Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[EaglePuncher]

I know eh? Tell me about it. Those boomers with their newspapers and journalists and reporters it's so last century. Anybody who's hip and with it these days gets all their information from randos on social media. I mean with all these AIs and bots doing the fact checking there's no way something false or misleading could ever end up on Facebook or Twitter amirite?

 

[Darat]

I meant "Traditionally seen as Left." I wasn't arguing any sort of "Well ackshually technically according to Polysci 101" definition.

I mean as in general, man on the street level the Press as an industry is seen as pretty far to the left of say McDonnel Douglas or Exxon.

But as you say it probably just sells well to their aging boomer audience. And since "Cancel Culture" is seen as such a tool on online/new media (i.e the thing that is totally taking their place) I'd wager they see it as a jab in that direction as well.

ETA: Or even more basic than that maybe the NYTimes still lives in that "all 'big issues' are a noble debate of semi-equals because come on if an idea is popular among ~40% of the population it has to have some validity" fantasy world and not the real world where it's been proven a lot of people can just be completely wrong.

Nah - it's always been "if it bleds it leads" - they must know they get an uptick on clicks with stories of outrage about political correctness - oh sorry forget the new strawman - cancel culture.

 

[Stout]

We've asked for a meaningful definition of Cancel Culture, not just a "useful" one.

"My side is now losing so make the part of a normal functioning society where people don't just voluntarily interact with things which are openly insulting them somehow sound really scary and ominous with a new scare term" is not that.

Well, you've gotta work with what you've got and if if the existing definition of cancel culture isn't to your tastes then maybe there's a need for a new term that does.

It was acknowledged years ago that this isn't new behavior and, IIRC, the fuss kicked up by the "moral majority" over the TV show Married With Children was cited as an example. Cancel culture is just a couple of words stuck together and meant to include this new fangled social media so the young'uns don't feel left out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, you've gotta work with what you've got and if if the existing definition of cancel culture isn't to your tastes then maybe there's a need for a new term that does.

I don't think Cancel Culture exists in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't have to define it.

And my definition has been clear and consistent. "A scare term popularized (I'm aware that the term actually originated as a semi-academic term) mostly by conservatives to describe social pressures used against them instead of them getting to use it against other people in a vain of hope of making it sound new and scary" and absolutely every argument from the "OMG Cancel Culture" side has fit in perfectly with that definition.

 

[Stout]

I don't think Cancel Culture exists in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't have to define it.

And my definition has been clear and consistent. "A scare term popularized (I'm aware that the term actually originated as a semi-academic term) mostly by conservatives to describe social pressures used against them instead of them getting to use it against other people in a vain of hope of making it sound new and scary" and absolutely every argument from the "OMG Cancel Culture" side has fit in perfectly with that definition.

I suppose trying to wish it away is one way of dealing with it. Coming up with your own definition is another. It's a tough sell though.

I can see how being plugged into and constantly hate-watching ( or monitoring if you prefer that term ) could lead to a natural aversion to the term but nonetheless, it exists in the popular lexicon and doesn't appear to be going the way of the dodo quite yet.

 

[EaglePuncher]

By now it's also just a shortcut to avoid having to say "Some ultra woke radical leftist SJW is crying about some unimportant incident".

The "most of the 'cancelers' views and demands are completely unjustified" angle is an important part of the whole thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I suppose trying to wish it away is one way of dealing with it. Coming up with your own definition is another. It's a tough sell though.

I can see how being plugged into and constantly hate-watching ( or monitoring if you prefer that term ) could lead to a natural aversion to the term but nonetheless, it exists in the popular lexicon and doesn't appear to be going the way of the dodo quite yet.

I don't know what you are trying to say and at this point I'll assume it's because you are following the same script as all the others.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "most of the 'cancelers' views and demands are completely unjustified" angle is an important part of the whole thing.

It's not that "Canceling" people is impossible to do badly. I said way back when this discussion still had some people actually pretending they were ever going to make an actual point that "Cancel Culture" and "Cause Purity" are very different things and the latter is actually bad and toxic and especially common among the Left.

Nothing in the "Cancel Culture isn't a problem or indeed even really a thing" stance requires you to agree with every single incident of it.

Hell it's not even that finding people "canceled" over stupid reasons is like hard. It's the "OMG Cancel Culture" side that, when pressed, always seem to refer to something that if you scratch the surface winds up being completely reasonable.

It's always the same routine with them. "So and so was CANCELED for being Conservative/White/Male/Straight/Christian/"Not Woke" and when pressed for details they nearly always did something horrible and tried hide behind their conservatism or whatever.

 

[johnny karate]

This presupposes an agenda. I suggest that you check your premises.

And I suggest you state your position clearly and concisely.

I guess we don't always get what we want, do we?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm so sick of the "20 questions" version of being wrong.

I so miss people who were honestly wrong.

 

[EaglePuncher]

It's always the same routine with them. "So and so was CANCELED for being Conservative/White/Male/Straight/Christian/"Not Woke" and when pressed for details they nearly always did something horrible and tried hide behind their conservatism or whatever.

Yeah, that's what I actually meant. Some horrible statements were made but the outrage over these statements is painted as being hysterically unreasonable.

Of course there are numerous Karens out there who want someone to lose their job because they had the nerve to tell them that the boxed wine is sold out and no, they won't look in the back.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, you've gotta work with what you've got and if if the existing definition of cancel culture isn't to your tastes then maybe there's a need for a new term that does.

It was acknowledged years ago that this isn't new behavior and, IIRC, the fuss kicked up by the "moral majority" over the TV show Married With Children was cited as an example. Cancel culture is just a couple of words stuck together and meant to include this new fangled social media so the young'uns don't feel left out.

This new terminology to an age-old phenomenon is about who is wielding the power. It's only generational in the sense that the older generations hold more of the power and they fear the younger generations are taking it from them.

The "cancel culture" freakout is all about the backlash to the upending of traditional power dynamics. No one batted an eye at conservative groups trying cancel "Married with Children" because that fit within the parameters of the established power structure. But a tenured professor or legacy media figure being held accountable for their bad behavior by the rabble on social media threatens that power structure.

This is the intersection where right and left are in alignment on this issue: Gatekeepers worried about the barbarians at the gate.

 

[Stout]

Maybe it could be that which used to be the domain of church ladies is now being picked up by the new generation. What's different now is the speed at which the complaints spread due to social media. Back in the day, say complaining about Married with Children required more effort. Tracking down the phone number of the studio, waiting on hold for who knows how long, or hunting up an address and snail mail supplies.

Now it takes 5-10 minutes with no time for reflecting and asking yourself "is this really worth it? or "is this actually kind of stupid?", like the butt book complaints. I mean seriously, is the word fart all that scary in 2022 given what idiot parents give their children access to when they give them unsupervised internet access? OK, that might not have been cancel culture per se, however the firing was done out of fear of cancel culture.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe it could be that which used to be the domain of church ladies is now being picked up by the new generation. What's different now is the speed at which the complaints spread due to social media. Back in the day, say complaining about Married with Children required more effort. Tracking down the phone number of the studio, waiting on hold for who knows how long, or hunting up an address and snail mail supplies.

Now it takes 5-10 minutes with no time for reflecting and asking yourself "is this really worth it? or "is this actually kind of stupid?", like the butt book complaints. I mean seriously, is the word fart all that scary in 2022 given what idiot parents give their children access to when they give them unsupervised internet access? OK, that might not have been cancel culture per se, however the firing was done out of fear of cancel culture.

Except that hand-wringing over objectionable content and subsequent attempts to ban and boycott still take place without drawing too much attention or upsetting most people. So the ease and speed that social media provides hasn't changed the dynamics of that really at all.

What's changed is that people in positions of power are being held more accountable for their behavior and they don't like it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Calling the same old conservative moral panics we've been having since the beginning of time "cancel culture" has some strong "white's are really the victims of racism" energy to it.

 

[Stout]

Except that hand-wringing over objectionable content and subsequent attempts to ban and boycott still take place without drawing too much attention or upsetting most people. So the ease and speed that social media provides hasn't changed the dynamics of that really at all.

What's changed is that people in positions of power are being held more accountable for their behavior and they don't like it.

Yes, we can only discuss the reported instances that come across out blotters with sources attached so we know we're all reading the same thing. For all we know, the principal who fired the assistant principal was living in fear of a social media group opposed to buttspeak. Once the word was uttered to second graders, the bat signal would have gone up and anitbuttspeakers from all over the country would have descended on the principal like locusts.

This just got attention because of the sheer stupidity of it. It even made the New York Times, which we're being led to believe is only read by boomers who most likely don't have kids in the second grade.

So in this is the assistant principal being held accountable for saying the word fart with the principal acting provocatively on behalf of the parents who maybe using whatever axis/axes of oppression they're oppressed on to call out the school for offensive behavior?

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, we can only discuss the reported instances that come across out blotters with sources attached so we know we're all reading the same thing. For all we know, the principal who fired the assistant principal was living in fear of a social media group opposed to buttspeak. Once the word was uttered to second graders, the bat signal would have gone up and anitbuttspeakers from all over the country would have descended on the principal like locusts.

This just got attention because of the sheer stupidity of it. It even made the New York Times, which we're being led to believe is only read by boomers who most likely don't have kids in the second grade.

So in this is the assistant principal being held accountable for saying the word fart with the principal acting provocatively on behalf of the parents who maybe using whatever axis/axes of oppression they're oppressed on to call out the school for offensive behavior?

Had this happened 30 years ago, it more than likely would have gone unnoticed by the general public.

As much as social media accelerates these things, it also serves to bring attention to actual instances on injustice. Another part of the problem for the people in power who are usually the driving force behind injustice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Was Internment of US citizens with Japanese heritage not conceal culture?

I think it absolutely was, as was the whole anti-communist McCarthyism.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think it absolutely was, as was the whole anti-communist McCarthyism.

Then there is no such thing as cancel culture. It is just human nature.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is as good a time as any to mention one problem that has often appeared in this thread. It is hazardous to assume what someone’s point of view is from their silence (meaning their lack of response) regarding a specific incident that may or may not be cancel culture. There are many reasons for silence. One is agreement with the original; another is lack of time to investigate a topic. I have been guilty of this error myself regarding this thread.

Another reason might be that not everybody's posts are visible...