David Black
So there is no nothing someone could have done and no amount of evidence which could change your mind? (Blanket statements, generalizations and hearsay being some of the problems with cancel culture...)
Jonathan Blow
Haven't I been hearing a lot in the past few years stuff like, "a little collateral damage is the cost of making positive change, and the ends justify the means"? Applies here. The game theory of a rule with no exceptions is very clear.
Jessie Perlo
This didn't answer @davejohnblack's question, I'm actually very curious to hear your answer to his question if you would mind?
Jonathan Blow
I thought I answered it. If you can be more specific about what I didn't answer, I can address that specific point.
Jessie Perlo
Sure thing! And sorry, I realize upon rereading that his initial question may not have been clear so: what is "the line" for you? Or rather, is there a circumstance where you would approve of a speaker being cancelled?
Jonathan Blow
If there were no such thing as cancel culture, yes. The problem is that cancel culture's primary tactic, of hyper-exaggerating small differences of opinion into unforgivable sins, does tremendously more harm today (I don't see actual Nazis speaking at computer conferences).
It does a great deal of harm to the individuals targeted by the harassment (who are many by now), and a great deal of damage to the ability of engineering discourse to occur in the way it must if we are going to solve many of the serious problems facing the world today.
I agree that maintaining a positive and inclusive community is important, and that there are people who can be toxic to that effort. I don't agree that small groups of people who seem to put all their energy into being as offended as possible should control the science and engineering discourse. (And if that ends up being the case, it is not a discourse I want to participate in!) I believe this regardless of the political beliefs of those attempting cancellation.
I think many on the left are happy with cancel culture as it stands today, because the majority of cancel pressure is coming from the left. But the right has been learning these tactics too, and anyone who's paid attention to history knows that it doesn't take very long for these things to do a complete 180. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure that we have relatively impartial ways of deciding who is allowed to contribute to the discourse, and that this isn't subject to whim, who is mad at whom today, or who a particular high school clique declares should be shamed.
I think the integrity of our ability to do science and engineering work is very important to preserve. And, yes, doing this properly involves some concerns that the current political left is vocal about. If someone has done high-quality work and has useful things to say about it, but they are excluded from a conference due to racism, sexism or any other kind of unfair bias, that is also doing serious damage to our ability to have the proper discourse, and this should be fixed. I know the people participating in cancel culture rage mobs think they are helping this correction to happen, but in reality, they're doing way more damage than they are doing good.