Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far

[FGFlann]

The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography, completely ignoring all other circumstances. You could pick any characteristic that is overrepresented in statistics and call it systemic-whatever. Men are overrepresented in criminal convictions by 90+%, proving that the criminal justice system is systemically misandrist or some other such nonsense.

 

[CallmeBerto]

The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography, completely ignoring all other circumstances. You could pick any characteristic that is overrepresented in statistics and call it systemic-whatever. Men are overrepresented in criminal convictions by 90+%, proving that the criminal justice system is systemically misandrist or some other such nonsense.

I came here to say the same thing. One thing that people fail to take into account are other factors such as culture and individual choices people make that lead to different outcomes. Just like you said people see uneven outcomes and think it is sexism or racism. As Thomas Sowell says a lot "Where is your evidence?"

 

[notimp]

The biggest red flag for what nonsense concepts institutional and systemic racism in America are, is that they are predicated entirely on per capita demography

Its not? Have you ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent in a region because there live that many white and black folks there? I havent. You are making stuff up.

The closest thing I've come across are factors of social cohesion, within sizeable minority communities. F.e. if you have a large part of town, thats income poor, and that has been lived in by predominantly one race, generationally, and that is part of a larger more affluent community - then you'd expect to find more racism in the border zones.

But apart from that?

What you are doing very likely is reading an overgeneralization someone made, and now complaining about that it is an overgeneralization.

In city/community planning, nor in sociology no one is dumb enough to just straight out say, that racism is a factor of population numbers alone...

Thats just not true.


At the same time, the entire concept is entirely unrelated to 'if there is such a thing as institutional racism'. You find that out, by f.e. screening incident reports, or looking at arrest figures vs. what would be a statistical normal.

And if you think that the guys and gals doing those analyses dont look at factors like 'are there other direct potential influences', you are stupid.
-

But then the main thing you are doing is actually pretty problematic in its own right, because you seem to assert, that certain "character traits" associated with skin color are why f.e. there is a higher arrest rate of black people, that cant be statistically explained.

And thats entirely bull.

There have been many problematic experiments in the past, where children of native rural populations where taken from their parents and 'civilized' (brought up by foster parent), and the outcomes always were that those children basically were culturally assimilated.

The black n**** gene, that makes them more aggressive, doesnt exist, even though you want to imply that in so many words.

You are just entirely wrong on that.

No - if you have arest figures 10x higher for black populations than for white populations in the same city, thats structural racism (can also be in 'targeting' doesnt _have_ to be the individual police man, but then if you already have a 'speak out and keep fellow officers in check' rule, and five people stair holes in the air, while a black dude is kneeled to death, thats either - human decision failure in five cases simultaniously, or systemic racism. ('We against, the ones out there' think). So no, none of thats bull.

 

[Taleweaver]

(Christ...five pages? I haven't kept up with this thread ).

Something that sort of boggles my mind: when hundreds of thousands protest against police brutality, a meaningful reform appears unlikely. But when a few random guys complain, often from behind their computers, celebrities and top businessmen immediately fold. What the hell is wrong with this planet?

 

[notimp]

Businessmen folding is the easy thing to do. (Brands dont want to be associated with controversy and always pick the majorities position (within their brand consumers) on any issue, as quickly as they have identified it. With very, very few exceptions.)

Police reforms are hard.

Easily explained..

For why are people value signaling (to the extent it is going on in todays society): Social media..

edit: On the celebrities point, they are modelling/optimizing public personas, they basically do the same as companies. (Also have social media teams whose job it is only to optimize image. And of course, if you are referring to movie stars, and most of the live in LA, within a liberal scene (because movie stars), what do you expect? People not adopting their neighbors behaviors? )

 

[Jokey_Carrot]

It's stupid if you ask me. Why can't a white guy be a voice actor for a black character and the other way around? Isn't the very idea behind all this that everyone is the same regardless of skin color?

White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.

 

[CallmeBerto]

(Christ...five pages? I haven't kept up with this thread ).

Something that sort of boggles my mind: when hundreds of thousands protest against police brutality, a meaningful reform appears unlikely. But when a few random guys complain, often from behind their computers, celebrities and top businessmen immediately fold. What the hell is wrong with this planet?

It's complicated. I know thats not the answer you want to hear but that is most likely the reason. It's very easy for a corporation to bend the knee since they really don't have to do anything beyond that.

However lawmakers need to find a balance between police reform and over reach. Where that line lies is where our elected officials disagree on.

 

[FGFlann]

@notimp

Correct me if I'm interpreting your questions incorrectly. As always I do my best to understand what you are saying.

Have you ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent in a region because there live that many white and black folks there? I havent. You are making stuff up.

Have I ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent because people of different races live in close proximity? Yes. This isn't unusual in any way. Racism is a facet of human nature and is present anywhere those of different backgrounds cohabitate.

What we are interested in is that in order to prove the concept of systemic racism, racism must be proven as the causal factor in institutions.

But then the main thing you are doing is actually pretty problematic in its own right, because you seem to assert, that certain "character traits" associated with skin color are why f.e. there is a higher arrest rate of black people, that cant be statistically explained.

Let me be absolutely clear: This is the conclusion that YOU have come to. I would never make the claim that people are predicated toward certain behaviours by virtue of race.

 

[Xzi]

It's complicated. I know thats not the answer you want to hear but that is most likely the reason. It's very easy for a corporation to bend the knee since they really don't have to do anything beyond that.

However lawmakers need to find a balance between police reform and over reach. Where that line lies is where our elected officials disagree on.

Unfortunately those same feckless corporations own most lawmakers, which is why you'll see them commit to symbolic legislation like writing 'Black Lives Matter' on streets rather than actually turning their sights against police brutality and corruption. Colorado being one of the few exceptions ahead of the curve, as usual, where we've already eliminated qualified immunity and put some strict regulations on the release of body cam footage. Our governor Jared Polis is a BAMF.

 

[Seliph]

Thats convenient!

It is! Anti-racism is very convenient and easy.

 

[notimp]

White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.

Dangerous overgeneralization. Trolling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It is! Anti-racism is very convenient and easy.

Meaning, if any concept can be called the same regardless if you just make a sh'tpost online, or if you topple a government, chances are, that you've been had. Human language is capable of more differentiation.

Meaning: You are likely sold 'you be part of a revolution' but be expected to just sit in front of your PC and make social media posts, which nobody cares about.

(Brands positions will change, if/when public opinion changes again, to have something more lasting, you basically need legal or structural reforms. And looking at NGO demands on the black lives matter front, most of those demands are - lets say hard to implement legally. ('Somewhat irrational, and not very well thought out') Others might very well be, but those currently dont get popular support. You have a stupid people cant organize problem, essentially. Imho (playing devils advocate - at least a little.. )))

 

[Seliph]

Dangerous overgeneralization. Trolling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Meaning, if any concept can be called the same regardless if you just make a sh'tpost online, or if you topple a government, chances are, that you've been had. Human language is capable of more differentiation.

Meaning: You are likely sold 'you be part of a revolution' but be expected to just sit in front of your PC and make social media posts, which nobody cares about.

(Brands positions will change, if/when public opinion changes again, to have something more lasting, you basically need legal reforms. And looking at NGO demands on the black lives matter front, most of those demands are - lets say hard to implement legally. ('Somewhat irrational, and not very well thought out') Others might very well be, but those currently dont get popular support. You have a stupid people cant organize problem, essentially. Imho (playing devils advocate - at least a little.. )))

Well, I'm not saying an anti-racist shitpost is the same thing as toppling the government, that's dangerous overgeneralization on your part. I'm just saying that both of those things could be considered anti-racist. If all someone is able to do online is make anti-racist shitposts, that's their choice, if someone wants to overthrow the government, that's their choice, I never said these things are equivalent. I can call both of these things anti-racist, but I'm not going to say that they're of equal importance or gravity because obviously that makes no sense.

People do care about social media posts, otherwise cancel culture wouldn't be a thing. Any little bit helps.

Also, you don't need legal reform, that's usually ineffective anyways. What most people are trying for is revolution, not reform.

 

[notimp]

Have I ever heard someone say that racism is prevalent because people of different races live in close proximity? Yes. This isn't unusual in any way. Racism is a facet of human nature and is present anywhere those of different backgrounds cohabitate.

Colloquially (as in what your neighbor says while flipping burgers), sure. But anyone actually involved in setting up planning structures to prevent lets say 'civil unrest' usually isnt talking that way. They all acknowledge other factors. (Social mobility, education, ethnic mix over time within a district, unemployment numbers, ...). On that level the problem should not be that people just call something 'structural racism' because of an absolute numbers race ratio.

Calling something structural racism because of the case number compaired to a statistically normal distribution ist OK, or might be ok, if you havent forgotten other important factors.

But then again, there is no 'black gene for agressiveness' - so that factor doesnt exist. (Cultural factors (poor black neighborhood for decades) do.) Those you'd tackle with social programs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Well, I'm not saying an anti-racist shitpost is the same thing as toppling the government, that's dangerous overgeneralization on your part. I'm just saying that both of those things could be considered anti-racist.

And I'm saying thats very convenient, because that way many/most people can 'feel' as anti racists, even basking in a 'rebellion' aura, while essentially nothing happens. (If all they do is stick to social media posts).

So I'm not saying you are logically wrong in what you stated - im just pointing at that logical fallacy (different angle).

 

[FGFlann]

Colloquially (as in what your neighbor says while flipping burgers), sure. But anyone actually involved in setting up planning structures to prevent lets say 'civil unrest'. They all acknowledge other factors. (Social mobility, education, ethnic mix over time within a district, unemployment numbers, ...). On that level the problem should not be that people just call something 'structural racism' because of an absolute numbers race ratio.

Calling something structural racism because of the case number compaired to a statistically normal distribution ist OK, or might be ok, if you havend forgotten other important factors.

But then again, there is no 'black gene for agressiveness' - so that factor doesnt exist. (Cultural factors (poor black neighborhood for decades) do.) Those you'd tackle with social programs.

So we agree that there are a multitude of potential causal factors that need to be taken into account. If that is the case, we have no quarrel and can move on.

 

[notimp]

So we agree that there are a multitude of potential causal factors that need to be taken into account. If that is the case, we have no quarrel and can move on.

With the added byline, that 'genetical preposition for violence based on skincolor' can't be one. Yes.

I.e. claiming structural racism isnt stupid "because there are so many factors".

Sure we can debate over how to exactly define it (what aspects would have to be included), but to just say 'its complex, so it cant be a thing'...

 

[FGFlann]

With the added byline, that 'genetical preposition for violence based on skincolor' can't be one. Yes.

I.e. claiming structural racism isnt stupid "because there are so many factors".

Sure we can debate over how to exactly define it (what aspects would have to be included), but to just say 'its complex, so it cant be a thing'...

Again, genetic predisposition was a conclusion of yours, not mine. It doesn't factor into my thinking.

The presence of many potential causal factors renders the use of the word racism unsuitable, since it carries an emotional weight to it and its specific definition places unfair stigma on the people involved in the various institutions that receive the accusation of being complicit in it.

The term "structural inequality" would be a better catch-all to use in the phase where the idea is being explored.

 

[notimp]

Again, genetic predisposition was a conclusion of yours, not mine. It doesn't factor into my thinking.

K, then its out of our debate. Sorry for bringing it in..

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

People do care about social media posts, otherwise cancel culture wouldn't be a thing. Any little bit helps.

I have to think about that a bit more..

Impulse response would be, but the unintended consequences though (raises hate, has people retract within bubbles, ...). That way you are basically designing the backlash..

But I have heard that argument made by proponents of SJW culture before. And its not obviously wrong. My issue is just with what all that virtue signaling and cancel culture does to your broader society.

You could then argue, that most people aspire to be bullshitting drones, and mimic ingroup behavior, to f.e. maximise facebook popularity, regardless how stupid it is, and you'd probably be right. Thats a tough one..

On the other hand, at least Bannon seems to believe, that this drives most of the working class towards the alt right.

edit: I think I'm coming at this from an "the social media revolutions never worked" theoretical angle mostly. Until the first one does, I guess. But you dont have staying power on social media, you cant develop arguments on social media, you...So ultimately, there have to be other components as well.

But then we have to look at why 'its promoted, that you can be part of it with just a posting' - when those peoples voices never matter for anything other than raising profile. ('Look how important we are'.) And I think I then have a problem with advertising to people that 'you can change the world with a click or a posting' ('its never been easier to feel like you are part of something important'). Because - again, historically you cant. And whatever those people think in particular will never matter.

And I have a problem with the fact, that this is how facebook works. Giving outrage a high spread potential (goes viral), but then having the same issue dying down just as fast, because there is no staying power of any discourse in an ever scrolling feed (advertisers very glad, can advertise again after all the controversy is over, they are estimating six months currently, correct ), and you can only topple that many statues for instagram pictures..

edit: Differing oppinions are possible: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsa...has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/

(Allthough I wouldnt call what happened in the Ukraine a big success.. (article is from 2014).)

 

[ChronoTrig]

Don't forget that I said this "anti-racism can be as little as writing a few anti-racist phrases or as big as toppling the US government (that statement probably put me on a watchlist)." Anyone can be anti-racist if they want to be, I was just using Starbucks as an example. The people who have the time and ability will put their work into a large part of anti-racist action (maybe you'd call it ANTIRA) and anyone else who has the ability to can contribute as well, no matter how small. Again, a lot of the unemployed people, homeless people, teachers students etc are the exact people who are taking part in anti-racist action. The whole reason why people are participating is exactly because of all the reasons you listed, including the fact that Black people are being killed by police. Cancel culture is ultimately an insignificant corner of twitter.

I don't advocate for cancel culture, I don't think anyone should be canceled, but the best vaccine for cancellation is anti-racism. All of these people who have been canceled are prominent, privileged people, their lives aren't being ruined. They could very easily be anti-racist if they choose to be.

I've seen homeless old people participating in protests, I've seen people in wheelchairs hooked up to oxygen at protests, I don't see why you're trying to justify inaction when I've given ample evidence for why action is so easy and accessible. This video gives even MORE reasons if you want to check it out. There's simply no excuse for inaction.

Your last statement is basically silence is violence which is the mob mentality. As I noted, some people don't have to have their views out there for the world to see; f.e some people are passive or don't want to deal with confrontation-- they have enough going on in their home and like I said, unemployment is huge right now... Mind you, you're stating all these people out there with disabilities..... which is a bit irresponsible since Coronavirus is swarming out there and protests are big mobs.. Those people on oxygen tanks are likely to die if they get it....
Like I said, you're hard edged on making someone choose a side or demand they voice their side is dictatorial and you will get many people who will then "fake" what they are .. because you may be able to crumble / destroy / change all your systemic / structural racism but people will always have their own thoughts and opinions.. Especially the south since the racism seems to be much stronger down there than where I'm from in the north. You can not change people, they have to want to change themselves.

 

[GBAer]

 

[Viri]

White people make a fuss about things like that because they want some sort of moral superiority.

I wouldn't give a flying fuck if a white guy is played by a black guy, and vice versa. As long as he does a good job, and makes a good voice actor. Voice actor changes kill a show for me. I couldn't watch the later episodes of Dexter's Lab, because they had to change the voice actor for Dexter. The lady who played him wanted to retire, and later died, so I cannot blame them. But it still killed the show for me as a kid.

Like wise with Pokemon. The new voice actors sound so damn strange. Oh right, I guess having a white lady play an Asian guy is a big nono, so I guess Ash will get his voice actor changed again.