Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

d4m10n said:
You said "Boycotts are about withholding money," I provided a fairly clear counterexample.
[snip]
I would say that ostentatiously refusing to compete is a form of speech, intended to convey a specific message.
[snip]
I wasn't making a point about cancellation, but about the scope of what people call boycotts.
[snip]
No.
[snip]
It is similar in that it is also a boycott.
Click to expand...
In name only, the context is completely different, as I pointed out. It's an entirely different situation and circumstances. By your own admission, there is no actual speech in your example to cancel unless you do not allow countries to not compete, which isn't what happened. Even then, we agree that countries are not equivalent to individuals, or corporations, in terms of having the capacity to be canceled. The thread is about cancelation, the terms we're speaking of need to be within that context for it to be at all relevant. This example is nonsense.


d4m10n said:
Allegedly, but (IMO) probably not.
[snip]
I suppose that hinges in part on whether spoken sexual advances count as speech, but I think it's fair to say that he never spoke about his dating predilections from the podium.
[snip]
I don't believe Carrier physically hurt anyone. If he had done so, that would be a solid reason to have him cancelled.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't have any facts about this situation. Are you suggesting that the event organizers did not have concerns about their attendees' safety with this person presence at the event?


d4m10n said:
You have yet to come up with an argument that cancellation via public shaming is an unknown phenomenon in pre- or post-capitalist societies. Which ones should we be looking at?
Click to expand...
First of all, that's a strawman. I never made that claim, whereas you have made the claim for which I was asking for a coherent argument. In your first post in this thread (the first part), the person was asking Kroger to fire or discipline an employee. The person even @mentioned the company. It's not like they were trying to make the employee wear a scarlet "A", be tarred and feathered, or run out of town.

We're clearly talking about free speech informing a capitalist decision. One, apparently, Kroger is within it's risk tolerance for holding onto or not disciplining this particular employee. Do we have any information on whether this Andy even actually was "canceled"?


Also, evasion noted. Are you simply upset that people are exercising their right to free speech or do you just not like it when people are upset by other people, which would be more than a little ironic given this thread?
 
Upchurch said:
By your own admission, there is no actual speech in your example to cancel unless you do not allow countries to not compete, which isn't what happened.
Click to expand...
Once again, I was not talking about cancellation at that point, but about the conceptual boundaries of the idea of a boycott.

Upchurch said:
The thread is about cancelation, the terms we're speaking of need to be within that context for it to be at all relevant.
Click to expand...
If you want to make an argument about how boycotts relate to cancellation, it's on you to stipulatively define what you mean by "boycott" or else allow people to bring their own experiences of how the word is used to the table.

Upchurch said:
Are you suggesting that the event organizers did not have concerns about their attendees' safety with this person presence at the event?
Click to expand...
I would suggest that they mean "safety" in the sense of "safe space," that is, a place in which certain forms of speech are forbidden.

Upchurch said:
First of all, that's a strawman. I never made that claim...
Click to expand...
You made the claim that cancel culture describes a phenomenon at the intersection of capitalism and free speech. This claim logically implies that where either capitalism or free speech are missing, we won't see cancel culture happening. If you want to pursue this line of inquiry, we'll need a few specific cultures to look at, e.g. Maoist China.

Upchurch said:
In your first post in this thread (the first part), the person was asking Kroger to fire or discipline an employee. The person even @mentioned the company.
Click to expand...
That specific example definitely had capitalism in the mix, but then so would any example in which a profit-based corporation was being pressured to sack an employee.

Upchurch said:
We're clearly talking about free speech informing a capitalist decision.
Click to expand...
So far n=1 but yes, of course.

Upchurch said:
Do we have any information on whether this Andy even actually was "canceled"?
Click to expand...
We do, upthread.

Upchurch said:
Are you simply upset that people are exercising their right to free speech or do you just not like it when people are upset by other people, which would be more than a little ironic given this thread?
Click to expand...
I'm going to decline to answer this question since you've personalized it for reasons beyond my understanding. Can you ask what you're trying to ask without delving into my motives or feelings? (If you catch me doing that to you, please call me on it.)

This question goes out to everyone reading along:
Do you believe it is possible for people to exercise their legal right of free speech in a way that they ought not to have done?
 
Found this line from Dakota Johnson in 'The Hollywood Reporter'


Some noise is impossible to block out. Like the power of the #MeToo movement and the clamor of cancel culture, which have swept through Hollywood in recent years and put so many of her former male co-stars, like Depp, LaBeouf and Armie Hammer, in jeopardy of never returning to the profession following abuse allegations and which, for some, allow no opportunity for redemption.


“I never experienced that firsthand from any of those people,” she says. “I had an incredible time working with them; I feel sad for the loss of great artists. I feel sad for people needing help and perhaps not getting it in time. I feel sad for anyone who was harmed or hurt. It’s just really sad. I do believe that people can change. I want to believe in the power of a human being to change and evolve and get help and help other people. I think there’s definitely a major overcorrection happening. But I do believe that there’s a way for the pendulum to find the middle. The way that studios have been run up until now, and still now, is behind. It is such an antiquated mindset of what movies should be made, who should be in them, how much people should get paid, what equality and diversity look like. Sometimes the old school needs to be moved out for the new school to come in. But, yeah, cancel culture is such a ******* downer. I hate that term.”
Click to expand...


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...fifty-shades-of-grey-chris-martin-1235040691/
 
Upchurch said:
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech.
Click to expand...

Correct

d4m10n said:
Relatively few people have access to printing presses, radio towers, etc. Nearly anyone can have access to social media..
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, and in any case, entirely the wrong way to look at it.

Printing presses and radio transmitters and towers allowed speech to become more widespread - in this way, their modern equivalents are the media/social media platforms, NOT the internet itself, which is a distribution system - the modern parallel to the transport systems that distributed newspapers, and the broadcast channels that distributed the spoken word.

While it is true that not many people would have had access to a printing press or a radio tower, it is also true that not many people now have the ability to build or run a media platform. However, just like the internet now, they certainly had access to the distributed information from them.


Upchurch said:
Social media is doing the same thing the printing press, radio, and TV all did before it: expanding the reach of people's speech. The same kind of speech that may be curated or dismissed by distributors, but not by the government. It's free speech through a different channel.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
While it is true that not many people would have had access to a printing press or a radio tower, it is also true that not many people now have the ability to build or run a media platform.
Click to expand...
Danielle did not require her own media platform in order to incite several people to call for Kroger to sack one of their employees, she only needed her own account.

Now imagine the same sort of attempted cancellation happening in the 1980s. How would she go about it?
 
d4m10n said:
Danielle did not require her own media platform in order to incite several people to call for Kroger to sack one of their employees, she only needed her own account.

Now imagine the same sort of attempted cancellation happening in the 1980s. How would she go about it?
Click to expand...

Considering the John Birchers were accusing everyone and their aunt of being crypto commies, I think our pre-internet ancestors had no problems wielding social cudgels.
 
The demonetization effort against Andy Ngo continues:

BREAKING: Andy Ngo's publisher The Post Millennial has been de-listed by Sharethrough, a leading independent ad exchange.

Sharethrough processes over 160 billion advertiser bids per day, and serves 22 billion ad impressions daily across their network of 700+ publishing partners
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1456479904699011075

Activists are asking advertisers if they really want their brands associated with Ngo's radioactive fascist politics, and many are saying "no".
 
Thinking about the Southwest pilot who caused tremendous liberal butt-hurt by saying "let's go brandon" over the flight PA. I imagine he's in some hot water for unprofessional conduct, but he's part of a pilot's union, which likely means his job is safe.



Worried about being cancelled by the woke-mob? Unionize. :D
 
d4m10n said:
Evasion noted.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think pre-internet people were totally siloed off and unable to cause a stink about some issue if they wanted to?

Some busybody absolutely would have been able to cause a local or even national freakout about some petty BS if it was the kind of thing to tap into a more broadly shared sentiment. Our pre-internet ancestors used different technology, but popular discourse was very much alive before Twitter invented it in 2006. Moral panics routinely happened.

I'm honestly baffled that you seem to be suggesting that this kind of petty freakout was not possible prior to our current moment.
 
I was going to mention Aaron Rodgers.

Prohibited from playing football because you're unvaccinated = Good.
Prohibited from playing football because you refuse to stand for the National Anthem = Bad.

Rodgers is playing a victim that the "woke mob" is out to get him. Vaccines have nothing to do with wokeness. Rodgers telling reporters that he's been "immunized" was Clintonian.
 
dirtywick said:
https://sports.yahoo.com/aaron-rodg...airs-of-the-woke-mob-right-now-173236045.html

Aaron Rodgers appears on the radio again railing on the woke pc mob for forcing him to lie about his vaccination status and then acting as if the COVID protocols didn’t apply to him. doesn’t consider himself anti-vax but instead a free thinker who has done his research, thanks Joe Rogan for his medical advice.
Click to expand...

It's not the "woke" mob that is holding him responsible. It is the NFL, its doctors and even the players union that rejected his nonsense. But hey, Joe Rogan is on his side.

He tried to keep it hidden, until he tested positive. At that point, the question came up.
 
For clarity, he’s not been disciplined in any way for being unvaccinated or lying about his status. He’s been forced to sit out a game because he’s actively contagious with the virus, same as any other player vaccinated or not that tests positive. However the testing frequency and wait times are different for players depending on their vaccination status.

That said, Rodgers was participating in team activities and press events in the same way a vaccinated player would and directly lied about his status. However even then, he’s unlikely to face any penalty for it. The NFL may fine the team, but can’t impose suspension for violating Covid protocols and has pretty clearly left it up to teams to enforce discipline, and it’s impossible the team didn’t know his vaccination status when he plainly violated Covid protocols week after week.

Long story short, one of the most privileged people on the planet got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, suffers no consequences, and thinks he’s being treated unfairly
 
He's taking another hit to his reputation and giving the backup QB a golden opportunity to replace him (not necessarily immediately, but numbering his days).
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Do you honestly think pre-internet people were totally siloed off and unable to cause a stink about some issue if they wanted to?
Click to expand...
I can cut-and-paste my question again, if that helps, but you cannot reasonably expect me to answer yours when you dodge mine.
 
It seems very on brand for a health care organization to dissolve their partnership with someone who takes homeopathic treatments and listens to the advice of Dr. Joe Rogan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom