sure if you've got a platform. otherwise you're kind of just bowling into the void.
think the point is, words are not enough.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Obama on 'Call-out culture' - "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
sure if you've got a platform. otherwise you're kind of just bowling into the void.
think the point is, words are not enough.
I don't think it's a Catch-22. I think people can be free to criticize others without it being labelled as cancel culture and I think people can acknowledge the good while criticizing the bad. It seems too often instead that it's people that refuse to let others acknowledge anything other than the good. When a simple discussion on a concern can be beat down and labelled "cancel culture". I'll reiterate my earlier post as it's more encompassing than any since and is more grounded in the original point:
I agree with the general sentiment with regard good people doing good things, though it's always slightly irritating to see the detritis instantly coalesce to nod their heads thinking it applies to the backlash they've received. When that's members here, like people who have been persistent trolls and bad-faith actors around things like child abuse and rape for months - it's hard to not entrench. Sometimes that pinch of trust is too hard to give when moderation here doesn't weed out the people that will happily argue around the point and derail perpetually. Which isn't a slight against the moderation, the forum has thousands of users, but it's a fact of discourse here.
Which is why the focus is on demonstrably good people, doing good things. Even then though, it's an easy thing to say. If someone has done good work within one communtiy but scorned another, where do you divide that line of 'acceptable' for the one slighted to react with. I don't think we've seen many examples of people being cancelled wrongfully and their careers in the bin because of it. I see far more people that were 'cancelled' for shitty things continuing to make millions and be invited everywhere.
So though I think the sentiment is accurate and a good one, I think it's far too 'ideal world' to be taken as anything other than general advice. I'd rather see people question why people doing shitty things aren't facing repurcussions than this perpetual hand-wringing over call-out/cancel/outrage/whatever culture and the subsequent use of it to muddy legitimate concerns in minority communities.
Ah ok, if we're resorting to this then don't worry lol.
Last edited:
Dudes is a non gendered term from where I grew up....
Most boycotts never work either, always loads of people willing to "forgive" bigots, rapists, assaulters etc. What I was getting at is if people that do fucked up shit actually got punished, there wouldn't be a need for 80% of "call outs".
As for the dumb stuff being called out I take that as just part of society. Not just a social media thing
This has nothing to do with college campuses though. The majority of people who normally vote Democrat but switched to Trump in those states where it mattered were older, white, often times blue collar workers who Trump specifically pandered to with lies and racism.
I'd also question the source of this data you are claiming, not because I think you are lying but because I've seen data that conflicts with your claims here.
Dunno if he's really that vague. He's referring to a behaviour that is pretty unique to new conversational style and he uses some examples. This kind of conversation style is pretty unique to the modern SocialMedia linguistics. And SocialMedia on its own (and especially new arising platforms) are predominantly used by younger people and thats probably the reason why he sees a potential danger there.
It's not like that generation is worse than the generation before. Having full and constant access to SocialMedia simply causes a different behaviour.
Sure, I would agree that social media incentivizes a lot of negative and harmful social behavior. I don't think that such behavior is a product of college campuses though, and he doesn't really provide any justification for that framing
The 12% Sanders -> Trump voter thing was from this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist
A new study found that about 12 percent of Sanders voters from the primary supported Trump in the general election.
www.vox.com
To be fair, I haven't independently checked those numbers, but I've seen similar from other sources I trust and I don't have any reason to think they're false, but open to it if there's someting that debunks them. Two independent accounts reached a 12% number, another reached a 6% number. In either case, those percentages -- especially in key states Trump barely won -- would probably be enough to swing that state... And there's such a stark difference between Sanders and Trump that it suggests there's something going on beyond policy.
And yeah, I agree, it's not just "college campuses." I think the much greater problem is on the internet, where college campuses are more or less irrelevant in comparison. Obama's using college campus activism to make his point, though I'd extend it way beyond college campuses to internet community echo chambers. I think Obama is more comfortable talking about college campuses than he would be talking about internet communities; Meanwhile, I've been out of college for 15 years, but still active in internet communities, so I'm more comfortable in this realm. I think the point that Obama is making that I agree with is a larger scope than college campuses.
Last edited:
That's patent bullshit. I see plenty of things come across my feed that aren't celebrities or overtly egregious from all places around the world. Does it negatively impact everyone that has their face plastered over the internet? No but it certainly isn't a negligible number that have been impacted.
Then you have idiots who dox over things that should be quickly forgotten, then have a name constantly associated with some event that regardless of whether reparations have been paid or not, will ALWAYS show up with a quick google search which will impact long term employment prospects... All because some nobody on the internet decided that it was worth going that step too far.
I'm not talking about just bigotry but it's just the culture of everyone reaching for their phones as soon as they see some sort of event and posting it on the net immediately, without a care in the world of what impact that may have with a lynch mob in waiting.
While obviously highlighting some major atrocities and despicable people, one can't deny that there are plenty of people caught in the crossfire as well. Ultimately, some think that is perfectly acceptable and we've seen posts like that in here but I'm of the opinion that the court of public opinion is ultimately bullshit and many are way too fast to jump to conclusions in a time where a person is defined by a couple of sentences, a single picture or a video often spanning less than a minute. Ultimately, no one is safe from this sort of prosecution.
You're ascribing practical power to the office of the president that it does not have. No one president can "dismantle western imperialism" because ultimately the president isn't the person who decides whether or not we go to war; congress does. Congress could have dismantled western imperialism at any point in the last century+ and they haven't.
You're right, though, that he was way more hawkish than he let on in his campaign, and way worse on foreign policy than he needed to be.
I think he held that speech at a campus. Also a campus is pretty much the prime example for a place with mostly young adults.
Edit: I don't think that he hinted in any way that college campuses would cause the toxic behaviour which people acquire through SocialMedia
Last edited:
I think you are right. But a large problem is precisely that congress gives so much authority away to the president or executive agencies in the first place. Like why is the CIA doing drone strikes in countries we are not at war with. It's terrible.
Why do people keep putting this on young people at college campuses? Are there not a lot of older people on Facebook and Twitter that do nothing but attack people without doing any real work to improve this country? Are all of the people agreeing with this active in some way to improve the rights of the marginalized in their respective countries?
Slacktivism
Young People and Political Activism
Post Materialism and Young People's Political Participation in a Time of Austerity
Does Age Matter
We need young people to vote more but they aren't apathetic and disengaged from politics unless you consider voting as the only civic duty of political engagement. We need more people to be engaged with all forms of sociopolitical engagement and yes some of those forms, the youngins are on par with or participate more than their seniors.
The second and fourth links are direct pdfs.
Slacktivism
Young People and Political Activism
Post Materialism and Young People's Political Participation in a Time of Austerity
Does Age Matter
We need young people to vote more but they aren't apathetic and disengaged from politics unless you consider voting as the only civic duty of political engagement. We need more people to be engaged with all forms of sociopolitical engagement and yes some of those forms, the youngins are on par with or participate more than their seniors.
The second and fourth links are direct pdfs.
Absolutely. Congress has been giving more and more leeway to the president in these matters and they really need to start reining it in.
I'm fairly certain there were more Obama -> Trump then Bernie-> Trump voters. But I'm not entirely sure.The 12% Sanders -> Trump voter thing was from this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist
A new study found that about 12 percent of Sanders voters from the primary supported Trump in the general election.
To be fair, I haven't independently checked those numbers, but I've seen similar from other sources I trust and I don't have any reason to think they're false, but open to it if there's someting that debunks them. Two independent accounts reached a 12% number, another reached a 6% number. In either case, those percentages -- especially in key states Trump barely won -- would probably be enough to swing that state... And there's such a stark difference between Sanders and Trump that it suggests there's something going on beyond policy.
And yeah, I agree, it's not just "college campuses." I think the much greater problem is on the internet, where college campuses are more or less irrelevant in comparison. Obama's using college campus activism to make his point, though I'd extend it way beyond college campuses to internet community echo chambers.
Hes 100% right and I feel like some people abuse calling people out on little things that when it is something that deserves to be called out, it becomes grating when they are always being an ass. Its always one extreme or another, people need to take a breath and realize there are ways to move the needle and be supportive without being an ass
lol no.
Just saying. He's hypocritical about his own warfare, while at the same time he's making a highly controversial statement/condemnation on warfare in history, and yet still comes off as a highly credible source of human reflection.
Quite a juggling act.
Maybe he should go to Yemen and do the same thing there then, since his actions still affect people there to this day.
I think he's saying that anyone can write what they want on the internet and that not everyone who vows to do good actually ends up acting on their intent. He's not entirely dismissing the power of words.
For sure, mathematically far more Obama -> Trump voters given Obama's high turnout rates and that he actually carried a majority, but voters dramatically switching allegiance over 4 or 8 years is less noteworthy than a voter dramatically switching allegiance over just 3 months. Those Sanders -> Trump voters made a dramatic change of allegiance in the same election, versus an Obama to Trump supporter who might have made that change over 4 or 8 years, where there are far more factors at play.
Outside of the Bernie -> Trump demographic in 2016, a much larger percentage of voters switched from John Kasich in the GOP primary to Hillary Clinton in the General Election (something like 35% of Kasich supporters), but they made up such a small overall number given Kasich's comparatively smaller primary competition than Sanders in the Democratic primary, that the numbers aren't as remarkable.
I've never understood the logic of the people calling out stuff on social media not being politically active or voting. It also seems a convenient way of blaming minority groups who express their opinions for their own issues.
You can choose to give him the benefit of the doubt but timing is everything. I just see his statements as crafty and self serving. I didn't even bring up Biden but there is probably something to that too. His closeness with Bush has always been very confusing to me. I think Bush is despicable and so anyone that is close friends with a monster will not get the benefit of the doubt from me.
I would love to see someone of notoriety that isn't associated with shitbags or one themselves speak to the dangers of cancel culture or going in on people too hard. That just doesn't happen though.
The "joke" by Justine Sacco was this:
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
You can read about it more here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html
While her family's background didn't match up with the post at all, Sacco seemed somewhat oblivious to the impact of her words on others, still working in social media PR at places like "Hot or Not" which is all about impact and judgement of others. She was also dis-proportionally targeted by someone well-known on social media, and a few others in the article above were targeted by alt-right brigades after telling the world they had experienced something in public that made them feel uncomfortable.
People haven't quite realized yet that their words brought to social media, even coming from one voice among billions, have much more power. But not just because they have the ability to communicate publicly. It's because they have instant access to large audiences who are all but guaranteed to receive and digest their words. And with these large audiences comes the risk of being misinterpreted. Sacco may have the social luxury of being able to post a joke that she thinks only an "insane person" would take literally, but it's clear that many people who post on social media really don't "know their audience".
Think about ResetEra for a moment. Tens of thousands of people may be members, but far fewer post often enough, and many more read and have read the site. For some, Era is only what they read in posts, and the multitude of other members and potential members reading are not considered, even though they (along with you) provide the revenue to keep the site going and would possibly consider joining the conversation. How many of those people feel called out when people make metacommentary about Era and its members? Do you know for sure?
As for young people voting in the US (a comment I've seen made multiple times now in the past 12 hours or so), they and their families have experienced some 40 years of slipping economic opportunity and loss of access to benefits and services, more severely and quickly depending on where they live. They've watched their families and friends made to re-up combat tours, told they are not wanted in the country, made to live on a razor's edge between citizenship and not, and seen those who have made mistakes unfairly cast as less-than human in incarceration and stripped of the right to vote. Their schools, including defenseless 6-year-olds, have been shot up without meaningful national action or bills signed into law. They've even seen a President's own party abandon him during an election (Obama, 2014). They have evidence their lives may not have a chance to end naturally. The only news media they've known continues to fuel non-truths and normalize reprehensible behavior. The results of their taxpayer-funded educations are lack of access to further education, a life of debt to gain access to further education, or vocational and healthcare marketplaces that effectively lock them out. They have no nationally-visible champions in the political arena, in the private sector, or in the populace - just a relatively scant few concerned citizens who are earnestly trying.
As for Obama's comments, it's not a matter of Obama being wrong, it's a matter of a) glossing over the practice of targeting on social media in order to cause harm, and b) normalizing "everyone's done something stupid" when NO - many people with hard economic situations or who are targets of prejudice just trying to keep afloat day-to-day do not exhibit the behaviors of others with easy economic means or social privilege who can afford to keep doing not just stupid, but sharply harmful things.
Unfortunately his comments did both gloss over and normalize. It seems to me people still haven't learned enough, or paid attention to, women who have been targeted, stalked, and denigrated on social media (and off) - things that go way beyond simply being misinterpreted. After years and years of clear examples of this, why this isn't put at the top of these conversations is beyond me. Instead it's "would you look at these people with their 'self-serving' righteousness", which is a far easier statement to make and then go no further, and allows those who continue to brigade against women to take cover behind those comments.
Obama has a real talent for making those who orbit the still-conservative middle of the US political spectrum feel better about themselves. These comments he made are unfortunately no different in this regard. It's in part how he won the Presidency, yes, but some still think that's how a Presidential election can and should be won. And yet people want young people, with all the things they experienced, to just go along with that? They want to be shown a different way to win, a way that directly addresses their experiences that have been indelibly woven into the fabric of their nation. I hope the 2020 election will be able to show them just that, but candidates are going to have to be willing to be their champion AND communicate that effectively to them. Let's see if any candidate ends up doing just that.
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
You can read about it more here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html
While her family's background didn't match up with the post at all, Sacco seemed somewhat oblivious to the impact of her words on others, still working in social media PR at places like "Hot or Not" which is all about impact and judgement of others. She was also dis-proportionally targeted by someone well-known on social media, and a few others in the article above were targeted by alt-right brigades after telling the world they had experienced something in public that made them feel uncomfortable.
People haven't quite realized yet that their words brought to social media, even coming from one voice among billions, have much more power. But not just because they have the ability to communicate publicly. It's because they have instant access to large audiences who are all but guaranteed to receive and digest their words. And with these large audiences comes the risk of being misinterpreted. Sacco may have the social luxury of being able to post a joke that she thinks only an "insane person" would take literally, but it's clear that many people who post on social media really don't "know their audience".
Think about ResetEra for a moment. Tens of thousands of people may be members, but far fewer post often enough, and many more read and have read the site. For some, Era is only what they read in posts, and the multitude of other members and potential members reading are not considered, even though they (along with you) provide the revenue to keep the site going and would possibly consider joining the conversation. How many of those people feel called out when people make metacommentary about Era and its members? Do you know for sure?
As for young people voting in the US (a comment I've seen made multiple times now in the past 12 hours or so), they and their families have experienced some 40 years of slipping economic opportunity and loss of access to benefits and services, more severely and quickly depending on where they live. They've watched their families and friends made to re-up combat tours, told they are not wanted in the country, made to live on a razor's edge between citizenship and not, and seen those who have made mistakes unfairly cast as less-than human in incarceration and stripped of the right to vote. Their schools, including defenseless 6-year-olds, have been shot up without meaningful national action or bills signed into law. They've even seen a President's own party abandon him during an election (Obama, 2014). They have evidence their lives may not have a chance to end naturally. The only news media they've known continues to fuel non-truths and normalize reprehensible behavior. The results of their taxpayer-funded educations are lack of access to further education, a life of debt to gain access to further education, or vocational and healthcare marketplaces that effectively lock them out. They have no nationally-visible champions in the political arena, in the private sector, or in the populace - just a relatively scant few concerned citizens who are earnestly trying.
As for Obama's comments, it's not a matter of Obama being wrong, it's a matter of a) glossing over the practice of targeting on social media in order to cause harm, and b) normalizing "everyone's done something stupid" when NO - many people with hard economic situations or who are targets of prejudice just trying to keep afloat day-to-day do not exhibit the behaviors of others with easy economic means or social privilege who can afford to keep doing not just stupid, but sharply harmful things.
Unfortunately his comments did both gloss over and normalize. It seems to me people still haven't learned enough, or paid attention to, women who have been targeted, stalked, and denigrated on social media (and off) - things that go way beyond simply being misinterpreted. After years and years of clear examples of this, why this isn't put at the top of these conversations is beyond me. Instead it's "would you look at these people with their 'self-serving' righteousness", which is a far easier statement to make and then go no further, and allows those who continue to brigade against women to take cover behind those comments.
Obama has a real talent for making those who orbit the still-conservative middle of the US political spectrum feel better about themselves. These comments he made are unfortunately no different in this regard. It's in part how he won the Presidency, yes, but some still think that's how a Presidential election can and should be won. And yet people want young people, with all the things they experienced, to just go along with that? They want to be shown a different way to win, a way that directly addresses their experiences that have been indelibly woven into the fabric of their nation. I hope the 2020 election will be able to show them just that, but candidates are going to have to be willing to be their champion AND communicate that effectively to them. Let's see if any candidate ends up doing just that.
what a great post.
I think that 2nd "way" might be the most dangerous topic on Era
me too – that was kind of a cheap shot in my part, sorry about that
sure perfect justice would be nice.
The way I took the Obama quote is – say what you will online, but just don't stop there –go further, take some concrete physical action in the real world.
That's largely untrue, most modern military action by the US is decided entirely by the executive branch, not by Congress.
It's just a weird framing. If anything college kids deserve the most leeway for their social media mishaps because they are young, naive, and have a significant amount of brain development left to go.
I think I see what you mean now. Although, you know, how many of those same people even intended to vote for Bernie in the general against Trump anyway? Like a vote for Bernie in 2016, for many people, was just a vote against Hillary. It didn't necessarily mean that like these people were super loyal Bernie followers who got upset when he lost.
A lot of people who claim to be "woke" try to project self-shame on others, while not really taking responsibility themselves.
They want to lecture, whilst at the same time, refuse to be lectured by anyone who can't pass a 100% purity test.
It's just an odd way to approach things, but people from all walks of life do it.
They want to lecture, whilst at the same time, refuse to be lectured by anyone who can't pass a 100% purity test.
It's just an odd way to approach things, but people from all walks of life do it.
Thanks for the information.The 12% Sanders -> Trump voter thing was from this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist
A new study found that about 12 percent of Sanders voters from the primary supported Trump in the general election.
To be fair, I haven't independently checked those numbers, but I've seen similar from other sources I trust and I don't have any reason to think they're false, but open to it if there's someting that debunks them. Two independent accounts reached a 12% number, another reached a 6% number. In either case, those percentages -- especially in key states Trump barely won -- would probably be enough to swing that state... And there's such a stark difference between Sanders and Trump that it suggests there's something going on beyond policy.
And yeah, I agree, it's not just "college campuses." I think the much greater problem is on the internet, where college campuses are more or less irrelevant in comparison. Obama's using college campus activism to make his point, though I'd extend it way beyond college campuses to internet community echo chambers. I think Obama is more comfortable talking about college campuses than he would be talking about internet communities; Meanwhile, I've been out of college for 15 years, but still active in internet communities, so I'm more comfortable in this realm. I think the point that Obama is making that I agree with is a larger scope than college campuses.
For sure, I agree -- I wasn't criticizing Sanders supporters with that number or making commentary about them, but rather, making commentary about the real danger that ideological purity tests and tribalism can have. That said though, I don't think a lot of voters made two protest votes against Clinton, at least, the number wouldn't be statistically large enough to chart (e.g., that voters would go out of their way to register & vote in a primary when they didn't intend to just to levy a protest vote against a fairly milquetoast candidate like Clinton).
Although maybe I'm wrong, what's exactly what I did in 2016... I'm not a Republican but I voted in my state's Republican primary simply to make a protest vote against Trump.
Don't know. Still waiting on who all of these people are that stop at only that speaking up on social media. I've seen a lot of older people in activists circles pushing this at times too and it's always confusing considering what you see if you pay attention. There was a topic with a poll on here that asked people how involved they are (not at all, vote, vote and volunteer, etc). I was hoping to find it to see what the results were but I can't remember if I posted in it or not.
You see the head of the Catholic Church of all things as a symbol of purity? Maybe you are trolling. I have a very short list of ignores but you are being wierd so I'm gonna ignore you.
Well anyway, your original comment was pretty thoughtful. I think I just missed the point originally.
Because Congress allows it. They ultimately have control over military action, because the House has to fund any military action, and the president is technically required to secure the permission of Congress prior to instigating military action. That's the whole point of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution, which vests the power to declare war solely with Congress.
That Congress routinely ignores this and allows the president to often do what he wants (when the House and the White House are controlled by the same party, at least) doesn't mean the president actually has that authority. Congress does, and if they actually wanted to they could block the president from damn near any military action.
"The Obamas very super duper secretly don't like Bush But HAVE to be friends with him! All presidents are forced to be friends because its protocol!"
I, for one, am very grateful that former President Obama is using his status and influence to address the country's gravest and most urgent problems.
I thought I knew what Cancel Culture referred to before I read this thread. Now I have no idea, because it seems to range from someone being harassed for a bad joke all the way up to sexual assaulters facing any consequence for their actions that doesn't come directly from the state. If it really covers this broad of a set of behaviors and consequences it's just a mixed bag of a concept.
Harassment is always wrong, and most are willing to forgive bad jokes. It is a good thing to keep someone who has abused their position of authority from keeping it. It just seems a lot more effective to talk about specific behaviors and the consequences than to bundle it all up into a single ill-defined term.
Harassment is always wrong, and most are willing to forgive bad jokes. It is a good thing to keep someone who has abused their position of authority from keeping it. It just seems a lot more effective to talk about specific behaviors and the consequences than to bundle it all up into a single ill-defined term.
Can you speak more to the purity test you're referring to in a more specific way? Most of what I see anecdotally seems to be wanting people to not be bigoted or racist or misogynistic, that sort of thing, and so when we talk of "purity" I don't think those should be considered lofty goals.
This part is important. It is literally just them bringing up other talking points to dismiss everything he's saying. Something that happens alot here.
Could not agree more.
It's so refreshing to see these posts mixed in with the waves of knee jerk hot-takes. Even as just a reminder that this forum still has these sort of people around.
Obama wanted to go to war in Syria, congress said no, and Obama went to war in Syria anyway.
I guess they could have impeached him or shut down the government to show displeasure, but that's about as much as they could have done to prevent him from going to war with Syria.
And just to be clear, Congress did that shit for the wrong reasons, but it still a very clear case where Obama went to war against the explicitly expressed wishes of Congress.
Yeah, figured as much. Whenever people bring this up, it just sets off red flags for me.
