Yeah, most humans are like that.

Again, something a lot of people do, especially those who are argumentative yet have weak reasoning skills.

What would you consider a 'solution'...? For everyone keeping tabs on a random internet debacle (read: millions of people from around the globe, many of whom probably don't even care that much) to all agree on a single course of action, and then consider the subject closed…? I can tell you right now, you'll be waiting a long time for that. =/

I think there's as much to be learned from 'discourse' as there is to be learned from any other public affair, as long as you're open to listen and learn and think critically about what you hear.

To dismiss the whole thing as pointless just because a lot of idiots take part in it every day is to ignore the fact that literally anything open to the public ends up attracting idiots at some point. It's just nature...might as well ask if there's anything to be learned from the internet…^^;

Before I post my reply I firstly want to say that if it puts me in Tapas-timeout I do not care because i cannot stand these discussions about "cancel culture" and "discourse" when in some situations it genuinely is neither of those things but whatever

To start there's a specific set of things I've seen called discourse when in actuality it is a genuine issue or at the least something that certain groups ought to reflect on but 9/10 never do. To list off a few:

• RACISM:
  everyone acts like it's not a flagrant issue across platforms, across fandoms and just everywhere and often times it's excused in such a number of asinine ways that i'm no longer surprised by my hair loss due to stress (i am sick an tired). Also when i say racism I don't just mean overt and obvious racism but things like white-washing, harassment of poc and black folks especially, disregard for movements led by poc (specifically referencing blm here) or the many forms of racial micro-aggressions (i could get into some of them but there's an array of online resources that elaborate far more eloquently than i could)

• Pedophilia (this is mainly directed at proshipers & "maps"):
  the funny thing about proship specifically is the way it frames itself as "let people enjoy things" but often times from what i've seen is used to defend harmful and outright gross material in fandom (specifically adult x minor ships, noncon, sexualized minors and some other awful things). Yes you can 'let people enjoy things' but when the content normalizes the actions of online creeps and groomers and is used by these people it's not "antis ruining your fun" it's people trying to protect others. This also delves into the whole "minors are coming into adult spaces" when in reality it's adults making adult content of a show that is made for and whose target demographic is literally children. This is why 9/10 "callout posts" are mainly just warning psa's of "don't interact with this person and block them" the irony is fans of the person being called out will go batshit to defend them and as I've literally witnessed harass and threaten the ones making the callout.

• Abuse
  I cannot speak personally on it but it's amazed me how people who make things can have a long history of abuse, are known abusers, or have openly admitted to being an abuser but still get to keep their titles, careers and nobody bats an eye. Industry people included have been called out on allegations, had mountains of evidence against them and yet and still you will see their religious followings tout the ever so popular phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and my god it boils my blood. Then on top of that will harass and attack and threaten the victim of said abuser and that's just...normal.

If i had a clearer head (as I'm only running on a few hours of sleep) I would love to really get into some of the so called "discourse" and debunk some of the things people think are petty internet arguments but I'll just leave it at: Some things are bored internet mobs looking to start shit (consider the many many folks who tried to sully the name of chris evans early in the pandemic or like the whole "oprah is a kidnapper" mess) versus actual issues that caused folks a great deal of harm but got passed of as "cancel culture" (say the violent harassment black folks had to deal w during blacktober for "black-washing" cartoon characters. but oh it's "just a picture")

Also gonna drop this little link here that I think is a pretty good resource but ppl can view it however they please

I think the last thing I have to wonder is "is it really cancel culture or discourse or do you just hate accountability"

and to anyone who's read this and thought "oh your an anti" sure ya totally don't interact w/ me:]

One of the most important things from internet slap fights is power of apathy on such petty disagreements. In my case, it took almost dying a few times for me to get it and being older than the internet itself.

You hit the nail on the head here. I think very carefully before I engage in any online debate, and I will bow out quickly after saying my piece the instant things get hostile. I don't have the energy in my life for that nonsense.

If I think my words can help a person understand something which is eluding them, or inspire them to look at an issue from another angle, I may pipe up. Otherwise, nope.

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.

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

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.

Was going to jump into this, but @VibrantFox did a great job nailing everything on the head. Words have consequences in the same way actions do, and there are some views that are simply too dangerous to be tolerated. I'm reminded of "The Paradox of Intolerance", a warning that a truly tolerant society would have to be intolerant of intolerance in order to survive, otherwise they'd eventually fall to the intolerance they were trying to prevent. Well said Vibrant. Good work

He was dragged to court, and by any mean exercise your right to protest/critique in any way necessary, delete the exact video that violates the rules or something, but do not censor free speech if it doesn’t incite violence(which is another grey area which every people have different red line). It’s not like i endorse him or anything, in fact i’m one of those people he hates the most. But i already witnessed/experienced personally what happens when you attempt to ‘erase’ problem rather than ‘solve’ problem.

I feel like there's too much of a focus on the binary of censorship or no censorship. You can stop people from spreading hate speech and violence without putting political dissenters in gulags. What it boils down to is whether or not arguments are being made in bad faith, and what level of truth there is to the conversation. Deliberate spreading of hateful rhetoric and misinformation can and should be punished. Arguing because you disagree based on a different interpretation of the evidence shouldn't be.

I see what your saying, what is deemed 'toxic' by the majority is enough to throw someone in jail over. At least in the Alex Jones example, he was actively spreading harmful beliefs that led to directly negative consequences for the people involved. Then there are other's, whose ideas can't really be considered toxic because they do not directly or even indirectly harm others. But often the people deplatformed are in a similar position as those you've mentioned: small creators or personalities, sometimes from a minority group, that are deplatformed unfairly from a rabid mob or are so implicitly biased against that they might as well not have a platform.

"Dragged"

You can't violate someone's free speech if your not beholden to protecting it. And what's the point of removing one video if he can make more spreading the same vile rhetoric. Just keep removing videos until your satisfied?

Yea but he incited harrassment and detriment to the mental health of the parties involved. He caused active harm even if it was specifically violent.