You're not going to "calm down radicalization" with phrases like "killing cancel culture" and suggesting that viewpoints you don't agree with on twitter/the platform as a whole as "unreasonable narcissists".
I don’t mean perspectives I disagree with are narcissistic, I was honestly making an observation based on my limited understand of psychology. Some personality types like to hear themselves talk more than others, and I honk it’s clear that they are more attracted to Twitter.
Look at the supportive and critical comments you received; it looks split down the line based on political leaning. It may be worth considering that if you want to avoid creating just another echo chamber.
The problem I’m interested in has nothing to do with winning arguments, more that so many people are quiet, not saying anything, because they aren’t interested in current discussion options, and the huge negative downsides.
I will reflect on all the feedback, especially the criticism. I don’t agree that I can divide it by political leaning though, and I certainly hope it’s not true. Definitely agree that the last thing the world needs is another echo chamber.
The "unreasonable" part is the the disproportionate and permanent effect of internet hatred in regards to comparatively non-permanent acts (that are still often harmful, but more often than not nowhere near to the same extent). The "narcissist" part is the need to do so for beneficial social points among those that do. Those that have the online support to keep the basic needs in life that they want to deprive others of. So yes, these people meet the definition on both counts.
It doesn't mean that those who are bombarded don't deserve to be reprimanded, just that they probably don't deserve to be bombarded with threats and harassment. You can express your opinion on Twitter without personal attacks and threats of harassment and violence. That part should not be a fringe opinion.
I can. I expect that most people can as well. I don't however agree that any opinion should be expressed without consequence. If someone says "we should kill the Jews and reinstate the 3rd Reich", or "The place of blacks is subjugated below whites". This reveals how they see others, and making sure that their employer is acting based on compete information seems perfectly reasonable.
> The "narcissist" part is the need to do so for beneficial social points among those that do
Why are you ascribing nefarious motives to actions? Why is it clear that these people are acting in bad faith?
The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it. It's especially obvious when these people doing it have done what they're complaining about themselves. It gets back to the main idea, that you don't have to harass people to get your point across. Even the most egregious reaction, trying to take someone's employment (and most often the ability to support themselves and their dependents) can be done in a way that isn't public and permanent.
Can you give an example of incorrect permanent punishment? Sacco found a job almost immediately. The truck driver may have a more difficult time, but not because this event will follow him, but because the labor market at the moment is shitty. (And to be clear here I'm not saying what happened to him was right or just).
> The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry.
Sure but now we're in a very fuzzy area. We're no longer saying that public shaming is always wrong, but that there are situations where, in your judgement, the scope is misapplied. Those are two very different situations, especially if you're willing to acknowledge that your perception of the severity of some action may indeed be different than the actual effect of that action.
> The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it.
I still don't buy this. People not being self aware is narcissism, but not in the way that you seem to be meaning, which is more like that the activism is performative and not genuine.
Not to say that there aren't people who are performative. Lots of social media activism is, but in many ways so is stuff like signing petitions, and that doesn't get a bad rap.
However even if we assume the worst outcome in that situation, the negative impacts of cancel culture are tame compared to a lot of other systems. If we're calling for an end to cancel culture due to the one case of permanent damage, why aren't we calling for an end of the US justice system which, on a daily basis, causes far more permanent and far more cases of damage?
And this is sort of whataboutism, but lots of the recent concern about cancel culture, at least that I've seen, is from mostly upper class, mostly non-black and latino, mostly well educated people. Their concern has been that they'll be cancelled if they don't support recent protests enough or in the right way.
So we have two systems of justice, one that unjustly kills innocent people on the daily, and one that might end up closing down a single restaurant whose owner was innocent. Why are we focusing our energy on dismantling the second system over the first?
Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob.
There are also mechanisms to address culture you disagree with (and you're exercising them!). The question was not why do you find cancel culture distasteful, nor was it even why do you personally find cancel culture potentially worse than unjust policing (which for now let's just agree to disagree on), but why it is that you are prioritizing the push back against cancellation over the pushback against unjust policing.
At this current moment, it is, I think, clear which unjust system causes more harm. It is the criminal justice institution. That cancel culture could grow worse is feasible, but it has not yet. People aren't routinely killed at the hands of twitter complaints.
> Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window.
Here we disagree on premise: cancel culture is the result of people who previously did not feel empowered to speak freely taking advantage of a system that raises their voices more prominently. That it is extrajudicial is a failure of the institutional justice system, which continues to systemically fail underserved communities (women, minorities, poor people). Sharing controversial opinions has never been without risk, that's why they're "controversial". There have been privileged sects of society for whom the risk of holding controversial, and even outright despicable, opinions was low. I don't think more equality in that regard is a negative thing.
> In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Do you believe the situation would be different if the employer had been unrelated to the girl who posted bad things? While the exact numbers might be different, I don't see the overall picture being that impacted by him being her father. And "punishing" an employer for the actions of an employee, while still perhaps fraught in some cases, is much less worrisome to me than targeting family.
I've never used it and had an account created from about a decade ago. The only people I had followed when I first created the account were a few random celebrities and public figures. I pretty much never logged in despite many emails from Twitter to remind me of my account. A few months ago I opened it up to look, and I was really shocked and appalled at what I saw. My reaction to it was quite visceral. The best way I can describe the content I saw is just "hate", not the general term hate-speech that people throw around, but rather just people tweeting hateful things and exhibiting what appeared to me to be their hatred over something or someone.
Sure in between all of that there were a few wholesome tweets of course. But for the most part, it was just hate. I didn't really stick around too much other than to maybe add some additional public personas I do follow (I guess in support of them). The whole experience left me with the impression that Twitter and perhaps social-media entirely, are really bad/toxic/divisive to our society, at least in their current form.