[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".

[nybble41]

> 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?

Yes, it's a problem when it's to the point of completely disassociating from you given the opportunity to do so, and the comment was made outside of work, in a completely different forum, and not to them or about them. They're not willing to engage with you and try to change your mind, or even just to continue working with you (without being forced). They're jumping straight to outright ostracism, or as close to it as they can manage. And anyone who doesn't do the same is next in line—guilt by association is a big part of cancel culture. Often it's not about what you did but rather about your failure to publicly condemn and "cancel" someone else for what they did (or perhaps only have been accused of doing).

I'm not saying they should just ignore whatever specific thing it was that gave offense, though sometimes that is the right approach in a professional context. Choosing to working together while ignoring irreconcilable differences is sub-optimal but better than not associating at all. That, however, is something that people should choose for themselves, not something they should be forced into.

> Implicit in this is the claim that people don't already do this.

I'm sure some people do, and if they don't feel that they can continue to associate with someone based on what they've personally done then I support their choice. In the vast majority of cases, however, a more measured response is warranted which doesn't involve burning all bridges and driving the offending party into the outer fringes of society where they are likely to encounter others who were similarly exiled and become ever more entrenched in their positions.