Cancel culture IRL

[johnny karate]

You know, I did pause over what to write after "instances of" in the hopes it wouldn't be misinterpreted in the charged context of this thread.

Let's say this.


I think at least the vocal posters on this thread, regardless of their positions around the term "cancel culture" agree on the following.

• There have always been consequences for actions.
• People have always sefl censored around some issues.
• The public at large has always had some power of social pressure on each other and financial pressure on companies.
• Companies have always responded to public reaction.
  

We don't need to agree that the current state of these sorts of things should be called "cancel culture" or is worse than previous conditions to see that the nuts and bolts of these, just like every other facet of society vary with the times, with trends and with technology.

I don't think dating is different in any terrible or massive way from 20 years ago, but we could talk about the way Tinder, OKcupid and social media profiles affect dating.

Agreed on all points.

But, despite what the counter-cancel culture folks would have us believe, amplifying a voice or voices doesn’t give them any more power. That’s why they have to lie and distort and throw around scary words like “mobs” and “coercion” when it’s really just a bunch of people on Twitter doing things they don’t like.

 

[angrysoba]

Given all the references to the Hollywood blacklist upthread—back in the 1950s people were banned from producing, acting, or writing for (allegedly) having Communist sympathies—I think we can all agree that canceling famous people for having offensive views is nothing remotely new. The question isn't whether it's new, but whether we're overdoing it now.

All the references to the 1950s Hollywood blacklist?

I believe those were pretty much all your references.

The key distinction was that much of the coercion came from government, hence the other term which is McCarthyism.

 

[johnny karate]

This is.. well... just a really dumb thing to say. NONE OF US WERE ALIVE IN ORDER TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT THEN.

The linear flow of time isn't a difficult concept for most people to grasp.

You know, there’s a period of time that predates social media and “cancel culture” and falls comfortably within most of our lifetimes.

Do you imagine that there was all this terrible stuff happening a long time ago, and then it all stopped and everything was great for everybody, and then we were all born, and now, oh ****, cancel culture?

 

[johnny karate]

More specific examples:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1364066242244599810

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1364982244138508295

https://twitter.com/NEST0RSOOT/status/1301976654906978305

What are those meant to be examples of, exactly?

 

[d4m10n]

I believe those were pretty much all your references.

The references to Hollywood blacklisting in particular were indeed mine, but what happened in those studios was a subset of McCarthyism writ large, and (as you know) several posters have made reference to the idea of witch hunting for communist sympathizers.

For example:

It wasn't new when it was witch burnings, it wasn't new when it was the crusades and the inquisition, and it wasn't new when it was McCarthyism.

As to whether McCarthyism was primarily a government enterprise, I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of it was outsourced to private enterprise.

The key distinction was that much of the coercion came from government, hence the other term which is McCarthyism.

If you sincerely believe that Hollywood wasn't running its own blacklists (independently of HUAC etc.) then we can safely assume you've spent rather little time reading into this era in American history.

Why would I engage in a bad faith discussion in which you want to ignore relevant details to help you prop up your otherwise weak argument?

You are also free to pretend that Hollywood didn't run its own blacklists apart from HUAC. No need to actually read up on the time period.

 

[johnny karate]

All the references to the 1950s Hollywood blacklist?

I believe those were pretty much all your references.

The key distinction was that much of the coercion came from government, hence the other term which is McCarthyism.

Apparently, this is a “distinction without difference”.

 

[Elaedith]

More specific examples:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1364066242244599810

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1364982244138508295

https://twitter.com/NEST0RSOOT/status/1301976654906978305

A few more examples here if you need any.

 

[johnny karate]

If you sincerely believe that Hollywood wasn't running its own blacklists (independently of HUAC etc.) then we can safely assume you've spent rather little time reading into this era in American history.

Yes, and I’m sure they came up with the idea completely independently from the government body that was pushing it.

And it still doesn’t address the fact that people were being blacklisted for privately-held beliefs and mere suspicions, and not obnoxious public behavior they refused to stop engaging in, and also that fact that no one who has been “cancelled” has been been blacklisted like Gina Carano who found another employment opportunity almost immediately.

 

[d4m10n]

And it still doesn’t address the fact that people were being blacklisted for privately-held beliefs and mere suspicions, and not obnoxious public behavior they refused to stop engaging in...

Do you consider publication of isolationist and pro-Soviet literature to be public behavior? If so, read up on Dalton Trumbo.

 

[d4m10n]

Tryna wrap my head around the idea that privatizing the Red Scare would've made it okay.

 

[johnny karate]

A few more examples here if you need any.

Let’s take a look at the first few linked:

1) White cafeteria workers fired for serving Kool-Aid as part of “Black History Month” meal. Overtly racist idiots lose job for being overtly racist. Bummer.

2) Yoga studio goes out of business during the pandemic. The owner claims it was because of a kerfuffle over “wokeness” gone wrong. Counter claim indicates the studio was already struggling and the pandemic was the final nail in the coffin. No actual evidence one way or the other.

3) Dumbass thinks the world needs to hear her dumbass opinions and her employer didn’t care for it. Other than that, it’s hard to know what really happened because of how one-sided the story is.

And these are the first three. Not particularly compelling stuff.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you consider publication of isolationist and pro-Soviet literature to be public behavior? If so, read up on Dalton Trumbo.

The Dalton Trumbo who was investigated by HUAC? That Dalton Trumbo?

Yep, totally that same thing as what happened to Gina Carano. A distinction without difference, as they say.

 

[d4m10n]

The Dalton Trumbo who was investigated by HUAC? That Dalton Trumbo?

I'll ask again: Had Trumbo been blacklisted by Hollywood studios apart from HUAC (and other governmental influence) due to widespread public fear of those who express ideological support of Communism, would that have been okay?

(Hint: NO.)

 

[johnny karate]

I'll ask again: Had Trumbo been blacklisted by Hollywood studios apart from HUAC (and other governmental influence) due to widespread public fear of those who express ideological support of Communism, would that have been okay?

(Hint: NO.)

And I’ll tell you again: I’ll not engage in a fanciful hypothetical that strips away meaningful context so your dishonest analogy seems less dishonest.

 

[Stout]

A few more examples here if you need any.

That's a pretty impressive list of cancellations. 223 and counting I presume.

 

[johnny karate]

That's a pretty impressive list of cancellations. 223 and counting I presume.

“Cancellation” being defined as someone claiming they were cancelled and just uncritically accepting that.

 

[Mumbles]

“Cancellation” being defined as someone claiming they were cancelled and just uncritically accepting that.

Some of them are pretty questionable on their face:

"We tried to do a performance of the Vagina Monologues (some versions actually do contain some wild stuff - and they never say which versions are being discussed).

Justine Sacco (Man has that one been discussed everywhere - and last I saw she got her old job back after some really dumb jokes that she managed to tie to her own job).

The Google dude that wrote a document (based mostly on crap sources like 4chan) that got fired - and here's some scientists at the pro-phrenology journal Quillette to cover for him.

A resignation letter from Bari Weiss (who recently wrote about how great the 80s were for liberty).

Bret Weinstein who...may have exaggerated how much backlash he caused by his reaction to a twist on some college campus tradition or other.

Count Dankula, who raised more money than he was penalized after teaching his Pug to "shake" when he said "Heil Hitler", and went on to run along side Gamergate blowhard Sargon of Akkad under Ukip (and who most of the supposed "cancel culture mob" agreed did not deserve any legal fine for his Nazi pug stunt - as a side note, while Ukip did...poorly in that election, I don't remember Dankula being a major cause).

Not mentioned in this list: Colin Kaepernick, Kuerig, Zoe Quinn, Nike, Anita Saarkesian. There are some left-wing "examples" later on down the list, though.

Basically, the entire thing is pretty questionable with little actual research done into any case (which is not to say that any given case is wrong, but rather the list is weak and slapped-together), and very clearly biased politically. Basically, it's an example, again, of "cancel culture" being entirely arbitrary to the point of being meaningless as commonly used.

(and the sheer number of Quillette articles is...weird, given that, yet again, their leading claim to fame is being the leading pro-phrenology website today)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Some real cancel culture, in case people forget what real censorship looks like.

New York Senate reintroduces bill to deny student organizations’ funding over ‘hate speech’ and pro-BDS advocacy

If adopted, Senate Bill S3712 would strip funding of any student organization that “permits” either “hate speech” or encourages boycotts of particular allies of the United States, with an avowed purpose of prohibiting groups from “advocating for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel[.]”

https://www.thefire.org/new-york-senate-reintroduces-bill-to-deny-student-organizations-funding-over-hate-speech-and-pro-bds-advocacy/


A nice reminder that the same conservative freaks crying about Mr. Potato Head on Fox News every night are almost certainly the same people that would make criticizing the government of Israel unlawful.

 

[Distracted1]

Some real cancel culture, in case people forget what real censorship looks like.



https://www.thefire.org/new-york-senate-reintroduces-bill-to-deny-student-organizations-funding-over-hate-speech-and-pro-bds-advocacy/


A nice reminder that the same conservative freaks crying about Mr. Potato Head on Fox News every night are almost certainly the same people that would make criticizing the government of Israel unlawful.

A little late to the party.
Did you look at theclinks posted by EC #1866 ?

This one, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-olivia-katbi-smith

Discusses BDS "canceling" from the perspective of a Portland activist.

Something from the link regarding the weaponization of social media platforms:

"....The latter strategy, already in evidence, often results in bursts of quick suspensions and reinstatements as groups fink on each other, which in turn incentivizes political antagonists to ever-escalating patterns of mass reporting. This is one of the most predictable angles to the new corporate anti-speech movement: many of the groups protesting the loudest about censorship openly endorse such tactics, when it comes to political foes. The game becomes about who gets whom kicked off first, and/or keeps them off the longest.

As efforts to de-platform groups like the Proud Boys escalate, don’t be surprised if the definition of “Antifa” expands — Facebook this summer removed “980 groups, 520 pages, and 160 ads” as part of a sweep that included some groups connected with the nebulously-defined organization* — as Internet platforms work to convince customers of an even-handed approach. Although the idea that the “slippery slope” is a fallacy is increasingly popular on the left especially, it’s already been shown that with content moderation, bans in any one direction tend rather quickly to result in bans in more directions, as more and more groups learn how to trigger deletion mechanisms. Instead of encouraging a better argument, we’re encouraging better muffling strategies......"

 

[Darat]

A little late to the party.
Did you look at theclinks posted by EC #1866 ?

This one, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-olivia-katbi-smith

Discusses BDS "canceling" from the perspective of a Portland activist.

Something from the link regarding the weaponization of social media platforms:

"....The latter strategy, already in evidence, often results in bursts of quick suspensions and reinstatements as groups fink on each other, which in turn incentivizes political antagonists to ever-escalating patterns of mass reporting. This is one of the most predictable angles to the new corporate anti-speech movement: many of the groups protesting the loudest about censorship openly endorse such tactics, when it comes to political foes. The game becomes about who gets whom kicked off first, and/or keeps them off the longest.

As efforts to de-platform groups like the Proud Boys escalate, don’t be surprised if the definition of “Antifa” expands — Facebook this summer removed “980 groups, 520 pages, and 160 ads” as part of a sweep that included some groups connected with the nebulously-defined organization* — as Internet platforms work to convince customers of an even-handed approach. Although the idea that the “slippery slope” is a fallacy is increasingly popular on the left especially, it’s already been shown that with content moderation, bans in any one direction tend rather quickly to result in bans in more directions, as more and more groups learn how to trigger deletion mechanisms. Instead of encouraging a better argument, we’re encouraging better muffling strategies......"

That seems to be supporting that the traditional “cancellers” are still at it.