>You people aren’t suitably grateful. When I read through literature defending the self-sampling assumption, none of you praise my bravery or offer so many hugs! You don’t offer even one hug! You don’t even marvel at how I got through this!
The yt colonizer ALWAYS expects emotional comfort and validation without compensating the colonial subject for hxr emotional labor. The uncomfortable truth is this: both SIA and SSA (settler-colonial constructs each) imply it's highly likely that you would be born to the marginalized folx that comprise the Global South. That you manage to observe yourself to be a well-off 21st-century yt American anyway is a form of anthropic privilege.
1. The people vulnerable to internecine attacks are often those without popularity and they are often preyed upon regardless of actual wrongdoing if their interlocutor is popular. This fact is the basis of the left-wing critique of "cancel culture".
2. I'm not a member of the DSA but smaller less centralized IRL left wing groups don't seem to display these same dynamics, perhaps because there is less interpersonal competition when you need as many hands as you can get. People still call-in because principles are strongly held.
3. Left Twitter cancel culture is a lot less egregious than Leftbook partially due to the decentralized leaderless structure whereas Leftbook had a number of cults of personalities around moderators.
4. In personal spaces, especially those filled with Tumblr refugees, callout posts are used as a weapon to resolve petty disputes. People didn't call out Chili girl because she did something wrong by giving chili to her neighbors. it started because they were mad that she was mad that some person named Jai threatened to kill and eat chili girl's pet pig. Jai had previously called out streamer "Keffals" for making too much money in gofundme and not donating it to black trans people (maybe this is ressentiment, maybe this is genuine) and people pointed out this inconvenient thing Jai had done, so perhaps this friend group was resentful. There's genuine callouts for wrongdoing but there's also sociopaths who feel like they can create a vague aura of controversy and wrongness around someone regardless of anything they've done (as a way to weaponize social power to win petty disputes).
5. (Controversial Opinion) In professional spaces, there is probably a mix of genuine callouts designed to change professional norms and spurious social attacks meant to litigate petty personal grudges or even to gain social advancement. The structure of Twitter incentivizes picking fights with well-known individuals. If they quote retweet you, that's a lot of potential exposure.
6. Unironically, a lot of the worst internecine left-wing disputes are encouraged by obvious bot accounts that like the controversial tweets and don't really "like" tweets that are less controversial. Before Elon removed likes, you could look through their like history and detect that they often "liked" politically charged content that was controversial and pro-Russian accounts. Obviously a large part of the popularity of callout tweets is because people intrinsically like complexity and conflict. but geopolitical enemies are almost certainly stoking some of the conflict, likely to erode American social trust. (you see a similar dynamic with tweets that promote left/right polarization). This sounds cringe to say so believe me that I wouldn't say it if I didn't legitimately believe this to be true.
Yes. This angle of "cancel culture debate" deserves much more recognition.
Good post overall, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not being rigorous enough. For example:
> The first team had at one point called the other team’s arguments incoherent (I haven’t seen their arguments, but they, like almost all kritiks in debate, almost certainly were incoherent).
Whether or not the argument in question was indeed incoherent or not is a big deal. By not investigating it and just assuming so, you are making the same type of mistake that you are criticizing: inferring that someone is problematic solely based on them being part of some group who has history of problematic behavior.
What always strikes me is the obvious but rarely discussed fact that leftists, who are deeply concerned about harm, often don't hesitate to actually harm people themselves. Is this due to ignorance or a more troubling pathology? Being fired, bullied, and ostracized is tragic and traumatizing. These leftist bullies, who have a long history of infighting since the early days of Marxism, should not be given any power. Accusations without evidence should be dismissed, and the pathological behavior behind them should be condemned. Honest media should ignore such baseless accusations. How can we encourage society to recognize bullies as bullies and the victims of public witch hunts as true victims?
What would happen if a debate team actually argued from a conservative perspective and called out the other side for their ad hominem attacks and weaponizing their victimhood? I mean, I know they would lose, but would they actually make a noticeable impact to make people reconsider their beliefs? Would they get banned from future competitions? Would it just be unnoticed and swept under the rug?
As to the meritum of this post. This Kind of Thing (vicious purity spirals) is one reason why I have limited sympathy for at least some victims of (certain kinds of) cancellations: it has less of an e tu Brute feeling for me and more "first they came for..." (mutatis mutandi, obviously, I'm not making an actual comparison between 1930's Germany and Tumblr drama). They even sometimes use the same kinds of therapy speak / victimisation competition arguments their accusers use to defend themselves, and do it sincerely, as if their situation was an error rather than the system working exactly as it's meant to work.
>For you see, the shouty fringe harassment squad only go after soft targets. Their pattern is to go after people nominally on their own side who got too comfortable and made a tiny slip-up. The hope is that an apology and retraction can be extracted, at which point the harassment intensifies, because that’s what happens when you show weakness to the pack. They swiftly get bored and move on when they realize they are having no effect.
I imagine there are very good reasons rooted in evolutionary psychology that one might be more concerned about a heretic than a heathen.
True observation, but it seems like saying "Most of Stalin's victims were Soviet citizens".
Yes, the people who should be most upset at Stalin are Russians, but that doesn't really change the calculus of having him as an external enemy.
Stalin being a delusional, paranoid, narcissist was bad for everyone.
In the same way, Leftist Cancel Culture is bad for everyone. And it's true the main victims are of the Left- and many more left-center who keep their heads down and are forced to agree with insanity.
This doesn't really change the political calculus though? Cancel culture is a cancer destroying our institutions.
>You people aren’t suitably grateful. When I read through literature defending the self-sampling assumption, none of you praise my bravery or offer so many hugs! You don’t offer even one hug! You don’t even marvel at how I got through this!
>You people aren’t suitably grateful. When I read through literature defending the self-sampling assumption, none of you praise my bravery or offer so many hugs! You don’t offer even one hug! You don’t even marvel at how I got through this!
The yt colonizer ALWAYS expects emotional comfort and validation without compensating the colonial subject for hxr emotional labor. The uncomfortable truth is this: both SIA and SSA (settler-colonial constructs each) imply it's highly likely that you would be born to the marginalized folx that comprise the Global South. That you manage to observe yourself to be a well-off 21st-century yt American anyway is a form of anthropic privilege.
Lmao
This article was violence and I am literally shaking rn. Can't believe how violently violent that was. Shaking. Literally.
Yikes. So many hugs.
I can't believe how brave you were to wade into that mess. I'd like to offer you one thousand hugs, only if welcome of course.
Assorted thoughts:
1. The people vulnerable to internecine attacks are often those without popularity and they are often preyed upon regardless of actual wrongdoing if their interlocutor is popular. This fact is the basis of the left-wing critique of "cancel culture".
2. I'm not a member of the DSA but smaller less centralized IRL left wing groups don't seem to display these same dynamics, perhaps because there is less interpersonal competition when you need as many hands as you can get. People still call-in because principles are strongly held.
3. Left Twitter cancel culture is a lot less egregious than Leftbook partially due to the decentralized leaderless structure whereas Leftbook had a number of cults of personalities around moderators.
4. In personal spaces, especially those filled with Tumblr refugees, callout posts are used as a weapon to resolve petty disputes. People didn't call out Chili girl because she did something wrong by giving chili to her neighbors. it started because they were mad that she was mad that some person named Jai threatened to kill and eat chili girl's pet pig. Jai had previously called out streamer "Keffals" for making too much money in gofundme and not donating it to black trans people (maybe this is ressentiment, maybe this is genuine) and people pointed out this inconvenient thing Jai had done, so perhaps this friend group was resentful. There's genuine callouts for wrongdoing but there's also sociopaths who feel like they can create a vague aura of controversy and wrongness around someone regardless of anything they've done (as a way to weaponize social power to win petty disputes).
5. (Controversial Opinion) In professional spaces, there is probably a mix of genuine callouts designed to change professional norms and spurious social attacks meant to litigate petty personal grudges or even to gain social advancement. The structure of Twitter incentivizes picking fights with well-known individuals. If they quote retweet you, that's a lot of potential exposure.
6. Unironically, a lot of the worst internecine left-wing disputes are encouraged by obvious bot accounts that like the controversial tweets and don't really "like" tweets that are less controversial. Before Elon removed likes, you could look through their like history and detect that they often "liked" politically charged content that was controversial and pro-Russian accounts. Obviously a large part of the popularity of callout tweets is because people intrinsically like complexity and conflict. but geopolitical enemies are almost certainly stoking some of the conflict, likely to erode American social trust. (you see a similar dynamic with tweets that promote left/right polarization). This sounds cringe to say so believe me that I wouldn't say it if I didn't legitimately believe this to be true.
All true.
Yes. This angle of "cancel culture debate" deserves much more recognition.
Good post overall, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not being rigorous enough. For example:
> The first team had at one point called the other team’s arguments incoherent (I haven’t seen their arguments, but they, like almost all kritiks in debate, almost certainly were incoherent).
Whether or not the argument in question was indeed incoherent or not is a big deal. By not investigating it and just assuming so, you are making the same type of mistake that you are criticizing: inferring that someone is problematic solely based on them being part of some group who has history of problematic behavior.
I don’t have the ability to find the round it was from. But basically all Kritiks are incoherent and crazy
What always strikes me is the obvious but rarely discussed fact that leftists, who are deeply concerned about harm, often don't hesitate to actually harm people themselves. Is this due to ignorance or a more troubling pathology? Being fired, bullied, and ostracized is tragic and traumatizing. These leftist bullies, who have a long history of infighting since the early days of Marxism, should not be given any power. Accusations without evidence should be dismissed, and the pathological behavior behind them should be condemned. Honest media should ignore such baseless accusations. How can we encourage society to recognize bullies as bullies and the victims of public witch hunts as true victims?
Crying 😭. Fuming 😡. Quivering 😰. This article literally retraumatized me. Thanks a lot Bulldog
This cracked me up! Thanks.
This is a fantastic argument for God’s existence…
"as much of a Hippy Wokester as they come" Haha this one got me. I could so picture those words coming from the Nixon Tapes or Principal Skinner. Lol
What would happen if a debate team actually argued from a conservative perspective and called out the other side for their ad hominem attacks and weaponizing their victimhood? I mean, I know they would lose, but would they actually make a noticeable impact to make people reconsider their beliefs? Would they get banned from future competitions? Would it just be unnoticed and swept under the rug?
Is the word incoherent racist? How so?
As to the meritum of this post. This Kind of Thing (vicious purity spirals) is one reason why I have limited sympathy for at least some victims of (certain kinds of) cancellations: it has less of an e tu Brute feeling for me and more "first they came for..." (mutatis mutandi, obviously, I'm not making an actual comparison between 1930's Germany and Tumblr drama). They even sometimes use the same kinds of therapy speak / victimisation competition arguments their accusers use to defend themselves, and do it sincerely, as if their situation was an error rather than the system working exactly as it's meant to work.
This pattern was visible as early as 2015: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/on-being-deliberately-offensive/
>For you see, the shouty fringe harassment squad only go after soft targets. Their pattern is to go after people nominally on their own side who got too comfortable and made a tiny slip-up. The hope is that an apology and retraction can be extracted, at which point the harassment intensifies, because that’s what happens when you show weakness to the pack. They swiftly get bored and move on when they realize they are having no effect.
I imagine there are very good reasons rooted in evolutionary psychology that one might be more concerned about a heretic than a heathen.
Hence the term “circular firing squad”.
True observation, but it seems like saying "Most of Stalin's victims were Soviet citizens".
Yes, the people who should be most upset at Stalin are Russians, but that doesn't really change the calculus of having him as an external enemy.
Stalin being a delusional, paranoid, narcissist was bad for everyone.
In the same way, Leftist Cancel Culture is bad for everyone. And it's true the main victims are of the Left- and many more left-center who keep their heads down and are forced to agree with insanity.
This doesn't really change the political calculus though? Cancel culture is a cancer destroying our institutions.
>You people aren’t suitably grateful. When I read through literature defending the self-sampling assumption, none of you praise my bravery or offer so many hugs! You don’t offer even one hug! You don’t even marvel at how I got through this!
Strong Stewart Lee vibes