Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Chris_Halkides]

withdrawing support, right or wrong

What exactly is the problem with withdrawing support?

Regarding your first paragraph, I did not say it was wrong in every instance; I think one has to examine the particulars.

 

[tyr_13]

Going to step back and point things out from a more abstract and meta level. (Call it 'post modern' if you want to feel smart without engaging with it.)

It is easier to identify working backwards from a conclusion due to identity politics when it's from the extremes. One can tell that for example the reason right wingers are calling people opposed to their oppression of LGBTQ people 'groomers' is because that is what would have to be true to rationalize their self-identity as 'the good side'. It isn't difficult to tell their morality isn't based on good or bad actions, but actions are good or bad based on who does them. This allows them to support a fake business man real rapist moron from New York as a moral political leader who will take down corruption. He's one of them and therefore there is a pedophile vampire sex cult that must exist (or whatever completely bankrupt idea mastectomies this week). Cut and past to a much lesser degree with the extreme left (currently).

It's more difficult to spot when the identity is 'centrist' or 'rational' or 'fair'.

But that's what happens a lot. It's why so many 'in the middle' will support crap ideas with little to no basis in reality along with the right wing right now. They've made their identity the 'fair' person but their understanding of that is limited in some way that drives cargo cult or theatrical practices. The truth is 'in the middle' so there must be faults on 'both sides'. There at very least have to be risks to both sides. The problem is that this becomes more and more obvious the more one side goes off the deep end. The rationalizations become more and more unreasonable in the effort to appear reasonable. 'Yeah by any reasonable measure the wrongful use of socioeconomic forces is far more damaging and powerful on the right side (again, currently) but it could be someday that on the left.' Or 'this specific kind specially tailored to only apply to that dynamic where the left might be more visible is worse on the left.'

Because if one came to ones 'center' ideas honestly, as the right has become more unhinged you'd have to recognize that you're now on the left. Someone who is a moderate becomes the left as the right moves right. Someone who makes it their identity will find any excuse to tell themselves, and virtue signal to everyone, that they're 'an enlightened centrist'. They will come up with what would have to be true for their identity to be static.

Thus Disney not employing an unstable bigot and some music being put on hold for one performance counts but laws that would put people in jail for up to life for providing healthcare to trans kids doesn't matter.

It is choosing the set to get the conclusion one wants. Texas Sharpshooter for the centrist.

Why should classifying or not classifying an incident as cancel culture be based on the amount of harm done, as opposed to what was done and how it was done, as for instance the definition quoted in #1475.

I chose to bring up some incidents not because they best fit a definition or involved the greatest harm but because they were particularly poorly reasoned or produced an especially risible result. I did and do think that discussing the harm done is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
EDT
A current thread on the death penalty might be worth thinking about in this context. The cases of several executed individuals have been discussed; for some of these individuals a substantial case for innocence can be made. Regarding one additional crime, the individual served almost sixty years. Assuming for the sake of argument that one of them is factually innocent, this is surely great harm. Yet I never thought for a moment to call it cancel culture, and I still don't think that such a term applies.

This wasn't a direct response to your posts, but in the example you pulled out it doesn't fit the supposed meaning of the term 'cancel culture' to a far greater degree than the socioeconomic pressure being exerted through social media to push for lifetime prison for trans affirming care. I'd argue that your example doesn't fit the supposed meaning of the term at all.

The only way it does is in the 'set seeking' way I outlined. One draws the term around the set that makes it a new problem used especially by the left.

It isn't a 'whataboutism' to point out the term being used in a way that is inconsistent with the supposed definition but is in line with the 'Sharpshooter' usage. It isn't that one example is a greater problem or more/less harmful, but what gets included in the set in the first place.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think social media facilitates c_____ c_____, but I don't see it as absolutely necessary.

Cool. Then it is nothing worth discussing as a new phenomenon. It is just a modern label on things you don’t like. Why call it cancel culture?

 

[EaglePuncher]

Regarding your first paragraph, I did not say it was wrong in every instance; I think one has to examine the particulars.

Allright, it's wrong when you say it is and also it isn't when you say it isn't. Got it.

ETA: Can we summarize your position as: "Ukraine got invaded, civilians are killed daily but DON'T YOU DARE TEMPORARILY NOT PLAYING MY BELOVED MUSIC AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT!!!!!"?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You can't even be a prolific sex pest or cull some grandparents without irritating the wokescolds:

Cuomo citing Carville, without irony, to declare that "there is no doubt that the tail is now wagging the dog" with "radical Democrats" and "cancel culture" as a "social death penalty"

https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/1504462256918118413

 

[JoeMorgue]

The other big "LOOK A SQUIRREL!" routine from the "OMG Cancel Culture" crowd has always been the "Okay but what if do we cancel someone who feels about what they did" hand wringing.

And my answer is the same as it with all "Cancel Culture going too far" fan fiction. I'll worry about that when it actually happens since we're I'm standing by far the most common reaction to be "canceled" for being a douchebag is to turn into the skid and go "Cancel me for being a douchebag will they? I'LL SHOW THEM A DOUCHEBAG!"

Star Trek has to be the mighty explorer going to the edge of the horizon not knowing what's beyond, not a bunch of grad students in a national park mapping out salamander populations.

 

[johnny karate]

"Cancel culture" hand-wringing from the New York Times editorial board (presumably because no one wanted to put their name on this dreck).

In the very first paragraph of a piece entitled "America Has a Free Speech Problem" the New York Times, ironically enough, comes out in favor of restricting free speech:

For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

I am not aware of neither a legal nor philosophical precedent for "the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned" that would actually make that a right, let alone a fundamental one.

But if such a right exists, what it would do is curtail the free speech rights of anyone wishing to criticize what someone else said. I can say what I want, but you are limited in what you can say in response.

The truly sad and embarrassing part is that this is actually an accurate summation of the "cancel culture" hand-wringer position, and not even the esteemed editorial board of the New York Times can see the inherent contradiction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm done listening to people who only remember that "rights" exist when its time for them to hurt other people.

 

[Graham2001]

From the same NYT article that JK is dissing, here is the key paragraph.

It is worth noting here the important distinction between what the First Amendment protects — freedom from government restrictions on expression — and the popular conception of free speech — the affirmative right to speak your mind in public, on which the law is silent.
​

E.g the Government cannot send out agents to arrest you for saying the wrong thing, as they are doing in Russia at the moment.


That does not stop social ostracism and other tactics from the general public, societal attitudes do and they are shifting in directions that are not good for anyone.


The whole idea that 'free speach' however defined is harmful to the very minorities who used that right to speak up for their rights as humans and should be replaced with 'freeze peach' (e.g Restricted to those who agree with whatever the majority thinks.) is profoundly dangerous as the proliferation of 'what to teach' bills continues in the United States.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you say shameful things am I not allowed to say they are shameful?

Weird way to protect free speech.

 

[gnome]

It isn't difficult to tell their morality isn't based on good or bad actions, but actions are good or bad based on who does them.

I think this explains a lot of politics. I would add the subtlety--that the "bad" actions aren't necessarily considered "good", but based on who does them, some are far more willing to suddenly appeal to considering context and situational factors when they showed no interest in such nuance in other occasions.

 

[johnny karate]

From the same NYT article that JK is dissing, here is the key paragraph.





E.g the Government cannot send out agents to arrest you for saying the wrong thing, as they are doing in Russia at the moment.


That does not stop social ostracism and other tactics from the general public, societal attitudes do and they are shifting in directions that are not good for anyone.


The whole idea that 'free speach' however defined is harmful to the very minorities who used that right to speak up for their rights as humans and should be replaced with 'freeze peach' (e.g Restricted to those who agree with whatever the majority thinks.) is profoundly dangerous as the proliferation of 'what to teach' bills continues in the United States.

I’m not sure what your thesis is in this post, but the “What to teach” bills are dangerous precisely because they are bills, i.e. mandated by the government.

This is actual censorship and has nothing to do with what “cancel culture” hand-wringers bother over.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Cancel culture" hand-wringing from the New York Times editorial board (presumably because no one wanted to put their name on this dreck).

In the very first paragraph of a piece entitled "America Has a Free Speech Problem" the New York Times, ironically enough, comes out in favor of restricting free speech:



I am not aware of neither a legal nor philosophical precedent for "the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned" that would actually make that a right, let alone a fundamental one.

But if such a right exists, what it would do is curtail the free speech rights of anyone wishing to criticize what someone else said. I can say what I want, but you are limited in what you can say in response.

The truly sad and embarrassing part is that this is actually an accurate summation of the "cancel culture" hand-wringer position, and not even the esteemed editorial board of the New York Times can see the inherent contradiction.

The fact that NYTime editorial hacks keep harping on this makes me think there's some deep ideological commitment to this idea. Pretty funny that Bari Weiss quit in a big huff, it sounds like her kind of brain-dead takes about cancel culture are well in line with the editorial big-wigs. A tidy encapsulation of the non-problem too; Weiss's view of the issue seems to be in alignment with those wielding power at the paper, but even the faintest whiff of criticism, even in vain, was intolerable.

It strikes me that NYTimes is on to a real phenomena, but is confusing cause and effect. There is absolutely a complete lack of respect and trust in institutions of all sorts in this country, be them political, journalistic, educational, whatever. This isn't because of "cancel culture" or people with surly attitudes. Quite the opposite. The total collapse in credibility of trustworthy institutions is leading to the heightening rhetoric.

Across our society as a whole we're living in the shattered ruins of once credible institutions. The populace behaves this way because it has been demonstrated over and over and over again that these great institutions are totally unworthy of the respect and authority they demand. "Mutual respect" is absent because there is nothing respectable about the way those in these prestigious positions behave.

The e-board probably would not like to look in the mirror when wondering why more and more people are willing to trash their crappy opinions, so this social contagion of "cancel culture" is born.

 

[johnny karate]

The fact that NYTime editorial hacks keep harping on this makes me think there's some deep ideological commitment to this idea. Pretty funny that Bari Weiss quit in a big huff, it sounds like her kind of brain-dead takes about cancel culture are well in line with the editorial big-wigs. A tidy encapsulation of the non-problem too; Weiss's view of the issue seems to be in alignment with those wielding power at the paper, but even the faintest whiff of criticism, even in vain, was intolerable.

It strikes me that NYTimes is on to a real phenomena, but is confusing cause and effect. There is absolutely a complete lack of respect and trust in institutions of all sorts in this country, be them political, journalistic, educational, whatever. This isn't because of "cancel culture" or people with surly attitudes. Quite the opposite. The total collapse of trustworthy institutions is leading to the heightening rhetoric.

Across our society as a whole we're living in the shattered ruins of once credible institutions. The populace behaves this way because it has been demonstrated over and over and over again that these great institutions are totally unworthy of the respect and authority they demand. "Mutual respect" is absent because there is nothing respectable about the way those in these prestigious positions behave.

The e-board probably would not like to look in the mirror when wondering why more and more people are willing to trash their crappy opinions, so this social contagion of "cancel culture" is born.

Gate-keepers gotta gate-keep.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Gate-keepers gotta gate-keep.

The public would probably be content to let these gatekeepers continue to gatekeep, and let other powerful institutions do whatever they like, if it weren't so incredibly obvious that the elites of this country are doing a piss-poor job across the board.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Another cancellation on the books.

On Saturday afternoon KOMO poverty porn reporter Jonathan Choe tweeted out a soft-focus montage of a Proud Boys rally in Olympia and advertised a Q&A session the hate group planned to hold afterward as if he were talking about some kind of humanitarian organization.

"THAT'S A WRAP: Proud Boys and other marchers say they will stay on the Capitol campus in Olympia for a few more hours to mingle and answer questions if anyone is interested in learning more about their cause and mission," Choe wrote, after posting a thread of Tweets presenting the group as prayerful patriots without mentioning the organization's role in planning the January 6 insurrection, nor its status as a terrorist entity in Canada.

Two sources say Choe no longer works for the station as of Monday morning. His name and photo no longer appear on the outlet's masthead. KOMO's news director has not yet confirmed this information, though I expect a statement shortly.

...

He added to the montage's recruitment energy when he — or whoever made the video — decided to set it to a ballad called "We'll Have Our Home Again," which was written and recorded by a member of the The Mannerbund, a group The Jewish News of Northern California described as “a white separatist, ethno-nationalist men’s club.”

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/21/68783953/komo-journalist-blasts-out-proud-boy-propaganda

Can't even put together a sizzle reel for a fascist street gang set to white separatist anthem without triggering the libs. So much for freedom of speech!

Wonder which right wing rag will pick up this "cancelled" journalist first.

 

[Graham2001]

This is an interesting case more for the dynamic on display. It's a classic social media pile on based on what someone 'thinks' is true, rather than what is actually true.


In this case a 'White' librettist and a BIPOC composer wrote an opera about the Emmet Till lynching. Which is apparently enough to render it 'tainted' and unfit for hearing.

When Americans complain about “cancel culture,” the standard progressive reply goes something like this: Hardly anything is actually getting canceled; the overwrought uproar over the supposed phenomenon is really just the sound of conservative whites upset that their ideas are finally being challenged. But right now, an online mob of thousands who haven’t seen an opera are trying to pull the plug before it premieres Wednesday at John Jay College because they object to what they wrongly think it’s about. If that isn’t a threat to free expression, we don’t know what is.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion...0220322-emaddhbf7zcq7ogfswd3fwdr4q-story.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

change dot org is gonna come

"Over 12,000 people have signed an online petition to shut down a new opera about the victim of a 1955 lynching, Emmett Till." Insider.

“The Black Opera Alliance empathizes with and supports the Black artists and producers involved in the upcoming production of ‘Emmett Till, The Opera,’ but we denounce the telling of this historic story by a white woman and from a white vantage point...White saviorism is not allyship, it is violence, and we condemn it." the root. Inside Higher Ed has a few paragraphs, probably based upon a story at WaPo.

 

[lionking]

"Over 12,000 people have signed an online petition to shut down a new opera about the victim of a 1955 lynching, Emmett Till." Insider.

“The Black Opera Alliance empathizes with and supports the Black artists and producers involved in the upcoming production of ‘Emmett Till, The Opera,’ but we denounce the telling of this historic story by a white woman and from a white vantage point...White saviorism is not allyship, it is violence, and we condemn it." the root. Inside Higher Ed has a few paragraphs, probably based upon a story at WaPo.

As good an example of cancel culture as you can get. Soon to be dismissed by the usual subjects.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As good an example of cancel culture as you can get. Soon to be dismissed by the usual subjects.

It's crazy that SJW wokescolds invented art criticism in the 21st century. Before the internet, nobody ever said that artistic products were bad.