Cancel culture IRL

[johnny karate]

Several ones surely are defending that.

Requires citation. And please remember the standards you set: quantity over quality. You’ll need to find people cheering for or defending “canceling” for the sake of “canceling” as opposed to “canceling” for a justifiable reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Been trying to track down a definition of "cancel culture" from a relatively unbiased and non-polemical source. So far, I've only found a couple.

Because "cancel culture" is a biased, polemical term.

You know this very well.

 

[johnny karate]

I reconcile that by noting that you have some seriously selective reading skills.

All of those are MASSIVE problems for me and viewpoints that I strongly oppose. Honestly, if you have somehow managed to bury your head so far into your own special pile of sand here that you somehow think I don't argue strongly against sexism or racism, you clearly haven't been paying any attention at all. I'm against murder and thievery too, just never really thought I needed to make a great show of singing it from the rooftops... so...

Got it. We must all assume you don’t necessarily support bad things even if you haven’t explicitly said so. But anyone pointing out that “cancel culture” previously existed before now must be assumed to support it in all forms unless they explicitly say otherwise to your personal satisfaction.

For a minute there, I thought we should all be held to the same standards. Silly me.

 

[johnny karate]

That's a strange argument. Do you genuinely think it would make any sense at all for me to be *worried* about things that happened in the past? Or that somehow me being worried about things happening *right now* that also happened in the past and that I think were bad in the past is disingenuous?

If I were around during the inquisition, WW2, the witch burnings, the McCarthy era, and similar such cases of coercion and threat being used to silence and intimidate people with the "wrong" beliefs, I'd have been worried about it then too.

Cool.

The selective concerns of wokescolds still seem disingenuous.

 

[johnny karate]

Well... several posters, including you, certainly don't seem to think there's anything at all wrong with it and also seem to think that the targets of such action deserve it.

I'm not really sure what the distinction is.

If wokescolds didn’t have dishonest arguments, they’d have no arguments at all.

 

[johnny karate]

It's not a difficult concept for anybody. It does, however, seem to be the best infrastructure for a widely hailed strawman in the parts... although I can't for the life of me figure out why.

This thread has essentially been...

Group A: Hey, cancel culture is a bad thing, this sort of mob mentality retaliation is really open to abuse and I think we should oppose this

Group B: You act like this is something new, it's been around forever!

NONE of us has claimed that it's new. But you guys have been hammering the "it's not new" drum since page one. It makes no sense, and it doesn't address any of the concerns put forth at all.

Group A: Cancel Culture is a problem!

Group B: “Cancel Culture” has been around in some form or another for a long time. Why does it suddenly concern you now?

Group A: Salem Witch Trials! Straw man! “Mob mentality”! You’re not addressing my concerns! Loud noises!

 

[johnny karate]

What the hell are you talking about? Who was calling for "cancellation" of those things?

Many, many people. It’s weird you don’t know that considering what strong principle-based opinions you have on the subject. Why, if I didn’t know better, I would think that your concerns are selective...

 

[d4m10n]

Because "cancel culture" is a biased, polemical term.

I respectfully disagree; the definitions from Wikipedia and Morning Consult show that there's no need to load the dice.

ETA: Here's a third one→ https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/

If wokescolds didn’t have dishonest arguments, they’d have no arguments at all.

Not sure what this word is supposed to mean in this context.

 

[johnny karate]

Not sure what this word is supposed to mean in this context.

It’s just shorthand for people who are Very Concerned about “cancel culture”. I think I cribbed it from SuburbanTurkey.

 

[johnny karate]

We’ve seen the terms “mob” and “mob mentality” come up in this thread. A lot. And of course there is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth to go along with it.

Of course, it all reads like hyper-ventilating exaggeration to make “cancel culture” seem like this dangerous scourge poised to rend asunder the fabric of society.

But it got me curious what these posters bemoaning the threat of “the mob” thought about the actual mob we saw invade the U.S. Capitol recently and the actual danger those people pose.

Oddly enough, the general consensus based on their virtual absence in threads discussing the January 6th insurrection seems to be one of lack of concern.

As a matter of fact, I only found one prominent anti-mob poster from this thread actively participating in the insurrection threads, and lack of concern is definitely what was expressed.

As the insurrection was happening, I posted this:
“A violent mob has overtaken the Capitol. The coup has arrived.”

This was the response:
“I'm sure. We'll, I have some floor tile to set. I'll check back later to see how the protestors were swept aside like yesterday's garbage.

I have faith in the strength of this Nation to deal with feces flingers. They might be allowed to prance around a bit. We can sweep up later.”

In fairness, I could have missed some posts expressing worry and distress, but as it stands, it remains difficult to believe that the concerns expressed by wokescolds are genuine or based on principle.

 

[d4m10n]

But it got me curious what these posters bemoaning the threat of “the mob” thought about the actual mob we saw invade the U.S. Capitol recently and the actual danger those people pose.

Here you go.

Oddly enough, the general consensus based on their virtual absence in threads discussing the January 6th insurrection seems to be one of lack of concern.

I've never taken much interest in open-and-shut cases. Have fun in that thread, though.

 

[HansMustermann]

Been trying to track down a definition of "cancel culture" from a relatively unbiased and non-polemical source. So far, I've only found a couple.

The Wikipedia page for cancel culture^WP is a good one, IMO.

Here is another one, from Morning Consult polling:

I personally prefer this one, it seems to capture most of what I've been getting at.

Yes, well, as I was saying, even that one goes a bit beyond that, in comparing it to public shaming someone. Which I suppose it is, but still, it's slightly more than just the neutral-ish sounding excerpt.

But more importantly you (and the others who brought up that poll before), seem to have actually missed what that poll actually says in its analysis of the results: that a lot more people say they're against "cancel culture" if you ask them just that, than say they wouldn't do or agree with something that falls under "cancel culture" if you don't call it that. In fact a lot are the same people, as in, it's on the same poll sheet.

So basically, as many have been saying in this thread, it's just the buzzword du jour for the conservatives to be against. And also HIGHLY hypocritical for a lot of them.

 

[Thermal]

It’s just shorthand for people who are Very Concerned about “cancel culture”. I think I cribbed it from SuburbanTurkey.

Its actually a word that means pretty much the opposite of how you are using it. It means a woke peeson who scolds others for not being woke enough. Woke...scold.

 

[d4m10n]

But more importantly you (and the others who brought up that poll before), seem to have actually missed what that poll actually says in its analysis of the results: that a lot more people say they're against "cancel culture" if you ask them just that, than say they wouldn't do or agree with something that falls under "cancel culture" if you don't call it that. In fact a lot are the same people, as in, it's on the same poll sheet.

At Q18, 32% of poll respondents approved of participating in "cancel culture," whereas 44% disapproved. At Q16, 60% of people reported never participating themselves. Not sure which questions you're comparing here.

 

[HansMustermann]

At Q18, 32% of poll respondents approved of participating in "cancel culture," whereas 44% disapproved. At Q16, 60% of people reported never participating themselves. Not sure which questions you're comparing here.

From the article being flogged around earlier: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/americans-cancel-culture-377412

"Twenty-seven percent of voters said cancel culture had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society"

but

"40% of voters say they have participated in cancel culture"

Hell, even among the older voters:

"about a third (32%) of voters over 65 say they have joined a social media pile-on"

And that's just scratching the surface, but anyway: even in that poll, about 50% more participated in it, than were willing to say it's a good thing.


Though of course, the bigger problem with that survey is that it's a piece of crap, rather than a real survey. I've gone over the problem with the questions and how they're not randomized, but that's not even the biggest problem. The bigger problem is that it wasn't even a real survey. It was a weekly poll on their site. Morning Consult only came up with the questions, but didn't actually run a proper survey for them. So basically Morning Consult is more or less just name dropped to give more legitimacy to basically a piece of nonsense.

But anyway: it's not an unbiased sample. No one even attempted to make sure that their sample reflects the general composition of society or anything.

Taking it as proof of how Americans in general feel about something is just stupid.

It's like running a poll on a Linux site about whether people are against closed source software, or on LoversLab about whether the availability (via mods or otherwise) of explicit sexual content and slutty outfits are important when purchasing a game. Of course you'll get a majority yes, because the people being on that site at all are already self-selected to fit what's on it. That's the sample that any poll will reflect. What would one even expect there?

So, you know, whop-de-do, that a lot of the readers of a right-leaning political site would dutifully bark at whatever bogeyman du jour the republicans say you should bark at... yeah, huge revelation there. My mind is blown

 

[Darat]

Bunch of off topic and rule 12 breaches moved to AAH. Keep to the topic of this thread which is not the behaviour of other members in a thread about a different topic!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[d4m10n]

And that's just scratching the surface, but anyway: even in that poll, about 50% more participated in it, than were willing to say it's a good thing.

I've (regretfully) participated in any number of things which I'd be unwilling to say are good for society. Haven't you?

ETA: At any rate, I was just citing the poll because I liked the definition they used for the phrase under contention here. Do you think it's an adequate working definition for us to use here?

 

[d4m10n]

The bigger problem is that it wasn't even a real survey. It was a weekly poll on their site.

Are you quite sure about this? Here is the survey page at Morning Consult:
https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/07/22072029/200766_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2.pdf

Looks like an ordinary randomized national tracking poll to me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can't prove a distinction without difference with a poll.

If you ask a hundred people if they like welfare and the same hundred people if they like helping the poor, you will get radically different answers. So you can't prove crap by pointing at one of those two "polls."

I'm not going down a rabbit hole of proving to the Proudly Wrong that "words with negative connotations that have meaning beyond their literal dictionary one" exist.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Any examples come to mind? I don't remember Larson doing anything untoward.

She drew ire when she stated at a press conference that the Captain Marvel movie wasn't aimed at white male comic book fans because not all comic movies have to be aimed at them. The response from the butthurt was pretty major with attack reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and demands to Disney to fire her for her anti-male attitude. It even carried on when she started her YouTube Channel with her first video getting 145k dislikes.