I agree people are reaching for the limited power available to them, but the objections to cancel culture aren't usually around voluntary consensual boycotts but rather the use of "social force". Destruction of reputation, demands for firing, deplatforming, doxxing, swatting, etc... the methods of harming a person over the internet.
>Destruction of reputation, demands for firing, deplatforming, doxxing, swatting, etc
That last sentence comes across as disingenuous; you've mixed in things which are crimes, dont by individuals with things that are ACTUAL parts of boycotts.
Destruction of reputation is the reason why demands for firing appear, as do deplatforming.
Doxxing and swatting are different beast, both compared to the reputational losses and work losses, and when compared to each other (dox vs swat).
> Destruction of reputation is the reason why demands for firing appear, as do deplatforming.
No it isn't, if you say something bad to a random person you just hurt your reputation with that person a little bit. But if that person now starts to organize a hate campaign against you over what you said, that is what we call cancel culture and that is what destroyed your reputation, your reputation was fine until they started that hate campaign.
For example, lets say you tell a coworker you vote republican, that coworker then posts a mail to to everyone "Hey this guys voted for republicans, can we have a sexist racist around here? We must fire him!", who destroyed your reputation? You or them?
Such hate campaigns only creates conflict, it doesn't make people change it just creates fear and resentment that leads to electing people like Trump.
How do you think people in smaller communities work? Why do you think the town gossip is well known, and how social boycotts worked before?
Analogy: I’m making the point that if you leave these logs in the river, eventually they will hit this point, and they will create a log jam.
You can argue that this is or is not the definition of log jam, which is an issue of definitions.
Cancel culture is how the average person was told for decades to wield power. Capitalism would fix it. Finally, people started doing precisely that, and that was the start of cancel culture.
In your first example, isn’t this how people get into trouble in small communities, or villages? You were immune to this in bigger cities because you didnt have smaller communities.
Your second example is entirely dependent on people not liking Republicans. If people are OK with republicans that email dies in shame and embarrassment. If you are a repub, in a place where people are highly antagonistic to republicans, then your reputation is already at risk!
The other person broke your trust, you lost your anonymity. Same if you changed switched the party names.
> Such hate campaigns only creates conflict, i
The conflict is already there man. Republican strategy since the 60s has been high partisanship, and a full on media and information war. It’s been take no prisoners for a long time. Even if you tried to make peace, and have reasoned discussion, the deeper information tides wash out those efforts with the evening news. This is publicly stated by repub strategists. Hell Bannon talked about flooding the zone in the past few months!
The left is CATCHING UP to the right, and still has a way to go before it can match the alt right pound for pound in political power.
I think it mostly correlates with how technical PMs are.
People that were fairly technical prior to deciding to move to PM roles, those you can actually explain the context and reason with.
PMs that are more biased towards Business/Marketing are big on C Level networking etc., those are the ones that feel they are doing a good job if they try to bleed a stone with deadlines. They are adversarial like GP mentions and not someone you can reason with.
Many changes which I'd expect are commonly understood to be positive for society started with a small group of activists. Movements start small and public opinion doesn't change overnight. Sometimes public opinion needs a nudge from a small noteworthy action.
Had you ever discussed applying democratic values to the evaluation of the suitability of historical public statues spontaneously, before these actions made the news?
It tells you the company values process over efficacy. Interviewing, like practically any complex task is dynamic in nature. Following down a line of conversation with a candidate provides genuine insight into the individual and cannot be done mechanically.
These kinds of attempts at language revision rarely have anything to do with the people supposedly offended by them; they are an excuse to gain moral standing. The goal is to advance a particular political ideology, namely Social Justice, which its advocates believe is in the best interest of said minorities and thus doesn't require the consent of those they choose to speak for.
Neutrality does not "implicitly support the status quo" unless you believe the status quo is stable or exists in a local maxima. That clearly isn't true however because the status quo is dramatically different today than it was historically, and I wouldn't attribute activism for the bulk of those changes.
