Cancel culture IRL

[Mumbles]

They called her posts "abhorrent." Given the available alternatives, it surprises me when so many decent people deliberately choose the head-in-sand argument. I agree that it ultimately comes down to economic self-interest, but that is itself contingent upon this moral dynamic. If a movie studio knew a celebrated writer/director/showrunner had been abusing cast and crew, but did some cost-benefit analysis and sided with him for economic reasons, would you be like, "Well, I can't really fault them for following the money. That's capitalism, fer ya."

Of course they did. They'll still bend over backwards to get their movies and products sold in China's authoritarian market, though.

The press release is performance, and nothing more. Same as when they were shocked by Rosanne Barr's continued racist diatribes when her show was revived.

 

[Cain]

The press release is performance, and nothing more.

The things I learn in this thread. Cancelations represent popular expression, yet these totally popular ideas are not to be found among the people who work in relatively progressive industries, or even the peons ordered to draft a statement.

Same as when they were shocked by Rosanne Barr's continued racist diatribes when her show was revived.

Almost everything is obvious in retrospect. You think executives greenlit the show half-expecting Barr to Tweet racist remarks at any moment? How many years did Charlie Sheen keep it together? Fame, money, employment -- a golden straitjacket. Not to spend too much time revisiting Rosie, but I found her excuse entirely plausible: "I thought the bitch was white!!" Had she known, she might have said something else that was vulgar and stupid and on-brand.

 

[Darat]

The things I learn in this thread. Cancelations represent popular expression, yet these totally popular ideas are not to be found among the people who work in relatively progressive industries, or even the peons ordered to draft a statement.
…snip…

If that’s what you’ve taken away you have misunderstood many of the comments in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

What a thoughtless and incoherent comment. It's a "red herring" to frame this as a moralistic judgment yet the Mouse issued a moralistic judgment in firing her.

No, she was fired for violating the terms of her employment contract.

I know the wokescolds desperately need to muddy the waters and make all of this seem more nebulous than it really is. It’s the fallacy upon which they construct their feeble slippery slope arguments.

But what it boils down to isn’t really any more complicated than an employer stipulating that an employee not behave in a certain way and the employee ignoring that stipulation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again which Cain are we dealing with here? The troll, the Poe, or what passes for whatever is left of his actual on-board "real" personality?

 

[johnny karate]

Okay but how does scrubbing Cara Dune make the world better?

How does you repeatedly asking this inane question make the world better?

 

[johnny karate]

It would help if I knew who the old guys who look like Mafia bosses are supposed to be, and who the naked people under the board are supposed to represent.

The old guys are the ruling class, the people under the board are the working class.

It’s a tamer version of a mural that is believed to be anti-Semitic.

 

[Cain]

No, she was fired for violating the terms of her employment contract.

...

But what it boils down to isn’t really any more complicated than an employer stipulating that an employee not behave in a certain way and the employee ignoring that stipulation.

You mean like a contract with a -- what's the term here -- morality clause? I'm not sure why you're pretzeling yourself. A public morals clause is notoriously nebulous. Mumbles says she was fired for "monetary" reasons. Maybe you two can work something out.

I will grant you some credit for at least trying to make an argument. Others here cannot even manage that.

 

[tyr_13]

You mean like a contract with a -- what's the term here -- morality clause? I'm not sure why you're pretzeling yourself. A public morals clause is notoriously nebulous. Mumbles says she was fired for "monetary" reasons. Maybe you two can work something out.

I will grant you some credit for at least trying to make an argument. Others here cannot even manage that.

These factors are not mutually exclusive and the argument is that one in fact drives the other.

Which are you exactly objecting to? The monetary motivation can and in many cases does drive 'bad' outcomes. The moral motivation can in in many cases does drive 'bad' outcomes. Therefore...what? This specific case is bad because other cases could be bad?

 

[d4m10n]

How does you repeatedly asking this inane question make the world better?

How does mocking on-topic questions make a discussion forum better?

 

[johnny karate]

You mean like a contract with a -- what's the term here -- morality clause? I'm not sure why you're pretzeling yourself. A public morals clause is notoriously nebulous. Mumbles says she was fired for "monetary" reasons. Maybe you two can work something out.

I will grant you some credit for at least trying to make an argument. Others here cannot even manage that.

The fact that it might be called a “morality clause” doesn’t mean Disney made a moral judgment in firing her. They very clearly made a business judgment.

And I’m not sure what you mean about the clause itself being nebulous. Do you want to go on record claiming that Carano was somehow blind-sided by this and had no idea she was in jeopardy of losing her job?

I bet you don’t.

I bet you want to continue to not address the specifics and instead wallow in the safety of hand-wringing over manufactured slippery-slope ambiguity.

 

[johnny karate]

How does mocking on-topic questions make a discussion forum better?

Laughter always makes things better.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not sure what you are trying to point out here, but her employer used the post as a reasoning in her firing. The fact they wanted to fire her and were waiting for the best justification, and this one is what they landed on isnt really debating the point.

'
"A" reasoning. As in "one post wasn't enough reason, repeatedly posting more of what she was warned not to is a whole new thing." That's called insubordination.

Cast and crew all have contracts. "Talent" always has a publicity clause. Maybe it is not acted on sometimes because the star power outshines the offense, but they all have it in there.

"The fact they wanted to fire her."

Is that a fact? Usually what they want is for the person to stop engaging in bad behavior that sours the work of hundreds-to-thousands of professionals involved in the production and keep making money hand-over-fist without the headaches.

 

[Cain]

The fact that it might be called a “morality clause” doesn’t mean Disney made a moral judgment in firing her.

I like the "might" here. Yeah, it "might" be? Jesus.

They very clearly made a business judgment.

As noted above and below, the two are not mutually exclusive, but lemme just say... when exercising a morality clause, someone passes judgment.

As for what I meant by morality clauses being "nebulous" I meant that they're nebulous. Isn't it obvious that companies have a lot of discretion when it comes to exercising them? As for Carano being blind-sided, no, that does not appear to be the case.

I bet you want to continue to not address the specifics and instead wallow in the safety of hand-wringing over manufactured slippery-slope ambiguity.

This is entirely your own fabrication. What specifics? Where is my slippery slope? Quote.

These factors are not mutually exclusive and the argument is that one in fact drives the other.

Which was noted earlier: "It ultimately comes down to economic self-interest, but that is itself contingent upon this moral dynamic." For some utterly bizarre reason morality in this discussion is a "red-herring."

Therefore...what? This specific case is bad because other cases could be bad?

No, that's Johnny's irrelevant bait.

The context for this digression:

As for Carano, who cares what some meathead actress has to say? Prove her claims wrong. Mock her for being an idiot. Answering speech with speech.

Disney did. They said “You’re fired”.

In this thread we've seen glimpses of a Divine Command Theory where God is played by the Free Market. Is certain behavior wrong because God forbids it, or does God forbid it because it's wrong?

Who cares? God's gonna God.

Framing this a moralistic judgement of Carano’s behavior is a red herring

This last move is remarkably silly because the whole discussion is steeped in morality. The only thing wrong with "moralistic judgement" of Carano's behavior is Johnny's spelling. The Mouse can believe that what she said was stupid and bad.

 

[Cain]

I'll post this separately because the quotations can become tedious.

As a case study for cancel culture, my question is how agitating for Carano's firing is going to improve the world? Aren't there better, less punitive alternatives? The response is to retreat to "people have the right to put pressure on companies, and companies have the right to terminate" -- safely side-stepping the question of what ought to be done. The result?

Masochists will continue to free-base her Twitter feed.
The world will be inflicted with a Daily Wire production starring Gina Carano.
Everyone is a little more suspicious and nastier.
And poor d4m10n is deprived of Cara Dune.

But hey, some keyboard jockey got noticed because they exposed a particularly stupid post that should have offended me six months ago. A bunch of other people bravely included hashtags to raise awareness about this scourge, and maybe felt empowered. In a life of quiet desperation, they fed Boredom Lion for a couple of days.

 

[Darat]

You mean like a contract with a -- what's the term here -- morality clause? I'm not sure why you're pretzeling yourself. A public morals clause is notoriously nebulous. Mumbles says she was fired for "monetary" reasons. Maybe you two can work something out.

I will grant you some credit for at least trying to make an argument. Others here cannot even manage that.

You are not arguing in good faith. You well understand from that for a corporation the reason they have “public behaviour” clauses is because employees breaching those types of clauses can effect their bottom line. If it didn’t there is no reason for a corporation to have such a clause.

I would note at least in the UK those clauses are quite hard to enforce since you have a right to a freedom of expression that you cannot “sign away”. Again this thread seems to indicate that the USA could deal with its so called “cancel culture” by having better employment laws and better constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Darat]

I'll post this separately because the quotations can become tedious.

As a case study for cancel culture,
…snip….

Assuming something that hasn’t been established. All that has been shown is that people will react to what other people express in a variety of ways. A behaviour we have seen for as long as certainly printed media has existed.

 

[dirtywick]

I think it would help to look at it as if Gina Carano isn’t entitled a role in a particular TV show. She still gets to be a celeb, still works in entertainment, still rich, still is free to speak her mind. She wasn’t even banned from Twitter which I’d assume is a key part of cancellation also. She just isn’t Cara Dune anymore.

And I know not a single Holocaust victim got to be Cara Dune either. So you can imagine the hardship she is going through right now, as is every conservative denied their entitlement of being Cara Dune.

 

[tyr_13]

As a case study for cancel culture, my question is how agitating for Carano's firing is going to improve the world? Aren't there better, less punitive alternatives? The response is to retreat to "people have the right to put pressure on companies, and companies have the right to terminate" -- safely side-stepping the question of what ought to be done. The result?

What alternatives do you think were not pursued in this 'case study'?

Her views were destroyed with evidence.

People were critical of them in other ways.

Her coworkers explained the harmful effects of them and how they were wrong.

Her employer warned her (multiple times by most accounts).

But hey, some keyboard jockey got noticed because they exposed a particularly stupid post that should have offended me six months ago. A bunch of other people bravely included hashtags to raise awareness about this scourge, and maybe felt empowered. In a life of quiet desperation, they fed Boredom Lion for a couple of days.

Adorably hypocritical 'argument' there.

 

[johnny karate]

I'll post this separately because the quotations can become tedious.

As a case study for cancel culture, my question is how agitating for Carano's firing is going to improve the world? Aren't there better, less punitive alternatives? The response is to retreat to "people have the right to put pressure on companies, and companies have the right to terminate" -- safely side-stepping the question of what ought to be done. The result?

Masochists will continue to free-base her Twitter feed.
The world will be inflicted with a Daily Wire production starring Gina Carano.
Everyone is a little more suspicious and nastier.
And poor d4m10n is deprived of Cara Dune.

But hey, some keyboard jockey got noticed because they exposed a particularly stupid post that should have offended me six months ago. A bunch of other people bravely included hashtags to raise awareness about this scourge, and maybe felt empowered. In a life of quiet desperation, they fed Boredom Lion for a couple of days.

Complainers complaining about other complainers remains one of my favorite internet phenomena.

Also, “judgement” and “judgment” are both correct spellings. Please stop trying to cancel the “e”.