• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

d4m10n said:
I wouldn't think so.

I mean, it was probably awful for him (for a time) to be getting piled-on by so many strangers, but ultimately his Yelp! ratings rebounded despite the semi-coordinated efforts of a fairly vengeful online mob.
Click to expand...

Thanks for keeping us updated on this very important situation. Looking forward to more truly gripping accounts of the experiences of random people on Yelp.
 
JoeMorgue said:
His point is that you don't have one, and haven't for months across two separate threads.
Click to expand...
Seems an odd thing to bang on about, given so many other threads to choose from. I wrote the OP to ask whether it makes (moral) sense to try to summon an online mob to get some random Kroger employee sacked. If you don't care to discuss such things, move along.
 
d4m10n said:
Seems an odd thing to bang on about, given so many other threads to choose from. I wrote the OP to ask whether it makes (moral) sense to try to summon an online mob to get some random Kroger employee sacked. If you don't care to discuss such things, move along.
Click to expand...

Because you're using cherry picked non-examples to try and demonize "Minorities, disenfranchised groups, and just general other people are simply not sitting back and passively taking crap anymore."

Your vague, mushmouth mumblings about "Oh lordy why is it such a big deal, why not just ignore it" is part of the problem.
 
d4m10n said:
Seems an odd thing to bang on about, given so many other threads to choose from. I wrote the OP to ask whether it makes (moral) sense to try to summon an online mob to get some random Kroger employee sacked. If you don't care to discuss such things, move along.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is making the argument that it makes moral sense for an online mob to get some random Kroger employee sacked, so your point continues to elude.
 
It's the same mentality that means if one trashcan gets knocked over in a protest, then the fact that the black guy was murdered by police doesn't count anymore.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because you're using cherry picked non-examples to try and demonize "Minorities, disenfranchised groups, and just general other people are simply not sitting back and passively taking crap anymore."

Your vague, mushmouth mumblings about "Oh lordy why is it such a big deal, why not just ignore it" is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

The entire objection is that they now are being asked to accept some amount of risk, having some skin in the game, for things progressing. It is thus vital they amplify any flaws in implementation to pretend the overall concept shouldn't apply to them.

This is how you can get some liberals, some progressives, and some members of marginalized groups, jumping in with regressives, racists, fascists and the like. One might want the benefits of their identity group having protection or support from the general populace able to vocally disagree, but they might fear more the risk it might also hold them to some kind of account. It is the same as people who 'support gay rights' but then chafe at that support meaning asking any inconvenient action be allowed by them.

Asking risk is for other groups to do for things to get better, never my special group. It doesn't really change if that group is white people, conservatives, religion, homosexual, South American, women, or progressive. If the process isn't perfect (as defined by asking nothing more of them), then the process itself is a harm to be addressed.
 
tyr_13 said:
The entire objection is that they now are being asked to accept some amount of risk, having some skin in the game, for things progressing.
Click to expand...

Well yeah that's why every single version of this discussion is the same:

Minority: Hey could we be treated with, ya know like basic level humans rights up to and maybe even including the right to literally continue to exist?
Majority: Wait, what? Errr sure we can totally do that... right after we create a perfect solution in which I not only see any downside to, not only am never merely inconvenienced by, but in fact pretty much an totally unaffected by and unaware of.

Again it how so many racists, apologist, and just our bog standard trolling contrarians can say stuff like "Well I WAS going to say that the police murdering minorities without fear of reprisal was bad... but then I saw a window get broken during the protests so now I don't know what to think" with a straight face.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Well yeah that's why every single version of this discussion is the same:

Minority: Hey could we be treated with, ya know like basic level humans rights up to and maybe even including the right to literally continue to exist?
Majority: Wait, what? Errr sure we can totally do that... right after we create a perfect solution in which I not only see any downside to, not only am never merely inconvenienced by, but in fact pretty much an totally unaffected by and unaware of.
Click to expand...

Yup, and it doesn't really change even if you aren't a cishet white man. Even vilified groups get in on that against other groups they vilify. I was reading somewhere recently where a Jewish man who escaped the Holocaust was saying that if the Nazis had not come specifically for Jews too, sticking to murdering socialists and communists, that there would have been some that made the best Nazis.

'Justice for me, risk for thee'.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because you're using cherry picked non-examples to try and demonize "Minorities, disenfranchised groups, and just general other people are simply not sitting back and passively taking crap anymore."
Click to expand...
Whom are you quoting, and what has this to do with the OP?

"Oh lordy why is it such a big deal, why not just ignore it" is part of the problem.
Click to expand...
The immediate problem appears to be unsourced, unattributed, or just plain made-up quotations.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
It's hilarious that you keep talking about right-wingers even when they aren't here to argue.

Both good ideas; both would also make public shaming efforts directed at ordinary employees vastly less ethically fraught.



https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/mn6g9/official_update_skepticon_and_gelato_mio_andy_are/

Gina will land on her feet, but the gleeful cancelers did manage to kill the spinoff. Don't call it censorship, though, it's just television that won't happen.
Click to expand...

Again, and as an avowed socialist, the free market sometime sucks! But in trivial entertainment it works just fine!

There is no censorship here, just whining that people don’t like a particular actor.
If the audience states that they don’t want to see a person, the producers don’t hire that person.
How is this a bad thing?
 
d4m10n said:
A studio decided to cancel an entire television series for the sake of appeasing activists. What definition of censorshipWP are you using here?
Click to expand...

That didn’t happen.

What actually happened: A modestly talented actor playing a minor character on a hit show decided to repeatedly act like a jackass and as a result didn’t get her contract renewed. Subsequently, another in-development show she was attached to was taken off the slate. Most emotionally healthy people were unbothered by any of it.

This fantasy world you live in where vicious “online mobs” somehow have control over the production schedule of major media outlets seems unpleasant. There are so many other, nicer fantasy worlds from which you can choose. Maybe try one of those.
 
Last edited:
And on a side note, this idea that Disney cancelled Rangers of the New Republic because they had no other choice after being forced to fire Gina Carano is mind-numbingly stupid and demonstrates just how little those making this argument know about how any of this works.

If Carano's character had been determined to be popular enough and the demand for a show centered around that character was there, Disney would have simply recast the role and/or retooled the show. This is not uncommon.

What clearly happened here is that Disney used their extensive market research to make a financial decision. The research revealed that no one really gave a **** about Carano or her character, and it was determined that there wasn't enough money to be made to make it worthwhile to continue to put up with Carano's behavior.
 
d4m10n said:
A studio decided to cancel an entire television series for the sake of appeasing activists. What definition of censorshipWP are you using here?
Click to expand...

Truly radical times that an industry entirely dependent on pleasing an audience is receptive to public opinion around their star actors. Back in the good ole days a celebrity could crucify a preschooler on primetime TV and not suffer a single consequence.
 
It's always the same lie, following the same script, sung to the same beat.

Troll: "Oh man. They cancelled so and so for being White/Conservative/Christian."
Me: "No they didn't. They 'cancelled' them for being some variety of toxic jackass."

Chris Pratt was well known, outspoken Christian with massive commercial and critical success in Hollywood for a decade and nobody said a peep about it. Dude had 3 separate Lego Mini-figs made of him, if that not successful what is.

He wasn't canceled for being a white, Conservative, Christian. He was cancelled when it he used that as an excuse to be an ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom