Is there anything to be learned from “discourse”?

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.

[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

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

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.

@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.

One huge problem I've seen is that everyone believes they have a right to an opinion & that all are equally valid. Of course, they aren't all equally valid. Many are rooted in ignorance &/or bad information.
(EDITED for spelling error.)

The thing is, everyone technically does have a "right" to an opinion, meaning they should be allowed to express their opinion but...

At least here I agree that not all opinions are "good" opinions and some are rooted in ignorance, fear, and intentional malice and probably shouldn't be expressed.

Deplatforming is a problem though. I have no opinion on cancel culture but i have one on deplatforming. For an example, there’s this internet guy who believe school shooting is a hoax and that the water will turn people gay, i know this is a toxic content and by all means do hate the guy as you wish and maybe delete the exact video where it violates the host rules, but don’t give him the internet death penalty. As long as it doesn’t incite violence, what we’re doing is basically censoring him. And this is another topic that will go down into rabbit hole so fast. I don’t want any billionaire, instead of the government, to act as minister of truth. To counter this toxic content you shouldn’t ban people to exercise their free speech, but to create better counterargument content. Because believe it or not, the pendulum swings both ways, and there’s a lot of progressive activists being censored because of this too.

Actually it's not and I'll elaborate.

Regarding the free speech part specifically I'll again ask that we read and pay attention to the contents of the comic made by XKCD and I'll link it again here:

image.png566x577 50.4 KB

The first panel says in plain text that "the right to free speech means the gov't cant arrest you for what you say". The deplatforming of people promoting harmful views is in no way violating their free speech. No ones being thrown in jail, platforms (and by extension people) are simply making the decision that they no longer wish to host these people and their content. Plain and simple.

Also deplatforming people with harmful views is necessary albeit hard to understand especially if your not someone who is harmed by such views and it's the absolute truth. It's no mystery that people who are not of marginalize backgrounds will never relate to nor understand their struggle but what can be done by those outside those labels, those identities and those backgrounds is to listen and empathize. and that very last bit is a big one that many seem to fail to do constantly.

I'll give some examples. You mentioned the "water turning the frogs gay" statement made by Alex Jones a well known conspiracy theorist and holder of many harmful views. Views which put actual lives in danger even if not directly. A better example I can elaborate on is author J.K. Rowling (which I apologize to any trans folks passing through for even invoking the name) who is a known terf and overall transphobe likely among other things. Her harmful views have put trans lives in danger especially in the UK where she's considered a highly respected and influential individual. The cost this has had is making it incredibly hard for trans folk to have access healthcare among other things I'm sure. The info is online and can be researched but of course be discerning in what you read.

The point is when you continue to host people with certain view it's not only perpetuating the spread of what they say but also invites other with those same views, normalizes it and perpetuates it across whichever platform. When you deplatfrom a person who is racist that's necessary to protect people who are victims of racism. When you deplatform people who think school shooting are a hoax your protecting the victims of said events. When you deplatform people who are deniers of genocide you not only protect victims of genocide but also prevent such a thing from happening again. The point is that deplatforming is necessary because the longer those views are allowed to exist and persist and permeate spaces the more people are put in danger even if indirectly. That's why Donald Trump had his social media accounts terminated because his words eventually led to violence being incited (and there is undeniable evidence of that so I will not debate it).

Sometimes violence doesn't just outright happen. Often times it's a slow build. It starts with micro-aggressions, small actions, maybe a little abuse or assault here and there but then as it build over time then you get the big explosion (as we witnessed with the build up to the Jan 6th insurrection at the capitol). I'd imagine that even in other countries outside the US the same happens (I'm merely focusing on the US as that's where I am). Deplatforming people is not silencing them, no one said they can never ever come back but if it's made clear that their views are harmful or potentially harmful and people see that having such views bears consequences then it serves as a lesson and a warning.

This is why the notion of so called "cancel culture" can be so harmful because rather than acknowledge and address genuine evils or at the least harmful veiws or ideas it instead directs concern to how "you can't say anything on the internet because ppl will cancel you for it later" when that's no it at all. Actions have consequences. What you say can have an affect/effect on the lives of others whether you bear witness to it or not and the more you dismiss those things the further you endanger said individuals.

Like I just want to say that if I seem like I'm angry as I'm speaking on this it's because in part I really am but I'm also tired. I've seen people here and in other places be so dismissive to the suffering of others and struggle to understand how people can lack basic empathy but I guess that just goes to show where things are on the planet as a whole. It's easier to dismiss the actions of others and scold the ones who raise their voices about it rather than bothering to give even a single iota about the well-being of others. No ones saying you can't say things. No ones saying you can't follow or interact with certain folks. If anything all that's being asked is you at least try to pay a smidgen of attention to who those people are and where they stand and if their views could be hurting or harming your peers. if anything I'd say don't be surprised or angry if people choose not to interact with you (I certainly wouldn't) because of whatever views you have.

I keep writing these longs posts but if anything it just feels like I'm screaming at a brick wall and all my words are fallen on deaf ears but all I ask, all I hope, is that some of you (any of you) can learn or try to have at least a tiny atom's worth of empathy because some of these replies are incredibly disheartening.