Cancel culture IRL

[Meadmaker]

If they actually have the virus, then getting into a verbal confrontation with them only increases the risk to you. If you want to decrease your risk of infection, move a safe distance away, don't get in their face and confront them. Talking, particularly with a raised voice, is more likely to spread it than simply staying quiet and taking small breaths.

That's great if I want to minimize my risk in one specific encounter.


If, on the other hand, I want to minimize the long term risk to everyone in society, I think a strong case could be made that confronting people not wearing masks is a good strategy.

From what we have learned in this thread, Andy was simply following corporate policy, but I would like to think that Kroger will get some pressure to change its policy, and if this video does some good toward that, then it's cool.

That's something about "cancel culture". Sometimes, it works and achieves a good end. In other words, making something into a video that goes viral sometimes has a legitimate purpose that would be difficult to achieve without the viral video. Danielle's targeting of Andy, specifically, isn't all that cool, but Andy as a representative of the corporation for which he works isn't so bad.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are those the sorts of replies Danielle was hoping to see?

I doubt it. But so what? Doesn't "cancel culture" imply a culture of cancelling people? I don't see how attempting to have someone cancelled and failing because that isn't the culture is an example of cancel culture.

If a single person stands in the middle of the street and craps themselves while shouting "everybody should crap themselves!", while onlookers sidle away saying "no thanks, you disgusting weirdo", then is that an example of "crapping yourself culture"? Or is it a lone weirdo trying to convince people to do something that they're not actually inclined to do?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

By creating enough controversy that the employer fires their target simply to make the problem go away.

It's not like large corporations are dedicated to fairness and justice. They're primarily interested in the bottom line.

As usually happens in discussions about "cancel culture", it soon becomes apparent that what is actually under discussion is the lack of workers' rights in the US.

 

[d4m10n]

I doubt it. But so what? Doesn't "cancel culture" imply a culture of cancelling people? I don't see how attempting to have someone cancelled and failing because that isn't the culture is an example of cancel culture.

So this would be an example of cancel culture if and only if the Kroger Andy tweet had the intended effect of causing a significant backlash?

 

[Darat]

So this would be an example of cancel culture if and only if the Kroger Andy tweet had the intended effect of causing a significant backlash?

Of course - else you are saying "cancel culture" is nothing more than: someone objecting to someone doing/not doing something. And we've had that behaviour for a long time....

 

[d4m10n]

Of course - else you are saying "cancel culture" is nothing more than: someone objecting to someone doing/not doing something.

With the intent of gathering a mob for the sake of punitive sanctions against an individual.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If they actually have the virus, then getting into a verbal confrontation with them only increases the risk to you. If you want to decrease your risk of infection, move a safe distance away, don't get in their face and confront them. Talking, particularly with a raised voice, is more likely to spread it than simply staying quiet and taking small breaths.

The best way to decrease risk would be to insist that these shops actually prevent maskless idiots from entering or remaining in their stores. This doesn't involve heckling someone with no power to make such changes, nor do I think the average grocery store worker should be expected to physically eject non-compliant people.

I think it's perfectly valid to be upset by this, but I don't see how heckling some working person who doesn't set corporate policy is the solution. I'm sure most cashiers and other employees of grocery stores are very well aware of their personal risk and are not pleased about maskless morons needlessly increasing that danger.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So this would be an example of cancel culture if and only if the Kroger Andy tweet had the intended effect of causing a significant backlash?

I've yet to be convinced that "cancel culture" is a real, significant thing. It seems to me to be a loaded term coined by the alt-right and still mostly used by the alt-right, designed to be a weapon against the possibility of unpalatable actions having consequences.

But, yes, for something to be considered any kind of culture would, I would say, necessitate that there is a culture based on it. Seems rather implicit in the name.

 

[rockysmith76]

I've yet to be convinced that "cancel culture" is a real, significant thing. It seems to me to be a loaded term coined by the alt-right and still mostly used by the alt-right, designed to be a weapon against the possibility of unpalatable actions having consequences.

But, yes, for something to be considered any kind of culture would, I would say, necessitate that there is a culture based on it. Seems rather implicit in the name.

It's one of those things that is being given life by Social Media, so it is "real" in that venue, significant though.... jury's out.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The best way to decrease risk would be to insist that these shops actually prevent maskless idiots from entering or remaining in their stores. This doesn't involve heckling someone with no power to make such changes, nor do I think the average grocery store worker should be expected to physically eject non-compliant people.

Up until the last few weeks, every supermarket I've been to had a security guard at the door, limiting the number of people who could enter the shop. If I were the owner of a chain of supermarkets I'd keep that guard there and refuse entry to anybody not wearing a mask.

Of course, smaller shops won't have the same ability to hire security, and that doesn't solve the issue of people who take the masks off once they're inside.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Up until the last few weeks, every supermarket I've been to had a security guard at the door, limiting the number of people who could enter the shop. If I were the owner of a chain of supermarkets I'd keep that guard there and refuse entry to anybody not wearing a mask.

Of course, smaller shops won't have the same ability to hire security, and that doesn't solve the issue of people who take the masks off once they're inside.

That's probably a good approach. Around my parts there are often employees doing headcounts at the doors to monitor capacity, but they aren't engaged in any kind of security work. I'm not sure what they do if someone tries to enter unmasked. I don't think there is nearly as much mask contrarians in blue states looking for showdowns at their local supermarkets.

People who take off their masks inside should be ejected and issued a permanent trespass order, just like anyone else in pre-covid days that makes a nuisance of themselves in grocery stores.

 

[d4m10n]

I've yet to be convinced that "cancel culture" is a real, significant thing.

How many distinct examples of viral social media pile-ons designed to punish an errant individual would it take to convince you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How many distinct examples of viral social media pile-ons designed to punish an errant individual would it take to convince you?

Is that how you're defining the term? In what way do you think the term "culture" applies?

And it is perhaps worth noting that the example you started this thread with wasn't a "social media pile-on". It was someone posting something on twitter and a large number of people telling her not to be so silly, and then raising money for the person in question.

 

[Lerxst]

I think it all starts with the same basic principles that seem to have been forgotten:

1. Don't be a dick
2. If you are being a dick though you can expect to eventually suffer the consequences for it

In this specific case, it seems the person acting in the most dickish way is the shopper that refused to wear a mask and allegedly threatened another shopper. This person should have suffered the most consequences but for one reason or the other it seems the complainant tried to hold Kroger responsible for it instead. Does Kroger have an obligation to enforce the policy? Of course they do, so they're not without blame, but if the issue was really about being assaulted instead of Kroger not enforcing a mask mandate then the focus should be on that incident instead of Kroger and their management.

TL;DR: The real dick seems to have gotten away with it in this case. Hard to tell as there is no evidence to back up the claim of assault.

I'll also note that there is a Kroger not to far from me that I used to frequent, and I've stopped shopping there due to other incidents like this that I have personally witnessed. I'm not sure what their policy is in this situation, but ultimately if they are not going to enforce the state-wide mandate then it's not as safe to shop there and I'll go elsewhere.

Does Andy need to lose his job for it? I don't think so, but if that is what ultimately happens then I certainly don't blame the person that called our attention to it.

 

[d4m10n]

Is that how you're defining the term? In what way do you think the term "culture" applies?

To the extent that the original poster intends to have some particular public shaming go viral, they are relying on other people's acculturated reactions to some given transgression.

And it is perhaps worth noting that the example you started this thread with wasn't a "social media pile-on".

There isn't any reasonable explanation for the original tweet that doesn't involve the expectation of a Twitter-driven pile-on designed to change the behavior of Andy and his employer.

 

[Cain]

I've yet to be convinced that "cancel culture" is a real, significant thing. It seems to me to be a loaded term coined by the alt-right and still mostly used by the alt-right, designed to be a weapon against the possibility of unpalatable actions having consequences.

Regardless of who first merged "culture" with "cancel," right-wing mobs have long gone after people for expressing politically incorrect views. Many of the right-wing ******** who signed the Harper's Letter have been working for years to silence critics of Israel. Targets have had to find new publishers, deal with threats to close venues, and, of course, being labeled anti-Semitic. The difference between those right-wing campaigns and general Internet mobs is that the former are much more focused and organized (with groups such as Canary Mission).

Of all the douchey things Bill Maher said in his career his show got canceled because he claimed men armed with box cutters taking over jetliners and slamming them into skyscrapers were a lot of things, but not cowards. The vast majority of Americans never watched Maher's show, and people didn't care until a talk radio host started a campaign. It turned out that Maher's bitter truth was "unpalatable" to many Americans in the wake of a terrorist attack, and it had consequences. Yes, cancellation is real. No, it's not new. The targets are no longer British mega bands more famous than Jesus. Now people will try to get the Internet to turn on entry-level Starbucks employees.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

To the extent that the original poster intends to have some particular public shaming go viral, they are relying on other people's acculturated reactions to some given transgression.

And yet those "acculturated reactions" didn't manifest. Seems that they were wrong about that "culture", eh?

There isn't any reasonable explanation for the original tweet that doesn't involve the expectation of a Twitter-driven pile-on designed to change the behavior of Andy and his employer.

If I see a black person on the street and expect to be mugged, does that imply that black people have a "mugging people culture"? Or are my expectations not actually relevant to what the culture actually is?

 

[d4m10n]

And yet those "acculturated reactions" didn't manifest.

There were at least a handful.

https://twitter.com/JimBo_1951/status/1292217185700642816

https://twitter.com/staylor111/status/1292175902063955968

https://twitter.com/llauralouisiana/status/1292464452516958210

https://twitter.com/JustWhatcause/status/1292524550773600257

https://twitter.com/NancyMitok/status/1292552061335175170

https://twitter.com/nyc10468/status/1292154804307922945

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, cancellation is real.

Of course it is. The word "boycott" isn't just a random collection of syllables.

Now people will try to get the Internet to turn on entry-level Starbucks employees.

A small number of people do, for sure. Sometimes it even works - mostly when the person actually has done something egregious. Is this really a significant problem? If you listen to many of the critics it will be the downfall of society.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it can also act as something of a counter-balance to things like, for example, minorities not being hired for jobs or not sticking with jobs because of unfair hiring practices or hostile work environments.

Yes, there are certainly individual incidents of people losing their jobs or facing a public backlash are flat-out wrong. And a small proportion of that wouldn't actually be mitigated by the US having better protection for workers, which is what the main issue often seems ultimately to boil down to.

But, it mostly seems to be that frivolous claims like in the OP are dismissed by this supposed "culture". And as a general rule, I don't see much of a problem with people being held accountable for their actions. It is, after all, exactly this that is seeing people like the murderers of George Floyd and Ahmaud Aubrey not getting away with their crimes: people filming incidents and then uploading the footage to the internet while saying "this is not okay".

And the acceptance by people who aren't on the far right of their narrative of "cancel culture" has now given the far right the justification for cancelling people of "I'm just playing by the left's rules". It's another propaganda victory for the right, and one that's been more successful than it's predecessors of "it's PC gone MAD!" and "You can't say anything any more". Probably because it's a catchier name. But it's just the same thing again, as far as I can see.

 

[Meadmaker]

A small number of people do, for sure. Sometimes it even works - mostly when the person actually has done something egregious. Is this really a significant problem? If you listen to many of the critics it will be the downfall of society.

I think so.

Everyone does something egregious at some time or another. People have bad days.

It's a case of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." People don't imagine that they, themselves, ever do anything which, if caught on video, would result in them being "cancelled". The fact is that darned near everyone does things like that at some point or another. Hwoever, your friends or colleagues brush it off because they know you and they know "That's just the way Bob is." or sometimes, "Wow. That's not like Bob. Something must really be bugging him. I wonder what's wrong."