[agentultra]

When I hear this I don't believe they're talking about grammar errors or malapropisms.

You can replace "poorly worded comment* with racist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/etc comment and see that this is a euphemism.

How much of intellectual life is now stifled because of fear of what a racist/misogynist/abelist comment would look like if taken out of context and spread on Twitter?

Context is important. One can dig up a quote from David Bowie that would paint him as a supporter of fascism. And indeed, at one point in his life, that may have been true. He later rescinded those comments and apologized and did his best, it seems, to make up for it in his later life.

But we're talking about people in the here-and-now in positions of power with terrible opinions saying horrible things about other people and they downplay it by acting like the people holding them accountable are the overly-sensitive ones.

It's not trampling democratic discourse. It's making it better in my accounting.

[shireboy]

I'll bite, in the spirit of discourse. Two issues I have with this take. First, David Bowie can afford in terms of money and in "social credit" to apologize and move on. A lowly first year prof or reporter who lost her job, friends, ability to publish, and ability to get a job besides flipping burgers despite apologizing is stuck with a metaphorical "Scarlet A" on her chest. If not for life, then for a very long time.

Second, who decides what is ___ist and how, and how is that enforced? If one disagrees fundamentally that saying "X" is ___ist, or what their anonymous accuser is saying happened at that party ages ago, where do they appeal their cause? As the article notes, these standards have changed _wildly_ over the past 5 years. There is no democratic process deciding these rules - it's just social evolution, amplified and sped up by today's communication technology. Even if one believes every new standard and the Twitter mob enforcing them is well-reasoned and morally right, I would hope they would want some due process before using these rules to take away a person's livelihood. I would hope one would be gracious toward people who for whatever reason don't immediately adjust their views to the "right" side every year. Have some consideration for us slower-evolving lifeforms, and realize you, too could eventually be on the that side of the equation some day.

Do some people cry "cancel culture" to gloss over truly stupid or downright evil things? Absolutely. Is every prof denying being __ist telling the truth? No. But it's also true that we live in a period of rapid social change, and are repeating some aspects of mob mentality that have caused problems in the past.

[naasking]

> He later rescinded those comments and apologized and did his best, it seems, to make up for it in his later life.

I'm not sure why apologies would be needed for merely having an idea or belief that was incorrect. It's a core part of "cancel culture", but it turns thinking and honest discussion into an activity fraught with danger, and inhibits building a common understanding.

I think it's ultimately based on the fundamentally wrong assertion that incorrect thoughts or speech cause equivalent harm to actions.

> But we're talking about people in the here-and-now in positions of power with terrible opinions saying horrible things about other people and they downplay it by acting like the people holding them accountable are the overly-sensitive ones.

You're cherry picking. Powerless individuals have also been targeted by such mobs. The responses to transgressions have also been disproportionate or preferential, ie. a transgression by "enemies" is treated far more harshly than transgressions by "friendlies".

This is not any reasonable form of justice I recognize. Even if it has had positive impacts in some ways, it has also had negative effects, and this is what deserves legitimate criticism as "cancel culture".

[rpdillon]

I think one way "poorly worded" can be interpreted is in the sense that choosing words poorly can leave the audience with an idea that was not intended. By replacing "poorly worded" with "racist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/etc", we skip the question of "Did this person say what they really mean?" and jump straight to "This person thinks a bad thing and needs to be punished". I think this is exactly the mentality that the author thinks is trampling democratic discourse, because it causes some to seek retribution before they understand what the person they are retaliating against was trying to say.

[AnimalMuppet]

Right, and any attempt to say "that's not what I meant" will be met with "You're a latent X-ist, you don't realize it, but it comes out in your words".

[nradov]

Did Twitter make democratic discourse better by banning feminist author Meghan Murphy? I don't necessarily endorse her opinions and I know some people think she's terrible, but I fail to see how locking her out of the conversation improves anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy

Meanwhile there are active Taliban representatives still happily tweeting today...

(And I do understand that Twitter as a private company has a legal right to ban anyone they want. My point is about broad societal effects rather than legal rights.)

[dgfitz]

The wikipedia article says she was banned for breaking the rules. I'm not clear what your point you're trying to make?

[naasking]

Some of the rules she allegedly broke were put in place after she was banned, as but one example. Let's not pretend that Twitter's rules are fair or impartial, or that they are fairly and impartially applied.

[zepto]

> But we're talking about people in the here-and-now in positions of power with terrible opinions saying horrible things

Are we? How can you be so sure. Perhaps sometimes that is true, but it clearly is not in many cases.