Exaggerating The Power of Left Wing Democrats (1 Viewer)

[The Other Liberal]

There's a lot of talk about the left wing Democrats. Listen to the media and so called progressives and socialists appear to be taking over the party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are viewed as powerful politicians pushing Democrats too far left with proposals like Single Payer Healthcare and the Green New Deal to fight climate change. The pundits on CNN and in print media like The Washington Post warn of rising socialism and left wing progressivism that alienates most voters especially working class whites Democrats need to win Congress and state houses. Moreover the mainstream media wrongly ties Democrats to controversial activists movements like Black Lives Matter and college students activists. The former calls for defunding local police viewed as racists, while the students fuel a repressive cancel culture. Everyone calls for a move to the center. Even Elizabeth Warren a liberal by any standard is too far left. Never mind the Democrats don't officially endorse such things. Not to mention the issues raised by activists are legitimate and complex.

It doesn't matter that false charges of left wing extremism among Democrats come from conservatives in the GOP. The media that adopts that narrative, and centrist Democrats use it to their political advantage too. Since the 1980s it has contributed to the rise of a centrist establishment that really controls the Democratic Party. It's not that left leaning Democrats are very powerful. They're just vocal and they stand up for their convictions. They draw a powerful contrast with the right wing GOP and centrist Democrats. Vilifying them and exaggerating their influence prevents Democrats from discussing or advancing a liberal agenda. Centrist Democrats and Conservative Republicans are alike in opposing strongly regulated markets, funding, and expanding safety nets especially health care. They don't want to redistribute wealth and income despite a grossly unequal economy that undermines working people either. If there were a strong liberalism within the party leftist concerns and demands could be translated into needed reforms. In many ways that's what the New Deal did. It's far reaching policy reforms eased the effects of the depression. The New Deal also tamed capitalism and created a welfare state that made life more livable for all. All of this preempts left wing excess. However centrists tend to be skeptical of liberal efforts. Like conservatives they're totally against the left.

What are the results of this politics ? You get a regressive and reactionary Republican Party that doesn't benefit anybody including millions of working class people who vote for them. These people fall for the scare tactics about socialism or prioritize social issues. Yet nothing is done about their material wellbeing. At the same time Democratic Centrism is only a little better. Too often the center is Republican lite. The left isn't relevant despite their pro working class rhetoric, and liberals are not really in the game. We don't even own up to our name or tradition. Most of us wrongly claim to be progressive. Many others liberals are centrists.

 

[porculator]

"Cancel culture" is a nonsense phrase. When someone says they're being canceled, it's typically one of two things - "How dare you hold me accountable for the crap I say" or "Boycott". It's a totally meaningless phrase meant for nothing more than to fire people up when you feel like a victim, but still want to seem tough.

Writing a venue owner because you don't like an act they put on isn't some new concept, it's just more visible now as opposed to the "I'm gonna write a letter to the station" days.

Just because a concept has been bastageized by right wing bozos doesn't make it nonsense (see: "fake news")

In my opinion, cancel culture refers to our tendency to conveniently shun and effectively "cancel" someone once they draw our ire rather than going through the unpleasant and often fruitless endeavor of engaging with them and giving an opportunity for a dialogue. In effect, it's passive aggressivism taken to its extreme.

It stems from peoples desire to neatly sort everything into a good/bad pile without nuance, resulting in our love affair with "zero tolerance" policies which make it easier to do so.

If you're looking for an example, Al Franken would be the obvious one.

 

[RobF]

Well, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of "cancel culture". Whatever the term used to describe this, there are people who have been wrongly accused and lives affected because of it. So, while I get it, there definitely are some unintended consequences at times.

I think the problem is that "cancel culture" is, at its heart, consequence culture; the result of living in a world where actions have consequences. What "cancel culture" should refer is the mis- or over-application of that principle, that is, consequences being applied to people rashly, without merit, or excessively. There's been some thoughtful discussion of that, for example, the aspect of public shaming increasing in the internet era (a British writer, Jon Ronson, wrote an interesting book about that in 2016: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22571552-so-you-ve-been-publicly-shamed).

But it's been, quite deliberately, hijacked and stretched to include any consequences, by, for example, people being denied particular platforms due to their own intolerant, harmful, views, or more simply, by people who want to be racist without being made to feel bad about it. Or by Presidents who incited violence in a desperate attempt to overturn a legitimate election and the shameful people who supported him in doing that.

And that's why I'm with @JRad on 'cancel culture' being a nonsense phrase. As soon as it was warped to refer to basically any consequences - which was probably inevitable - it became meaningless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reflect and consider what consequences are appropriate and when, and try to act without haste which is why I agree with @Saint by the Bay, we should consider each issue individually.

But the notion that there shouldn't be consequences for depravity is very, very, dangerous, and when the notion that people shouldn't have their lives ruined for innocuous or mild offenses is conflated with the notion that people shouldn't suffer consequences from deliberate and extreme ones, that has to be pushed back against.

 

[JRad]

I think the problem is that "cancel culture" is, at its heart, consequence culture; the result of living in a world where actions have consequences. What "cancel culture" should refer is the mis- or over-application of that principle, that is, consequences being applied to people rashly, without merit, or excessively. There's been some thoughtful discussion of that, for example, the aspect of public shaming increasing in the internet era (a British writer, Jon Ronson, wrote an interesting book about that in 2016: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22571552-so-you-ve-been-publicly-shamed).

But it's been, quite deliberately, hijacked and stretched to include any consequences, by, for example, people being denied particular platforms due to their own intolerant, harmful, views, or more simply, by people who want to be racist without being made to feel bad about it. Or by Presidents who incited violence in a desperate attempt to overturn a legitimate election and the shameful people who supported him in doing that.

And that's why I'm with @JRad on 'cancel culture' being a nonsense phrase. As soon as it was warped to refer to basically any consequences - which was probably inevitable - it became meaningless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reflect and consider what consequences are appropriate and when, and try to act without haste which is why I agree with @Saint by the Bay, we should consider each issue individually.

But the notion that there shouldn't be consequences for depravity is very, very, dangerous, and when the notion that people shouldn't have their lives ruined for innocuous or mild offenses is conflated with the notion that people shouldn't suffer consequences from deliberate and extreme ones, that has to be pushed back against.

Well said. I've been trying to put my "gut feeling" on the subject into words, and you nailed it here.

 

[insidejob]

This is why I say instead of bundling it all together under a single catchphrase umbrella we should be talking about each issue individually. Attacking or defending the cultural movement greatly ignores the individual circumstances of each of these instances.

Recently I got into an argument with a guy on a Tiger King Meme board on Facebook. Because of where we were it was a fun argument, not an angry one, or so I thought. I did some crazy stuff including taking a pic of him and photoshopping it into a bukkake scene. This dude actually looked at my Facebook profile, got my employer information, selectively screenshot posts, sent it to my HR Director, and said he would post all over the Internet that my company has Directors who are homophobes if they didn't fire me.

My company just had me delete my posts and told me not to respond to him in any way. I did. However, I'm certainly sympathetic to people who don't see a big deal with what they are doing (it was a private Tiger King meme board!) and maybe step in it a bit or have folks go after their jobs in an unrelated way. We just can't cast a wide net by coming up with a label that treats every incident like it's exactly the same.

When I first started reading this post, I really thought the fact that you participate on a Tiger King meme board was going to be the craziest part of your post. You got this guy's employer info? Your company didn't tell you anything about having someone with lots of free time in the afternoons not to do anything to this buffoon, did they?

 

[insidejob]

There are a couple people on here I wouldn't mind canceling just because they're apparently awful human beings. I also don't think they care and would say the same about me.

 

[MT15]

Here is my takeaway from this discussion: Tiger King Meme Boards exist? And SBTB takes part?

 

[DaveXA]

I think the problem is that "cancel culture" is, at its heart, consequence culture; the result of living in a world where actions have consequences. What "cancel culture" should refer is the mis- or over-application of that principle, that is, consequences being applied to people rashly, without merit, or excessively. There's been some thoughtful discussion of that, for example, the aspect of public shaming increasing in the internet era (a British writer, Jon Ronson, wrote an interesting book about that in 2016: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22571552-so-you-ve-been-publicly-shamed).

But it's been, quite deliberately, hijacked and stretched to include any consequences, by, for example, people being denied particular platforms due to their own intolerant, harmful, views, or more simply, by people who want to be racist without being made to feel bad about it. Or by Presidents who incited violence in a desperate attempt to overturn a legitimate election and the shameful people who supported him in doing that.

And that's why I'm with @JRad on 'cancel culture' being a nonsense phrase. As soon as it was warped to refer to basically any consequences - which was probably inevitable - it became meaningless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't reflect and consider what consequences are appropriate and when, and try to act without haste which is why I agree with @Saint by the Bay, we should consider each issue individually.

But the notion that there shouldn't be consequences for depravity is very, very, dangerous, and when the notion that people shouldn't have their lives ruined for innocuous or mild offenses is conflated with the notion that people shouldn't suffer consequences from deliberate and extreme ones, that has to be pushed back against.

I agree with you mostly. But we do have a legal and civil system that addresses grievances and wrongs that need to be made right. There are mechanisms already in place such that actions do have consequences. Litigating consequences through social media can become problematic, especially when you're dealing with young people who find meaning in much of their life in that arena. I've seen young people's lives damaged/destroyed because of bullying in social media and sometimes the person being bullied is innocent.

In a world where facts are hard to ascertain, the concept bugs me. I'd rather people in the know make those judgements rather than making the wider public jury of those things they may not have the full story on.

I'm not saying social media can't be a vehicle for consequences, but, when the mob on social media gets the wrong guy or it goes too far, then it becomes counterproductive. What then?

And I'm not really even talking about cancel culture, but more addressing the weaponization of social media to achieve some sort of vigilante justice.

 

[B4YOU]

It’s not about consequences for speech but the disproportionality of those consequences. @Saint by the Bay posted experience describing exactly that. Trying to cost someone a job (ability to house, feed, and clothe one’s family) over a meme is a massively disproportionate response. If this person could whip up enough people to flood an HR dept or get employees to complain about a meme, then that company would possibly fire SBTB.

For example, the lady that gave Trump the finger from a bike lost her job for using the picture, originally posted in a newspaper, as her profile on Facebook and Twitter.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s not about consequences for speech but the disproportionality of those consequences. @Saint by the Bay posted experience describing exactly that. Trying to cost someone a job (ability to house, feed, and clothe one’s family) over a meme is a massively disproportionate response. If this person could whip up enough people to flood an HR dept or get employees to complain about a meme, then that company would possibly fire SBTB.

For example, the lady that gave Trump the finger from a bike lost her job for using the picture, originally posted in a newspaper, as her profile on Facebook and Twitter.

Indeed, and really, a truly proportional response is pretty much impossible. It's usually going to be too much or too little because there is little control over how far it's supposed to go.

Even then, there's not a lot of agreement over how much is too much. It's just an unwieldy way to hold people accountable.

 

[Roofgardener]

So enough people boycotting a particular artist for a venue to decide it'll hurt their bottom line if they host that artist isn't okay? Isn't that just capitalism? Why don't those other people "counter-cancel" and convince the venue to change their mind?

That's an interesting point. It would only work, however, if people who supported the artist (or at least, where interested in them) where AWARE of the 'cancel' attempt, and had time to counter-cancel them ?

 

[J-DONK]

This is such a deep discussion that has so many facets. I do see a very troubling trend about free speech in all of this. I also have problem with the consistency.

I'll give 3 examples that are in the news right now. All of these are women:

1. Gina Carano - fired by Disney after being warned it appears about her previous post. She made some crazy post about comparing her plight to that of the Jews or something equally moronic.

2. Neera Tanden - has said all kind of hateful stuff about people on the right, and far left(progressives) - not canceled, about to become a head of OBM.

3. Taylor Lorenz - NYT reporter, and apparently professional tattletale - made up a story to try and cancel a tech guy she didn't like while snooping on a app called clubhouse. What was his sin? She apparently thought he used the "r word". She for some reason hasn't been fired.

My biggest issue with this list? Gina Carano is an actor. Why is she held to a higher standard then a NYT reporter, and a senior government advisor? This seems insane to me.

 

[DaveXA]

This is such a deep discussion that has so many facets. I do see a very troubling trend about free speech in all of this. I also have problem with the consistency.

I'll give 3 examples that are in the news right now. All of these are women:

1. Gina Carano - fired by Disney after being warned it appears about her previous post. She made some crazy post about comparing her plight to that of the Jews or something equally moronic.

2. Neera Tanden - has said all kind of hateful stuff about people on the right, and far left(progressives) - not canceled, about to become a head of OBM.

3. Taylor Lorenz - NYT reporter, and apparently professional tattletale - made up a story to try and cancel a tech guy she didn't like while snooping on a app called clubhouse. What was his sin? She apparently thought he used the "r word". She for some reason hasn't been fired.

My biggest issue with this list? Gina Carano is an actor. Why is she held to a higher standard then a NYT reporter, and a senior government advisor? This seems insane to me.

Gina was her own worst enemy though. She was warned multiple times and given the opportunity to chill out. Not only did she not chill out, she went completely off the rails.

I'm not a big fan of Neera, and I do think her appointment to OMB is a position she shouldn't be in. It's one of the most high profile positions in DC. That said, although she hasn't really been canceled or lost much of anything, she has gotten a lot of flack for her comments. I don't know if she should lose her position over it. But I haven't paid attention to any of her social media lately.

Agreed on #3.

 

[zztop]

My biggest issue with this list? Gina Carano is an actor. Why is she held to a higher standard then a NYT reporter, and a senior government advisor? This seems insane to me.

Maybe you should, I don't know, post what each one has said and see if they compare to one another? Not all things people say are equally disparaging. There is also something about if a person has a pattern of previous postings. From what I recall she also spoke out against LGBT, mocked the use of masks, the need for vaccines, and supported claims of voter fraud... so it's not like she wasn't given 1 strike and she was fired

 

[Xeno]

That's an interesting point. It would only work, however, if people who supported the artist (or at least, where interested in them) where AWARE of the 'cancel' attempt, and had time to counter-cancel them ?

Do you think there's a secret cabal meeting in a dark basement deciding who gets "canceled"? It happens out in public, on social media.

And let's get something straight here: There's no such thing as "cancel culture." It's a FOX News buzzword that can be summed up with, "Well look at that, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions. But that can't be! I'm WHITE!"

 

[DaveXA]

Do you think there's a secret cabal meeting in a dark basement deciding who gets "canceled"? It happens out in public, on social media.

And let's get something straight here: There's no such thing as "cancel culture." It's a FOX News buzzword that can be summed up with, "Well look at that, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions. But that can't be! I'm WHITE!"

I don't know about cancel culture per se, but the weaponization of social media to destroy people's lives or careers is very real.

 

[Xeno]

I don't know about cancel culture per se, but the weaponization of social media to destroy people's lives or careers is very real.

Apples and grenades. Social media has been used this way since before it was even called social media, since before Zuckerberg pulled a fast one to make his billions and before Twitter or Instagram or any of them existed. The internet became the new town square long before "cancel culture" was a "thing" and people have been throwing rotten fruit the whole time.

 

[wardorican]

Just because a concept has been bastageized by right wing bozos doesn't make it nonsense (see: "fake news")

In my opinion, cancel culture refers to our tendency to conveniently shun and effectively "cancel" someone once they draw our ire rather than going through the unpleasant and often fruitless endeavor of engaging with them and giving an opportunity for a dialogue. In effect, it's passive aggressivism taken to its extreme.

It stems from peoples desire to neatly sort everything into a good/bad pile without nuance, resulting in our love affair with "zero tolerance" policies which make it easier to do so.

If you're looking for an example, Al Franken would be the obvious one.

I can't get into it, but I fully agree with this. I've seen it play out in the last month with my University. It's crazy. I may get into it later, but it's kind of complicated and bugs me.

 

[wardorican]

Apples and grenades. Social media has been used this way since before it was even called social media, since before Zuckerberg pulled a fast one to make his billions and before Twitter or Instagram or any of them existed. The internet became the new town square long before "cancel culture" was a "thing" and people have been throwing rotten fruit the whole time.

But the 'reach' is significantly more.

I'm also seeing how social media affects people's 'programming'. sadly, I can see what my mother is responding to (news article), and it makes me sad that she's been caught hook, line, and sinker with various mistruths. I haven't mustered the desire to bring it up yet.