• 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

Thermal said:
There's no conflating anything. You point out two extremes of the same spectrum. Like any subject, the extremes will be different than the mass effect. My concern with what we call Cancel Culture is the extent of invasive technology. Used unscrupulously, say by someone who wants to embellish the tale a bit to go viral, there is a ready and waiting uncritical worldwide audience. That's no bueno.
Click to expand...

"Invasive technology"? Sure, okay. But it kind of sounds like "Old Man Yells At Cloud" to me.

Yes, things are different now than when many of us were kids. But the same is true of any generation, and the kids today don't feel nearly as imperiled by this "invasive technology" as we do. It's part of their lives and they adjust their behavior accordingly.

That being said, not doing dumb **** in front of the whole world remains an option for all of us.
 
This is why "Are you afraid one day you'll get... CANCELED! *Scarechord*" is such a big part of their fantasy.

No... not really. Some us don't have horrible personalities that are one slip up away from doing something that should get you ostracized from any decently run society.

I'm not one beer away from a racist tweet. Good people generally aren't.
 
johnny karate said:
"Invasive technology"? Sure, okay. But it kind of sounds like "Old Man Yells At Cloud" to me.

Yes, things are different now than when many of us were kids. But the same is true of any generation, and the kids today don't feel nearly as imperiled by this "invasive technology" as we do. It's part of their lives and they adjust their behavior accordingly.

That being said, not doing dumb **** in front of the whole world remains an option for all of us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. Times have changed, and you have to assume a camera is on you.

Still, I'm inclined to forgive and forget most things. Holding grudges for things someone did or said years ago smacks of being a puritanical old lady more than a little.

My wife and I were arguing about a Netflix show called Intimacy, where a woman running for public office had a video of her released where she was having sex on a beach. My wife thought she should get "Cancelled". I didnt. Different strokes, I guess.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah, I get that. Times have changed, and you have to assume a camera is on you.

Still, I'm inclined to forgive and forget most things. Holding grudges for things someone did or said years ago smacks of being a puritanical old lady more than a little.

My wife and I were arguing about a Netflix show called Intimacy, where a woman running for public office had a video of her released where she was having sex on a beach. My wife thought she should get "Cancelled". I didnt. Different strokes, I guess.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, if everyone tends to behave a little better in public because we assume we're all being filmed at all times, it's probably a net positive.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This is why "Are you afraid one day you'll get... CANCELED! *Scarechord*" is such a big part of their fantasy.

No... not really. Some us don't have horrible personalities that are one slip up away from doing something that should get you ostracized from any decently run society.

I'm not one beer away from a racist tweet. Good people generally aren't.
Click to expand...

There's also the transparently self serving "when I do it it's just a colorful expression that changes nothing of consequence, but when the bad minority person does it it's unscrupulous embellishment meant to fool an uncritical audience" which just...assumes that of course the bad minority person is embellishing for evil intent. Cause, ya know, we all do it!
 
untapped potential

Dr. Keith said:
So why must you pretend that something else was said?
Click to expand...
The information that I provided yesterday is publicly available and supports the interpretation given by Professor Bernstein, Jonathan Chait among others (and one with which I agree). You are the one doing the play acting, and you are not even trying very hard (see Darat's comments for a way to do better). In addition the material I turned up had the ancillary effect of showing how duplicitous Mark David Stern was.
 
Last edited:
A night at the opera

ponderingturtle said:
We can all be glad that at least Emmett Till wasn't canceled for whistling at a white woman. Imagine how horrible that would have been.
Click to expand...
Nor was an opera about Emmett Till cancelled despite more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to do just that.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The information that I provided yesterday is publicly available and supports the interpretation given by Professor Bernstein, Jonathan Chait among others (and one with which I agree). You are the one doing the play acting, and you are not even trying very hard (see Darat's comments for a way to do better). In addition the material I turned up had the ancillary effect of showing how duplicitous Mark David Stern was.
Click to expand...

When you have to change the words to defend them you should start to think that maybe the words are not worth defending. Stick to the words. The words are the problem.
 
Thermal said:
The whole point is that you used to have to be significant and influential to effect someone's life, and most people would shrug it off as a rumor anyway, if they were privy to have heard it at all. Now, any rando can ruin lives with an out of context video and an embellished narrative.

Technology has turned whispering between a few people to international attention. It may be an old game, but the stakes are so much higher now that it is essentially a new cultural phenomenon.

Is there anything you ever did in your past that if caught on video today and blasted on Twitter, would have ruined your life in today's world? That's the difference.

Eta: oh, and be permanenently searchable on Google when you meet a new person or apply for a job?
Click to expand...

I hear similarly hollow complaints about other technologies. "Young men should not be allowed to legally buy semi-automatic weapons," they say. Never mind that homicide predates our species. What's really driving this moral panic is that now traditionally powerless people have access to these tools, not just elites and their soldiers of fortune. Regular people can hold the powerful accountable, finally wielding these instruments for good. The democratization of this machinery literally terrifies elites. Just as people cannot really define "cancel culture," which simultaneously does not exist and is great, hoplophobes can't define an "assault rifle," except that it "looks scary." Basically a bunch of ignorant bigots.

People act like getting shot is the worst thing in the world, but more than three-quarters of "victims" survive! Sometimes doctors discover cancerous tumors that would have gone overlooked, but the ungrateful "victims" still whine and cry about how awful it was to get shot. They do not publicly that the event unquestionably prolonged -- and enriched -- their life. There's such a moral panic over firearms that you'll see the media interview people who were not even struck. They're "survivors" because they could have been shot. Somtimes people are killed, of course. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. Assassinated. Most white people disapproved of him at the time; even half of all Black people disapproved him. Now what's happened? He's been lionized! You can't actually kill anyone because their spirit will live on. They talk about how people will live in "fear" and be "on edge." Wrong. An armed society is a polite society.
 
Last edited:
If it truly terrifies the elites, why are only half the elites (at best) interested in curtailing it?
 
johnny karate said:
"Invasive technology"? Sure, okay. But it kind of sounds like "Old Man Yells At Cloud" to me.

Yes, things are different now than when many of us were kids. But the same is true of any generation, and the kids today don't feel nearly as imperiled by this "invasive technology" as we do. It's part of their lives and they adjust their behavior accordingly.

That being said, not doing dumb **** in front of the whole world remains an option for all of us.
Click to expand...


It's my understanding that back in the really old days there were unspoken agreements between the movie studios and the newspaper publishers that, unless they actually killed someone, they wouldn't report on the scandalous behavior that various movie stars engaged in. Newspapers reporting drunken tirades, violent assaults, or torrid affairs just wasn't polite.
 
Darat said:
Yet again "and"?

Simply dropping a quote with no commentary really isn't a discussion, you need to give us at least some clue at least to why you wanted to drop that quote into a discussion, I have to assume it is meant to have something to do with the topics under discussion? Or are you wanting to draw our attention to the font the New York Times uses in its online reports, is it the formatting they use, is it their style guide?

Give us a clue.
Click to expand...


Simple, the article discusses the problems with a situation where a book can be pulled from publication based on criticism from people who've not read the book, but inflamatory statements made by random people on the internet.


I've seen critiques of the whole 'Only X should write about X' idea from fiction writers as diverse as Larry Niven and Caitlin R. Kiernan.


Quite simply it's limiting, the best fiction should make people think or let the reader explore a situation different from the one they exist in.



This movement that demands everything be 'emotionally safe' and that's not good fiction.
 
Graham2001 said:
Simple, the article discusses the problems with a situation where a book can be pulled from publication based on criticism from people who've not read the book, but inflamatory statements made by random people on the internet.


I've seen critiques of the whole 'Only X should write about X' idea from fiction writers as diverse as Larry Niven and Caitlin R. Kiernan.


Quite simply it's limiting, the best fiction should make people think or let the reader explore a situation different from the one they exist in.



This movement that demands everything be 'emotionally safe' and that's not good fiction.
Click to expand...

Okay and?
 
d4m10n said:
Another artist cancelled by popular backlash.
Click to expand...

And if a music venue can refuse to host crap art done as a pubicity stunt, then we just aren't free anymore. Society is only free if venues are forced to host shows they don't want and popular podcasters are free to be ****** people with zero repercussion!
“If we were going to host an event for the principle, and potentially put others at risk in doing so, it shouldn’t be for some stunt booking — no offense to the artist. We might feel differently if we believed the music was important and transcended the infamy, but that’s just not the case here,” Market Hotel wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom