Cancel culture IRL

[Emily's Cat]

Marylin Manson has been named by Evan Rachel Wood as someone who groomed her as a teenager and horrifically tortured and abused her for years. This is abuse she's testified to Congress about twice (and it goes way beyond the majority of #MeToo stories, including Harvey Weinstein), but this is the first time she's named the perpetrator. In response, at least 3 other women have also named Manson as having done the same to them.

As a result, his record label have dropped him, Starz are looking at how to edit him out of series 3 of American Gods, episodes featuring him have been dropped from another TV show he was to appear on, and his management have released a statement saying that they are assessing the situation with a mind to drop him.

Is this cancel culture? Will anybody argue that it was wrong for those commercial entities to drop him over this because how he behaved with his former girlfriend/financeé is unrelated to his music and acting careers?

I suppose you could argue that they're making moral judgements spontaneously, but since Wood's accounts previously included her age when these events occurred and theirs was a public relationship, it can't actually have been a surprise to anybody involved that he was the person she was referring to - just as Melissa Benoist didn't name her abuser, but the details of her story made it obvious that she was referring to ex-husband Blake Jenner. The difference here is that her accusation went viral.

I don't know man. I think it's part of our current culture that we end up labeling the entirety of a person and then condemning anything and everything that they have ever done as taboo.

I mean, I am appalled and disgusted by Bill Cosby's behavior with women. But he's still a funny comedian. His comedy skills are independent of his predatory behavior. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he was still a brilliant statesman and scientist, who has contributed good things to society. Isaac Newton was a conspiracy theorist, believed in alchemy, and was anti-semitic. Somehow, I don't think wiping him from the history pages and casting the entirety of Principia as evil and taboo is really a good solution.

People are multi-dimensional. It's entirely possible for a person to have beliefs that I find atrocious, but still do good things as well. It's entirely possible for a neo-nazi to hold beliefs about minorities that make me feel ill, but also be a skilled employee, a caring spouse and parent, and a contributor to their community. Hell, even Hitler was instrumental in getting large portions of the populace access to automobiles!

This tendency to define and label people as 100% evil, no questions asked, and to use that as justification for abuse and persecution is irrational and immoral in my opinion.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't know man. I think it's part of our current culture that we end up labeling the entirety of a person and then condemning anything and everything that they have ever done as taboo.

I mean, I am appalled and disgusted by Bill Cosby's behavior with women. But he's still a funny comedian. His comedy skills are independent of his predatory behavior. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he was still a brilliant statesman and scientist, who has contributed good things to society. Isaac Newton was a conspiracy theorist, believed in alchemy, and was anti-semitic. Somehow, I don't think wiping him from the history pages and casting the entirety of Principia as evil and taboo is really a good solution.

People are multi-dimensional. It's entirely possible for a person to have beliefs that I find atrocious, but still do good things as well. It's entirely possible for a neo-nazi to hold beliefs about minorities that make me feel ill, but also be a skilled employee, a caring spouse and parent, and a contributor to their community. Hell, even Hitler was instrumental in getting large portions of the populace access to automobiles!

This tendency to define and label people as 100% evil, no questions asked, and to use that as justification for abuse and persecution is irrational and immoral in my opinion.

I can see why people can feel bad consuming the entertainment product of famous people when that fame and wealth clearly plays a role in them evading consequences for their bad behavior.

It's hard to deny that Cosby wouldn't have had such a long and prolific career as a serial rapist had he not been a beloved and wealthy comedian. I can see why that would sour someone on watching the Cosby Show when you have to know that the success of the beloved sitcom shielded this rapist and allowed him to victimize more people.

Like it or not, famous people tend to get simplified, one way or the other. Cosby was the face of respectable family values for decades, practically deified. That allowed him to get away with horrible crimes. Now he's being simplified in another way, demonized as all bad.

It's usually easier to accept a more nuanced view after these people and their victims are long gone.

 

[Darat]

I don't know man. I think it's part of our current culture that we end up labeling the entirety of a person and then condemning anything and everything that they have ever done as taboo.


..snip....

Current? It’s only “current” that we’ve seen signs of that stopping. It was always the case. Someone on a building site didn’t like you - well forget getting a job in the entire UK construction industry!

Construction workers win payouts for 'blacklisting' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312

You seem incredibly invested in trying to make people believe that this “cancel culture” is something new. It isn’t, it is only new in the sense that it is no longer only the powerful who can make use of opprobrium to harm others.

 

[HansMustermann]

Can we break this into a timeline:

Bigotry is widely accepted.
Bigotry effectively silences a minority of the population.
Bigotry becomes less popular.
Bigotry has a negative impact on the bottom line.
Bigotry is made illegal.
Bigotry enthusiasts complain that now they are being effectively silenced.
Bigotry is still unpopular.
Bigotry enthusiasts are confused by all the tiny violins.

Fighting against cancel culture is just like the civil rights movement except . . . everything.

I don't think the "cancel culture" complaints are about the parts that were made illegal. Those would fall more under the "free speech" whine. Where it falls under the "cancel culture" whine, it's still at the level of "Bigotry has a negative impact on the bottom line."

Really, like most "PC" complaints, it has very little to do with politics or legislating against anything. It's just PR agencies at work. In a competitive economy, one's corporate image can make a significant difference to one's bottom line. So companies work real hard to be associated with the kind of stuff that's good for their sales, and to not be associated with the kind of stuff that's bad for their sales. Which may or may not include clamping down on public bigotry.

NB: this isn't just for the sake of 'bleeding heart libruls' or anything.

The most trivial example are international corporations. Some executive cracking a joke about the Islam can offend some countries in the middle east, for example. (BTW, it's something that actually happened verbatim some years back.) The middle east is a market with almost twice the population of the USA, and even while accounting for the difference in individual disposable income, offending them can put a very significant dent in your sales. Ditto for other regions.

Sexist remarks, same deal. At one point, say, the car companies were perfectly happy to market only to men, and women starred as just the prey you get if you buy a really expensive car. Then someone noticed that, hey, women have money too, and you could double your sales by marketing to women too. Time to backpedal very very quickly on the sexist image.

It's just business.


And frankly, isn't this the kind of miraculous "invisible hand" regulation and solving everything, that most right-wingers preach? I mean, the free market is supposed to solve everything and make everything better, right? Well, this is free market at work, really.

Well, it turns out that they only like the free market when it works in their favour

 

[dirtywick]

That's not quite cancel culture though.

There's a nuance here that seems to keep getting lost.

On one end, there's "I don't like what this company did, therefore I don't want to support this company". This is the case with the band you mentioned, since the singer is an integral part of that band. A person's individual choice to stop supporting that band because of the actions of the singer is a matter of that individual's agency.

On the other end, there's "I am offended by what person X said/did outside of work, therefore person X is evil... and any person or company that defends X in any way at all is also evil... Therefore I will rally everyone I know to get outraged and I will threaten person X with violence and I will flood person X's employer with hate mail and threats and I will go online and I will paint person X's employer as evil unless they fire person X immediately and I will make it a PR nightmare for the employer because I am offended". This scenario ends up not being a case of free agency, it's a case of threat and coercion being enacted upon the employer. The employer ends up being forced to fire someone, even if the thing that person X said/did was borderline or even benign (like a tasteless joke).

then the nuance is lost on everyone, since these are all real examples of people claiming to be canceled. and again I don’t think it’s that complicated, if I tell my friends that trapt sucks because the lead singer is an idiot and they agree, ami I in the wrong? like I don’t have any right to share my opinion about trapt? from what I can tell the only difference between the two is that the second is a result of many “I” decisions.

of course the threats of violence are unacceptable whether it’s an individual or mob of people doing it

 

[mumblethrax]

And frankly, isn't this the kind of miraculous "invisible hand" regulation and solving everything, that most right-wingers preach? I mean, the free market is supposed to solve everything and make everything better, right? Well, this is free market at work, really.

Many right-wingers are full of ****, sure. The publications and websites that misrepresented Will Wilkinson's joke as a threat are exactly the same platforms that will publish clickbait about the latest "cancel culture" outrage--when the rubber hits the road, they'll participate in canceling someone themselves (despite the fact that Wilkinson himself is not exactly left-wing).

I'm not sure that an arch-libertarian would be committed to the view that a mob influencing actors in a marketplace is best understood as the invisible hand working things out, but I'm also not sure how much that matters. Libertarianism doesn't strike me as a dominant strain of thought among the American right these days; it's been superseded by Q-brained proto-fascism.

But the people who insist that there are no problems to be seen here have also made arguments reminiscent of free marketeers--ignoring the asymmetries in labor markets, the degree to which our employers exert power over our lives, or echoing people like William F. Buckley in failing to appreciate that regulation of employment can be liberty-maximizing.

In any case, the big stories are always about some mucky-muck having his contracts torn up, but the greater concern is for the rank-and-file employees who get ********** by an imperious (or cowardly) boss for saying the wrong thing, which is rarely as newsworthy.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't know man. I think it's part of our current culture that we end up labeling the entirety of a person and then condemning anything and everything that they have ever done as taboo.

I mean, I am appalled and disgusted by Bill Cosby's behavior with women. But he's still a funny comedian. His comedy skills are independent of his predatory behavior. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he was still a brilliant statesman and scientist, who has contributed good things to society. Isaac Newton was a conspiracy theorist, believed in alchemy, and was anti-semitic. Somehow, I don't think wiping him from the history pages and casting the entirety of Principia as evil and taboo is really a good solution.

People are multi-dimensional. It's entirely possible for a person to have beliefs that I find atrocious, but still do good things as well. It's entirely possible for a neo-nazi to hold beliefs about minorities that make me feel ill, but also be a skilled employee, a caring spouse and parent, and a contributor to their community. Hell, even Hitler was instrumental in getting large portions of the populace access to automobiles!

This tendency to define and label people as 100% evil, no questions asked, and to use that as justification for abuse and persecution is irrational and immoral in my opinion.

Ok so bill cosby is still a funny comedian. many consumers don’t want to see him anymore. are networks obligated to air reruns so he can maintain his income, even though many consumers have made it clear they’ll stop watching the network?

bill cosby is a multi faceted human being. I don’t want to see any of his material because I don’t want to contribute to his income and encourage my friends to do the same. a neo nazi is a great pool player, I’d rather lose a few games than have him on my team and tell the rest of my team. what’s irrational and immoral about that?

 

[dirtywick]

I heard about this recently. The lead singer strikes me as headstrong, but consistently on-brand. If people do not want to buy his crappy album, then they shouldn't buy his crappy album, especially if they were initially drawn to the band for its views on epidemiology. It gets dicer if detractors want the label to drop the band, radio stations to stop playing their one hit or prevent venues from hosting the band's sold-out show.

he will take on anyone. that's how he got into that mess.

personally i don't think it's wrong to tell a label you won't support them as long as they're supporting that clown either. its ok to exercise your small amount of power as a consumer to pay for products you like.

First off, you sound drunk; you should sober up before deciding anything. Second, maybe this other dude is also drunk, and maybe that is a mitigating factor. Third, why is the impulse to go after this guy's job? He's going to have to work somewhere, right? Fourth: This punitive instinct strikes me as right-wing and puritanical. Someone says or does something stupid, can you try speaking to them first? Y'know, education/rehabilitation rather than retribution. No? OK, Karen, go talk to the manager. Or, even better, go tell Twitter/The Internet. This "culture" part of what seems to be happening is that people are so socially maladjusted that they can't sort these issues out for themselves.

That said, when it comes to something like racism, adults at this time should know better. Most racists know that they're not welcome to spout racist language among strangers. I say this as a point of comparison with the singer's COVID freakout, which is more understandable (even if perpetuating myths about the deadly pathogen is more materially harmful).

Circling back to Wilkinson: Even if he had said anything wrong, the response is insanely disproportionate.

ok, but i don't see someone who gets drunk and finds themselves in racist viral videos as something that should, by default, be everyone else's problem to tolerate. expecting people to get into confrontations with them and continue to work in uncomfortable, and perhaps even hostile, work environments that are completely due to someone else's actions isn't a reasonable expectation. which is why it isn't happening.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey this should make those against cancel culture happy he got his job back after killing three people.

"Joseph Mensah, who quit his job as a police officer in Wauwatosa, Wis., after shooting and killing three people in the line of duty over a five-year period, has a new job as a sheriff's deputy. Sheriff Eric Severson of neighboring Waukesha County says multiple authorities concluded Mensah's controversial use of force was both legal and in line with his training."

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/01/28/npr-officer-who-quit-wisconsin-police-job-under-pressure-joins-nearby-sheriffs-dept

Cancel culture tried to cost him his job and it failed, a true win for america.

 

[dirtywick]

https://www.loudersound.com/news/sy...g-views-have-put-him-on-a-hollywood-blacklist

this one is personally disappointing but the latest example of cancel culture ruining the life of another prominent right winger. drummer of a great band creates a comic kickstarter that pulled in about ~$25K isn't funded or printed yet, wants to make it into a tv show or film. is entitled to do that, actually. but because of his very public right wing views, he's been not only cancelled but black listed from hollywood.

hey, it could happen to any one of us. we are all entitled to getting our comics that we haven't even made yet into films.


see now for me, soad went from great band to great band with the idiot drummer. but it could easily be they're great band but i'm not interested if they get back together or used to be a great band but i can't stand them anymore. and why would i be wrong to feel that way? am i cancelling this poor guy?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You seem incredibly invested in trying to make people believe that this “cancel culture” is something new.

It's not *new*. But it is detrimental.

Blacklisting, witch-burning etc. are detrimental. They're not beneficial to society. Therefore we should not gloss over this behavior and pretend like it's okay just because it's not *new*.

FFS, persecution of homosexuals isn't new either. If persecution of homosexuals were becoming commonplace, and I saw people on ISF arguing that it's perfectly acceptable because [mental gymnastics] I'd sure as hell hope a LOT of people would call it out.

But because these detrimental tactics are being used against people that have been dehumanized and judged to have transgressed against a social more, we get a LOT of posters arguing that it's fine, no big deal.

 

[dirtywick]

while i'm not even sure i'd consider losing a job as persecution, even though it's definitely a hardship, a publisher pulling a book deal or refusing to publish a comic definitely isn't persecution

bottom line is there's no human right that ensures you get the employment you want or that you get to choose how other people view you, or that other people can't attempt to make your life harder because they don't like you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

https://www.loudersound.com/news/sy...g-views-have-put-him-on-a-hollywood-blacklist

this one is personally disappointing but the latest example of cancel culture ruining the life of another prominent right winger. drummer of a great band creates a comic kickstarter that pulled in about ~$25K isn't funded or printed yet, wants to make it into a tv show or film. is entitled to do that, actually. but because of his very public right wing views, he's been not only cancelled but black listed from hollywood.

If he can not get his comic funded why is it being blacklisted instead of just there not being a market for it? If it pulled in 10 million then he could be onto something about being blacklisted. As it is, it sounds like someone with an unsuccessful project mad that the world does not understand his genius.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Was OJ cancled with his "If I did It" book? When was the publisher morally obligated to print it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay, since he's come up - a couple of things about Bill Cosby.

Firstly, he really was cancelled. Remember how come he actually got caught? The accusations against him had gone around for years. They were mostly kept out of the spotlight until they gained some recognition when a stand-up comedian (I forget who) mentioned it as part of his act. IIRC, it was along the lines of paraphrasing Cosby complaining about how black kids don't have standards any more because they wear their trousers too low and how he'd never do that, followed by "no, but you did rape a lot of women, Bill". But even then, that barely made a splash.

Later (maybe even a couple of years later) Cosby's official twitter account tried to get some viral publicity by posting blank meme templates of Cosby and asking people to make memes with them and use whatever hashtag they'd come up with. And people did, but rather than using phrases like "Mmm, I love jello!", which they had been hoping for, they instead referenced the fact that he was a rapist.

That's what created the public pressure which allowed the women to come forwards and for Cosby to be prosecuted. It's also what spearheaded the #MeToo movement which, while certainly not flawless or without bumps in the road, has seen public figures being held responsible for sexual abuse they have perpetrated and has moved the needle slightly more towards gender equality in Hollywood.

All of that because of a twitter mob making it viral.

Secondly, if the thinking really is "well, sure, he's a rapist - but he's a funny rapist" then ask yourself whether you'd get a mural of him painted on the side of your house with the caption "I *Heart* Bill Cosby". And, if not, then perhaps you can understand why a commercial entity such as a TV station might also not want to be seen to endorse him and thereby implicitly also endorse his crimes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

while i'm not even sure i'd consider losing a job as persecution, even though it's definitely a hardship, a publisher pulling a book deal or refusing to publish a comic definitely isn't persecution

bottom line is there's no human right that ensures you get the employment you want or that you get to choose how other people view you, or that other people can't attempt to make your life harder because they don't like you.

It's a bit fuzzier than "losing a job". It's the difference between a person losing their job because of their employer's independent decision based on their work performance or their illegal or egregious behavior outside of work... and a person losing their job because the employer was subjected to harassment and massive negative PR in a campaign to force the employer to fire them.

And no, there's no "human right" that people can't attempt to make your life harder because they don't like you... but most people call that harassment. When that harassment takes the form of trying to make a person unemployable... that gets awfully close to persecution.

 

[dirtywick]

at least we can agree it’s not persecution

harassment I could buy in some cases and it can be taken to that point. but not always, and at this point we’re at “some times cancel culture is ok” which is reasonable.

 

[mumblethrax]

The accusations against him had gone around for years. They were mostly kept out of the spotlight until they gained some recognition when a stand-up comedian (I forget who) mentioned it as part of his act.

Hannibal Buress. I'd give him a lot more credit for it than I would anyone else--it was a genuinely risky move on his part. It's a lucky thing for him that people in the stand-up world, especially black comedians, already knew that Cosby sucked. Which is also why it's so funny--the guy who admonished black people not to besmirch themselves by speaking "that trash" had been raping women for decades.

Anyway, I don't see the point in bringing up people who deserved 'cancelation' (and worse). It's like someone says "It's a problem that our criminal justice system routinely convicts innocent people" and someone else says "But what about all the times when it convicted someone who was guilty? Do you think it's a problem that Charles Manson went to jail?" People should be able to think their way out of that particular paper bag.

 

[dirtywick]

because “cancellation” is a matter of personal choice and values, who I choose to associate with and where I spend my money. and these are choices I’m allowed to make

the fact that some people “deserve” it and some don’t is itself evidence that cancel culture isn’t necessarily bad

 

[mumblethrax]

because “cancellation” is a matter of personal choice and values, who I choose to associate with and where I spend my money. and these are choices I’m allowed to make

This, in a nutshell, is the problem. People only ask themselves what they're legally permitted to do. They never ask themselves what they ought to do.

We have obligations as public citizens, and one of them is not to be arbitrarily (and especially disingenuously) punitive.