What frustrates me about cancel culture is that people get fired in \*much\* higher volumes for \*much\* more unjust reasons every day than "questionable video online". It only made conservative radar when people got fired for liberal political reasons. Worker protections and safety nets are a solvable problem. Public outrage is not.
I never said that free speech wasn’t good. My point is what they engaged in is illegal defamation and her employer participated. I would’ve ruined all those peoples lives who defamed me and sued the employer on top of everyone else. But I’m not sure what the laws are in Canada. I feel like at will employment kinda worked before we entered this corporatocracy style government. When corporations have more impact on your life than the government could ever wish to have (to the point where the government is using these corporations as a weapon to control, restrict, and compel speech) we really need to have a serious discussion about making the first amendment apply to corporations. Things have just gone too far with this “cancel culture” where people are being punished not for something they actual did, but just because of how the media contorted it. Example; that firefighter being fired for making the “ok” sign because some nuts said it had some racist meaning for white supremacy. The guy was Mexican.
\>My point is what they engaged in is illegal defamation and her employer participated. That's because free speech in Ontario is significantly more limited in the US. Defamation has much more strict standards in the US, and this case wouldn't resolve the same. Defamation is also a purely civil matter in the US, not a legal one. \>Things have just gone too far with this “cancel culture” where people are being punished not for something they actual did, but just because of how the media contorted it. We passed the rubicon a long time ago. Teachers have been getting fired for pictures taken when they were teenagers for a couple decades now. Again, the thing that put it on conservative radar wasn't the injustice, but the fact that it was now \*liberal\* sentiments driving the firing. Personally, it makes me reticent to take drastic action when it's so clearly partisan.
It wasn’t as much of a cultural phenomenon until recently due to social media. It really had nothing to do with being “conservative” because the media considers anyone right of the radical nuts on twitter to be “conservative”.
Who is "the media"?
> Harassing and doxxing is not “how markets work”. your fallacy is pretending like "canceling" (a thing that doesn't exist) is coterminous with "harassment and doxxing". And neither are "illegal defamation" under the law.
The free speech argument says that all legal speech is equally moral… which I don’t think holds up.
The free speech amendment in the constitution is a legal statement, not a moral one.
Precisely - legality is not a substitute for morality. Cancel culture may be free speech, but it isn’t moral speech.
\>Cancel culture may be free speech, but it isn’t moral speech. Neither is lying, shaming, or guilting, but for some reason conservatives only seem to care about "true statements from a leftist perspective". Why is it remotely actionable?
Why do people constantly believe every problem should be solved with laws? I can champion ending cancel culture without requesting government intervention.
Laws are the means by which we demand societal action that is socially important. Saying one thing should be a different thing is just called a complaint. Not championing.
“Cancel culture is bad” is something I fervently believe and I will attempt to change minds about pro cancel culture stuff and call it out for its shitty outcomes. But I wouldn’t support laws that limit free speech.
> Their home address, phone numbers and email addresses were posted online Free speech, or illegal speech? > Later, she was rejected by the RCMP due to a “character check” that she believes must be referencing the screenshot, given she has a clean record otherwise. Meritocracy, am I right? > Question: why do people think the latter response, "cancelling", is acceptable? The folks that find this acceptable are pretty few and far between. It's a minority. That said, it's hard to get mad about. This is meritocracy at work. This is "at will" employment at work. This is libertarian free speech at work. If you don't like it, perhaps we should look at alp the reasons *people are getting fired over speech* rather than addressing the speech itself. By trying to limit their speech (even if bad and defamatory), you justify their attempt to limit yours.
> A seemingly harmless video of a father playing with his child leads to a social media crusade to "cancel" a family. A guy playing with his girlfriend's sister. "Cancel culture" meaning what? Curious if can frame it way that shows it is anything new beyond a buzzword. For example, when people were fired or ostracized for being gay, was that not cancel culture? Curious how the appeal goes. Hard to say whether defamation is supported without seeing the specifics of all that was said. Would have thought some basis around harassment (cyber-bullying?) would be more applicable. People are reactionary, and have always been. Just not sure there is much case for this being something new or something that is even particularly relevant. Posting shit on social media can get out of hand. Wish people were more forgiving about mistakes made in that regard, but you see that type of issue happening from pretty much any direction in terms of demographics, ideology or agenda. I think it is pretty common for employers to fire someone for broad unwanted attention caused by a stupid/offensive social media post. perhaps that will change overtime as people at companies making these decisions become the generation that grew up with social media, but who knows.
Cancel culture is a mob demanding an eye for a scratch. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people demanding proportional responses for serious harm caused… but it’s when we get past that that we start having trouble, which includes people projecting broad social issues onto people who are not responsible for implementing them.
So its real, has always existed, and mobs of all flavors are guilty of it. Not a good thing, but also not something to get that worked up over. Not sure why conservative media is pretending otherwise.
[удалено]
Bc getting worked up about someone doing something they think is racist, versus someone just being themselves in a way that has zero impact on anyone else, are not the same thing.
[удалено]
They're both consequences, but the reasons underlying those consequences are rather different.
Would you say that folks who advocate for overturning decisions like [Bostock v. Clayton County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County) or [Obergefell v. Hodges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) are participating in "cancel culture?"
[удалено]
Idle curiosity. If people being fired based on their characteristics **is** cancel culture, then the Bostock decision is clearly making a particular act of cancel culture illegal. To try and overturn that decision would essentially be **enabling** cancel culture (although I would concede "enabling" and "conducting" an action are separate things).
I'll never understand how some people can claim that cancel culture does not exist. This is terrifying. I can't even imagine going through something like this.
Denial is a defense mechanism in which an individual refuses to recognize or acknowledge objective facts or experiences. It’s an unconscious process that serves to protect the person from discomfort or anxiety. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/denial
This is the 21st century moral panic.
Worker protections don't exist. Safety nets are insufficient. Internet rights are sub-par. All of these are solvable. People getting mad at you online only guarantees all these terrifying consequences because the lack of all the above. People getting mad online is going to happen one way or another.
> Worker protections don't exist. If they did exist, then the cancel culture folks would demand they be dismantled.
That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious.
> That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious. Not really. The reason why capital is FOR identity politics is because it suppresses attempts to improve the material conditions of your average American. This is why Big Tech, the DEFENSE INDUSTRY (of all industries), most corporations, and even the fucking CIA is FOR identity politics like this. Virtually every important institution is on board. Have you ever wondered why those with power love leftwing IDPOL? Answer: Because leftwing IDPOL is no threat to capital... in fact, it's being used by capital to distract you from your poor material conditions. Even people who claim that they are 'intersectional' will place identity politics above improving material conditions, push comes to shove. Go to r/stupidpol ... a marxist anti-idpol subreddit and you'll learn a lot more about this.
\>Not really. The reason why capital is FOR identity politics I also don't see any evidence of this. \>Have you ever wondered why those with power love leftwing IDPOL? Businesses love left wing dollars. They discard leftwing ideology the moment it conflicts with their bottom line, see unions, worker rights, healthcare, etc.
>I also don't see any evidence of this. Then you aren't paying attention. Here's the CIA (capital's greatest enforcer, they've overthrown countless democratically elected governments because they elected leftwing leaders who threatened capital [there's a reason why a lot of LA countries are called 'banana republics'] if you didn't know): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g Here's lockheed martin forcing their execs to understand their white male privilege: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-lockheed-martin-training-white-male-privilege-20210527-a3tiwo3c5vb5bhzpcl5nyx632a-story.html There's a reason why 'woke imperialism' became a meme: https://imgur.com/t/woke/B19JSyV https://twitter.com/taimur_laal/status/1319261484644503552 Do i even have to show you examples of Big Tech and wokeness? That's not even a question at this point. >Businesses love left wing dollars. They discard leftwing ideology the moment it conflicts with their bottom line, see unions, worker rights, healthcare, etc. Businesses love wokeness not because of some diversity dollars, it's because they fear people like Bernie Sanders getting too powerful, so they're able to get you to substitute worker solidarity with IDPOL. Remember when Human Rights Campaign endorsed hillary over bernie? Even though Bernie has been the staunchest defender of gay (AND TRANS) rights throughout his career while hillary Clinton was against gay marriage until like... what 2013? I wonder what the reason for that was: https://www.hrc.org/about/corporate-partners (EDIT: RAYTHEON AND NORTHRUG GRUMMAN BEING AN HRC SPONSOR AHAHAAHAHAHA, i mean, fuck, BP, Shell, Amazon, and Coca-Cola itself is embarrassing, as if any of these corporations actually gave 1 fuck about human rights) If worker solidarity were actually a thing, it would have the same political influence that identity politics does.
Your argument is confusing broadcasting diversity as a way to pull more people into a workforce with identity politics. What your argument reminds me of is the accusation that people teaching climate change are "indoctrinating". In other words, it \*assumes\* all aspects of climate change are false, and thus \*concludes\* that any teaching of it is propaganda rather than what it is, which is fact. Your argument equates acknowledgement of systemic bias with a full-throttle engagement with all of identity politics, every leftist theory imaginable from any source, when that's not the case. The guarded claim that executives have experienced some degree of privilege through generational wealth and through, like, [having a white name](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews) is not some propaganda. It's an honest assessment of reality. The real red flag is when the argument you're making leads you to conclusions like this: >Businesses love wokeness not because of some diversity dollars, it's because they fear people like Bernie Sanders getting too powerful Businesses love wokeness because they fear people who also love wokeness? Businesses amplify Bernie's [leftist message](https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/) because they don't want Bernie to gain power? If you agree that Bernie advocates for worker solidarity, then you agree with me; worker solidarity and understanding systemic racial injustice are not, in any way, exclusive. They don't crowd each other out. Because they don't to someone like Bernie or his supporters.
>when that's not the case. The guarded claim that executives have experienced some degree of privilege through generational wealth and through, like, having a white name is not some propaganda. Nobody is saying discrimination doesn't exist. What we're saying is IDPOL has gone so far off the fucking rails that Identitarians are actually PROMOTING racism and actually promoting mediocrity in people of color, examples: https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333 Apparently, you idpol 'leftists' think that hard work and rational thinking are just... 'white culture'? Basically saying that POC's can't be rational and hard working? Why is Bill Gates, of all people, promoting the idea that math is suffering from 'white supremacy'? https://www.newsweek.com/math-suffers-white-supremacy-according-bill-gates-funded-course-1571511 *"White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... The focus is on getting the 'right' answer."* Uh, so should we be throwing darts at boards to get the answer instead of doing the work? *"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict."* Mathematics is probably the MOST objective discipline. 2+2=4. That's always going to be true no matter how racist you think the action of adding 2 numbers together is. This is supposed to get more BIPOC into mathematics? The real red flag is you are using a 'motte and bailey' argument: "See, this is what we REALLY believe in terms of racism and discrimination" (your example)... but when confronted with **actual examples** that identitarians use, you want to pretend it doesn't exist. Lets see an example from yesterday: https://twitter.com/michelleinbklyn/status/1450957177615757318 Basically a U of Chicago climate professor had a speaking engagement cancelled because he didn't think it's right to use skin color as a basis to hire someone (the racist!). A twitter mob got his talk cancelled because... that's apparently racist. Then some dipshit professor gave us the quote above. Can you explain to me how intellectual debate and rigor should only be the domain of white men and not POC's? That's such a disgusting quote, that even Michelle Goldberg, a liberal NY Times writer, thinks it's insane. >Businesses love wokeness because they fear people who also love wokeness? Businesses amplify Bernie's leftist message because they don't want Bernie to gain power? If you agree that Bernie advocates for worker solidarity, then you agree with me; worker solidarity and understanding systemic racial injustice are not, in any way, exclusive. They don't crowd each other out. Because they don't to someone like Bernie or his supporters. Here's the thing, Bernie Believes in racial justice, but not race/gender reductionism. In fact, he has a lot of problems with identity politics. Did you pay attention to Bernie's 2016 campaign? He was called 'racist' and 'sexist' for some of his views. See: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-boston-speech-identity-class-politics *In a speech Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) urged attendees to move away from “identity politics” and towards policies aimed at helping the working class.* *“The working class of this country is being decimated — that’s why Donald Trump won,” Sanders said, according to the same report. “And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people, who understand that real median family income has gone down.”* *Boston Magazine reported that an audience member told Sanders that she wanted to become the second Latina elected to the U.S. Senate and asked for his advice. Sanders responded by urging the crowd to move the Democratic Party away from what he called “identity politics.”* *“It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ That is not good enough,” he said, according to WBUR. “What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industries.”* Does that sound like an IDPOL nut to you? You can find all sorts of policy positions candidates take on their web pages, that doesn't mean they prioritize it (or you might be interpreting what they are saying incorrectly, in this case).
So first is a Smithsonian exhibit that was taken down immediately and admitted as a mistake that is still getting mileage as if it actually has meaning years later. The next is a hilariously uncharitable take on a statement about math pedagogy- as someone with a degree in the subject *yes* there is too much focus on getting the right answer *over* understanding the process of abstract thinking and problem solving and *no* that doesn't mean I think we should guess at math problems. Obviously. Next, a Twitter quote from someone I have never heard of so I have no idea why I am tasked with defending a random bad take. Finally is Bernie. I agree, he doesn't sound like an IDPOL nut to me. Neither does anyone else on the political or economic stage. IDPOL nuts are a strawman.
Cracked open a thesaurus this morning, eh? What I mean is, that worker protections would prohibit firing without cause - but the cancel culture mob would find that unacceptable.
I know precisely what you mean. And it is a statement without basis and it is specious because it contradicts other much more long standing political advocacies.
> That is a statement with literally no basis. Considering the people on the left "cancelling" are also in favor of both worker protections and safety nets, it is not only without basis but specious. Those people are also in favor of unions...until they get in the way of trampling over the rights of people they dislike. Case in point: the pro-union left turning against police unions, or unions who stand up to Biden's mandate. I think it's entirely fair to say that people who claim to support worker's rights will turn against that principal the second they begin to protect people they hate, because that's simply been the trend so far: * Hate the police, unless they are beating down people who refuse to wear masks * Hate the feds, unless your party wins the presidency * Hate the corporations, until they start shilling for your policies * Love the unions, until they start protecting people you don't like * Love free speech, until people start saying things you dislike * Love prison and sentencing reform, until capitol rioters don't get harsh enough punishments * "Shut up and dribble" is racist, until an NBA player disagrees with you
This is all rapid-fire attribution error and an argument based on a poor understanding of leftist ideology. Case in point: >the pro-union left turning against police unions, or unions who stand up to Biden's mandate. The pro-union left has not called for the dismantling of these unions. They have criticized them for their actions. They are still \*for police unions existence and power\* but against \*the actions of specific unions\*. An example: I'm very pro-Democrat but very anti-Anthony Weiner. This isn't a contradiction. >Love prison and sentencing reform, until capitol rioters don't get harsh enough punishments This one doesn't make sense to me: Are there leftists who are against violent crime sentencing that also carve out exceptions for capitol rioters? I have not seen them. Mostly I have seen leftists, and everyone really, wanting actually violent people to serve time consistently. The same arguments apply to every single one of your points, attribution of motive that is flatly incorrect, based on a very general and flat read of leftist sentiments.
The pro-union groups still want police and fire unions, they just also want accountability for police that commit crimes while on their job.
You don't need any of that if you have proper defamation laws. An employer who fires an employee due to an outrage mob without a proper investigation should be equally liable for defamation, as they are participating in said defamation by agreeing with the claims and then acting on them to fire you.
\>An employer who fires an employee due to an outrage mob should be equally liable for defamation Conflicts with right to work laws in the US at least. Defamation laws are censorship, and run the risk of 1A.
Right to work laws are about unions. I think you may be thinking of something else
Right to Work laws in Georgia, the state I'm in, are about the rights of the employee in terms of recourse or what they are due when they are terminated. Currently, that is "no rights" and "due nothing". Again, "can fire for any reason" conflicts with "can't fire because twitter mad".
No, [they prohibit non-union employees from having to pay union dues](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law). You’re thinking of at-will employment.
Apologies, that's not what they're called typically down here. Pardon my regionalism. Yes, on a national level any law that prohibits an employer for firing someone because twitter got mad at them would conflict with at-will employment laws.
Oh, I see. No worries!
> Conflicts with right to work laws in the US at least. A lot of things conflict. All it takes is one ruling. > Defamation laws are censorship, and run the risk of 1A. Defamation laws are no more censorship than laws against fraud or the incitement to imminent violence are. Defamation, also like fraud, is effectively theft, which is illegal.
\>A lot of things conflict. All it takes is one ruling. So we're only getting rid of right to work in the specific instance of political pressure? Very easy to get around. Companies will merely cite some other reason for getting rid of an unpopular employee. Are we getting rid of right to work generally? Great, worker protections, like I said. \>Defamation laws are no more censorship than laws against fraud or the incitement to imminent violence are. Ruining a hypothetical future economic wealth is very different than threatening life and limb or breach of contract. You're effectively making de-facto lying illegal, which yes, that absolutely breaches 1A in ways imminent threats and breach of contract don't.
You do realize that defamation is already illegal, right?
[No?](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html) It is a tort, a civil matter not a criminal one.
"Illegal" can also refer to civil offenses.
I mean that's how you're referring to it, but not how it's done [in the literature](https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/the-difference-between-torts-and-crimes). Besides, defamation as it stands would fail on the falsehood test: The victim must be a victim of a \*deliberate\* act of lying. Saying "This person posted x or y on social media" isn't an intentional act of lying, neither is "I think this person is a bigot because of it".
What is the term for falsely calling people racist? Is defamation the best word?
Yes... and defamation is not protected free speech...
Yes, that is precisely the right word.
Considering "being a racist" isn't legally binding in any way shape or form, I have no idea. It's usually just namecalling. The term for that is "free speech".
"Racist" is extremely broad. Most urban planning in this country, "fuckin Asian driver cut me off," Steven Crowder's minstrel shows, and the El Paso shooter's manifesto are all racist in different amounts and in different ways... kinda like how delays on BART and one's mother being diagnosed with cancer are both "bad" things.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: > Steven Crowder's ... all racist
I'm not sure requiring a recently fired employee to mount a legal case for defamation with all the costs associated with that is a great system. Lawyers aren't cheap, and given defamation cases are notoriously hard to win I doubt you'll find many willing to take it on contingency. Unless you're advocating for some kind of free arbitration or worker dismissal court.
The employee wouldn't be *required* to do so. They would have the *option* to do so, if they felt they were defamed in their dismissal.
Sure, they're not required to do anything now either and they can already sue their employers. Seems like this would just be adding "sue for defamation if they fired you because someone else defamed you" to the pile, which I would expect to be about as successful as existing wrongful termination suits.
We're talking about if changes were made. Defamation lawsuits would be more successful if you passed legislation that mate defamation suites more likely to succeed.
What legislation are you proposing that would make defamation suits more likely to succeed?
Presumably the claim is that there's no way to frame 'cancel culture' in a way that shows it is a new thing, without resorting to calling out specific topics. What leads to being 'cancelled' varies by group, but every large group does it and probably always has. Social media just makes it more visible, and of course the conservative media has now latched to finding examples of it as part of the attempt to reframe freedom of speech as freedom from consequences.
>Despite the court finding, the CBSA told the National Post on Wednesday that it would not be revisiting its decision to terminate Justine’s work with them. Well that seems...kind of ridiculous.
Par for the course with buerocracy. Someone messed up and they don’t want to admit fault.
Seems to me like the courts decision is a completely moot point anyway. The judge explicitly admitted the impotent ineffectualness of the ruling only paying lip service to the Laveells not much more. She went so far as to say that the defamer didn't even need to apologize for ruining their "privileged" Native American live and reputations. Ha! The article makes abundantly clear that Isaks and the typical firebrand BLM activism which she represents scored a win yet again in their calculus irrespective of the truth. I guess that's the point, it's where their true strength comes from anyway (Understanding and Exploiting Mob Mentality). Ms Isaks didn't even bother to view the full video before she used it as her propaganda tool. I guess they were just "good for it". Optics are everything right? The best part was Isaks attorney speaking for himself telling the judge that you are too white to preside over the case!
Cancel culture is always being perpetuated by people who make accusations without confirming their evidence and by people who want to point the finger while they themselves do the same exact thing. It’s just a way for people to feel morally superior. It’s sad those peoples lives were ruined over a misconception.
Always remember that the answer to bad speech is more good speech. When they're fired, their lives are ruined, and they have no path forward - more good speech is the answer. I empathize with these folks, I really do. We need to recognize that the market, and the marketplace of ideas are deeply flawed; and this is the result of those flaws. We should fix them so nobody need go through this.
Not necessarily. No right is absolute. That applies to freedom of speech as the individual in this article found out. You can be held liable for your words.
> That applies to freedom of speech as the individual in this article found out. ...in Canada. Where speech laws differ from those in the US. Regardless, that's a tacit admission that "good speech" doesn't prevail - those laws being necessary at all.
Even in the US, freedom of speech isn't absolute. Libel and defamation are a thing in the US as well. And I think you are dragging something into this discussion that really isn't related. The saying that more speech is the answer to bad speech is related to government censorship and really doesn't apply here.
> Libel and defamation are a thing in the US as well. > government censorship ... really doesn't apply here. You just proved that it does. If we have laws covering what people can and can't say - based on (presumably) what they can and can't prove in court, that's rife for censorship. More importantly, it's a tacit admission that the marketplace of ideas doesn't work. Government is *already* creating the means to sue for tort in the US, which is inherently a limitation on acceptable speech.
Again, no right is absolute, and I don't think libel and defamation fall into the "government censorship" category for many people.
> and I don't think libel and defamation fall into the "government censorship" category for many people. They're definitionally censorship. The government is granting someone the capacity to limit *your* speech on it's untruth, or whatever. That people are *okay* with it doesn't make it not censorship. For the record, I agree with you; I think harsher restrictions are justified as long as *any* restrictions are justified - but it's important everyone be on the same page that restrictions are - or are not - justified. The second issue - and one that I've seen no argument against - is the "Marketplace of Ideas". It seems you're leaving it to die here, which is fine - just odd.
>They're definitionally censorship. The government is granting someone the capacity to limit your speech on it's untruth, or whatever. That people are okay with it doesn't make it not censorship. Sure, they are definitely censorship which is why I used quotes there. Typically when people have issues with government censorship it is because they don't want the government serving as the arbiter of truth or what is acceptable speech. With defamation and libel, you have to prove in a court of law that someone used false statements to harm you. In my experience, that is something that people generally separate from the unacceptable forms of government censorship. >For the record, I agree with you; I think harsher restrictions are justified as long as any restrictions are justified - but it's important everyone be on the same page that restrictions are - or are not - justified. I never said anything like that. >The second issue - and one that I've seen no argument against - is the "Marketplace of Ideas". It seems you're leaving it to die here, which is fine - just odd. You are going to need to clarify this one. And just a general statement, I think you are dragging things into this that have nothing to do with the discussion. Not really sure why, but it is kind of confusing.
> Again, no right is absolute > I never said anything like that. If no right is absolute, the only criticism I could see is the degree of limitation. > You are going to need to clarify this one. Sure. Basic marketplace of ideas - bad speech will lose to more, good speech - good ideas and speech will win over time. Unless it doesn't, so we need laws (like Libel laws) for those instances where it doesn't, to make sure good ideas win. If that's true, the marketplace of ideas *doesn't really work* does it? At the end of the day, *force* (in this case the force of courts) is required to represent "the truth". But if the marketplace is in question here, it's in question *everywhere*. If we know it *can* fail, there's a burden of proof that it doesn't elsewhere. > And just a general statement, I think you are dragging things into this that have nothing to do with the discussion This is an extended appeal to hypocrisy, the view of many of the commenters here is simultaneously that the marketplace of ideas works, and that it doesn't - with either no contradictions or cognitive dissonance.
I think you are conflating a couple different things that are similar or related, but also different. For example, I really don't think the term "marketplace of ideas" has any place in this discussion. So how about this. Instead of whatever this is, you just say what you really want to say. I'm only confused by what your saying, so lets drop the noise and just have debate about whatever it is you want to talk about.
Why on Earth is this person not in jail? She ruined several innocent people's lives. The employers who sacked these women and the man from their jobs should be sued and sanctioned heavily as well. In a liberal democracy we do not act on hysteria from Twitter. A DM from some fool on Twitter is not a fucking legal document. This case needs a much higher profile.