[prvc]

>Would you agree then that participating in the 'anti-anti' mobs is also a possible form of feigned 'empathy'?

You have misread the comment twice over. I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility, and I also wrote nothing about assuming a false pretense. In my opinion, wrt "empathy", most of the mob participants are just fooling themselves, and the cynical drivers of these controversies tend to lean on empathy as an explanation less often, in favor of more opaque theoretical constructs.

[dguaraglia]

> You have misread the comment twice over.

I didn't.

> I wrote nothing that would preclude your scenario from being a possibility

That's kind of my point: there's a lot of questioning the motivations of the 'cancel culture mob' around these parts recently, but very little questioning of the motivations of the 'anti cancel culture mob'. It almost feels like there's a gaping blind spot there.

Unsurprisingly, a significant percentage of the 'anti cancel culture' controversy seems to be driven by a tiny fraction of people. One could even argue that both the 'cancel culture' and 'anti cancel culture' mobs are tiny. And yet, somehow, Hacker News seems to heavily favor the 'anti cancel culture' angle.

Go figure, huh?

[SpicyLemonZest]

I just don't agree with the symmetry you're drawing here. Pointing to a group of people and saying "I think they're engaged in a moral panic" doesn't make me part of an equal and opposite panic. If I were going around saying we've gotta ostracize the cancellers before they cancel us, that would certainly deserve some serious introspection - but I'm not, and neither is the original commenter.

[_euac]

While you might not be calling for ostracizing the cancellers, plenty of people out there are calling for exactly that.

There's a number of terms being used ('SJW', 'woke', 'cancel culture', 'cultural Marxism', etc.) to denigrate and quell any kind of discourse that goes against conservative talking points. I'd suggest you go and watch any of the self-described 'conservative comedians' to understand the level of otherization and systematic invalidation of any views that don't match theirs. Then come back here and tell me their behavior isn't as much of a moral panic as the supposed 'cancel culture'.

The fact that it is majorly powerful self-described Christian conservatives politicians that are constantly pushing the 'cancel culture' narrative should be a hint, don't you think?

[b112]

This has somewhat opened my eyes.

Looking in at the US from abroad, most people I know locally have been highly upset by US 'cancel culture'. Why? The lack of courts, the fact that people's lives, careers, and works have been ruined with "mob like" mentality, is horrifying.

Couple that with what you've just said, that the 'cancel culture' is a 'left' thing in the US, and this becomes more and more clear. As a Canuck, US / Canadian politics often do not align, and we have no political divide on these lines, so I did not even realise that 'cancel culture' was a 'left' thing until now.

It can often be difficult to decipher things from afar.

We also do things differently. Note, I'm not saying "better", just "differently". I honestly have no idea if this sort of behaviour is literally required, for change in the US, but it isn't well tolerated here by any one I know. Note that, fortunately, we have many political parties. And as a result, this ends up with people not aligning themselves with "just this or that party", as a general rule.

Sure, people will pick a party during an election, but even then people generally think 'this mostly matches with me, but that other party kinda does too, but I'll vote for $x...'. Further, we don't even elect our Prime Minister directly.. which also helps.

My point in all this rambling, is just to give a bit of insight into 'things are different', and how it seems to dull the sharp edges on 'us versus them'. And also because I know this next bit is somewhat sensitive, however?

Most people here, see little difference between US 'cancel culture', and 'what your prior US president did'.

Both? Decided to appeal to mob mentality. Both, decided to disregard courts. Both, claim there is 'no other way', but to take direct action.

The concept of people massing in DC, and storming political buildings, like some banana republic, or alternatively, hearing rumours and using it to destroy people's lives -- without trial, evidence, or all that 'nonsense', are two sides of a coin.

It's all the same method. It's casting aside process, rule of law, belief in the system, and more.

So I'd urge anyone, anywhere, with whatever politics in the US to think hard on this.

There's no case, ever, no matter what, where throwing out the concept of due process is right and correct. Ever.

[seebs]

Due process for calling someone to resign is deciding that you personally feel they should resign, and saying so.

If you don't see a difference between the things called "cancel culture" and the mob rule with violence, that's not because they're not different. It might be because you're uncritically accepting the lies people tell because they don't like any kind of accountability at all for their actions.

This is why we have US Senators on TV and publishing articles in major newspapers about how they're being silenced because a company decided not to work with them on something. You don't see these posts from the people who actually got silenced, because they were actually silenced. But if you believe someone who is using multiple media channels with international distribution to tell you that they are being silenced without recourse, that's sorta on you. You can do better than that.