you can't be sure of any situation, something could change and then you won't know (part one)

This one's going to be a bit more heavily anonymized, simply because while I want to share the chat and the conclusions reached--or not reached--it is, essentially, a chat capture from a private forum on a semi-private chat server, so...I'm not as clear on what the rules are for this particular service. I have read through their terms of service, and they do notably use the "Facebook clause" (which Facebook lifted nearly verbatim from Yahoo), which states that they have the absolute, non-revocable right to use anything posted by any individual using their service in inter-company communications, advertising, graphics, et cetera, in perpetuity...and that seems to say to me, at least, that any expectation of privacy is null. But...these are friends, so I'm still a touch nervous.

So for this one, I'm choosing replacement names based on the periodic table of elements to further hide identities.

[2:27 PM] Platinum: people love finding any little thing to take offense over these days. It was a kinda dumb design, but to call them out as intentionally racist or anything just feels like jumping to wrong conclusions.

This was about Gucci's so-called "blackface" sweater. Now, me being me, I'm more offended that Gucci wanted nearly one thousand dollars for a sweater that deeply ugly, but...that's me. There's been a ton of fallout over this, too: Dapper Dan, a Harlem-based fashion designer who works with Gucci, weighed in negatively (to the point that Gucci's CEO is setting up meetings to talk it out with him); director Spike Lee is calling for a Gucci boycott; Soulja Boy, one of many rappers who raised Gucci back to top label status, says he's "done with the brand"; and Gucci itself panicked and gave a public apology. Plus, several commentators online and off have raised the question with Gucci on whether they had any black employees who could have given feedback on this design for them, and their answer to that? "We had one black employee", apparently.

One. They had one. So the answer is no, in 2019, no one in Italy did even a two-minute search on Google to verify whether or not a design like this would be offensive. Now, I realize, Italy never had the issue with blackface minstrel shows that the US had, but come on, people. That's just willful ignorance.

[2:29 PM] Platinum: I really dislike the whole ultra offense-at-everything and cancel culture going on these days.
[2:37 PM] Platinum: like the situation with Liam Neeson, where he came out to admit to a really dumb, somewhat racially driven thing he did 40 years ago, which thankfully didn't lead to the conclusion he admitted he was hoping for at the time, and very clearly said how horrible it was and he's ashamed of it, and realized even back then how stupid he was being. And then all the Outrage Warriors come out of the woodwork to say that he's a terrible person *now* and that he IS a racist *now* because of something he did 40 years ago and actively acknowledges was a terrible thing, and yet the idiots still want to say these things and get him shut down and all of his work cancelled now.

It ignited quite the firestorm of controversy, yes.

[4:00 PM] Iron: And unfortunately whether the outrage is justified or not is not as relevant as it should be to how effective it is, [Platinum]. It works either way: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/liam-neeson-cancels-late-show-appearance-amid-racism-controversy-a4059956.html
[4:11 PM] Fermium: And amusingly? I dislike outrage about outrage warriors.
[4:11 PM] Fermium: Like. The whole idea of outage culture is mostly a conservative idea.

Well, yes and no. The raising of the spectre of "social justice warriors" came out of Tumblr, as an insult to the easily outraged, generally white, extensively over-educated set of females who frequently got offended over every little thing, then went on to make posts that were easily as offensive as anything they snapped over. But, the concept was nabbed by the conservative boards on 4Chan, and from there it became a conservative talking point--SJWs and "snowflakes" became interchangeable, and both were used to generally paint liberal voices who may well have had honest reasons to be outraged over the things they were outraged over. It became an easy way to dismiss opponents: "Oh, they're just an SJW, you can't listen to them, they're just crazy libtards."

[4:14 PM] Fermium: The vast majority of people who are 'outraged' or offended usually have a reason. Like even in your explanation of it, you said they were called intentionally racist. And no, I'm sure someone did, or some did as part of the idea of using offensive things to advertise.
[4:15 PM] Fermium: But I think the vast majority likely said it was racist. Which it was. But most probably don't think the company was being racist. Unless this was like strike two or three
[4:21 PM] Arsenic: I'm all right with demonizing "outrage culture", simply because the [4Chan] folks have been not-so-covertly adopting it as a way to strike back at critics (see: James Gunn). There's some babies I'm alright with throwing out with the bathwater.
[4:34 PM] Fermium: Well, yes. But that's an exploitation, as was GamerHate. It used a legitimate cause to carry out acts that are against the principles or unrelated to the issues supposedly being misused.
[4:35 PM] Fermium: It's basically Concern Trolling on a large scale.

I don't entirely disagree, but I still think some of the storm of outrage is coming from a group of people who basically exist at this point to be outraged, all the time, over everything. Now, to be fair, I'm only basing this on scrolling through Twitter; I'd base it more on Tumblr, because the posts can go more in depth, but I'm not paying attention to new Tumblr posts at present; I'm culling through my personal backlog, transferring them to another blog, and then will kill my Tumblr account. So my impression of "people outraged to be outraged" may, in fact, be entirely wrong.

[5:15 PM] Iron: Being an idea created by conservatives, if so, doesn't mean it's invalid. People aligned with the conservative party sometimes have correct ideas too and it's important to stay open to that. I do know that outraged people have a reason, people do things for reasons, they're just not always good ones.
[5:15 PM] Iron: But there's an issue that it's just never good enough to satisfy many people that are outraged. It was pointed out that this colour design of this product is too close to a racist look that is used. Fair, it's good that it was pointed out. Gucci pulled the colour. Okay, that's also fair and a good call. They also publicly apologized which was possibly unnecessary imo but probably a good call. Although I do think addressing the issue at all probably brought more wrath upon them, as engaging whatsoever with the public after you've made a mistake will unfortunately lead to that, which sucks and isn't right that that's what happens. Gucci pulled all other colors of that product as well, it seems, which should be overkill but I completely understand because people are outraged, which means any reminder of the accidentally racist like sweater existing at all will cause issue. Boycotts are being called for against Gucci. There are people that won't be happy until Gucci as a company dies now all due to a simple mistake that they tried to fix when it was pointed out to them. And that's not okay.
[5:16 PM] Iron: The same thing is happening with Liam. Right when he said it publicly he was pointing out that it was a mistake and a horrible thing, he didn't even need someone else to point it out to him. It was a terrible thought he had at that time and he knows it and is clearly sorry he had it back then. But people are calling for and succeeding at getting his events cancelled now, and that's very not okay.

I raise a point later, though, that my main objection to the storm of controversy around Neeson is that people are profoundly missing the main educational point in what he said. And I think that point is far more important overall.

[5:18 PM] Iron: I'm not against people pointing out when a thing is racist and thus not okay, in fact I'm for it. Like what Liam did himself and what Gucci admitted to and pulled that colour of that product.
[5:19 PM] Iron: But when someone has displayed the signs that they recognize what they did was not okay and appears to have learned from it (which we can never truly know but have to guess) then that should be a good thing that the person or company improved themselves and recognized as such. Outrage culture isn't, in my mind, when someone points out that they think a thing is bad. It is when they continue being outraged after it has been addressed.
[5:19 PM] Iron: Possibly because they are looking to be outraged more than they are actually looking to improve things, but also possibly because they just don't know how to recognize when a situation has been resolved.

Maybe that's what I'm trying to say, by making the distinction between 'cancel culture' and the typical conservative impression of SJWs in general--the people heavily in the cancel culture movement don't want a dialogue, they don't want a meeting of the minds to see how to untangle these tangled ethical issues; they just want to cut the offending person or company off at the knees, erase them from existence, and move on to the next thing to be outraged over.

[5:20 PM] Fermium: The issue is, that is a legitimate issue that is overblown!
[5:20 PM] Fermium: Because no one uses Outrage Culture that way.
[5:21 PM] Fermium: What you define it as, isn't what it means in common vernacular.
[5:22 PM] Fermium: The Gucci incident wasn't outrage culture. The Liam incident might be, but that one is complicated for so many reasons at this point. And I've not cared to spend the time researching it. I get what he was saying, it was a horrible thought, he knew it was, some people never get that moment of realization.
[5:27 PM] Iron: Many parts of the Gucci incident were driven by outrage culture and some parts weren't, in my mind. I have trouble writing it off as completely one thing or completely another thing as what happens in these situations is generally too complex for that, given the number of various things that happen.
[5:27 PM] Iron: Too complex, imo.

These issues are complex, unfortunately. Part of what I'm considering as "cancel culture" and "outrage warriors" are the people who seem to have the mentality of erasure: to wit, chip the king's name off the wall, no one will ever remember that king again, and everyone will be happier forever after. The problem with that is, even in ancient times where this practice was done to "erase" historical figures, they never got everything. We may have no reference for certain statues now, but in many cases (in Egypt and Mesopotamia, specifically), the names were written in multiple places, so this attempt at social erasure failed utterly.

Worse, now, is the age of the internet--the internet never forgets, because the internet is multiply coded, multiply transmitted, multiply copied, multiply stored. If the information is uploaded at all, the information is preserved somewhere, the information is out there. So modern attempts at "canceling" don't work in the same way--the outrage can cost jobs, can cause boycotts, can damage reputations, but the "erasure" aspect never comes into play, because once said on the internet, it exists forever.

[5:31 PM] Iron: Liam did come to that moment of realization though which is an essential part of the story and is why he should be in the clear now, an example of someone falling as we all do (in a general sense) but picking themselves up and improving themselves before any harm seemingly came of it.
[5:35 PM] Iron: If I'm using the term "outrage culture" wrong then I don't know, but I hope I've explained what I mean well enough to get past that usage. But I intend it to mean a culture that is seeking out a focus on being outraged more than just trying to actually make things better (possibly without realizing their true focus themselves), even though they tend to put up a front of trying to improve things.

That's how I tend to use the words, too, so if I'm also using them wrong, I'm willing to be educated on the correct meaning.

[5:41 PM] Fermium: My issue is, that 'Outrage Culture' is a dismissive term. It lets people who have certain privileges dismiss or mock the issues and concern held by those who don't have those same privileges.

Yes. That I would wholeheartedly agree with, having had an evening to think over things.

[5:41 PM] Fermium: That sweater was racist. Intent or no, it was. Gucci took it down. Good on them. But it was racist in that it'd be the exact sort of thing some 4channer would wear in public to be edgy and claim 'No, I'm not racist, it's just fashion'.

Yes, we're back to the sweater again. This conversation flowed back and forth between the two incidents.

[5:41 PM] Fermium: So to claim that is outrage culture is to dismiss the actual issue. The issue being that Blackface was, and still is a thing. It's something some people have to deal with, or have heard stories of their parents or uncles or grandparents having to deal with it.
[5:42 PM] Fermium: Taking it a step further, even if the sweater itself wasn't racist. The moment it was mentioned that 'You know, that sweater looks like like blackface' it became so, purely because, again, aforementioned 4chan edgelords and conservative hicks who would wear it unironically in 'support' of the company, but in reality just to troll black people.
[5:42 PM] Fermium: To try and take your last paragraph and expand on it. They were outraged by the sweater, and they made things better by making it public and shining light on an issue many people forget is even an issue.

And that's a valid point. Raising our concerns about products, about companies, about political movements, on any side of things, should be good for the interchange of ideas, and for coming together and reaching common ground. How'ver, if it's just outrage to be outraged, that means that they don't want the interchange of ideas. They don't want to reach common ground. They want to exclude, to silence, to end interchange on this topic.

So where is the line between people who are genuinely, emotionally outraged/hurt by something, and people who are simply seeking out things to be outraged over so they, themselves, feel superior to whomever they feel is beneath them? Is there a clear dividing line? I thought there was, but especially going through this again, I'm not so sure there is.

[6:41 PM] Platinum: [Iron]i has it right. The people that I call Outrage Warriors are the ones who just continue to be outraged anyway after an issue has been addressed. The people that engage in cancel culture against people like Liam, trying to get his jobs or talk show gigs cancelled, whether by going to the people in charge of that to take it out from under him, or by inflating the controversy so much he cancels things himself and has to then go into damage control mode. It's the people like that who make it very difficult for people like Liam or anyone else to come out and be open about the mistakes they've made, to show that they've grown, and that other people can grow and move past mistakes too. Because these days if you try to do that, your past just gets held against you forever by the Outrage Warriors, that are never satisfied until they've ruined you completely and ground you into the dirt.

That's my feeling too, because right now, at least in the United States, we are extraordinarily polarized as a culture. As I mentioned in my last post, it's this polarization that makes it so very easy to reduce whomever we view as against us into the Other, into the animal, into something nonhuman that cannot be dealt with in "rational" human ways. When we alienize (not alienate, that's different) our opponents, we are removing their agency as fellow human beings entirely. Which makes it far easier to treat them poorly--in fact, that's the root cause behind much racial tension and police brutality against black people--this specific form of the Us vs. Them mentality that's grown over the past ten years.

[6:44 PM] Platinum: Outrage Culture may be able to be used by some who don't get the actual issue as a dismissive term. Shame on them for using it that way. But it is a real issue as well. There are good reasons to be legitimately outraged, there are good reasons to speak up about it and to say something, to create a change. But when it crosses that line from legitimate outrage and trying to do something to make it better, into 'we're not going to stop being outraged and attacking until this person/company has been wiped from existence because of this one mistake they made', that is Outrage Culture, and that's the part I disagree with.

Right. If we raise these issues to try to make society as a whole better, we are trying to turn our outrage into communication to learn and understand each other. If we raise these issues because we're trying to end the conversation entirely, we are leveraging our outrage to silence the other party entirely and restrict their voice from the discussion.

[7:58 PM] Fermium: I'm not convinced the term can ever not be dismissive. It is dismissive. It's like trying to claim fag means some [a**hole] who rides their motorcycle around the block at 3 AM. Sure, you can mean it that way, but it's still offensive.
[7:58 PM] Fermium: Outrage Culture as a term is inherently dismissive.

So what's a better way to describe it? Conversation that fosters dialogue is what we want; conversation that ends dialogue is damaging. What's a better term for attempting to silence the opposing side merely by the force of our outrage?

[8:09 PM] Iron: I mean, I just told you what it means as far as when I used it. It is related to being dismissive, but of a thing that should be dismissed but unfortunately isn't. The over the top outrage that is more about being angry than actually fixing things. A focus on the outrage over the correction.
[8:09 PM] Iron: If you think my use of the term doesn't line up with what you consider outrage culture then that's okay, you can define my issue with a different term. Whatever term you find that matches up with what my issue is, that's okay to use instead.
[8:11 PM] Fermium: It is dismissive for one main reason.
[8:11 PM] Fermium: Who are you to dictate what people should and shouldn't be angry about?

Well, and that's a different issue entirely. I understand why it's being brought up here, but I think that's a separate thing. While we should be cognizant of how we phrase things, often when we are outraged, angry, hurt, we do not invite discussion, we dictate terms. I am guilty of this, so I see it in myself as well as in others. But does this issue completely intersect with outrage used as a weapon?

[8:12 PM] Iron: I'm the same as anyone else. But being angry about something forever is harmful and just leads to everyone being angry, since there's nothing anyone can do to fix it.
[8:13 PM] Iron: I don't think that's a good thing.
[8:14 PM] Iron: I'm not blocking people from being angry, I know that's not within my rights to do; I'm pointing out that it just makes things worse to do it that way.
[8:15 PM] Iron: They are free to point out the same to me, about how they should be angry all the time even once someone tries to fix a thing or themselves. About how that will somehow make things better.
[8:16 PM] Iron: If they can make that point, then go for it. I'll likely respond back as to why I disagree though. That's a discussion and those can be quite good.

Yes. Even with pain on both sides, even with hate and anger on both sides, if we can get to the point where we can have these discussions, then things can advance, can change. Maybe even get better. But is that dictating how someone else should feel?

[8:20 PM] Fermium: But see, the issue is when you turn it into a culture or an epidemic. Yes, you can disagree. But to claim there is an outrage culture is to imply dismissal of them being outraged. Instead, you should disagree, perhaps try to figure out why they are outraged, see if there is something from their perspective and privileges that makes them that way that you don't have or ever thought about.

Now, I make points against this later on in the conversation, and since this is getting long, this will be part one, with part two to come. But upon reconsideration, I think there is a point here that I missed on the first go-round. Am I dismissing the easily outraged as simply being easily outraged because they want to be, and not acknowledging their opinions as valid, whether I agree with them or not? It's a daunting question.

(Continued in part two.)