The fact that you are trying to cancel Alex tells me more about you than him.
Is this the cancle culture apocalypse the right is talking about?
Weren't consumer decisions once held differently? Or is it because there is no money spend, it's not ethics anymore?
> Is this the cancel culture apocalypse the right is talking about?
Asking people to not separate the product from the person, and think that the guy does not deserve any praise for his work because of some association with people that disagree with you? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about.
Trying to label everyone that holds an opposing view as "hateful" without absolutely no room for dialog? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about.
> it's not ethics anymore?
Does Soapbox come with some kind of clause that says you need to share their views to use their code? Is the product itself exclusionary in any way? Then no, ethics have nothing to do with it.
Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person? I'm not boycotting lactalys because their product are bad, they are quite good in fact, but he way the brand owner used to treat his employees, and the way they still treat milk producers irks me. I don't want to contribute to a person fortune if i don't like him or his way of treating people.
Should i buy some Nestlé product for convenience when i know that people gaining the most of the deal are not even apologetic about the contaminated water scandals? When they knew about African water and still sold mothers powder milk? I quite like some of their other product, i just don't want to give them my money.
It is the same for this soapbox product, no?
I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? Also there is room for dialog, i've talk quite extensively with a sodastream ambassador. Still won't ever buy their products, but we did talk.
Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees?
> I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...
Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.
If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
More importantly, I agree with parent that expressing views is something else than actively exploiting someone or using violence. Words != violence. Tolerance is being able to co-exist, work with and even be friends with people we disagree with. And, yes, that include people we think are intolerant (or that will be the excuse not to do the hard thing and engage in debate).
Open debate is a good thing, and it was hard won. Let's not throw it away so quickly.
Spinster.xyz is build on Soapbox and _run by Alex Gleason. It's hosting a community, which was banned from reddit for actively harassing and willfully hurting trans people. That's actions not words. Maybe people underestimate how organized and funded these hate groups are, how coordinated and planned the gaslighting of the public is. It's also not just "feminism" but more and more intersection with ultra right and "christian" conservative thinktanks.
Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it's all just opinions and words, and nobody gets hurt.
Are you saying they're beating people up? Or stalking them? Because, if not, it absolutely is "just" words! And if they do, that's illegal. I'm not in the US, but it seems to me like your laws, for the most part, strike good balance in these types of scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you would disagree?
I'm not saying it's nice, or good, or that they're moral. I'm saying that the "fix" many people (maybe not you) are advocating usually leads to much darker things than people having their feelings hurt by words[1]. We know this because many societies have gone down that path before us.
1: OK, that sounds flippant, I know. But I think many people underestimate the horribly things people have done, and still do, to each other..
Thank you for this. I understand your view better like this.
This is my point of view: I use my money and my time however i want. No one should feel entitled enough tell me if i am allowed to boycott a product.
This is why i don't think it is cancelling and that you are doing the term a disservice: Neither i nor 488643689 did say "don't use and/or participate with this product, he is transphobe". 488643689 just informed me, and others, of the product owner views on trans people, and that he cofounded spinster.xyz (which is a TERF platform).
Our society and economy is build on the myth of homo economicus. That people will take the best decision for them with the right informations. Having this information without haviong to dig in makes everyone stronger and able to make better decision.
Preventing someone to do business with perfectly informed economic actor is totalitarism. But informing people about the personnal deed of a product owner, not shaming them if they still engage with him, is something you should absolutely do if you believe in liberal capitalism.
From my point of view (Western Europe) this whole “cancel culture” thing is demented and stupid, and I’m probably as liberal as they come.
Why? Well, let me provide an illustration: what was Carl Benz’s opinion on, oh I don’t know... homosexuality or transexuality? I’m guessing blindly that it was probably very restrictive and ‘unenlightened’ by our own “modern standards”. He’s the inventor of the internal combustion engine... how many people are willing to give up their cars because their inventor’s views were ideologically impure? Louis Pasteur was probably also a bigot by modern standards too: are we going to wipe the slate of hygiene theory clean because of this?
People are imperfect. In the eyes of those who will come later we too will be imperfect. Let’s be charitable towards those who despite different political views and values nonetheless collaborate in this great technological and cultural enterprise that is the sum total of human knowledge and capabilities.
None of us have are the golden standard. Koan-like, those who might think they are the final word in morality aren’t, because they lack humility and also empathy with the circumstances that inform others’ views.
Alright, fire away.
In his case not about cancelling israel, its about not engaging with them economically.
But this is not only that. This is a generation thing. You (and i say "you" as in: older generations) told us that if we don't agree, we have to vote with our wallet.
Not happy about climate change? Vote with your wallet then, are you still using cars and planes hypocrites?
You're not happy about how we treat pigs and cows? How about you stop eating meat and vote with your wallet? (this one was delightful. Never heard this again since 2010).
Younger people probably had it harder than i did, and i did start to boycott things early in my life when the inconvenience was not to high. Just to piss you off. I did never coordinate though or ask people to boycott something with me. I'm not the social kind of guy. But i understand why people my generation would do that. You told us to vote with our wallet, that this is the only power we have. Don't be astonished when we use it.
(If that's what TERFs ~actually~ want I don't have the time or nerve to debate, but wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief)
It is this constant mis-representation of opposing views that make these kind of discussions so unbearable. I've wasted already, what?, an hour and a half arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. No wonder things are so polarized. Instead of trying to reach for common ground, the default behavior is to distort the argument, dehumanize the other and to try to "beat" the opponent into submission.
> wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief
You only mentioned the part about being Vegan, but I trust that you are smart enough to look at the part where I mentioned religious differences and figure out where I would draw the line? Hint: atheists can deny my beliefs all they want; what they think of me or my religion makes absolutely zero difference in my life.