Lying Away Cancel Culture

[K Graham]

So.... your perception of me always itching for a fight doesn't really explain why you brought it up in the first place, unless you thought I was trying to fight. I'm not. You obviously think less of me than I would have ever imagined, and I'm sorry for whatever I did to deserve that. Honestly, I cannot remember you and I ever getting into a heated argument except for the days when I was defending the GOP during Obama's first Presidential campaign. I was defending Sarah Palin against criticisms from you and others like Brent Metcalfe. But from my recollection you were just as aggressive in those debates as anyone else, but I'd never label you as a someone who enjoyed conflict.

I didn't view you as trying to pick a fight with me in the moment. I saw it a natural thing for you to be comfortable with division and conflict, perhaps more so than I am, and thus defend stoking conflict as inevitable and not anything to be too worked up about.

Would you say that we are kind of different in our personalities on that point? Maybe less so than I think, but I do think we are.

Not worked up, just kinda took me by surprise. I think we are alike in that we're open minded enough to have our minds changed. People seem to forget I've spent 20 years of my life defending a Church I ended up leaving and I spent most of my adult life voting Republican before completely flipping political philosophies. I've had to eat more crow than most people could ever dream. Most people I meet online have been adhering to the same religious/political belief systems all their lives and are truly unwilling to change.

[K Graham]

I guess I'm in the "we just got a new name for something that's been happening forever" camp. As I've said here before, I'm tired of hearing about it because it's something that's really only a concern for famous people (and I usually only hear about it from famous people). The word "cancel" is a showbiz word (as in, my show got cancelled). If anybody else "F"s up, they aren't cancelled, they're fired.

Touché

[Kishkumen]

I guess I'm in the "we just got a new name for something that's been happening forever" camp. As I've said here before, I'm tired of hearing about it because it's something that's really only a concern for famous people (and I usually only hear about it from famous people). The word "cancel" is a showbiz word (as in, my show got cancelled). If anybody else "F"s up, they aren't cancelled, they're fired.

And sometimes they are fired. And sometimes they should be fired. And sometimes non-celebrities also deserve to be fired for doing stupid and hateful things. On the other hand, there are these bizarre things that happen like those who got canned or almost canned for using a word meaning "stingy" that sounded too much like the absolutely unacceptable "n-word" (I am sincere in saying that it is absolutely unacceptable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controver ... #Etymology

I have to say that I feel a certain tension in the classroom that hovers around the issue of my possibly being misinterpreted as having said something so toxic and unacceptable that I am drummed out of the profession. One day I recall misspeaking out of exhaustion and then backtracking to make sure everyone understood that I had made an inadvertent error and I apologized. I was seriously stressed about it. Fortunately, I think the students knew me too well to think that the error was anything other than an error, when I apologized for it. It may be the case that those profs who get tagged with these accusations have not earned the good will and forgiveness of their students.

I agree that there are a ton of overly sensitive people in the world, and that we are in a place culturally where we spend way too much concern for people being "offended." I have no idea what to do about that, although I will say that the rebel in me will sometimes say things knowing full well it isn't PC, because Screw it. People need to grow up and own their reactions to the things they hear/read.

Here's what I've noticed, and I'll repeat it here again: people don't generally get "cancelled" if they own their mistake. If you Screw up and blame someone/something else, you'll likely get the full reaction to your mistake.

I am inclined to think that you are right. There are those who deliberately court danger in their speech, and they should know that there will be a cost involved in doing so, thus accepting that cost if they really think they are on the side of the angels. I generally just avoid the conflicts and drama.

[Kishkumen]

Not worked up, just kinda took me by surprise. I think we are alike in that we're open minded enough to have our minds changed. People seem to forget I've spent 20 years of my life defending a Church I ended up leaving and I spent most of my adult life voting Republican before completely flipping political philosophies. I've had to eat more crow than most people could ever dream. Most people I meet online have been adhering to the same religious/political belief systems all their lives and are truly unwilling to change.

To be clear, I was never saying that you might be worked up about anything. I was saying that you are not inclined to be worked up about the prospect of a little rough and tumble online. Also, I think your ability to change positions is admirable. I was not questioning that at all. What I was saying is that on either side of the issue you have not been afraid to be confrontational in online discussions in arguing your point of view. I would say those are two different things.

[K Graham]

I guess I'm in the "we just got a new name for something that's been happening forever" camp. As I've said here before, I'm tired of hearing about it because it's something that's really only a concern for famous people (and I usually only hear about it from famous people). The word "cancel" is a showbiz word (as in, my show got cancelled). If anybody else "F"s up, they aren't cancelled, they're fired.

And sometimes they are fired. And sometimes they should be fired. And sometimes non-celebrities also deserve to be fired for doing stupid and hateful things. On the other hand, there are these bizarre things that happen like those who got canned or almost canned for using a word meaning "stingy" that sounded too much like the absolutely unacceptable "n-word" (I am sincere in saying that it is absolutely unacceptable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controver ... #Etymology

I have to say that I feel a certain tension in the classroom that hovers around the issue of my possibly being misinterpreted as having said something so toxic and unacceptable that I am drummed out of the profession. One day I recall misspeaking out of exhaustion and then backtracking to make sure everyone understood that I had made an inadvertent error and I apologized. I was seriously stressed about it. Fortunately, I think the students knew me too well to think that the error was anything other than an error, when I apologized for it. It may be the case that those profs who get tagged with these accusations have not earned the good will and forgiveness of their students.

I agree that there are a ton of overly sensitive people in the world, and that we are in a place culturally where we spend way too much concern for people being "offended." I have no idea what to do about that, although I will say that the rebel in me will sometimes say things knowing full well it isn't PC, because Screw it. People need to grow up and own their reactions to the things they hear/read.

Here's what I've noticed, and I'll repeat it here again: people don't generally get "cancelled" if they own their mistake. If you Screw up and blame someone/something else, you'll likely get the full reaction to your mistake.

I am inclined to think that you are right. There are those who deliberately court danger in their speech, and they should know that there will be a cost involved in doing so, thus accepting that cost if they really think they are on the side of the angels. I generally just avoid the conflicts and drama.

Hey Kish, did you see the movie with Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman called the Human Stain?

Movie starts out with Hopkins a professor at a university, was calling roll and noticed that one of his student's had never been to class. He quipped that he wondered if this person actually exists or "is he a spook?" Someone in the class told the student later that the teacher used a racial slur against him, and he was fired for it. He didn't even know the race of the student because he had never seen him. Anyway, your remarks reminded me of this film.

[Some Schmo]

I have to say that I feel a certain tension in the classroom that hovers around the issue of my possibly being misinterpreted as having said something so toxic and unacceptable that I am drummed out of the profession. One day I recall misspeaking out of exhaustion and then backtracking to make sure everyone understood that I had made an inadvertent error and I apologized. I was seriously stressed about it. Fortunately, I think the students knew me too well to think that the error was anything other than an error, when I apologized for it. It may be the case that those profs who get tagged with these accusations have not earned the good will and forgiveness of their students.

Well this is extremely insightful for me.

So, I have to cop to the fact that I hadn't considered this from the point of view of any teacher and how this generation seems to have a lot more power to mess with teachers than my generation did. When I think of "cancel culture," I'm entirely thinking about famous people. A college professor (like I intimated before) would just get fired.

So the real topic of discussion seems to be, what offenses do or don't require termination of employment? Just how much power are we deciding to give people's sensibilities/sensitivities? Your post makes me genuinely concerned for teachers all over this country.

Part of the problem with the idea of "cancel culture" is that it conflates two things: people screwing up and deserving to be fired, and others who say questionable things that outrage a lot of people. This is why I try to restrict the term to famous people, because when they say things, it's much different than when regular people say things. Famous people have more impact; they're heard by more people. It may seem harsh to get fired from your job for saying something that pisses off a lot of people, but since you happen to be in the business of likeability, your ability to earn is diminished when you say controversial things.

They are directly sabotaging their own career when they say stupid things. The people who pay them understand this. To them, it's just business.

[Gadianton]

"cancel culture exists"

committed one of the unpardonable sins against Wokeism when he asked people what they thought about Dave Chappelle's controversial comedy routine and, worse yet, posted a link to that routine.

Oh I agree. I have some authorial interests I'm in the latter stages on and have been stuck here for at least a year. I don't care about failing in the usual sense, I mean, I'd be out a small amount of money that would have been wasted on something else that matters even less. However, on the small chance someone links my work to me in real life, I haven't thought through all the ways I might be politically insensitive; the small although real chance that offense could be taken and have an effect with employers -- I haven't been able to get past that.

I don't have the same fear of bashing Mormonism. pretty sure that would only score me points if someone complained.

[Res Ipsa]

I''m not interested in who is "guilty" or sorting people into "haters" and "woke." I am interested in perspective and context. And, in my opinion, just as with the issue of teaching "critical race theory" to school children has been vastly overhyped, so has "cancel culture" been overhyped by treating it as some new woke leftist threat when it affects well off celebrities and academics, rather than recognize it as behavior that has always existed, but targeted at the less well off.

I didn't figure you actually were. What I am looking at here is the way the issue is being framed in our imperfect online discussion format. I think some of the mechanisms you are using here tend to be offered as litmus tests to identify whether people are really on the right side of an issue or not.

Yes, critical race theory has been overhyped. In the first place, I think it is a fascinating subject. It was hyped long before it was discussed intelligently. I should hope that anyone who wants to engage in an honest examination of American history will understand that race is an indispensable part of the discussion. At the same time, I think there are some well-meaning teachers who engage in methodologically questionable exercises when dealing with the issue of race in the classroom. We can say that those who take exception to their methods are just racists or Trump-voters, and that may often be true, but I think there is still a huge discussion to be had on how most effectively to teach the issue of race in the classroom. My guess is that the conversation will take a very long time to develop because too many people are eager to make hay out of the controversy.

On the other hand, I will quibble with your words about "well off celebrities and academics." Celebrities and academics are convenient targets and surrogates for the real problem people: oligarchs. Let's talk about the oligarchs who own MSNBC and Fox. Let's ask why they are punching at various celebrities and academics while remaining in the shadows, only popping out to take vanity rides into space on occasion, or some such. To be clear, my doubtlessly risky opinion is that these are the people who are choosing candidates, funding the two major parties, and yanking celebrities and academics this way and that as it pleases them. What happened to block Mike Quinn at Arizona is exactly what we should be talking about. We don't because we are provided much more convenient targets. Celebrities, academics, the poor, "others," and each other.

Terry Gilliam is one of those convenient targets. He really isn't a person of much consequence in the big scheme of things.

I understand your point on litmus/purity tests, especially in online discourse. As much as our brains would like to sort everything into a few nice, simple categories, the reality is that people are complex and don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. I think I'm too much of a pragmatist to be interested in purity tests.

At the same time, I think context is important. And examining and trying to understand the context, in my opinion, involves asking the kind of questions I asked in this thread.

My view on the teaching of racial issues as part of U.S. history is pretty similar to yours. I mean, in my lifetime, educators haven't figured out the most effective way to teach math to children. How to teach a subject as politically charged as the role of race in US history is a problem that I suspect will be with teachers long after I return to dust. And the criticisms of how this subject is currently taught by some teachers don't come exclusively from the political right, although the right is more vocal on the subject right now.

I'm not sure I understand your quibble with what I said about "well off celebrities and academics." I didn't say that either group was the "real problem" or even a problem at all. My point is that cancel culture has been around forever, but only when those groups became targets was it portrayed as some kind of crisis.

I'm not sure that labeling a specific group as "the real problem people" gets us any farther. In fact, thought we were trying not to turn our conversation into an attempt to find guilty parties. And there's lots of discussion to be had on the topic of the effect of wealthy individuals on elections and the effect of media on how people perceive and talk about issues.

So, let's talk about Quinn. You know more details than I do. Is it fair to say he was "cancelled" before "cancel culture" entered the lexicon? Why is it a crisis when Pinker is "cancelled" but no one paid attention to Quinn?

[Kishkumen]

Hey Kish, did you see the movie with Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman called the Human Stain?

Movie starts out with Hopkins a professor at a university, was calling roll and noticed that one of his student's had never been to class. He quipped that he wondered if this person actually exists or "is he a spook?" Someone in the class told the student later that the teacher used a racial slur against him, and he was fired for it. He didn't even know the race of the student because he had never seen him. Anyway, your remarks reminded me of this film.

You had better believe I saw it and registered the unfortunate fictional situation's all too real relationship with our present predicament. It is worth noting that the Classics professor here was old and not well liked. He was out of touch and frankly an easy target. But, that is not all that comforting.

A few years ago a very unpopular white woman who works as a lecturer--in other words, academia's precariat--made some unfortunate comments at a conference and you would have thought that the world had just imploded. The people running the session on race and the Classics had a veritable meltdown, barking down this person, who is generally known to be mentally ill, as a no-goodnick who was predictably and obviously a racist.

Of course. LOL.

Wow.

What really struck me is that here we had a group of professors holding tenured positions at elite universities who were literally crapping themselves because an eccentric old lecturer dared to say that she hoped one of the speakers got his position based on his abilities and not his race.

And, hilariously, the truth is that the guy is extremely intelligent and skilled and almost certainly did not need to be a certain race to get any position.

No, it was just the fact that this person dared to make a dubious and smelly observation. The whole world stopped, and all of American Classics suddenly went into mea culpa mode, taking responsibility for one elderly lecturer's poorly considered observation.

Our graduate students returned to regale me with their stories of the horrors of this lecturer's racism and how the field was just so racist and finally we would be able to do something about the racism of Classics. I was appropriately shocked and outraged.

And then I watched the video. And I could not believe my damned eyes. Yes, this lady is the kind of old generation casual racist who does not get the lingo, just like a whole bunch of other old farts who should probably move on. Easy for me to say, since I have at least a dozen years left unless posts like this get me canned first.

But, seriously, it was not possible for PhDed academics from elite institutions to have an intelligent, measured conversation in response to this stinky comment?

If we can't do that, then what the ever-loving hell are we doing in the classroom?

I went from panicking about our racist field to seeing the whole damn thing as a self-indictment against my field for its lack of maturity and intellectual rigor in the face of mass hysteria.

Oh, the other big racist sin of the conference is that some Marriott employees asked some young guys to leave the area where the conference was because they were not wearing conference name tags.

Yeah. Not wearing name tags. You know, it is kind of expected that this will be done. The employees are asked to do this.

Because one elderly, unstable lecturer had a stinky comment . . . because Marriott employees asked young men without badges (oops, they happened to be a mixed group including marginalized ethnicities) to move along, Classics had a crisis of conscience.

"Whatever are we to do with this Homer Simpson?"

Don't get me wrong. There are racists in Classics. Classics has been implicated in racism in the past, and some of that does distort it today. These are real problems that need to be addressed. But what happened at that conference was just not the kind of serious crime that one would imagine triggering serious change. Instead it was a trumped up load of nonsense that was used by people who had an agenda.

Most of them are lily-white people from elite institutions who will never again know what it means to be in the precariat, and they are white-knighting it in order to be on the "right side of history" (and in some cases clearly satisfying their ambitious streak). If I did not share their belief that Classics is parched for greater diversity, I could hardly stand to be in the same room with them.

[Kishkumen]

At the same time, I think context is important. And examining and trying to understand the context, in my opinion, involves asking the kind of questions I asked in this thread.

Meh. I am not sure. I don't like these false dilemmas. Why are they concerned about this? Why are they not concerned about that? If they are useful on a certain level, I think they are not useful on others. Maybe I am still failing to get your point, but I do not think that my making a comment is the time to start asking general questions as though we were surveying a person on the street with a multiple-choice question.

I write as someone whose opinions many here know, and I would like to think that we could start there.

That's my preference, but I don't control the conversation. I can handle you doing your own thing with my comment, but the results are going to look like these, and I hope you are fine with that.

I'm not sure I understand your quibble with what I said about "well off celebrities and academics." I didn't say that either group was the "real problem" or even a problem at all. My point is that cancel culture has been around forever, but only when those groups became targets was it portrayed as some kind of crisis.

I am not saying you did. I am saying that you have raised the usual bugbears of the media, the people that corporate media makes money off of, whose cult they cultivate, and whose dismemberment they see dollars signs in.

I'm not sure that labeling a specific group as "the real problem people" gets us any farther. In fact, thought we were trying not to turn our conversation into an attempt to find guilty parties. And there's lots of discussion to be had on the topic of the effect of wealthy individuals on elections and the effect of media on how people perceive and talk about issues.

Maybe so. Right now I am inclined to disagree with you. I believe that we are living in an oligarchy masked as a republican democracy. And I do see runaway super-oligarchs as a real problem that should be addressed. Our system is so well stage-managed and so prohibitively expensive that you basically have to be in or be vetted and welcomed into this tiny elite in order to be elected to high office. That does not reflect my values, and I am comfortable with my position on that.

So, let's talk about Quinn. You know more details than I do. Is it fair to say he was "cancelled" before "cancel culture" entered the lexicon? Why is it a crisis when Pinker is "cancelled" but no one paid attention to Quinn?

He was refused employment at a university in Arizona because the rich guy who funded the position hated him for his writings on Mormonism. I would guess that Quinn does not merit the national attention that Pinker does.