[sophacles]

So here's the thing: people can and do lose jobs all the time over accusations that they've done something wrong. Often this happens pre-employment when background checks are happening the company finds old posts, or old arrests or whatever. Sure they don't fire you, they just never offer you the job. Other times people are fired over stuff like getting arrested even if it's a case of mistaken identity and the person is cleared, or a case where there are no charges brought. Lives are ruined over it, and it isn't new - it's been going on my whole life at least (b. 1980). The new thing is that it's being applied to people in prominent positions.

I agree that the whole concept is unfair. I disagree that this instance is particularly unfair - in fact I like the "new" cancel culture, because its very fair in the sense that it applies the same standards to public figures that are applied to everyone else. As the old saw goes "the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strongly".

[friendlybus]

So you won't complain when you get fired for this comment in 20 years when I am president?

In what country were public figures ever above the law?

Pre-employment checks search for drug use and crimes, a facebook post should never be a firable or arrestable offence (outside of the 3.3k arrested in the UK).

[strogonoff]

> In what country were public figures ever above the law?

Is it considered to be “above the law” if victims never report violations, intimidated by abuser’s social capital?

All the issues with cancel culture, wokeness et al. considered, there are upsides to living in a culture where it is possible to call out a very public person who has used their publicity to cause harm to someone and not be ridiculed.

[friendlybus]

You cant call out anybody and not be ridiculed. Ridicule, criticism, opposition is the basis of western culture. The legal system, the government and respectful debate is built on disagreement.

You can make justice for victims more or less easy, more or less private if you so wish, but seeking retribution for percieved slights against victims that aren't even you, has personal power written all over it.

You don't describe the reasoning of someone who wants to help victims, you describe the reasoning of someone who wants retribution. What you like is social capital and punishment of disagreement. I dont want to live your way, it leads to horrific outcomes. Turn the other cheek to criticism.

[strogonoff]

If you happen to be horribly mistreated by someone with a lot of fame and power at some point, and you try to bring them to justice, I will support you and I hope you are treated seriously and not ridiculed by general public as well.

If it never happens to you (perhaps thanks to cancel culture serving as a sort of deterrent now?), all the better.

Do downsides of cancel culture outweigh the upsides? Up for a debate, but unless all participants are willing to acknowledge those upsides in the first place I don’t see how such a debate could have a point.

[friendlybus]

Did you just claim that cancel culture magically is responsible for lower all chances of victimhood? I can't even with this.

The point is I don't want your help, I expect ridicule and opposition, it's part of the west. I don't even argue the downsides and upsides of cancel culture because it's attacking an unassailable problem with the mask of compassion.

[strogonoff]

> I expect ridicule and opposition

This is exactly why victims would choose to conceal abuse, thus enabling more of it and making public figures sometimes effectively above the law.

As a result of recent developments, knowing that they will receive support and compassion helps people who suffered through this in silence come out, raise public awareness and prevent a powerful person from perpetuating abuse.

I agree with the poster upthread that society is probably fairer and playing field is more level this way.