Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[Pelado]

Dude, you are going to be sued next.

How much did Bezos pay for myboynoah?

[frank ryan]

EIf someone were to imply that your avatar picture is of a "punchable" face, that would be wrong, right?

Good lord. Your comparison doesn't work.

[falafel]

Good lord. Your comparison doesn't work.

Why not? It's just a matter of degree.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[myboynoah]

Every person on the planet, if caught at just the right moment, when they are 16, has a "punchable" face. If by "punchable" you mean "appears to be a smug prick", and not implying that expression itself warrants actual punching. If someone were to imply that your avatar picture is of a "punchable" face, that would be wrong, right?

Good lord. Your comparison doesn't work.

Why not? It's just a matter of degree.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Ha. Yes, it would be wrong to imply that that innocent, guiless face is punchable It's like saying that the Baby Jesus is punchable.

This is surprising, helpful, and yet sad. Put swampfrog and falafel in the child abuser camp.

[swampfrog]

Good lord. Your comparison doesn't work.

Every time I try to be brief to encourage dialog, I guess I'm not precise enough. If I fully articulate my position, it becomes unwieldy. Let me try again to find middle ground. This is not a comparison at all, so pointing out that my comparison doesn't work is a non-sequitur. I'll state my position first.

I find that describing a face based on a single photo (regardless of age), or even a video as "punchable" is unacceptable behavior. There is no context in which implying that an escalation of violence is justifiable. Hashtag SJBH notwithstanding. In order to resolve the difference of opinion it must be established where exactly the opinions diverge. That first requires common ground is established.

My question is simply inquiry as to whether or not we both agree on something. So I'll restate the question:

Do you agree with me that someone describing the face in your avatar picture as "punchable" is wrong? As in morally wrong. Note that I'm not even asking if actually punching the face is wrong, but that act of describing it as "punchable" is wrong.

Ha. Yes, it would be wrong to imply that that innocent, guiless face is punchable It's like saying that the Baby Jesus is punchable.

This is surprising, helpful, and yet sad. Put swampfrog and falafel in the child abuser camp.

So we have common ground. We both agree that describing this specific young child's face as "punchable" is wrong. Does this apply to all children of the same age? Does the expression matter? Does the actual behavior matter? At what point exactly does it become acceptable to describe a face as "punchable", lay it out precisely.

Since babies have been brought into the conversation, and I happen to have a grand-nephew that will suffer near-blindness and other brain trauma because he was shaken by a grandma, exploring this is useful. This is unfortunately more common than it should be. It does establish however that adults can be motivated to do things they would not otherwise conceive by being irritated by normal behavior exhibited by babies and children.

Given those circumstances, we can conclude that it is the moral responsibility of the adult to understand that their perception of the behavior does not justify an escalation of response. Because their perception is wrong, always. When we judge, we are wrong because our understanding is incomplete.

Interesting that Christ is brought into the discussion. What would His description of that face be? It's a 16 year old boy. He has a mother, he has a father. Striking at your emotions was a bit intentional, maybe I over-stepped there. But it served it's purpose, for in response you labeled me as a child abuser.

[frank ryan]

Interesting that Christ is brought into the discussion. What would His description of that face be? It's a 16 year old boy. He has a mother, he has a father. Striking at your emotions was a bit intentional, maybe I over-stepped there. But it served it's purpose, for in response you labeled me as a child abuser.

There's no maybe. It was inapproppriote and odd that you went there. Smirking kid suing media doesn't make him more sympathetic.

[Moliere]

I hope the kid gets some money from this.

[swampfrog]

There's no maybe. It was inapproppriote and odd that you went there. Smirking kid suing media doesn't make him more sympathetic.

Hmmm. I find it incredibly useful to frame events and my reaction to them within the construct of people that I know and love personally. It's odd and inappropriate to describe and label someone that is unknown with the label "smirking kid", as if that's all he is.

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let's be honest. It was all about the MAGA hat. Without that, this would have been a smiling kid and nothing would have happened.

He is not going to get $250M, but it wouldn't hurt to see the media be a little more responsible in vetting this kind of stuff before running with it. Or maybe ignore it altogether. Good grief, a guy beat a drum in front of a kid. Who cares?

[Pelado]

Let's be honest. It was all about the MAGA hat. Without that, this would have been a smiling kid and nothing would have happened.

He is not going to get $250M, but it wouldn't hurt to see the media be a little more responsible in vetting this kind of stuff before running with it. Or maybe ignore it altogether. Good grief, a guy beat a drum in front of a kid. Who cares?

JL gets it.

[frank ryan]

Let's be honest. It was all about the MAGA hat. Without that, this would have been a smiling kid and nothing would have happened.

He is not going to get $250M, but it wouldn't hurt to see the media be a little more responsible in vetting this kind of stuff before running with it. Or maybe ignore it altogether. Good grief, a guy beat a drum in front of a kid. Who cares?

I agree with most of that. They should ignore. Some culpability lies with the public. We eat this stuff up. But the kid was smirking, regardless of whatever hat he had on. That’s just basic body language.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with most of that. They should ignore. Some culpability lies with the public. We eat this stuff up. But the kid was smirking, regardless of whatever hat he had on. That’s just basic body language.

Either way, who the hell cares?

[swampfrog]

Either way, who the hell cares?

Me. I care. Not simply about this single event, but to the greater context of which this is a microcosm. I believe exploring this territory necessary. I think it's completely unpredictable for the human race to be facing a culture war in the internet age, and I'm trying to understand this unknown. It's becoming clear this isn't the place. Which is fine. I'll leave it alone.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Me. I care. Not simply about this single event, but to the greater context of which this is a microcosm. I believe exploring this territory necessary. I think it's completely unpredictable for the human race to be facing a culture war in the internet age, and I'm trying to understand this unknown. It's becoming clear this isn't the place. Which is fine. I'll leave it alone.

No, you misunderstood. I find the whole event and the reactions interesting. I am just saying that we ought to be able to ignore things like this. No way this should have blown up like it did. But exploring the reactions and the reasons why it blew up is interesting.

I hope that makes sense.

[swampfrog]

No, you misunderstood. I find the whole event and the reactions interesting. I am just saying that we ought to be able to ignore things like this. No way this should have blown up like it did. But exploring the reactions and the reasons why it blew up is interesting essential.

I hope that makes sense.

With one change of emphasis, yes. I'm worried, and I'm not sure if that concern is justified, so I feel compelled to explore. However awkward a path that takes.