zlacker

The right? I never questioned anyone's right to do anything. I objected to instigation of others. To mob mentality. I don't object to going about your life and dealing with things on an individual basis as they come up.

The example seems off base. Wouldn't that be conspiracy to commit a crime?

Taking you at (what I assume to be) your intended meaning. Obviously you can contrive various situations that would be sufficiently alarming to the typical person to cause them to justifiably abandon their principles and attempt community organization. Someone posting things that don't fit your worldview and make you mad doesn't rise to that bar.

>>fc417f+(OP)
> The example seems off base. Wouldn't that be conspiracy to commit a crime?

Celebrating a crime isn't conspiracy to commit one.

> Obviously you can contrive various situations that would be sufficiently alarming to the typical person to cause them to justifiably abandon their principles and attempt community organization. Someone posting things that don't fit your worldview and make you mad doesn't rise to that bar.

Why wouldn't it? You've just constructed your bar, and that's great. I'm glad you'd never want to react on scale based on someone or some organizations postings. If Google's CEO posted that he "personally" thought that selling information to governments was fine if you didn't get caught, you wouldn't suggest to your friends to not use Google because it was just his viewpoint?

At the end of the day the community will decide if an argument to boycott at scale makes sense. If I go around saying to boycott Google because a guy there doesn't like anime probably will make me look more a fool than anyone else.

>>fc417f+(OP)
And here's an example of something worse than cancel culture -- government officials using official state power to do what you disagree with ordinary citizens doing. I don't even consider this cancel culture, but the headline of the article shows that people conflate the two:

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2026/01/15/culture-warrio...

>>kenjac+tB
Your example is off base again. If a rank and file employee gets a DUI and Google refuses to fire them over it yeah it's wrong to try to organize a lynch mob against Google for that.

I didn't construct some arbitrary personal bar. I simply acknowledged that edge cases exist that reasonable people might feel necessitate community action as a matter of self preservation. That doesn't undermine the general principle.

At the end of the day we're discussing social standards so there aren't going to be any airtight logical arguments and the edges will inevitably be blurry. If you adopt an extremist mindset you'll be able to rationalize just about anything. That doesn't mean you're actually in the right though.

>>fc417f+DQ1
My point isn't that edge cases exist or not. It's that what's an edge case to you may not be to others. The culture will dictate what is extreme or not. Now you can argue that this can result in some mob mentality taking down people who aren't deserving. True, but in society we see that we've tended to get better over time at making this determination, even if there are blips along the way. To quote Theodore Parker, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Now, it's our job, when we see the arc not bending the right way (or fast enough) to do something, but I think to avoid allowing the arc to have levers is not doing ourselves any favors.

And with all the talk of cancel culture (not government action, but just all private citizen action), I've actually seen very few examples of it resulting in something that I consider unacceptable. Note, I'd consider physical threats outside the bounds of cancel culture -- those are just physical threats.