"Cancel Culture" 3

[DMC]

So chuckled at seeing this on Vox this morning:  The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech.  I generally like Beauchamp but the piece is..typical vox, meaning lengthy and over-explained.  But skimming through it was quite amusing how he basically covered almost everything we've talked about in the past two threads.

@Ran

Quote

I believe you are making an incorrect assumption on the effect of the ubiquity of celebrity presence. In the last couple of years, marketing and communication circles have increasingly talked about the waning influence of influencers precisely because they're over-exposed through social media and consumers of social media are increasingly less engaged with them on an individual level (especially about "big", mainstream celebrities) and less invested in their views. I think this almost certainly holds in the political sphere, if not more so, especially when the celebrity is not strongly associated as a political figure.

Well, I'm certainly not well-versed in marketing nor communication circles, so I'm inclined to defer.  But this seems pretty counterintuitive to me.  So as social media usage has increased, the influence of celebrity communications on those platforms among the public has decreased due to over-exposure?  I have a hard time swallowing that.  What I would think, if that's the trend, is it's due to influence being dispersed - so "social media influencers," who I refuse to refer to as celebrities, are taking up more of the attention of users as opposed to traditional/mainstream celebrities.  But again, I'll defer.  Me engaging in social media research that isn't just hard data is like an alien observing human interaction.  I don't really have any basis to adopt assumptions.

As for the political implications, yeah, I'm pretty skeptical too.  Hell, as a student of political behavior I'm fairly skeptical of politicians' influence on the public's political attitudes.  There's so much endogeneity and so many potential intervening variables that it's very difficult to confidently demonstrate theoretically, methodologically, and statistically.  What I think is a valid premise, however, is that between increasing social media usage, increasing polarization/negative partisanship, and decreasing political efficacy/trust, a compelling theory can be unpacked that celebrities should have an increasing influence on political attitudes.  At least for young people, when they're still forming their beliefs.  Once you get past, like, 30 at the latest, yeah that ain't gonna change anything.

 

[Darth Richard II]

That should have been I think JK is awful, not HL. My auto correct is becoming self aware.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

That should have been I think JK is awful, not HL. My auto correct is becoming self aware.

Hugh Laurie is presumably a pretty terrible person if you watch House.

[sologdin]

the influence of celebrity communications on those platforms among the public has decreased due to over-exposure?

semiurgical nihilism--pure baudrillard.  so much signal that it becomes indistinguishable from noise.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, sologdin said:

so much signal that it becomes indistinguishable from noise.

Right.  I'd refer to this more as "drowned out" than "overexposed," but I suppose that's just being nitpicky.  What does nag at me though is having interacted with Gen Z (or whatever we're calling them) quite a bit as an instructor, they really do seem much more politically engaged than my generation - older millennial - ever was at their age.  I suppose such engagement could have alternative effects though - they might not be influenced by celebrities because they have more well-developed beliefs themselves.  That'd be cool.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

 they really do seem much more politically engaged than my generation - older millennial - ever was at their age. 

I'm a GenXer, the least significant generation in history (hey you got to best at something I suppose). Our only contribution to political thought is "You have to fight for your right to party."

[TrackerNeil]

 Thanks for that Vox link. I read this earlier today, and I noticed something that troubles me.

Quote

 

This view isn’t universally shared among trans writers. Deirdre McCloskey, a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago and a Harper’s letter signatory, told me she thinks the best solution to Rowling’s harmful views is to straightforwardly debate them on the merits.

“Debate is good, as any true liberal believes,” McCloskey tells me. “If she is telling fairy tales or worse — [Rowling] being the premier example — then call her out.”

Judging by the reaction to the letter among trans advocates, McCloskey’s view seems to be in the minority. 

 

This dovetails interestingly with what Matt Bruenig says about "identitarian deference" in the linked Medium post.  Basically, having a trans voice in the debate only helps if that trans voice is in what Beauchamp, who is presumably cis, thinks is in the majority. So then we get all tangled up in trying to figure out what most trans people think, and judging that from...what? Twitter? Instagram? Meanwhile, the rest of us wind up feeling like we're not even entitled to an opinion, which is odd when we are asked to care about an issue.

To bring this back on topic, my problem with "canceling" is not that it abrogates free speech; it's that CC turns discourse among liberals/lefties/progressives into a Mobius strip, taking you around and around with no clear idea how the conversation started and no concept of how to finish it. Along the way there are various land mines of resentment and identity and oppression, and if you dare detonate one you will not only be singed by the blast but forever unable to tread that ground, no matter how carefully. 

I need to think about this some more, but that's where I am right now.

[Darth Richard II]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm a GenXer, the least significant generation in history (hey you got to best at something I suppose). Our only contribution to political thought is "You have to fight for your right to party."

And even that was supposed to be a sarcastic song that made fun of dudebros in the 80s.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

So chuckled at seeing this on Vox this morning:  The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech.  I generally like Beauchamp but the piece is..typical vox, meaning lengthy and over-explained.  But skimming through it was quite amusing how he basically covered almost everything we've talked about in the past two threads.

I do have to take issue with his claim that Civis denies that Shor was fired for his tweeting the article. It would be more accurate to say that they initially denied it and then withdrew their denial when pressed. Per Mounk:

Quote

Reached for comment, Civis denied that the tweet led to the firing: “We have not, nor would we ever, terminate employees for tweeting academic papers. These rumors are incorrect and unsubstantiated. Civis was founded on the principles of free speech and the pursuit of truth through objective scientific research, and that has not changed. This is an internal personnel matter, and out of respect for our employees and alumni, we won’t be commenting further.”

When I pressed Civis for evidence that Shor had been, despite appearances, fired for wrongdoing unrelated to his tweet, the company asked me to publish a new statement. It was almost identical to the original, but it omitted the first sentence asserting that Civis would never terminate employees for tweeting academic papers.

 

Quote

But this seems pretty counterintuitive to me.  So as social media usage has increased, the influence of celebrity communications on those platforms among the public has decreased due to over-exposure? 

The power of individual influencers has decreased in a fairly short time frame because there's too many of them.

You can see this in the use of influencers on Youtube. In the past, it was rare to see coordinated campaigns connected to multiple influencers -- it was big news at 5-6 years ago when a Youtuber got some sort of sponsorship deal (Casey Neistat was the subject of what seemed like a score of articles in 2015 because of his sponsorships). But now if you look at, say, the tech segment, you'll notice the trend of a dozen different tech video channels all suddenly being sponsored by the same sponsor at roughly the same time. It's no longer useful for them to put all the bucks into a single influencer -- their influence is too diminished, because on an individual level users are skeptical. So instead of trying to find the one influencer who carries weight, they realize they now have to carpet-bomb the whole segment because, "Well, I like Linus, but just because he's accepted a sponsorship from NordVPN doesn't mean much ... but hey, Marques, Austin, Lewis, Dave, and everyone else seems to think they're cool too."

It's gone the same way as radio jingles and TV ads -- saturation is the only real game in town. And pivoting to the political side of things,  the research on things like the impact of celebrity-centered GOTV activities like Rock the Vote also suggest that after awhile people became increasingly tuned out from celebrity pleas to get out and vote. For some reason, Wikipedia even cites Donald Green's reporting the findings of Collins, Keane, and Kalla's experiment on Facebook which found that Rock the Vote targeted ads (which generally featured celebrity spokespersons) had zero effect or possibly even a very tiny (0.1%) negative effect.

The attention economy has way too many sellers clamoring for more attention than the buyers have. 

Quote

What I think is a valid premise, however, is that between increasing social media usage, increasing polarization/negative partisanship, and decreasing political efficacy/trust, a compelling theory can be unpacked that celebrities should have an increasing influence on political attitudes.  At least for young people, when they're still forming their beliefs.  Once you get past, like, 30 at the latest, yeah that ain't gonna change anything.

From what I can see, I think a mass of celebrities all saying the same thing influences political attitudes moreso than what a single celebrity says.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm a GenXer, the least significant generation in history (hey you got to best at something I suppose).

I think the silent generation has a good claim on the least significant in history (at least since we started naming generations).  I mean, just based on the name.  As for fighting for the right to party, I don't think that should be minimized!  It meant us successors didn't have to bother to fight for that right.

20 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So then we get all tangled up in trying to figure out what most trans people think, and judging that from...what? Twitter? Instagram? Meanwhile, the rest of us wind up feeling like we're not even entitled to an opinion, which is odd when we are asked to care about an issue.

I agree with the latter part of this - that we all get caught up in social media squabbles as if they reflect the general population.  Social media is not a valid random sample.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, DMC said:

I think the silent generation has a good claim on the least significant in history (at least since we started naming generations). 

Don't you try to take away our glory of doing jack squat. Churchill might have said of us, "Never before in history, have so many, done so little".

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

For some reason, Wikipedia even cites Donald Green's reporting the findings of Collins, Keane, and Kalla's experiment on Facebook which found that Rock the Vote targeted ads (which generally featured celebrity spokespersons) had zero effect or possibly even a very tiny (0.1%) negative effect.

Yeah that definitely looks like a misuse of Don Green's - a giant in political behavior - work.  Pretty sure I've read the article cited, it definitely has no comment on Facebook.  It's a methods piece.  ETA:  Whoops, my bad, shoulda saw he was cited twice but I'm a dumbass.  Still, that GOTV book is basically a textbook.  I highly doubt Gerber or Green actually wrote what they're citing.

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

From what I can see, I think a mass of celebrities all saying the same thing influences political attitudes moreso than what a single celebrity says.

I think that's true - and is my inclination as someone who was trained as a quantitative researcher and frankly now looks down on qualitative work, probably way too much.  But, in terms of the discussion, Rowling does have outsized influence with young people compared to 99% of your celebrities when it comes to young people.

22 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Don't you try to take away our glory of doing jack squat.

You gave me Jon Stewart.  That'll do pig.

[sologdin]

I'm a GenXer, the least significant generation in history (hey you got to best at something I suppose). Our only contribution to political thought is "You have to fight for your right to party."

same here.  i read coupland's nominatory novel a few years back, and i have never so easily situated myself in a fiction before.  it was basically perfect.

 

we get all tangled up in trying to figure out what most trans people think, and judging that from...what?

this problem comes up whenever someone imputes a set of beliefs to a 'community.' every time i read the word community, i kinda barf in my mouth a bit--as though there were a solitary set of beliefs held by all persons who are members of 'the black community,' or 'the gay community' or heaven forfend 'the anarcho-marxist community.'

[Kalbear]

GenX really is the most nihilistic group, isn't it? We were told that we were going to die in nuclear fire Any Day Now, and so everything was largely to find enjoyment where we could. We didn't have the safety culture of kids growing up, and we were the last generation that didn't. We didn't have the idea that government was particularly good or that we could do much about it.

[Kalbear]

And this quote: yeah, this @Freshwater Spartan - another one for you to respond to.

Quote

Canada criminalizes hate speech, Germany bans Holocaust denial, and the United States permits both — yet no one seriously believes that America is a free society while the other two have somehow collapsed into illiberalism.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

From @Heartofice from the last thread:

Quote

Another point that I think becomes relevant is ‘guilt by association’. Nazis are the worst and we all hate them, but what happens if the only people talking about issues important to you are terrible people. 
 

For instance, an obvious talking point of the far right is immigration. By association if you are then concerned about immigration then you must be far right? Well obviously not but the nature of discourse pushes the needle in that direction.

So then, once certain topics become taboo, it is only the worst people who are ok with talking about it, making it even harder to discuss as the association becomes stronger.

But underneath that people might still agree with those ideas but there is nobody respectable willing to put their head above the parapet and discuss them in a reasonable way

I'll bite.  Let's here some concerns about immigration.  My guess is that it's not actually a taboo discussion.  

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

From @Heartofice from the last thread:

I'll bite.  Let's here some concerns about immigration.  My guess is that it's not actually a taboo discussion.  

If I think there is too much immigration does that make me a racist?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Heartofice said:

If I think there is too much immigration does that make me a racist?

No? Why would it per se? 

Now, wanting less immigration from specific places or objecting to immigrants because they come from Mexico or something like that - that would be pretty racist. 

But if you have some logical reasons for wanting to limit immigration across the board? It's possible you're not racist. In the US, however, the standard republican immigration planks are very much about racism for the most part, as witnessed by Trump wanting to bring in more people from Norway but not from Mexico. 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No? Why would it per se? 

Now, wanting less immigration from specific places or objecting to immigrants because they come from Mexico or something like that - that would be pretty racist. 

But if you have some logical reasons for wanting to limit immigration across the board? It's possible you're not racist. In the US, however, the standard republican immigration planks are very much about racism for the most part, as witnessed by Trump wanting to bring in more people from Norway but not from Mexico. 

What would be the logical reasons?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

So chuckled at seeing this on Vox this morning:  The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech.  I generally like Beauchamp but the piece is..typical vox, meaning lengthy and over-explained.  

My problem with Beauchamp is that while he describes himself a die hard liberal, he never answers the question, to my knowledge at least, whether truth claims can be ranked for their objective truth or whether all truth claims are inherently political. Does he think people can escape their socialization to get closer to the truth? 

Quote

You can already see the response here: that the definition of “anti-trans” or “racist” can be stretched to the point where views that really should be seen as legitimate, like skepticism of the use of the term “Latinx,” get shouted down rather than debated. I

Perhaps this is the real question and not cancel culture as such per se, but certain dogma's that are coming from the left. Will it be racist to defend traditional math education? Or to defend the common law legal tradition?