Cancel Culture Doesn't Excite

Post Reply New Topic

I am not disputing the legal rights of the cop to monetise the death of Breonna Taylor, however he's not in witness protection and is going to have a big cross on the back of his head every time he struts around the precinct after being a perpetrator in a senseless killing of an innocent person and then trying to get rich from his actions.

The thing I don't understand about cancel culture is it usually just seems to be a few angry people on twitter will want someone fired for this and that, and the rich employers actually listen. But why would rich people be intiminated by a few people on twitter? How can rich people be bought like that by a few angry people who have nothing to by them with, yet they still do...

Maybe they're not intimidated, just persuaded.

Persuaded how? Just a few people online who complain about everything does not seem like good effective persuasion to me. Plus by firing employees who are doing a good job, you just bring down your own business by doing so, so people telling you to compromise your own business, just because they think you should, is not very persuasive I thought.

Plus it's not grounds for termination in a professional world. An employee has to actually do something that is actually considered wrong, like sexual harrassment or not doing his job. People on twitter wanting them to fired for other reasons is not grounds for termination.

If you're already sympathetic to a position and people start bringing up that 'hey, this isn't what you claim to support' odds are you'll cave because you were already predisposed to agreeing with those people.

It doesn't take much pressure to push people into doing what they're already likely to view as the right thing. If they disagreed with the pressure they'd ignore it.

PR. It's always PR.

Oh okay, it would probably take a lot for someone to convince me to fire people from my company (forcing me to get put behind and have to rehire), if all the employee did was something trivial, but that's just me.

What one considers trivial depends on what they value. Something you might consider trivial someone else might consider significant.

That's true, but I felt that a lot of cancel culture has been over trivial matters. I guess it depends on the ratio. Is what this person did worse than bringing down your own business in order to replace that person. If the answer is yes, then terminate that person, but the answer will likely be no, if it's just a few people on twitter complaining. It just seems with most cancel culture stories, the damage done by firing is worse than what the twitter people are complaining about.

It probably depends on the brand in question.

Nike could probably endure a significant backlash from any political bloc. Alt-right types burning their shoes didn't impact Nike, their sales increased during that period.

A specialist manufacturer of something related to firearms probably couldn't withstand significant backlash from the right.
There's almost certainly examples of companies that couldn't withstand significant backlash from socially conscious customers.

This phenomenon of capitalists giving in to seemingly unprofitable ideas has stuck has puzzled me for a number of years. That is why I started the The Problem Of Cowering To And Enabling SJW's thread back in 2018.

The title of that thread seems quaint now in this era of "woke capitalism". Obviously, there are a number of reasons for this.

Of course, one reason as the title of that thread posits intimidation.

The generation now taking the reigns of these companies was educated on critical race theory etc and its predecessors knew and interacted with people who identified as gay, trans, non-binary who are people of color or are people of color themselves so little if any persuasion needed.

They may not agree with it but most business people put profit ahead of personal beliefs and the marketing departments are obviously telling them go woke or go broke.

Slippery Slope they choose the convenience of giving in a little, which became a giving in a little more to what it is now an uncontrollable monster.

The Boomer rich made the same mistake I made. We grew up with hippie idealism that as we became young adults became yuppie greed. It was couched in feel-good language and they wore more casual clothing but it was "new boss same as the old boss". Political correctness, SJW's? Once they graduated those fragile, entitled millennials melting down at every microaggression were going completely fall apart or grow up. Well, guess what those fragile people are willing go out there day after day after taking pepper spray and beatings, and not limit it cities and campuses but a nice lily-white cop neighborhood near you, unlike say the vaunted boomers who for the most part kept their protests to the nice spring weather, but once summer came Free the Chicago 7 became where is the best reefer.

Oh okay. But do you think that the workers and business are going to fight back against this in way or the unions will? For example you are not allowed to fire people on certain grounds, such as race, gender, religion or political beliefs, things like that. Won't it get to the point where cancel culture will be added to the list, and you cannot fire someone based on cancel culture telling you to, and it will become an official policy?

In America, the unions have a fraction of the membership and power they used to have. There is a stigma of union workers being overpaid, corrupt and lazy. Amazon workers recently voted overwhelmingly not to join a union. Besides younger union workers also grew up learning "regressive left" ideas.

Oh okay, in some jobs where I live the unions seem pretty powerful on what you can or cannnot fire a person for.

Before you can make policy based on it you might need to have a coherent definition of cancel culture, which doesn't really exist so far.

If I ever manage to finish putting together my ramble/lecture/video about it this is one of the main things I focus on. The backlash against cancel culture includes reactions to entirely voluntary actions, it includes backlash against basic tolerance and it ignores the entire history of boycotts, censorship and hostile backlash when they're aligned with a socially conservative agenda.

A lot of the criticisms over cancel culture amount to little more than social conservatives complaining that their values aren't the general cultures values anymore.

Well I guess the definition would be anything than less than legal action taken against the company, and it's only people complainging on the internet about something the employee did outside of work that had nothing to do with the business, and that wouldn't constitute any legal action.