• 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

JoeMorgue said:
Yeah. It's giving something that always been a thing a new, scary name when its used against you. We established 73 pages ago and nobody has argued differently.
Click to expand...
'Boycotting' is still generally accurate.
But I suppose that wouldn't suit the self-appointed mob.
 
d4m10n said:
"Muslim students...demanded that officials take action," and the officials subsequently dropped the professor. Was this withdrawal of support widespread? I'm not sure why that should matter at this point.
Click to expand...

It sets parameters for what we mean by “withdrawal of support”. And those parameters appear to be extraordinarily broad. Which is convenient for people who want to see “cancel culture” everywhere.

Nope. I think it is just fine for us to discuss such matters on a discussion board.
Click to expand...

Discuss away. No one is suggesting that you shouldn’t. However, if you want to claim that a problem exists but then refuse to clearly define what that problem is, no one is going to take you seriously.

How is it cancel culture to welcome the cancellation of a stage play? Let's go through it step-by-step.

1) Withdrawing support: People hoping to get the production of the play cancelled.

2) Public figure: That would be the playwright in this case, possibly along with his enablers.

3) Something considered offensive: Creating a stage play with only male actors.
Click to expand...

I asked you how this production being shut down was “cancel culture”. You said you didn’t know and claimed you were only referring to Olmstead’s comment. I asked you what about that comment is “cancel culture”. In response you provide a seemingly random list unrelated to the comment.

So let’s start over.

What specifically occurred with the production of this play shutting down that qualifies as “cancel culture”?

What specifically is there about Olmstead’s comment about it that qualifies as “cancel culture”?

And at the risk of being respective, please be specific.
 
johnny karate said:
It sets parameters for what we mean by “withdrawal of support”. And those parameters appear to be extraordinarily broad. Which is convenient for people who want to see “cancel culture” everywhere.



Discuss away. No one is suggesting that you shouldn’t. However, if you want to claim that a problem exists but then refuse to clearly define what that problem is, no one is going to take you seriously.



I asked you how this production being shut down was “cancel culture”. You said you didn’t know and claimed you were only referring to Olmstead’s comment. I asked you what about that comment is “cancel culture”. In response you provide a seemingly random list unrelated to the comment.

So let’s start over. What specifically occurred with the production of this play shutting down that qualifies as “cancel culture”? What specifically is there about Olmstead’s comment about it that qualifies as “cancel culture”? And at the risk of being respective, please be specific.
Click to expand...


Johnny, don't you understand that those people who see the "cancel culture" boogeyman hiding under every bush; behind every door and around every corner, cannot, by their very mature, EVER be specific? If they are, then they will be pinned down to the spot - they will not be able to move the goalposts around at will. Asking them to be specific is like asking an eel not to be slippery - you might as well be asking Sir Humphrey Appleby for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
 
smartcooky said:
Johnny, don't you understand that those people who see the "cancel culture" boogeyman hiding under every bush; behind every door and around every corner, cannot, by their very mature, EVER be specific? If they are, then they will be pinned down to the spot - they will not be able to move the goalposts around at will. Asking them to be specific is like asking an eel not to be slippery - you might as well be asking Sir Humphrey Appleby for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Click to expand...

As much as I know you are right, I still hold out hope. :D

Edit: Just noticed a typo in my previous post. That should be “repetitive” not “respective” in the last line.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
What specifically occurred with the production of this play shutting down that qualifies as “cancel culture”?
Click to expand...
Already answered that one in three easy steps, go back and reread them.

johnny karate said:
What specifically is there about Olmstead’s comment about it that qualifies as “cancel culture”?
Click to expand...
The part where Olmstead encourages a withdrawal of support from the playwright and the production, on account of the offensive behavior of all involved.
 
smartcooky said:
Johnny, don't you understand that those people who see the "cancel culture" boogeyman hiding under every bush; behind every door and around every corner, cannot, by their very mature, EVER be specific?
Click to expand...
Please see the aforementioned three easy steps about a very specific cancellation.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Whoever said it had to moral? But, if you’re going to live in a society that values both free speech and capitalism, one is going to effect the other.
Click to expand...

Unilateralists don't care about that! Just as long as their words are allowed, they don't give a rat's arse how those words affect anyone else. d4m10n, for example, quite happy to to see some university professor insult Muslim students with impunity, but he objects to these same students supporting each other in calling for consequences for the person who has offended them.
 
Okay, well, if some people see cancel culture as a problem, the question is: what do we do about it?

To prevent cancel culture, we'd have to address at least one of the two primary mechanisms that makes it possible. First, there is the free speech that allows cancel culture to express their opinions about a person, product, service, or company and try to convince others others that their opinions are correct. Second, there is the free market that allows consumers to decide not to buy a product or service based on their opinions of a particular person or company.

As I said, at least one of those would have to go. Do we make it illegal to express a negative opinion? Or make it illegal to communicate negative opinions to others in a convincing manner? Do we make curtail free market by making purchase of a good or service from a particular person or company mandatory, especially if someone has been swayed with negative opinions?

d4m10n, which of these would solve the problem, as you see it?
 
Since cancel culture is something that's always existed and will always exist there's nothing that anybody can really do about it. The best we can do is sit back and laugh at all the wondrous things people get butthurt over and freak out about. Maybe the cancellation attempt will connect, maybe it'll fail or maybe it'll backfire in a hilarious way like the attempts to cancel Married With Children did.
 
Last edited:
This thread has certainly enlightened me about all the "wondrous things" conservatives get "butthurt over and freak out about."
If "cancel culture" is only the exaggerated claims conservatives make about A&W or M&Ms mascots, per Stout, then I agree that there's nothing anybody really can do about it. Conservatives need their poutrage fix, and if they don't get one they'll just make one up.
If "cancel culture" is podcasts ending because they aren't appealing to people anymore, per d4m10n, I don't think there's anything anyone can do about that either.
 
d4m10n said:
Already answered that one in three easy steps, go back and reread them.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t a list of steps, but just a list of things that was rather generic and didn’t seem to really even apply to this specific situation. This was after you stated that you had “no idea” how it was “cancel culture”. It makes it all about as clear as mud.

For some mysterious reason, you don’t seem too eager to explain and discuss something that you present as a very serious problem.

The part where Olmstead encourages a withdrawal of support from the playwright and the production, on account of the offensive behavior of all involved.
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes people have opinions that you might not agree with and sometimes they even express those opinions.

It is unclear how this qualifies as “cancel culture” and how, as “cancel culture”, this is a problem.
 
wareyin said:
This thread has certainly enlightened me about all the "wondrous things" conservatives get "butthurt over and freak out about."
If "cancel culture" is only the exaggerated claims conservatives make about A&W or M&Ms mascots, per Stout, then I agree that there's nothing anybody really can do about it. Conservatives need their poutrage fix, and if they don't get one they'll just make one up.
If "cancel culture" is podcasts ending because they aren't appealing to people anymore, per d4m10n, I don't think there's anything anyone can do about that either.
Click to expand...

Hey remember when Christians got all butthurt about Piss Christ and tried to get it cancelled? They shrieked Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Offensive! and we all laughed and said, "stupid Christians" then lectured them of freedom of speech and expression and we told them we had no need for their fairy stories of Big Daddy, Junior, and The Spook.

Then one day some professor showed an image to a student and...

The wokesters jumped in with Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Offensive! and we had to do the same thing all over again.

Which just goes to show whether they be conservatives or wokeis what we're dealing with are your bog standard control freaks and moral scolds and both need to gently reminded that it's time to take your butthurt and piss off.
 
Upchurch said:
d4m10n, which of these would solve the problem, as you see it?
Click to expand...
If only I'd already answered this question in terms of "self-restraint in the face of outrage gone viral," then I wouldn't have to keep answering this same question over and over.

Imagine if the people who asked for Kroger to fire Andy (for Hamelin U. to fire López Prater, for Gimlet to fire Pinnamaneni, for Slate to fire Pesca, for MSW to fire Torrez, for NYT to fire McNeil, for CSI to fire Radford, for every skeptic conference to deplatform Shermer, etc.) had asked themselves instead whether they have enough facts to say whether anyone needs to lose their job and/or platform just yet. Maybe instead of going in hard with efforts to deplatform and disemploy people, we could direct our efforts at vetting the relevant background information first.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
d4m10n, for example, quite happy to to see some university professor insult Muslim students with impunity, but he objects to these same students supporting each other in calling for consequences for the person who has offended them.
Click to expand...
What exactly was insulting about exposing students to historically significant artwork made by Muslims for other Muslims?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If only I'd already answered this question in terms of "self-restraint in the face of outrage gone viral," then I wouldn't have to keep answering this same question over and over.could direct our efforts at vetting the relevant background information first.
Click to expand...

That's answering a completely different question without any real possibility solve the problem. ("Oh, if only people had my sensibilities, we wouldn't be in this mess!!") I'm asking you which problem(s) you're actually trying to solve here: Too much free speech, too much free market, or maybe a little too much of both?

Because you're not going to solve this cancel culture with hope. You need need to decide which of the two root problems needs to be fixed.
 
dirtywick said:
The discussion of whether or not restraint is warranted is part of the cancel culture process in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I think it is fair to say that restraint is warranted until we have heard both sides and can be highly confident of the relevant facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom