"Cancel Culture" 3

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Ben Shapiro has had rational responses to literally every word he's spoken

Exactly. If I don’t know who he is, I google him, all these responses are there. The Rogan video is the top video (OK, possibly more to do with Rogan’s popularity and how recent it was). When I was trying to brush up on exactly what JK Rowling had done, the top results are awash with articles saying “trust us, she’s a TERF” as if that settles the matter. 
 

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think the issue is some views are not worthy of being challenged.

But then everyone’s opinion on what constitutes ‘worthy’ is going to be different. Maybe it’s better to think less about worthiness and more about audience share; if a viewpoint is reaching a large amount of eyes and ears, it needs confronting on its merits and not just ‘cancelling’. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

Maybe it’s better to think less about worthiness and more about audience share; if a viewpoint is reaching a large amount of eyes and ears, it needs confronting on its merits and not just ‘cancelling’. 

I don't think so, at least not anymore.  In an earlier time, I wouldn't know what the hell QAnon even was.  Now, any bullshit can get sufficient eyes and ears if it's salacious enough.  That doesn't mean they warrant a response, or debate, or a platform.

[TrueMetis]

40 minutes ago, sologdin said:

Ben Shapiro has had rational responses to literally every word he's spoken, not only does it not work, he doesn't even change his fucking arguments.

 

i had to look him up. he seems very dumb, but why would anyone care enough about some random kid with silly ideas on his youtube channel?

He is very dumb, and yet despite this having been proven over and over again, he's being brought onto Joe Rogan's show to spout his nonsense to yet even larger numbers of people.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

He is very dumb, and yet despite this having been proven over and over again, he's being brought onto Joe Rogan's show to spout his nonsense to yet even larger numbers of people.

He’s rarely challenged. That’s the actual problem,  not that he’s being given airtime. It’s that when people view him it’s in the context of his unchallenged views being presented in a seemingly logical way.

[DaveSumm]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't think so, at least not anymore.  In an earlier time, I wouldn't know what the hell QAnon even was.  Now, any bullshit can get sufficient eyes and ears if it's salacious enough.  That doesn't mean they warrant a response, or debate, or a platform.

Well, this starts sliding into a bit of a tangent ... the advertising model and what it’s doing to journalism certainly has a lot to answer for, and it certainly encourages bullshit like this to rise higher than it needs. I just think if something is in the public eye enough (regardless of how it got there), such that people will seek to learn more about it, then they need to find reasoned and rational arguments against that view, not just ad hominem attacks.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

such that people will seek to learn more about it, then they need to find reasoned and rational arguments against that view, not just ad hominem attacks.

Sure!  You can make reasonable and rational arguments against a view without booking them on your show/podcast/whatever.  Anyway, you're right, this is getting a bit off topic.  

[TrackerNeil]

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

What I think you're calling cancel culture I would simply call in-fighting and I agree it can be a major problem within the left. I'm also not sure it can be fixed, to me it seems the result of a group of people that all believe passionately in their own ideas for the future and don't have much deference for authority or seniority. When you overlay that with marginalised communities, whether those are small like the trans community or large like the black American community, you also get a lot of people whose reactions are also driven by a lot of pain and trauma, who are used to being harmed my people abusing their power, and whose politics is intertwined with the above. All of which leaves people with very little patience when they think they see something repeating or looking like it will harm them again.

Not to seem like I am "calling you out", @karaddin, but I am not sure that what I have seen counts as mere passion. When I hear leftists calling each other pieces of shit, or trash, or scumbags, I get the feeling there's more than simple feistiness at work. Again, I strongly recommend reading Michelle Goldberg on this, if you haven't.

That said, I definitely agree that this is often born of real pain, and that, IMO, is the insidious aspect to call-out culture, or cancel culture, or Internet pile-ons. We get to act cruelly and thoughtlessly while feeling righteous and noble, as if we are wielding the sword of justice when we're really just acting out. That might not be a problem if this misbehavior were isolated, but it's not; it spreads like wildfire, probably because being self-righteous and swatting down your "enemies" feels good. And, like wildfire, these pile-ons sometimes turn on their instigators, as happened with Adria Richards, who started one Internet mob only to rapidly become the victim of another. These incidents cost people their jobs and their safety, and I find that, in general, the biggest victims are the most marginalized, like Emily VanDerWerf.

Again, this is no call for civility, at least not by me; it's a reminder that those who purport to detest cruelty shouldn't become purveyors of it. 

[A wilding]

On the de-platforming versus debating technique, I think there may be a certain element of talking past each other here.

Having a well prepared interviewer demolish some extremist is one thing, but all to often you get something like the sort of interview that the BBC often does. The extremist is interviewed in parallel with a mainstream speaker and treated equally to them. The extremist then uses their evasions and debating tricks, while the other interviewee gives honest answers and sticks to the facts. In consequence the extremist can appear to the uninformed or casual viewer to have won the debate, or at least to have a valid point of view.

 

[Kalbear]

Debates dont change people's minds. The notion that they do - that takedowns of peoples logic are somehow what decides people - is so obviously false and easily disproved that it seems wrong to even give it a platform itself. 

You might like that idea, and want it to be true, but we are living in a time where there is such ample evidence to the contrary that you really should just look around. Has trump been taken down by having a platform and being ridiculed? Has qanon? Whereas how shared right now is Alex Jones after being removed from most platforms? How shared is Milo? How shared is Richard spencer? Yeah, they might get some small audience, but they dont get a large audience. They arent #1 or #2 on facebook every single day (like Ben Shapiro actually is in terms of shared content).

Stop trying to make the world worse by making it into what you think it ought to be instead of actually treating it as it is. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Debates dont change people's minds. The notion that they do - that takedowns of peoples logic are somehow what decides people - is so obviously false and easily disproved that it seems wrong to even give it a platform itself. 

Where is this empirical data that proves this?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Debates dont change people's minds. The notion that they do - that takedowns of peoples logic are somehow what decides people - is so obviously false and easily disproved that it seems wrong to even give it a platform itself. 

How are you demonstrating this? 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Debates dont change people's minds. The notion that they do - that takedowns of peoples logic are somehow what decides people - is so obviously false and easily disproved that it seems wrong to even give it a platform itself. 

You might like that idea, and want it to be true, but we are living in a time where there is such ample evidence to the contrary that you really should just look around. Has trump been taken down by having a platform and being ridiculed? Has qanon? Whereas how shared right now is Alex Jones after being removed from most platforms? How shared is Milo? How shared is Richard spencer? Yeah, they might get some small audience, but they dont get a large audience. They arent #1 or #2 on facebook every single day (like Ben Shapiro actually is in terms of shared content).

Stop trying to make the world worse by making it into what you think it ought to be instead of actually treating it as it is. 

Truly, this is some authoritarian malarkey right here. If fundamentally believe that argument can't change opinion, then you really don't believe in free speech at all. You believe that the correct opinions have to be fed to the populace.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Where is this empirical data that proves this?

Every presidential debate from the last 30 years for an example. Or to make it more topical, Ben Shapiros numbers on Facebook not changing at all. Or the often repeated studies that show that confronting people with facts which contradict their viewpoints makes them more likely to take an even more extreme viewpoint than they did. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Every presidential debate from the last 30 years for an example. Or to make it more topical, Ben Shapiros numbers on Facebook not changing at all. Or the often repeated studies that show that confronting people with facts which contradict their viewpoints makes them more likely to take an even more extreme viewpoint than they did. 

And yet it seems the general populace's opinion has often shifted over the years on a number of topics. It may be hard in the short run, but does seem to happen in the long run.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Truly, this is some authoritarian malarkey right here. If fundamentally believe that argument can't change opinion, then you really don't believe in free speech at all. You believe that the correct opinions have to be fed to the populace.

I dont believe facts can change people's opinions much, no. Another example- climate change. I think that emotion and empathy can change people's minds sometimes. But simple debates and arguments? Nope, not really that much. 

And I did say I wasnt particularly a believer in free speech as some gold standard for amazing things. I still have not seen more free speech as an indicator of more democracy, and again - the least democratic country in the developed world right now has the most free speech. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And yet it seems the general populace's opinion has often shifted over the years on a number of topics. It may be hard in the short run, but does seem to happen in the long run.

I didnt say opinion doesnt change. I said debate doesnt change it. This would be another example of how people confronted with facts that challenge their worldview ignore those facts and double down on their priors.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I dont believe facts can change people's opinions much, no. Another example- climate change. I think that emotion and empathy can change people's minds sometimes. But simple debates and arguments? Nope, not really that much. 

And yet it seems that the most people think climate change is a problem. Even millenial Republicans seemed to have been convinced.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I did say I wasnt particularly a believer in free speech as some gold standard for amazing things. I still have not seen more free speech as an indicator of more democracy, and again - the least democratic country in the developed world right now has the most free speech. 

Well free speech is likely on factor among many other factors. But, I don't see how you can have a democracy if the government is permitted to heavily regulate speech. Tell me about all these authoritarians that permit free speech.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didnt say opinion doesnt change. I said debate doesnt change it. This would be another example of how people confronted with facts that challenge their worldview ignore those facts and double down on their priors.

Some people? All people? If debate doesn't change it, then how does opinion change?

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A wilding said:

The extremist is interviewed in parallel with a mainstream speaker and treated equally to them.

Right, this was one of Jon Stewart's primary complaints when he went on Crossfire, embarrassed Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, and got the show canceled.

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Where is this empirical data that proves this?

There is plenty out there that shows political debate does not significantly persuade viewers.  I'm tired, but you can look it up.  As for campaign or presidential debates specifically, it's pretty much a consensus within the field they have minimal to no effect on vote choice.  Of course we could be wrong, but it's a pretty settled..debate (bah dum tss).

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, DMC said:

There is plenty out there that shows political debate does not significantly persuade viewers.  I'm tired, but you can look it up.  As for campaign or presidential debates specifically, it's pretty much a consensus within the field they have minimal to no effect on vote choice.  Of course we could be wrong, but it's a pretty settled..debate (bah dum tss).

Do these studies concentrate on short term or long term effects?