• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Since claims of racism are un-falsifiable the tag must follow her forever. It has no meaning, apparently, or one so mutable as to be meaningless- ergo she cannot ever rid herself of it.

Like having the "cooties"- it is serious and fatal, and the accusation is what gives it to one.
Click to expand...

She apparently said "White Lives Matter More." I don't know how you figure that as unfalsifiable unless she was being satirical (which makes her a sick person because who does that??).

Confusion arises when people start to infer. Some have inferred (in bad faith) that "Black Lives Matter" means ONLY Black Lives Matter, but that's not the case at all.

A better way of explaining a racist comment might point to the heat of the moment, or claim intoxication. For some reason people usually assume that what was not said on purpose is truer than what was said on purpose.
 
Cain said:
Also, you're not using speech to counter-speech. You're largely using speech to stifle speech. The expression you're drawing upon is mostly intended toward resolving ideas, not a particular individual's employment grievance.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a weird reason to have a white supremacists teaching middle school social studies. I mean I guess it is back to teaching the controversy with the holocaust, though when someone advocated that they of course where subject to cancel culture.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/us/florida-principal-holocaust-fired-trnd/index.html
 
ponderingturtle said:
Then as people have pointed out there is nothing new about it and it should not be treated as if it were some radical new thing. It is just the targets being changing with the times. So why treating it as a huge new problem that it is hitting racists?
Click to expand...
Who said the problem is remotely new?

We've seen (attempted) cancellations for many years now, heck we've even had entire threads about whether skeptical speakers ought to be cancelled or not based on various allegations of impropriety.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
It's not that "cancel culture" needs to be criminalized at all. It's that it needs to be acknowledged as a behavior that increases the probability of anonymous criminal behavior, that has real world consequences for the targets including emotional trauma as well as loss of livelihood and potential violence, and that it should be discouraged.
Click to expand...

This, right here!
 
Cain said:
This goes for undsiguised racism. It does not apply to the UCLA professor put on leave because he read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (which includes a racial slur). Or to comics working out material in a club.
Click to expand...

These seem like wildly different examples. Wouldn't the latter depend on what the material actually was? There's that footage of Kramer from Seinfeld "working out material in a club" by just repeatedly shouting "******! ******! ******! There's a ******! He's a ******!" at a black audience member. Was the negative reaction to that wrong because he was a comedian doing stand-up in a small club?
 
Cain said:
That's obnoxious and oppressive. My remedy is putting myself out there to the public? Cancel culture and victimhood culture suck to the extent they're offshoots of camera-sponge culture. If I'm holding up a sign about impeaching whomever, it's not about me. It's about the rat-bastard politician.
Click to expand...

I would say that if you're holding up a sign in public - especially at an event that's televised, and within view of the cameras - then you are putting yourself out there to the public.

I'd rather not live in the sort of world where GoFundMe is our biggest health-care provider. Social media is a tyranny of the gregarious.
Click to expand...

This is not a point about social media. This is a point about the crappy US healthcare system.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?
Click to expand...

Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church.
 
Cain said:
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Click to expand...

It is someone investigating who is behind public racist speech, and using that information to get them fired. It is exactly cancel culture, and as such she is exactly who you should be defending. You know provided you think cancel culture is bad.
 
Puppycow said:
Although the term "cancel culture" may be new, the behavior of shaming and shunning social outcasts is at least as old as humankind I'd wager. In the Church it was called excommunication, for example. But I'm sure it predates the Church.
Click to expand...

The Christian one in any case. I mean, you'd be barely a couple of pages into the Exodus, the oldest book in the Bible, when you read about Caine being not just cast out, but marked, so everyone would know that he's been a bellend.

TBH, though -- and I know I'm not the first to say it or anything -- what bothers me more about the brainless band of bellends bleating about "cancel culture" isn't whether it's new or old, but that the whole bleating is hypocritical. They seem to have no problem with it when they're the ones doing it. Or with the fact that they get back to doing it, right after complaining about it. It only becomes something to bemoan when the traditional victims have a voice too.

You see the same guy that's pretty much built his whole youtube career on trying to "cancel" some feminist or 'SJW' or whatnot, and who has no problem cheering at others doing so, as long as they're on his side, get APPALLED when the other side gets a voice too.

And that seems to me like the crux of the issue. For millennia the flow of information -- including of the naming and shaming kind -- was rather one-sided. Like, if you were a woman, just about every single man could tell you what's wrong with you -- and doubly so if he was some dress-wearing priest who didn't have much experience with women anyway -- but it wasn't safe for you to even tell your side of the story too, much less call the guy out. Or if you were a black, the same deal.

Only very recently on a historical scale did that stop being the privilege of just one group.

And whether they frame it as "freedom of speech", or "cancel culture", or whatever, it seems to me like they just want their privilege back.
 
Last edited:
Is this store even a good example of cancel culture anymore? Further reporting shows allegations of everyday racism that is well beyond the scope of the daughter sharing extremely racist views on Twitter.

Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems like there is always a rush to paint these incidents as unhinged cancel culture, and often a closer look reveals that the punishment is fairly proportionate to the offense.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's "It's PC gone MAD! You can't wish anybody a Merry Christmas any more!" with a catchier name.

And it's mostly pushed by the same people, for the same reasons. There's a thread in US Politics right now about how Trump invoked cancel culture in his Mt. Rushmore speech.

It's the same thing, wearing a fancy new hat. And the hat is fancy enough that the right-wingers have managed to convince some outside their target demographic that it really is a different person under that false moustache and glasses.*

*They're attached to the hat, nit-pickers.
 
Darat said:
For those that are convinced we have a new "cancel culture" what do you want to see happen?
Click to expand...
All I'd ask is that we all stop and have a skeptical moment before adding to the virality and impact of any given social media pile-on, especially if they are trying to get someone demonetized, deplatformed, or disemployed. Far too many people are willing to simply assume the facts presented by a single moral entrepreneur with a large platform are correct, and few people are willing to ask whether they are adding incrementally to what will become a disproportionate punishment relative to the initial offense.
 
Is it that disproportionate, though? In the case of some people they are effectively trying to "cancel" a whole race, gender or side of the political spectrum, but when they get a backlash I'm supposed to believe it's somehow disproportionate that it exists at all.
 
d4m10n said:
In the case of openly genocidal individuals, disproportional responses are less of an issue, obviously. Neither Gelato Andy nor Kroger Andy fit that description, though.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about taking it all the way to genocide. Even plain-old run-of-the-mill garden-variety racism/sexism/whatever tends to have it anywhere between subtext and spelled out loud that some race or gender or whatnot are too inherently dishonest, or lazy, or stupid, to be having some jobs or be allowed to do this or that.

Whether directly, or as a very overt implication. As in, it's not discrimination if blacks are less represented in some jobs, or women have a glass ceiling, it's genuinely how far they're qualified to go, or how much their contribution is actually worth to society, or the difference is just how much they inconvenience the employer, or whatever. Or so the bellend narrative goes.

I mean, we're barely out of several years straight of "The Bell Curve" pseudo-science being used to claim point blank that most blacks are too stupid for most jobs. And I don't even mean jobs like surgeon, but it was claimed that even to be a frikken traffic cop, nah, they're not smart enough for that, according to those chucklenuts.

So, yes, effectively they ARE trying to "cancel" some people's livelihood, whether after they got it, or prevent them from getting it in the first place.

And yet I'm supposed to think that when one racist bellend is hit even glancingly with the same crap stick he was trying to hit millions with, I'm supposed to believe that THAT is disproportionate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom