This is a fairly long post; perhaps a little rambling in places. I don't think many GRcadians would but, before anyone jumps in and says something like "jawa doesn't want anything to be done about bad behaviour - he condones it and wants it to be ignored!", I ask that you read my thoughts - I'm asking for your views on this topic, not preaching :-) .
I just read a news story about a guy called Meyers Leonard - a 29 year-old basketball player - who used an offensive term whilst played a videogame online. His team, Miami Heat, and the basketball sports body, NBA, are now investigating and an e-sports team that he invested in, FaZe Clan, has "cut ties" with him, saying that "this community has so much growing to do. Let's be better together." (their bold text).
This story - and the recent situation around Piers Morgan talking about Meghan Markle on breakfast television - has got me thinking about how society deals with situations where someone says something that others say is offensive. Is the best way to disown/sack the person who spoke? Should the person be banished from their job? Is there space for a line of thinking along the lines of "this person needs to be educated"? Or would that just be condoning and accepting the bad behaviour?
To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone should wash over examples of such bad behaviour. Such cases are apparently increasing; they have probably always happened but - quite rightly in my view - they are now being highlighted and called out more. I believe this is a good thing in terms of society as a whole not accepting bad behaviour. I just wonder, though, if there is an option for the person involved to take responsibility; own up and take action to modify their future behaviour. Is the best way of doing this to "move them elsewhere"; where are we moving them to? Will this encourage them to change their behaviour?
In the case of Meyers Leonard, I was intrigued by the wording "Let's be better together". Is "cutting ties" the optimum way of achieving this? Are they looking to change Meyers behaviour and make/help him see what he did wrong? Or are they acting in a way which attempts to make them look better rather than seeking for that person to change their bad behaviour?
Is there a place for "first time offence" and "repeated offences" to be taken in to consideration? Again, for clarity, I'm not saying that anyone can say something outrageous and claim "you can't do anything - first time offence!". I wonder if there is space for situations where someone unthinkingly uses a bad phrase and then they are called out and corrected? Or should they be "cancelled" there and then as a clear signal of non-acceptance?
I suspect that we well never get to a method of dealing with these situations that everyone agrees with... and there is probably not a position where "one size fits all". What do you think?
It's an impossible question to answer as every single case is different. Somebody slipping up and saying "strawberry float" on live TV, is different to somebody using a racial slur.
Context is also important. Two identical sentences can have different meanings based on who is saying it and why they are saying it.
But in the case of people like Piers Morgan? How many damn chances are we supposed to give somebody like that? He's made a very lucrative career out of being an offensive twat. He's not been cancelled either, he'll pop up again in another lucrative gig. The same goes for all the "anti-woke" twats who spend their time screaming about freedom of speech being under threat, while publishing it in their national newspaper columns.
And that's why "cancel culture" is such bullshit. It simply doesn't exist.
People in positions of power and influence have a greater responsibility to society and should be held to higher standards because of it. It's important people understand the consequences of their behaviour. The examples you give are both high profile individuals who absolutely should be held to a high standard because of the influence they wield. Also consider the privilege of their wealth where their job loss is not of any concern from a welfare perspective. It isn't comparable to one of us losing our job over a single misplaced offensive comment for several reasons and you shouldn't treat it as such.
As Moggy says, it's impossible to take a blanket approach because every case is different, even in the case of a slur being used. Look at the recent case of Jess Glynne and juxtapose it with Meyer Leonard. She has immediately given a pretty grovelling apology, pledged to educate herself about transphobia and held conversations with trans-rights activists. What has Leonard done so far?
The thing is, private companies and individuals are entitled to associate with who they want. If an NBA player makes a comment like that then any sponsors or individuals who support him are perfectly entitled to cut their ties if they don't feel it's appropriate to support someone who holds those views. Especially the e-sports team - given the nature of the transgression they need to take a strong stance. There can be a process of education from his employers or he can be fired for gross misconduct - that's an individual decision to be made by said employer.
Tomous wrote:Meyers Leonard said "strawberry floating kike bitch" while playing COD if anyone is wondering.
If I said a racial slur in my workplace and got sacked for it in no way would I have been "cancelled".
100% this.
The right wing hypocrisy drives me insane as well. They bitch and moan when somebody gets sacked (usually moving straight into another highly paid gig) while also demanding people like Lineker/Naga/James O'Brien get sacked for daring to say racism is wrong.
Jenuall wrote:I didn't even know what 'kike' was a slur for until looking it up just now, I'm choosing to believe this means I'm not a banana split.
I've never even heard that word before.
I remember the first time I heard a particular anti-semitic song about Sol Campbell at Highbury. It was to the tune of that "Ooooh, hey baby" song (but with baby replaced by y***o). I had no idea what it meant, could barely even hear it, so sort of half-arsedly sang "Oooooh, hey peenos", thinking it was something about willies.
jawa2 wrote:In the case of Meyers Leonard, I was intrigued by the wording "Let's be better together". Is "cutting ties" the optimum way of achieving this? Are they looking to change Meyers behaviour and make/help him see what he did wrong? Or are they acting in a way which attempts to make them look better rather than seeking for that person to change their bad behaviour?
Serious answer: it all depends, both on the incident, the person's motives at the time and their previous conduct, and how they react to being called out on it. Completely shunning someone for an innocent error or not thinking something through with the mindset of a social studies professor and dropping a clanger plays into the "can't say anything these days" crowd.
. I dang *knew* this'd happen 
