Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

angrysoba said:
But not only is he not in serious danger of being pulled, the publicity will be good for his viewing figures.
Click to expand...
I share the intuition that he's not in serious danger of being pulled, but I've been surprised enough (on this topic) not to trust my intuitions.
 
dirtywick said:
Oh, I don’t expect Joe Rogan, or anyone else, to never offend anyone. It’s that when they do, they’re going to hear about it. And why shouldn’t they? Only Joe Rogan gets to have an opinion? Telling people to grow up and stop complaining because they’re offended by something you feel they shouldn’t be isnt even that dissimilar to be honest.
Click to expand...
Well no, I don't think they should stop complaining because I don't think they should be offended by it. Sometimes I'm the one offended. I think they should grow up and stop complaining about it because everyone gets offended by stuff sometimes, and any single person's personal offense shouldn't obligate other people to take any action. It's not Joe's job to make sure that Betty is never offended. Betty can be as offended as Betty gets, but oh well. That's 90% of the time Betty's problem, not Joe's.

dirtywick said:
But, Joe Rogan doesn’t have to accept or apologize or even listen to the criticism and complaints either. I think it’s still fair for anyone to have an opinion on Joe Rogan and say what it is

Anyway, I don’t think enduring abuse on the principal that being offended is somehow not an acceptable reason to speak up is a great approach. If it works for you, which it doesn’t sound like it is, great. I don’t think it’s a universally accepted idea, or often even a good one. If someone does something that bothers you, maybe you should tell them.
Click to expand...

I think it's more a matter of having some perspective on when the insult is intentional and when it's not, as well as when it's material and worth raising hell about. And I think a lot of people make a habit of getting offended and then using their hurt feelings to push people around.

Do you recall that splash ad by Dove several years back? It was for a body wash for all bodies, and the splash ad showed various females taking off their shirts, and as each raised the shirt over their head, they turned into the next female. There was a hispanic female who turned into a black female who turned into a white female who turned into a hispanic female and so on forever. Someone got offended because the black female was being turned into a white female, which meant somehow that Dove thought all black females are dirty. It was frankly ludicrous that an inclusive ad showing females of many races on equal footing was taken to be offensive. It got enough attention on social media that Dove ended up pulling the ad and apologizing.

That's the kind of thing where I think people need to grow up. It's obvious that Dove wasn't being insensitive or insulting. It was a perfectly fine ad. But some few people made an effort to be offended and got enough other professionally offended folks to make a stink about it.

It was dumb. It didn't address racial disparities or negative stereotypes in any fashion at all. It was performative.
 
smartcooky said:
Nope, what they are demanding IS commonsense and tolerance - the demand you don't see is for Dave Chappelle to be cancelled! The claim that this comedian is being cancelled is complete and utter bull-****. No such thing is happening. Those who are protesting his transphobic comments are not trying to cancel him, they are trying to address the shortcomings of a workplace that is intolerant of them.

People have no control over whether they are trans, or gay or identify as a different gender to their physiological sex at birth. Its not a disease or an ailment of any kind. They are who they are, and its something they cannot do anything about. They should not be discriminated against because of it.

They want their workplace to be the way society should be, a place where being transexual or gay or gender neutral, is simply accepted as normal, and uncontroversial, where there is nothing to see here, where being these things is not even a topic of conversation.. where it simply is what it is.
Click to expand...

Society should give special privileges to them?

Because that's what they're asking for in their demand. The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?

They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?

They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?

They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?

This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people...ng-criticism-over-postgame-comments/?amp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.
 
dirtywick said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people...ng-criticism-over-postgame-comments/?amp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go ahead and toss that into the "people need to grow up and get over it" bucket. Both for this guy and the offended bears fans.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Society should give special privileges to them?

Because that's what they're asking for in their demand. The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?

They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?

They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?

They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?

This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.
Click to expand...

I don’t know about Netflix, but there are of course numerous warnings that appear on some streaming services. I saw one on Amazon Prine that warned the characters smoked. Similarly I think Disney plus mentions that the shows have ethnic stereotypes. It wouldn’t seem too outlandish to me to have warnings about sexual violence or misogyny. This is one of those things where people might instinctively think “that’s madness!” Then think about it for a bit and decide, “actually, it might be fairly reasonable after all.”

Banning Smoking in pubs was once in the “that’s madness!” Bucket. But now it’s completely normal to have no smoking in pubs. In fact it is weird to have smoking permitted in indoor public places at all.
 
dirtywick said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people...ng-criticism-over-postgame-comments/?amp=true

Aaron Rodgers runs in a touchdown to seal the game and yells that he owns the Bears at some Bears fans that were none too happy about losing the game. Most non Bears fans thought this was awesome and it goes viral. Goes on bizarre word salad rant about how unfair he’s been treated and how he won’t be silenced by woke cancel culture.
Click to expand...
As a Chicago-born lifetime Bears fan, Rodgers is talking the kind of smack every NFL fan should expect. He shouldn't be cancelled (of course) and I doubt very many people are tryna get him canceled, even in Chicago.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Society should give special privileges to them?
Click to expand...

Society should simply regard them as part of Society, as normal and stop discriminating against them. If this were to happen, there would be no need for "special privileges" because they would be treated as equals and normal.

Emily's Cat said:
Because that's what they're asking for in their demand.
Click to expand...

Nope, and if that is your takeaway, then you, and people like you, are part of the problem.

Emily's Cat said:
The existing equity fund isn't sufficient - they demand a special fund JUST FOR trans talent. Do any other groups get special funds just for them?
Click to expand...

People who are not trans.

Emily's Cat said:
They demand more trans content on Netflix. Is Netflix's current trans content lower than the population proportion that trans people represent? Do other groups get to demand increases in content featuring their identities? Or is it only trans people that get extra content?
Click to expand...

Zero is lower that the proportion of people who are trans, so yes

Emily's Cat said:
They demand a revision of processes for commissioning or releasing "potentially harmful" content, based on whether people in the trans community think it's "harmful". Do other groups get to define what constitutes "potentially harmful" content for them, and demand policies to address that?
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.

Have you never seen these on a TV program

G, Y, Y7, PG, 14, MA

How about these

D, L, S, V, FV

G - General Audience
Y - Appropriate for all children
Y7 - unsuitable for children under 7 years of age.
PG - Parental Guidance recommended
14 - unsuitable for children under 14 years of age
MA - unsuitable for children under 17 years ofage.

D –Suggestive dialogue
L –Coarse or crude language
S –Sexual situations
V – Violence
FV –Fantasy violence
MA - Mature audiences

These warnings are specifically for groups, like parents of young children, those who might be upset by violence, those who don't want to be surprised by sexual content that might find content disturbing or harmful.
Why do you think these content advisories came about in the first place?

Emily's Cat said:
They want to add warnings and disclaimers to things they decide are "anti-trans", and they want Netflix to suggest "trans affirming" stuff alongside anything labeled "anti trans". Do any other groups get to label content that they alone decide is "anti" their group? Do they get to insist that Netflix include recommended "pro" their group stuff alongside it?
Click to expand...

See above

Emily's Cat said:
This isn't a request for being treated fairly and with respect. This is a demand that they get special treatment.
Click to expand...

First the damage has to be undone, the anti-trans, anti LGBTQ, racist and bigoted attitudes of people needs to be changed. That takes treating oppressed groups more fairly and in a less discriminatory manner, and sometimes yes, that means giving them special treatment to compensate or offset the actions and attitudes of bigots, until the wrongs are righted. It also requires certain members of Society to face the harsh reality that they are bigoted ********* that need to be smacked down hard for their bigotry!
.
.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
FIRE

“I hope my story can salvage some measure of integrity in higher education,” said Earnest. “Universities must give more weight to the devastating, long-term effects of their actions on hard-working career academics like myself than they do to the short-term pleasure of being perceived as ‘right’ in the eyes of a small but vocal group of students.”

The linked story is a little too complex to summarize easily. I would like to highlight one aspect of this incident, namely the outrage that the students claimed to feel. I respectfully but strongly question whether the students really were as upset by this as their words and actions suggest. That goes double for the boulder that the University of Wisconsin moved (see upthread). Some have dubbed this performance art. That's a little too kind IMO.
Click to expand...

This is appalling. The professor did not put the names on the board, and simply expressed an opinion that the students who walked out over reacted. Yet he’s been suspended and likely fired.

I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle. Not places of censorship and cowardice. My beliefs are changing.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well no, I don't think they should stop complaining because I don't think they should be offended by it. Sometimes I'm the one offended. I think they should grow up and stop complaining about it because everyone gets offended by stuff sometimes, and any single person's personal offense shouldn't obligate other people to take any action. It's not Joe's job to make sure that Betty is never offended. Betty can be as offended as Betty gets, but oh well. That's 90% of the time Betty's problem, not Joe's.



I think it's more a matter of having some perspective on when the insult is intentional and when it's not, as well as when it's material and worth raising hell about. And I think a lot of people make a habit of getting offended and then using their hurt feelings to push people around.

Do you recall that splash ad by Dove several years back? It was for a body wash for all bodies, and the splash ad showed various females taking off their shirts, and as each raised the shirt over their head, they turned into the next female. There was a hispanic female who turned into a black female who turned into a white female who turned into a hispanic female and so on forever. Someone got offended because the black female was being turned into a white female, which meant somehow that Dove thought all black females are dirty. It was frankly ludicrous that an inclusive ad showing females of many races on equal footing was taken to be offensive. It got enough attention on social media that Dove ended up pulling the ad and apologizing.

That's the kind of thing where I think people need to grow up. It's obvious that Dove wasn't being insensitive or insulting. It was a perfectly fine ad. But some few people made an effort to be offended and got enough other professionally offended folks to make a stink about it.

It was dumb. It didn't address racial disparities or negative stereotypes in any fashion at all. It was performative.
Click to expand...

Performative whining is pretty much how I would sum up the whole IDW thing. The Weinsteins (or should that be Whinesteins - Lol!), Dave Rubin, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay etc…. Performatively complaining about how the world has gone made rather than just acknowledging maybe they are just bog-standard reactionaries complaining about the youth of today.
 
lionking said:
This is appalling. The professor did not put the names on the board, and simply expressed an opinion that the students who walked out over reacted. Yet he’s been suspended and likely fired.

I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle. Not places of censorship and cowardice. My beliefs are changing.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
As a Chicago-born lifetime Bears fan, Rodgers is talking the kind of smack every NFL fan should expect. He shouldn't be cancelled (of course) and I doubt very many people are tryna get him canceled, even in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree, there doesn't appear to be a mob trying to cancel him. He's talking about how unfairly he's been treated, and how he won't cave to woke PC culture, when he went viral because people thought it was cool. Most people were happy he was fired up and looking like the league MVP. That's what makes his rant so bizarre.
 
smartcooky said:
The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)
Click to expand...

Not a factor in this case. Did you read the article?
 
lionking said:
Not a factor in this case. Did you read the article?
Click to expand...

You were generalising... "I have always liked to believe that universities were bastions of freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" - I was also generalising, in reply.

And, no, I haven't read the article, and I have no intention of doing so.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Society should give special privileges to them?
Click to expand...

Just like they gave the gays special privilege's with gay marriage.

Now I want there to be more openly racist comedians given specials on, after all why should black people be given special privilege's?

Hey I see a bright future in giving Jon Gruden comedy specials for his innovate take on race and sex. Netflix is entirely immoral to not give him a large payment for a comedy special.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.
Click to expand...

Oh come on it is funny why are you trying to cancel someone for a simple joke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom