It depends a lot of the case. Some people are terrible and they need to be stopped and called out. However, is a common practice from guilty people to throw accusations to look good themselves.
That is why is important to look at the facts and evidence. Otherwise, some people may disguise their ugly actions with pretty words.
Of course there is also the petty arguments and people trying to play savior for internet brownie points.
Obviously there will be certain situations where "it depends" but I want to point out that 9/10 guilty people tend to throw out those accusations after they've been called out for their wrongdoings; that or offer hollow apologies that aren't really apologies and more an "I'm sorry for getting caught"
In callouts that I've seen personally there's been solid, undeniable evidence when it comes to the presentation of specific cases and this should be a given regardless. Obviously you get folks who lie but to assume every callout is a lie or to completely disregard said "fact and evidence" says more about those viewing them than the ones posting them (or at least that's how i feel)
But what my issue is, is when there's damning evidence against someone, several accounts of the actions or wrongdoings committed and other people who can back it up but the response is to either side with the one who's done wrong or suddenly expressing concerns over how "cancel culture is scary and harmful". It's something that bothers me especially because it's led to people doubting those who've been harmed or directing the focus away from the wrongdoer and instead (as I'd stated above) attacking the victim(s)
Petty arguments have existed and will continue to exist for along time and obviously there will be those with a "savior complex" that come and go but where the issue arises is when genuine issues get passed off as such, saying the two are the same invalidates those genuine issues and every time will let bad people get away with the things they've done and in that same vein leaves those hurt or wronged to suffer still
I think this is why i hate the fact that people even started up with the whole "cancel culture" phrase because in most cases I've seen it's been used to defend crappy people instead of pointing out actual bs arguments. I can get being tired of seeing "callout post #954865354" but consider ppl who've come to harm because rather than looking at the wrongdoing they're too busy being pissed off about "more internet discourse".
I fully agree with @VibrantFox here. It's so easy for people to roll their eyes at discourse, but at the same time its because people prefer to keep shaking their head at the more often than not VALID reasons the discourse took place, and therefore miss the point entirely as to why it happened.
Quite often if you are not a minority (to name an example), I find it's often those people who moan about discourse who are never affected by the issues that cannot see on just why people are calling BS. You could also sit down and see what people are actually are throwing a 'fuss' about, and use it as a learning moment.
True, a frustrating example of people disguising their ugly actions.
My point is that crappy behavior can come from either the accused or the accuser, so it's always neccesary to be informed on the full story.
Completely agree.
No offense but rarely does this argument hold water. Lot's of time people will try to "both sides" their way out of an argument but in reality it's just another form of deflecting blame or distracting from what's been done.
Like yes it's important to hear all sides of a story but be wary in that people will lie and in many cases that I've seen crappy people will try to put themselves in a victim role to deflect blame or distract from their wrongdoings as I've said several times now. I can literally think of several instances where such a thing happened and like clockwork the "cancel culture" and "both sides" arguments suddenly started to crop up.
This happens routinely ad nauseum and it's literally so very exhausting having to hear the same excuses again and again especially "whatabouts". I've seen more cherry picking from bad actors than I have from people with genuine concern about certain issues.
Literally on this form I've watched certain discussions completely derailed because rather than actually listen to certain groups concerns about an issue it was made about some "whataboutisms" and to top it off rather than it being addressed, rather than the people who in their speakings were wrong being reprimanded whole conversations were shut down. It makes me terrified and uncomfortable half the time to navigate the internet or these forums because rather than hear people out it's just quietly pushed to the side or outright ignored.
this is literally what happens all. the. time. and for whatever reasons (be it ignorance or apathy or both) and i hardly see people try to listen or learn but instead continue on with the "head shaking". The irony of is that it's not taking a higher ground or being smarter or whatever but just refusing to actually listen but it will never be addressed as such because that would potentially mean having to admit to being wrong.
If I do reply to any further responses then fine but for the time being I'm stepping away because I don't wish to further engage with this discussion topic.
Well put -- thanks for taking the time to articulate all of this.
There will always be reactionaries who are just going to keep vocalizing the same shitty views, which can make these discussions seem pointless, but it's important that people keep showing up to challenge them, even though there will never be any public "aha!" moment for these individuals. That's not the point. We've seen how dangerous rhetoric can be. Ignoring the fascists doesn't make them get bored and go home, it just emboldens them to do worse.
Anyway, I do think there are people who learn from some of these debates (I know I have) -- they just might not be the people doing the actual debating.
I really hate cancel culture because I feel like people don't really react to issue in an appropriate way.
It started out at something that was suppose to address people who committed crimes, like sexual assault, sexual harassment, minor grooming, etc. And I like these are issues that need to be address, and when people get upset, they should be.
However, I feel like there is another side to cancel culture which turns into, "You are internet friends with a guy who is friends with this other guy who said something problematic and how I am going to send you death threats daily and stalk your parent's house until you make a post where you unfriend them". Or "You made a problematic post 10 years ago and I am going to ignore how you changed as a person and run a hate blog that nitpicks everything you do". That is the aspect about cancel culture I don't like. I don't think it help people learn from their mistakes.
On the other hand, Disney choosing to fire someone is not cancel culture. Telling a politician their "hot take" on Twitter is stupid and harmful is not cancel culture. Banning someone from social media for breaking the site's established rules is not cancel culture.
Not on tapas or twitter lol even youtube is going down the drain
I've had interesting discussions in places that were well regulated and promoted free speech instead of banning people who posted a pepe meme. Tapas is poorly regulated, sorry to say that but locking threads about minority topics and flagging posts that you don't like is why this forum is fucked
[i know what i said but never mind for like 5 minutes]
deep sigh SO in some cases the "guilt by association" thing can be a lil bs BUT (and this is important) who you associate does in some ways determine your own views; and before someone pulls out yet another whataboutism this is literally the truth. Ya'll know "birds of a feather" same thing when it comes to social interactions and friendships whether that's on online or irl. Folks who share the same mindset will aggregate and that's just basic social science.
Sure if the association is not close then maybe it might seem baseless but if you don't want to get called out maybe make more clear what you do or do not stand for as an individual and mayhaps stop interacting with and associating yourself with said awful person.
Literally the other day there was an instance of an individual collaborating with someone who is a known pedophile and groomer. The person collaborating with them said "they don't condone those things" and yet persisted with the collab. So if you "don't condone it why continue interacting with them? In this same situation the persons friends gave several warnings about who the person is and their history and they still disregarded it, ghosted their friends and completed the collab. When called out for it they gave a half-assed apology but (as i'd said about for the 100th time) the "i'm sorry i got caught" variation.
So sure maybe some folks hate the whole "guilt by association thing" but often times it is necessary to be critical of who you interact with esp if they have certain harmful views or practices. NO EXCUSES.
Regarding "free speech" im simply going to post this comic from xkcd
1
No offense taken. You have a good point.
True, is hard to find a balance between catching the guilty and protecting the innocent. Being too quick or too slow on making a judgement can both lead to innocents getting hurt and the guilty getting away with their abuse.
Of course. I just think the issue at that more folks in some situations are quicker to jump to an "innocent until proven guilty" stance than using critical thinking skills or doing the bare minimum of believing victims. Sure people might attack me for it but I would much rather believe a potential victim and be wrong than to side with a potential abuser or whatever else. Obviously some situations may have more "nuance" than others or not every detail is know but there's data to show who people often side with in a situation.
It really depends? Like, if the argument is about something silly like pop culture, I would never get involved, anyway, because I refuse to involve myself with zealous fandoms and the topics just aren't of interest to me, anyway. If the argument is about politics, I think it's important to at least have civil discourse about topics. Do I think the internet is necessarily the best place for that discourse? Absolutely not. It's like, for some reason people think they can compose a rational argument for or against something with Twitter's piddly character count.
The best place to have civil discourse is in person--preferably at university since that's the place where ideas are meant to be shared. I think it's also important that everyone be able to share their views, though. Even if someone's view is absolutely trash, if they put it out there and numerous people disprove it, then people are far less likely to subscribe to that view. But most of the time, these conversations are on entirely reasonable topics that the left and right should have no trouble discussing with civility. Like, it's okay to agree to disagree, people. XD
The issue is when you expect people to vet everyone they interact with. My comment was not about the problematic person, but someone who if friends with someone who is friends with someone who is problematic, but on the internet so it's more like "friends". It's not really bird of a feather, it's more like they just follow them on social media. And why do people think harassing them and their parents is how to address the issue? And why must everyone have to write several paragraphs to justify it to the people who are harassing them. Death threats are not going to change people's minds.
I prefer the actions of, if you don't like that they will not unfriend someone, just unfollow or block them, etc. I sometimes feel like people want to continue to follow/like someone and not feel guilty about it.
Tapas is a place to talk about web comics and a lot of the posts that get flagged or locked are usually due to them being about topics that lead to fighting and arguing. Maybe to you that might seem boring, but that is not the point of these forums. The reason why BL and racial forums get locked is they get too heated.
For me the big problem is when people don't really understand what's happening and then twist it to be their own...little personal story, taking the issue away from the victims who are seeking for change, and just robbing their voices.
So for instance, there was a HUGE twitter discourse last year that actually made me stop using twitter for a good long time, where a lot if people have an honest issue where they couldn't charge as much for commissions than people who were well established. Yet, the people well established in the industry--who are mostly white, so this was absolutely a racial conversation--were like "don't you dare ever charge that low, you are lowballing actual professionals" as if the people who are starting out aren't professionals.
And so like this began as a intelligent, and well worded discussion about serious issues in illustration, about how if you come from circumstances where you can't go to art school, you can't go to conventions, and we no longer have entry level illustration jobs like magazine and editorial illsutration--people turn to commissions as a learning tool, and they don't charge enough because they need just any work to grow and survive.
However, a very popular artist with like over 100K followers saw that as a personal attack, and was like "OK I'm gonna bust balls here, I'm gonna piss people off, but maybe you just suck at art and that's why your prices are low." (and she cussed way more than that--her "discussion" was very poorly worded and phrased like an attack, as if people were just begging for her opinion--which no one wanted)
OBVIOUSLY she was being an idiot. The conversation wasn't about skill, it was about not having upward mobility or visibility in online art, especially for people from minorities, but instead--she made it about her, and she went off about how "it's not my responsibility to help you or promote you" and was cussing up a storm like she was having some sort of defensive panic attack. It was a melt down I haven't seen much like
PS, the girl was an animator--so she didn't even do commissions because she worked a salary job in a studio. It was like...this was an illustration problem, and while animation and illustration are close cousins--they're very different. So her perspective was totally off base.
From that point on, the conversation became about this random girl, and she never really understood at any point why what she said was--while factually correct, these were people who couldn't draw well yet--was totally wrong to say, because it ignored the actual conversation, which was about accessibility and race and the failures of our industry and the failures of art education at present. The conversation never pivoted back. It just turned into a "are you with me? or are you against me in this war I made up just now and is just now absolutely real?" and then alllll of art twitter went to war, and everyone had to give their five cents (most of which completely ignored the original problem, which again was about race and accessibility.)
It was ridiculous, and everyone got hurt. She ended up getting death threats and people tried to get her fired from her job--like in the end she was victim to a lot of hurt--but because it started out as bullying, it was like...you couldn't have a very polarized opinion, you know? And mostly discourse has to be polarized, and people were making excuses to make it so their "side" (which again, there never needed to be sides to this argument) was 100% not culpable.
So like...that's my big issue with discourse. It becomes about people attacking people, and the actual fundamental problems? Completely tossed under the rug so no changes ever occur, and even bringing up the conversation is quickly shot down. If this random woman was blocked and ignored (because she isn't even an illustrator, she's going off like a karen, ignore her) then none of this would have occurred and we maybe could have seen an actual discussion happen.
I don't think that's as much the fault of the discourse as it is the fault of one person with a horrible take. I mean, if the prior conversation about commissions hadn't happened, and she went off like that in response to a personal conversation, the end result would have been the same. Which says something, don't you think?
I was on Twitter during that time, and I think I may have heard about this person once...and quickly forgot about her completely. For me, the whole event was just a thing people were talking about; it barely made it onto my radar.
Which is another thing: your own social media environment does color your perception of 'discourse'. If you are surrounded by people who love drama or actively clown around to promote drama, things will look a lot messier to you than they do to people who simply do not engage. I feel like I learned from that conversation, whereas you seem to think it wasn't worth the trouble it supposedly caused by existing.
It's like elementary school teacher tactics: If one kid acts up during recess, recess itself should be cancelled. Never mind that you're just ignoring the root of the problem and hoping that removing one outlet for its manifestation will somehow make it disappear...
@dokidokitsuna I'm surprised this barely hit your radar, because this was a very influential person and every single art director and animator I was following also made it into their own personal soap box. But, we are all in our own little social media soap bubble, we all have different interests, and we all follow different people--especially professionally--and so it makes sense that what I see isn't the same as what you see.
But I'm not saying recess needs to be cancelled, haha, just that people need to stop responding to the drama! Bury it when someone tries to steal the soap box! It escalates to a point where people get death threats and stuff--just stop responding, stop quote RTing, block, get the conversation back on point.
Also, I don't think she would have had the same outcome if she hadn't done it in response to the commissions conversation. People in arts talk about improving your skills all the time. But the trick is knowing when and how to say it.
I dunno...as someone who also follows a lot of art professionals (which is why I was surprised that I heard so little about it, even at the time) I see this sort of thing happen all the time on a smaller scale. It's why the concept of a 'bad take' exists; every once in a while someone just says something, often at random, that makes a lot of people mad, and it sparks a big conversation.
I'm just saying the death threats and the toxicity probably would have happened either way, especially if this person is as influential as you say. The bigger the star, the more intense the hate becomes.
