Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[TurkeysGhost]

Refusing to perform a long dead Russian composer's work is dumb as hell, but it's hard to see how it's "cancel culture" rather than the common type of racism/nationalism that gets drummed up commonly as a result of war fever.

I expect more idiotic "Freedom fries-ification" to come as a reaction to the Russian invasion before it's all done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two definitions for the price of one

And I'm still asking you about the first claim i.e. about the Cardiff orchestra which you seem to be trying to cancel from this thread!

From a link previously given, “Cancel culture is a movement to remove celebrity status or esteem from a person, place, or thing based on offensive behavior or transgression.”

“[Cancel culture is] a method of withdrawing support for public figures or companies. It can also be considered to be used as a form of online shaming on social media platforms.”

If the Cardiff Philharmonic had swapped in other pieces of Tchaikovsky or another Russian composer for the ones that they removed, I would not call it cancel culture; I made some suggestions along those lines myself. Even in the context of the other events that David Walsh discussed in another link that I provided, it's a borderline call. I don't think it is the best or most outrageous example. When the current events of today are footnotes of history, people will still be listening to Romeo and Juliet.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

babies and bathwater

"Never hold anyone to any standards ever because I can provide an example of one time that someone was mistakenly held to a standard in a way that didn't apply" isn't a valid argument.

Again it's beyond the pale hilarious watching people pretend (yes pretend) to handwring about babies being thrown out with the bathwater in such a convenient and pick and choose fashion.

"Never put words into someone's mouth," is a sentiment that I think is quite reasonable. YMMV.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Russ's dressing along with Freedom fries

Refusing to perform a long dead Russian composer's work is dumb as hell, but it's hard to see how it's "cancel culture" rather than the common type of racism/nationalism that gets drummed up commonly as a result of war fever.

I expect more idiotic "Freedom fries-ification" to come as a reaction to the Russian invasion before it's all done.

I broadly agree*, and there have been news reports of anti-Russian bigotry that might also be mentioned in this context. What happened to Alexander Malofeev and Anna Netrebko, on the other hand, fit into both cancel culture and war fever categories.
*I cited the Cardiff example chiefly because of its stupidity; whether or not to consider it cancel culture is not a hill on which to die.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I broadly agree*, and there have been news reports of anti-Russian bigotry that might also be mentioned in this context. What happened to Alexander Malofeev and Anna Netrebko, on the other hand, fit into both cancel culture and war fever categories.
*I cited the Cardiff example chiefly because of its stupidity; whether or not to consider it cancel culture is not a hill on which to die.

Many things fall into the "cancel culture" category because it's a catch-all nonsense term.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yep that's the loop.

"But I already defined cancel culture!"

But they didn't. Because it's just a scare term. They "use" the term cancel culture, but never define it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It feels like a critical element of cancel culture is that the change is the result of social pressure, such as via online social networks. When someone just decides to change something even though there is no evidence of social pressure, such as Dr Seuss or these musical program changes, it just feels like people not wanting to be associated with things they view as undesirable to be associated with. I suppose you could say they are preemptively avoiding predictable social pressure. Or you could just say they value their image.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yep that's the loop.

"But I already defined cancel culture!"

But they didn't. Because it's just a scare term. They "use" the term cancel culture, but never define it.

It's obvious to me it's an attempt to group dissimilar incidents for the purposes of muddying the waters. Conservatives want to conflate normal social consequences of their bad behavior with a handful of legitimate over-reactions. Instead of having to discuss incidents on the merits they stamp the vague "cancel culture" label on everything, which of course means its bad.

As the Overton window continues to gallop to the right and more and more abhorrent views become "mainstream" conservative, the need to discredit the idea of social consequences and expectations becomes more pressing.

 

[johnny karate]

I am waiting for someone to answer the question I posed in comment #1472, or the one in #1486. While we are at it, I am still waiting for someone to explain why it wasn't a waste of $42,000 to move the UW-Madison rock to an undisclosed location, etc.

Why does anyone else need to explain why something isn't a problem before you've explained why it is a problem?

Again, these are your claims. The burden for justifying them lies entirely on you.

So far all we've gotten from you about why "cancel culture" is a problem is a dictionary definition of "cancel culture".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why does anyone else need to explain why something isn't a problem before you've explained why it is a problem?

I have no idea but that seems to be the argument FROM EVERY SINGLE PERSON who waltzes into this thread to whine cancel culture, is to try and make US define it.

 

[Lithrael]

It feels like a critical element of cancel culture is that the change is the result of social pressure, such as via online social networks. When someone just decides to change something even though there is no evidence of social pressure, such as Dr Seuss or these musical program changes, it just feels like people not wanting to be associated with things they view as undesirable to be associated with. I suppose you could say they are preemptively avoiding predictable social pressure. Or you could just say they value their image.

If you you bring your own social pressure, it’s not cancel culture; it’s sparkling virtue signalling.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We are literally never going to advance beyond "It's bad when social pressure is used against me instead of me using it against other people."

 

[Darat]

We are literally never going to advance beyond "It's bad when social pressure is used against me instead of me using it against other people."

It's political correctness gone mad!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a brief answer

Why does anyone else need to explain why something isn't a problem before you've explained why it is a problem?

Again, these are your claims. The burden for justifying them lies entirely on you.

So far all we've gotten from you about why "cancel culture" is a problem is a dictionary definition of "cancel culture".

Your comment will take a bit of disentangling. For starters, it was Darat's claim that there was an attempt to cancel the Cardiff Philharmonic (I admit to thinking that maybe I should not renew my series subscription, but that is still on the table). He has yet to support that claim as given in comment #1464, although in #1473 he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

My responses to comment #1474 was specifically in regards to Mr. Malofeev; I defined cancel culture and I showed how this incident fit that definition. There was nothing in #1474 about explaining why it was bad, although I did so anyway in comment #1477. David Walsh's article may be consulted for more information (link previously given).

Let me expand a bit on this one example. Concerts by Mr. Malofeev in Vancouver and Montreal were cancelled. The concert-goers who wanted to hear him were harmed. There is no logical reason to limit the canceled concerts to these cities, and if all of his concerts were cancelled his concerts, he would be out of a job.

Regarding Jason Kilborn, the students who could have benefitted from his teaching were harmed (I just read over his CV, and I was impressed, not that I am an expert in law). The same is true regarding Bright Sheng. The UW-Madison geology students were at the very least inconvenienced, and the $42,000 could have gone toward scholarships at UW-Madison, as just one example. Why wasting money is bad should be self-evident. Most of these things I have said before or were available through the links I provided. Do you ignore everyone's comments and links or just mine?

I am still waiting for other answers as mentioned in comment #1495.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let me expand a bit on this one example. Concerts by Mr. Malofeev in Vancouver and Montreal were cancelled. The concert-goers who wanted to hear him were harmed. There is no logical reason to limit the canceled concerts to these cities, and if all of his concerts were cancelled his concerts, he would be out of a job.

Yes and, I really, really getting ******* tired of explaining this and not getting an answer, that's how society HAS ALWAYS WORKED.

Why, other than "The wrong people are winning" IS IT A PROBLEM NOW?

ANSWER.... THE.... *******... QUESTION.

 

[johnny karate]

It feels like a critical element of cancel culture is that the change is the result of social pressure, such as via online social networks. When someone just decides to change something even though there is no evidence of social pressure, such as Dr Seuss or these musical program changes, it just feels like people not wanting to be associated with things they view as undesirable to be associated with. I suppose you could say they are preemptively avoiding predictable social pressure. Or you could just say they value their image.

And it seems that it's only "cancel culture" when this phenomena occurs outside of or upends the traditional social and political power structures.

An orchestra choosing not to play certain pieces of music or host certain musicians to avoid potential public backlash is a problem that merits multiple posts.

An educator getting fired for telling second-graders that butts exist to avoid potential public backlash does not even get mentioned.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it's only an issue when the plebes do it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an example of how to change one's mind

Yep that's the loop.

"But I already defined cancel culture!"

But they didn't. Because it's just a scare term. They "use" the term cancel culture, but never define it.

Your statement is a lie; I have defined it more than once (IIRC so has one other poster). Other statements from you have put words into my mouth that I never said. Instead of resorting to such intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is time to rethink your positions. Let me show you how: When I was commenting a few months ago, I assumed that everyone was arguing in good faith. The facts have shown me to be wrong in that presumption. I was wrong. See how easy it is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your statement is a lie; I have defined it more than once (IIRC so has one other poster). Other statements from you have put words into my mouth that I never said. Instead of resorting to such intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is time to rethink your positions. Let me show you how: When I was commenting a few months ago, I assumed that everyone was arguing in good faith. The facts have shown me to be wrong in that presumption. I was wrong. See how easy it is.

Yeah you've defined it as "Any social pressure people I don't like use."

 

[johnny karate]

Your comment will take a bit of disentangling. For starters, it was Darat's claim that there was an attempt to cancel the Cardiff Philharmonic (I admit to thinking that maybe I should not renew my series subscription, but that is still on the table). He has yet to support that claim as given in comment #1464, although in #1473 he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

My responses to comment #1474 was specifically in regards to Mr. Malofeev; I defined cancel culture and I showed how this incident fit that definition. There was nothing in #1474 about explaining why it was bad, although I did so anyway in comment #1477. David Walsh's article may be consulted for more information (link previously given).

Let me expand a bit on this one example. Concerts by Mr. Malofeev in Vancouver and Montreal were cancelled. The concert-goers who wanted to hear him were harmed. There is no logical reason to limit the canceled concerts to these cities, and if all of his concerts were cancelled his concerts, he would be out of a job.

Regarding Jason Kilborn, the students who could have benefitted from his teaching were harmed (I just read over his CV, and I was impressed, not that I am an expert in law). The same is true regarding Bright Sheng. The UW-Madison geology students were at the very least inconvenienced, and the $42,000 could have gone toward scholarships at UW-Madison, as just one example. Why wasting money is bad should be self-evident. Most of these things I have said before or were available through the links I provided. Do you ignore everyone's comments and links or just mine?

I am still waiting for other answers as mentioned in comment #1495.

The highlighted bit brought to you by the same person who made these observations:

Having to watch Laurence Olivier and to learn about Verdi from Bright Sheng does not rise to that level of offense. Nor does mixing up someone's name. Regarding the UIC case one student said that she had "heart palpitations." Did she see a doctor? If not, then such language is hyperbolic.

To recap: Not being able to see a certain musician perform constitutes "harm". Taking offense at a teacher repeatedly calling you by the wrong name does not.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take your arguments seriously.

 

[johnny karate]

Your statement is a lie; I have defined it more than once (IIRC so has one other poster). Other statements from you have put words into my mouth that I never said. Instead of resorting to such intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is time to rethink your positions. Let me show you how: When I was commenting a few months ago, I assumed that everyone was arguing in good faith. The facts have shown me to be wrong in that presumption. I was wrong. See how easy it is.

When you make your position purposely opaque, if forces people to guess at what it is.

If you don't like that, maybe start being a little more specific and straightforward.