There is a push against anonymity on the internet, but I'm not convinced that is the best way. Not with the growing threat of cancel culture. I'd rather go the other direction and provide additional assurances of privacy.
But in principle it sounds like it may work though I’d like to see an enforceable TOS that doesn’t undermine the purpose.
The vast majority of the time, I don't need to know your name, but if you're claiming to have knowledge of something, I do need a consistent way to verify your claims via a third party (eg: does a neutral third party vouch that the speaker truly is a certified mechanic? Truly a highschool graduate? Cancer patient? Citizen of Iceland?).
Unless we have some standard for notarization and identification built into the internet, it's turtles all the way down.
Reputation is a large part of how civilization remains civilized. There are advantages to not having your reputation follow you around forever -- sometimes people make mistakes and need a fresh start, but there are also advantages in having consequences for bad behavior.
For commercial social platforms though, at least in the short-medium term, allowing anonymity is good because it creates a greater incentive for outrage and conflict, which drives engagement. This is IMO at the root of many current problems in society.
She was not just "criticized" for it. You have industry-related websites now claiming to mention her only with hashtag #JKR. She's literally become "the one who shall not be named". Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. All of that for the very controversial opinion of "There is a word for 'people who menstruate' that the newspaper could've used"
Also Martina. One of the first openly gay tennis players, an actual defender of women's rights, "canceled" because she dared to say that trans-women would have an unfair advantage and should not be put to play with biologically-born women. The audacity...
The future project is Ickabog, which continues its progress through publishing. Some staff tried saying they no longer wanted to work on anything by JKR, but their employer told them they had no choice and must continue to work on Ickabog or leave the company.
All her books remain in print. All her merch is still being sold.
The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled.
> The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled.
It is not just who "gets cancelled" and who doesn't. It is about the threat. She is a multimillionaire with enough clout to survive this absurd backlash and to make her own gravity for her work if she needs to. Others aren't. Please let me know of any young and talented YA author that made any kind of "controversial" statement and still stayed around and I might start believing that cancel culture is not such a big threat as you seem to believe.
What a baffling question. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at.
> It is about the threat.
It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled.
I mentioned articles that declared would only mention her by initials to avoid calling her name, you followed that pattern. If it was not deliberate, it was an interesting coincidence.
> It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled.
No one can deny the fact that JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were more than "criticized" for their "opinions". They were misrepresented in their views to create attrition with some minority group, then coerced into getting some kind of apology for saying something that in no way entices animosity towards said minority and still after that get their work and professional relationships harassed to try to get them ostracized.
This by itself is already is cancel culture, not the fact that people actually get canceled.
It feels even weirder that you are trying to minimize the harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it.
> They were misrepresented in their views
Rowling was not misrepresented. She really said those things.
> then coerced into getting some kind of apology
She hasn't apologised. She's made no concessions. She's repeated what she said.
> harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it
No, I'm pointing out that she was never at any risk at all from being cancelled.
You keep talking about how dangerous cancel culture is, and how people keep being attacked. But you're entirely one-sided in your "analysis". You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. You never mention the people driven off platforms by the people you're defending. You cherry pick examples to try to get sympathetic victims, but when you do that you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
Unless you can actually point to a specific tweet where she sends her followers to harass someone, can you please drop the emotional rhetoric?
> you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
Oh, you mean survivorship bias? Yes, you are totally right! It is virtually impossible to find an up-and-coming talented writer who is able to express any controversial opinion without fearing for their careers. Why do you think is the more likely explanation: (a) every younger and talented writer shares the same world-view and are completely aligned with the vanguard of social justice or (b) every you writer is aware now that there are "things you can not say", i.e, cancel culture?
You make it sound like them saying "whatever they want" and "face no risk of cancellation" is a bug. Like, people should not have the right to express any kind of conflicting opinion or they would have to face a struggle session. Do you realize how fucked up that is?
Are you serious? There are three (three!) studio films in production based on her works. She has two novels in the publication channel right now for release this year. I don't even want to count the number of auxiliary projects like theme parks and derivative products she's currently involved with. And none of this, NONE OF THIS, has changed in the last few weeks since she got in trouble for being a TERF.
In my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine being cancelled so hard.
This "cancel culture" paranoia is just out of control. There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. What you think happening, though, is simply NOT HAPPENING. You're being misled, yet again, by your media who are telling you about "problems" that don't exist that Just So Happen to be "solved" by voting for the right candidates or hating the right people.
The problem with "cancel culture" is more about the culture than the cancelling part. It is the matter of coercing every prominent public figure into some uniform view point that is supposed to be spread around unquestioned.
> hating the right people.
I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people, yet you are ready to label them TERFs. Who is the one trigger-happy on the hate again?
> There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere.
It's funny how when we see "our side" making something clearly wrong and immoral, we are okay with just calling it "excesses". But if you are so forgiving for mistakes on one side, why not the other?
Just to educate you on the subject, since you don't seem very plugged in: What Rowling did was effectively deny that trans women are "women"[1]. To a demographic that is defined in terms of personal identity, that's offensive on its face. It's "hate", in the simplest form of the word. Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal", etc...
Now, obviously you don't see it that way, nor does Rowling. But if you want to make pontifications on internet culture you need to understand where the offense comes from.
[1] It's also notable that she was asymmetric about this and did not apply the same logic to trans men. She's part of an identifiable group of women who view the trans issue as a dilution of traditional feminism, which is why the "TERF" label got invented. It's not a label of hate, like "Antifa".
Comparing a demographic that has its identity based on self-affirmation and are claiming for some positive freedoms (I want to play with the women's team) based on their claims with another demographic who had their identity maligned and their natural rights removed by decades of violence and corrupt/biased institutions run by third parties? I am not sure that's the route you want to go.
But honestly, forgive me if I don't respond further. Unlike you, I am writing under my own name and I am weary that anything I say might be misconstrued and lead to some kind of struggle session in the future. Also, I really dislike the drive-by downvoting that is going on now.
Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams. That argument is a canard and you know it. Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes.
And please forgive me for uncontrollable laughter that in a discussion of cancel culture where you clearly are being engaged constructively, you're choosing to disengage anyway... because downvotes. I can't imagine a better illustration of the kind of fake outrage that powers the current conservative freakout. You guys aren't worried about being "canceled", you just don't like being Wrong on the Internet[1].
[1] Yes, that's an xkcd reference.
You are right in one point, you are at least trying to keep a civil conversation. I still don't like the fact that you are hiding under a fake name and I surely don't like that this comment will end up at -2 no matter what I write, but you are engaging constructively so let me give a vote of confidence.
> Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams
Navratilova was. Her argument was basically "if you grow up as a man and then do a sex change, you will have an unfair advantage over cis women. If more men decide to do that, you will be hurting cis women in sports". It was still construed as "hateful" and "transphobic". Martina Navratilova, gay activist, lost sponsorships and was plainly attacked for simply stating the obvious regarding the physiology of a trans woman [0].
Rowling saying about "there is a word for 'people who menstruate'" is also a call out for that. It is also a way to show that these attempts to declare that "trans women are women" may seem progressive at first but in the end lead to negate the most natural aspects of womanhood.
It seems that progressives don't realize that wishing biology away does not make it reality. Saying "trans women are women" and labeling any one that disagrees or tries to bring any nuance to the argument does not help any cause and quite possibly damages other groups in the process.
> Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes.
“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”
How can anyone interpret this as mistreating or harming trans people is beyond me. Reading this and all the reactions regarding it, to call this transphobic seems way more than just "wanting to be treated as the people they are".
Now, if you tell me that all of this is just a part of cultural wars, that all that is just activists trying to move the Overton window one way or another, I'd agree. If you want to be overly cynical and tell me that this is just corporate America exploiting the facts for clicks and that we are caught in the middle of the shouting, I'd agree even more. But don't tell me that this is just about "trans people wanting to be treated as the people they are", because I don't buy it.
---
[0] I don't know if you know the story of Tiffany Abreu, trans volleyball player who was a professional male player on minor leagues and after a sex surgery went to be the top-record player in the women's league. Another player - Tandara, one of the gold-medalists with Brazil female volleyball team - gave a post-match interview where she says something along the lines of: "As much as we respect the human being, there is no denying that she is favored by growing up as a man. We can see that she holds back in the beginning of the game, but this just means that she can get to the decisive moments with more energy, when she doesn't hold back anymore. She gets to the end of the game with more stamina than anyone, she has higher Vo2 than any other woman, she can jump higher than any other on the league. She has more muscle fibers than we do. She had 30 years as a man to develop a man's body. She will always hit stronger than we do, no matter how much hormone control she is under. Personally we get along just fine, but we know that it's different with her".
Was she "cancelled"? No. Were there other players saying that "she wasn't that different" and supportive of Tiffany? Sure. But in that interview Tandara spoke what was in the mind of most female volleyball players: trans-women athletes are leveraging their status as a way to dominate sports.
Did the FIVB reviewed their position regarding trans players? No, definitely not.
After all these decades of being Wrong Every Time, I'd really think the bigots would have learned that when a class of people says to you "We want to be people and be treated like people without other people calling us delusional and denying our desires" ... that you'd maybe listen. Just for once.
But no. Every time. Every disadvantaged population with needs becomes a Hill To Die On for the bigot.
I have met trans people, I have a great deal of sympathy for them. It's apparent they're struggling with some very difficult issues. It's a shame there aren't better treatments available. Treatment options are lacking for a whole host of other mental disorders and psychogenic illness. Treating them like people doesn't require I share their in delusion or 'celebrate' whatever crazy is the zeitgeist.
Women are often too emotional, but if we're going to let hysterical men vote there's not a good argument for not allowing women to vote too.
African American culture is obviously inferior if we're measuring outcomes. Adherents of this particular culture experience poorer outcomes than cultures that are more consistent with the ideals of western civilization.
Poor woman was practically having a mental breakdown on video.
There were no pile-ons; no one was calling for her to be cancelled; after her video (and indeed before it) people were praising her for her decision to make that video private 5(?) years ago and for her growth since then.
If she was cancelled she cancelled herself.
He was disgraced via Twitter and forced to step down from the firm he created for making some offensive jokes.
"But it was just a joke!" "No Grandpa, you're just a racist."
You're right though, it is a lot more prevalent than just high profile cases. But I also assume your friend deserved it.
Don't speak for others.
My personal experience is that women I never had romantic relationships with pretended that I raped them to get influence or money (once as a teen, once as an adult). Talking about this openly 3 friends have told me that similar things have happened to them. But I also won't give you specifics so you'll probably assume that we deserved it.
This subthread is literally a response to someone speaking on behalf of a friend.
And that logic is a little suspect: cancel culture is such a pervasive threat that (1) no one can talk about it happening despite (2) everyone talking about it happening everywhere, pervasively, without evidence.
That doesn't seem off to you?
Did the firing come before or after actual loss of customers who read his idea of a joke and freely decided (on a "yeah, fuck that guy" basis) that they weren't going to give him their money any more?
I ask that question because public relations is, in fact, part of a CEO's job - and if he was "forced out", that suggests there were other people whose money was tied up in the company, and so he actually had a financial responsibility to read the room better than he evidently did, just from your description.
Part of the responsibility of working a day job in a company is not to shit the desk. I'm hard pressed to call this basic social requirement "cancel culture".
Then it exists.
Really? While there are excesses everywhere in all things, this it just silly. This is a point made in sympathy to the goals of a political campaign and not out of genuine fear.
People aren't going to stop using their real names for fear of being "cancelled", come on.
The threat of cancel culture is very, very real.
[1] For those old enough to remember "They hate us for our freedoms" and "Radical Islamic Terrorism", this obsession seems like pretty weak sauce, at least as existential threats go. Previous administrations could at least invoke the threat of death. The worst terrors of the modern conservative are apparently being yelled at by hippies on the internet.