Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But you recognize that redemption can be earned. That does not seem to be the case with “cancel culture”.

Not all "cancels" are created equal. I thought the whole Gina Carano thing last year was incredibly stupid. At the same time, you knew Roseanne Barr was done for as soon as that tweet came out. I doubt the cancel crowd would treat a genuine apology from both equally.

[Hali87]

Canceling only lasts until people have forgotten about it. The more famous the person is, the longer people will remember. It's just a concise new term for social consequences. The woman in the video made an absolute ass of herself I agree that if she's from a family of prominent lawyers, they'll probably suffer by association even if none of them are racist or public nuisances. That doesn't seem like anything new.

Interesting that the rant was in English.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So her perceived class lessens her racism?

It lessens all sorts of perceived ill-will, that's why a rich white teen gets probation for killing 4 people drunk driving, while a Cuban migrant gets 110 years for brake failure

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But you recognize that redemption can be earned. That does not seem to be the case with “cancel culture”.

Yes it can be earned but it is not automatic. The reason I mentioned that ex friend was because his apology was meaningless and manipulative. He only apologized because he wanted to find out how much I knew about what he’d done to his ex girlfriend. It was actually really creepy seeing him switch masks. The first time I’ve gotten to see a domestic abuser in action like that.

Likewise Jason Kenney deserves no forgiveness for ‘apologizing’ to the Chinese community for his bat soup comment by saying “Sorry if I offended you.”

I do agree though that ‘cancel culture’ can be problematic when it doesn’t allow for redemption, personal growth or education.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So her perceived class lessens her racism?

So you didn't read the post I was responding to, where acottawa was talking about her employability.

That's why I referred to her class - she's probably not the type to work in a service sector job.

Either way it doesn't excuse her racism.

Duh.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I ended a fizzling friendship last year when I found out that said 'friend' was a rapey piece of garbage who was mentally and sexually abusive to his ex gf who I am acquaintances with. Funny enough the spark that lit the powder keg was him coming unglued on me over a pro vaccine post I made on FB. This person who I thought I knew proceeded to send me an insane barrage of abusive and ridiculous PM's attacking everything from my wife, to my job to my hair. He apologized but I left his messages on Read after telling him that I believed what his ex said about him and that there was no point in meeting to discuss things further since he showed me his cards. I believe in redemption but not when it isn't deserved.

The pandemic and especially views on vaccines have brought out the worst in some people which includes a couple of my friends and a few colleagues at work who have been put on leave due to being unvaccinated. They spend so much time on social media obsessed and sometimes paranoid about the fact that they're a minority and that they're being persecuted. But in reality they are the ones causing their own trouble by sending and messaging us stuff that's ridiculous and that we don't want to read so our only choices are to ignore or reply with our views. I have always ignored unless it got too personal.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Canceling only lasts until people have forgotten about it. The more famous the person is, the longer people will remember. It's just a concise new term for social consequences. The woman in the video made an absolute ass of herself I agree that if she's from a family of prominent lawyers, they'll probably suffer by association even if none of them are racist or public nuisances. That doesn't seem like anything new.

Interesting that the rant was in English.

My guess is that she has a mental illness. What caused her to become that way is unknown. Her condition, medication or lack of, intoxicants, etc.? I've observed people like that and it's very sad when it happens. I've also heard them say that they are well connected when yelling.

[Loco101]

I just had a chance to watch the year-end shows on Radio-Canada, Infoman and Bye Bye 2021. They were both pretty funny as usual. It was also interesting that a number of references were made to being "woke."

I always love parody ads on any comedy show. The Bye Bye ones were great. Loved the Hubert Eats (parody of Uber Eats) ads. But I really laughed at the parody release of the changing of Mr Potato Head to just "Potato Head" which actually did happen. The journalists asked all kinds of questions about transgender, etc and the company spokesperson admitted that it wouldn't go over very well with children. But then the Radio-Canada (French CBC) journalist asked if the Potato Head is Indigenous? The company spokesperson paused then said "I never though of it but I guess that it is." Then the Radio-Canada journalist says "Great! Now I have something to talk about on the radio for two and a half hours! (That same parody would have worked well in English as well and in reference to CBC Radio)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I just had a chance to watch the year-end shows on Radio-Canada, Infoman and Bye Bye 2021. They were both pretty funny as usual. It was also interesting that a number of references were made to being "woke."

I always love parody ads on any comedy show. The Bye Bye ones were great. Loved the Hubert Eats (parody of Uber Eats) ads. But I really laughed at the parody release of the changing of Mr Potato Head to just "Potato Head" which actually did happen. The journalists asked all kinds of questions about transgender, etc and the company spokesperson admitted that it wouldn't go over very well with children. But then the Radio-Canada (French CBC) journalist asked if the Potato Head is Indigenous? The company spokesperson paused then said "I never though of it but I guess that it is." Then the Radio-Canada journalist says "Great! Now I have something to talk about on the radio for two and a half hours! (That same parody would have worked well in English as well and in reference to CBC Radio)

To their credit, no one is really spared in those shows. The CAQ got hit, Legault got hit, Trudeau got hit.

The COVIDiots got hit: I thought the best sketch of the night was DÉGÂT GYM, a parody of the MEGA GYM in Quebec City that flouted the public health measures and ended up getting hundreds of people infected.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So is it communications technology or societal standards that make this more of a more total life-destroying incident in 2022 than 1985? (Because I definitely think that it is.)

My guess is that it's a bit of both.

And I definitely think that the "just having a bad day" excuse or a sincere apology would have allowed someone to get out of this mess a lot more easily back then.

I think it is the communication technology. This never would have been acceptable at anytime in recent history (or even before recent history).

Is there any other situation where “just having a bad day” is an excuse anyone accepts? It is not accepted in criminal law or civil law and most people would not accept it in their personal lives (cheating spouses, etc.) or professional lives.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think it is the communication technology. This never would have been acceptable at anytime in recent history (or even before recent history).

I wonder if social punishments are determined over long periods in an evolutionary way few people explicitly understand, such that they generate the right long-term outcome (partly happens indirectly by making groups more or less successful; some probably not just cultural but baked in over millions of years of group primate living). To the primates, the response that makes the group successful on average may "just feel right" over time. In more complex societies we can invent reasoning for why we feel how we feel.

The right proportion for punishment as a deterrent depends on the odds of being punished and the severity of punishment, and for reputational punishment the severity depends on how long people remember what happened. In the past the punishments were sometimes incredibly severe (death penalty for theft) but odds are a lot of people got away with crimes. One way to look at that is to ask what punishment is required to make the expected value of the activity negative, given severity and odds of punishment.

If technology changes suddenly the costs can shift in a much shorter period of time than adaptation of primate brains or even culture. Invent social media and the de facto reputational cost goes up by 10,000x but people's feelings about how angry to get when they see somebody doing something bad are about the same. The people may still even deserve to be punished but the proportionality may be off.

(I think in practice it's even worse than this with some social media dynamics because people can get rewarded for punishing others.)

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

To their credit, no one is really spared in those shows. The CAQ got hit, Legault got hit, Trudeau got hit.

The COVIDiots got hit: I thought the best sketch of the night was DÉGÂT GYM, a parody of the MEGA GYM in Quebec City that flouted the public health measures and ended up getting hundreds of people infected.

They certainly did a great job of covering and making fun of so many different politicians. The parody of COVID spreading gym was hilarious. And the parody of Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau where he appeared a few times in the show only speaking in English and boasting how he doesn't need French. I was surprised to see them making fun of the Mini-Putt coverage on RDS which they had done years ago. The updated mini-putt course with the new homeless camp hole instead of the one with the alcoholic bum in the 1980s or the new LGBT-non aligned hole lol. And of course the commentators telling what happened to the players from the past. We still have a mini-putt brand course in Timmins. It was a Quebec brand and design and I don't think that there are many left.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But you recognize that redemption can be earned. That does not seem to be the case with “cancel culture”.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Tim Hardaway was famously "cancelled" after some horrendous things he said on a radio show after John Amaechi came out back in 2007. What he said was beyond the pale and he definitely deserved it. His initial apology seemed canned and not sincere (ie. the repercussions sucked, so he was trying to back away from his statements).

Later on that year, though, he publicly commented on the incident in a truly compassionate way that seemed to demonstrate real regret and he took actions to redeem himself and later becoming an advocate for LGBT athletes. I feel his response was recognized and he was forgiven as much as that is possible in this day and age.

Obviously this isn't universal, but I think demonstrates that at least some of the time people can recognize genuine regret, even on social media, and welcome the opportunity to forgive. Self-serving apologies don't really pass the muster anymore, though, and don't really get you anywhere.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Canceling only lasts until people have forgotten about it. The more famous the person is, the longer people will remember. It's just a concise new term for social consequences. The woman in the video made an absolute ass of herself I agree that if she's from a family of prominent lawyers, they'll probably suffer by association even if none of them are racist or public nuisances. That doesn't seem like anything new.

Interesting that the rant was in English.

This exactly. The internet and social media plays a big part in this, of course.

If you look at examples of "lesser" figures that have been "cancelled", you'll probably find that the impact on their lives has a direct correlation with how much they continue to go online (or increasingly in op-eds) and defend themselves. The best way to go about it is to shut up.

Not saying this is good or bad, but it's a result of where we're currently at.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think it is the communication technology. This never would have been acceptable at anytime in recent history (or even before recent history).

Is there any other situation where “just having a bad day” is an excuse anyone accepts? It is not accepted in criminal law or civil law and most people would not accept it in their personal lives (cheating spouses, etc.) or professional lives.

I think that in any legal system worth its salt "having a bad day" would never be an acceptable excuse but that's because we're talking about actual crimes.

I do think there is a difference between today and 1985 or 1975 in that perhaps outbursts (in a public space, in an office, etc.) that involved intolerance would not have had such serious consequences on someone's career and life back then. My guess is that a lot of them were shrugged off with a "Bob was having a bad day" or "That's just old Bob being his crotchety self".

And if Bob apologized - then everything was almost always forgiven and forgotten.

Some of this was still at play when I first started working in the late 80s, but progressively fading away until it became largely verboten (with no room for apologies even) as it is today.

I think the Wendy Mesley case is a pretty good example of what I am talking about, and that wasn't even an outburst or even a deliberate attempt to insult. She apologized, repented, begged for forgiveness, you name it. But she was still a goner.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think that in any legal system worth its salt "having a bad day" would never be an acceptable excuse but that's because we're talking about actual crimes.

I do think there is a difference between today and 1985 or 1975 in that perhaps outbursts (in a public space, in an office, etc.) that involved intolerance would not have had such serious consequences on someone's career and life back then. My guess is that a lot of them were shrugged off with a "Bob was having a bad day" or "That's just old Bob being his crotchety self".

And if Bob apologized - then everything was almost always forgiven and forgotten.

Some of this was still at play when I first started working in the late 80s, but progressively fading away until it became largely verboten (with no room for apologies even) as it is today.

I think the Wendy Mesley case is a pretty good example of what I am talking about, and that wasn't even an outburst or even a deliberate attempt to insult. She apologized, repented, begged for forgiveness, you name it. But she was still a goner.

Ah yes the good ol' days! If only bigots were still allowed to verbally abuse anyone they hated with no social consequences.



Oh right, they can still be elected President of the United States of America. Poor persecuted bigots.

[O-tacular]

Can I ask who decides to unleash racist diatribes on grocery store employees because they're having a bad day? There's a reason Karen has become such a popular meme. Those racist thoughts didn't simply materialize because of a bad mood. The impulse to attack someone in the service industry isn't innocent. It's malicious behaviour. I doubt any of these people have worked a retail job in their lives. Having had many shitty jobs and been verbally abused by customers I have zero tolerance or respect for that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Ah yes the good ol' days! If only bigots were still allowed to verbally abuse anyone they hated with no social consequences.



Oh right, they can still be elected President of the United States of America. Poor persecuted bigots.

Not sure what it is you're doing here, but no dictionary of mine in any language would describe it as "discussion".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The impulse to attack someone in the service industry isn't innocent. It's malicious behaviour.

I'd disagree. Anyone "having a particularly bad day" venting on anyone who's being a PITA even though they're just doing their job... that's pretty human. Sure, it's bad and should be avoided--same thing with, say, gluttony or envy.

It sucks, but it's not evil, IMO.

And anyone who's working with customers should get a thicker skin eventually, or change jobs eventually.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'd disagree. Anyone "having a particularly bad day" venting on anyone who's being a PITA even though they're just doing their job... that's pretty human. Sure, it's bad and should be avoided--same thing with, say, gluttony or envy.

It sucks, but it's not evil, IMO.

And anyone who's working with customers should get a thicker skin eventually, or change jobs eventually.

Ok let me qualify that a bit more. Everyone gets pissed off when there are delays or horrible customer service. That doesn't make everyone a Karen. A Karen targets employees with unrealistic demands and verbally abuses them when it's clear that they have no power or had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. Also, I can get pissed off at a customer service experience but I would never hurl racist insults at an employee.