[PaulDavisThe1st]

> and I've been "cancelled" by various groups of aquaintences over having opinions or failing to have opinions that the group demanded.

Lost a job? Lost housing? Lost income? Were you "cancelled" or did various groups of acquaintances simply decide they didn't enjoy your company and that feeling led to a gradual (or maybe not so gradual) falling away of contact and interaction?

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you should have different opinions. But in general people have both:

   1. opinions
   2. preferences on how and when opinions are expressed
   3. preferences for the company of people who don't violate (2)

If you and your various (past) groups of acquaintances really didn't agree on (1), then it's maybe entirely natural that over time, you'd no longer be a part of those groups. And if you disagreed about (2), then it's more than just natural, it's inevitable.

I have friends with whom I do not agree on a number of things, but they tend to be things that we don't need to talk about much, if ever. If either of us ever pushed their point in these domains, I suspect we would fairly quickly cease to be friends.

I have some other friends (and even a few family members) where we don't agree, but we do agree about how to disagree, how to debate, how to argue, what kinds of evidential levels for our opinions are required if we are going to disagree, and how we will end discussion. In these cases, (1) is not shared but (2) is, and so these are people whose company I can still actively enjoy.

I don't want to hang out much with people who see the world very differently from me, and more importantly, people whose timing and methods of expressing their opinions are quite different than what I find appropriate. If I'm not friends with these people, I haven't "cancelled" them, we've just followed an entirely natural path towards finding groups of people we can enjoy being with.

[yosito]

> I don't want to hang out much with people who see the world very differently from me

That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word.

I have friends and family that see the world quite differently than me. And I still take time to visit them, listen to them, and care for them.

When I was cancelled, I was actively attacked, sometimes literally having my life threatened, lost some jobs and memberships in different organizations. Mostly for failing to be offended by things the group told me I was required to be offended by.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word.

What I choose to read or watch is really completely orthogonal with who I choose to spend time with. I enjoy spending a significant amount of time investigating contrary points of view, and find it very valuable.

That does not mean I wish to spend the time I spend with others hanging out with people who actively hold contrary positions particularly if we do not agree on the terms of discussion. I can be respectful of those people [0], and listen to them, without making the choice to spend (optional) time with them.

If your cancelling really involved those things, then I am sorry that you had to experience this, and am glad that you've found some peace in the aftermath. An awful lot of what is called "cancelling" at the present time does not amount to the things you've described.

[0] EDIT: actually, this is dishonest. If someone does not agree with the same terms of discussion, I find it very hard to actually respect them, even if I can "be respectful" in person.

[jaywalk]

If you can't even respect someone who sees the world differently, how can you do any real "investigation" of actual contrary views? It's sad to me that you don't even see a problem with this, because this is exactly why things are they way they are today.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I didn't say I could not respect someone who sees the world differently. I said I could not respect someone who doesn't agree to the same terms of discussion.

Let's take a recent article linked on HN, on astral codex by Scott Alexander regarding Ivermectin. If I was to engage in a discussion with someone about Ivermectin, I would more or less insist that we both read this article as a starting point, since it already gathers, critiques and synthesizes almost every study that has been done. If someone wishes to defend the use of Ivermectin in connection with COVID19, then I'd have to insist that they answer the evidence presented in that article that strongly suggests that there is no reason to use it in parts of the world that do not have significant levels of parasitic worm infestation.

Now, perhaps they have some similar "reference" article that they'd insist we also read, and also had some similar basic evidence that they feel I should respond to. That's fine.

But we have to agree that our discussion is going to be evidence based, and that when I bring up evidence that contradicts their stated claims, they need to respond to the evidence by doing more than saying "I don't believe that'. Same in reverse, obviously.

If they can't do that, then sure, I can't respect them. If they can do that, then regardless of where we end up, I'm going to have respect for their position, even if I don't agree with it.

[Kye]

Some people's idea of free speech is really about their freedom to punch down, and they suddenly become very anti-free speech when criticized. Then they double down, and people set boundaries, and they complain about those boundaries...

Much of the noise about cancel culture looks a lot like DARVO.

[dfxm12]

There was a great line in last Sunday's Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David (half) jokes about free speech, saying something like "I don't know about free speech. Well, I should have it. The constitution should have said free speech for Larry David, everyone else, check with him first."

Larry is effectively holding up a mirror to the type of people you describe, and yeah what you say is true about people who complain about cancel culture, too. I try to engage anyone worried about losing a job due to something like that. I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

It's plain to see that too much of the discourse about free speech or cancel culture doesn't come from a place of good faith...

[nybble41]

> I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

It is possible to disagree with your proposed solutions as well as cancel culture. The problem with cancel culture is not in the fact that people are free to (dis)associate with others as they choose, so your suggestions to force association do nothing to fix the core issue. You may be allowed to keep your job, under duress, but you've still been "cancelled". The problem is that some people resort to disassociation rather than practicing tolerance; this is a subtle social problem and requires a more nuanced solution.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I have to confess that I don't understand your comment in any way.

If labor laws or a labor contract prevent you from losing your job for tweeting "COVID19 is no worse than having your left foot amputated", then when you do in fact tweet this, and do not lose your job, surely you have neither lost your job, nor been "cancelled".

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.

[nybble41]

Being "cancelled" is about people's attitude toward you, not whether you remain employed. People will still know what you said, and still not want anything to do with you; that's what I mean when I say you're still "cancelled". They may behave immaculately professional toward you (because they're required to) but it won't be a pleasant place to work, to say the least, and you probably won't choose to remain long unless you're unusually stubborn.

In any case—I don't care for cancel culture myself, but I wouldn't risk the far more fundamental freedom of association over it. Social ostracism ("cancelling") is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Wait, you're now using "cancelled" for "people know what you said and don't want anything to do with you", and suggesting that this is a problem?

The alternative appears to be "people know what you said, but ignore it." Is that somehow supposed to be better in some way than "people actually have opinions about good and bad, and act on them" ?

This just reminds me of what was supposed to be a funny (if sad) joke by Asheigh Brilliant:

   please don't judge me by what I do, or say, or who I really am.

> People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.

Implicit in this is the claim that people don't already do this. Implicit in this is the idea that people cannot possibly be already performing this calculus and saying "well, yep, even though Tonya from accounting has done a lot of great things here and has been great to work with, her attitudes and language about <X> overrides all that, and we need to make that clear".