Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Dr. Keith]

That's nice for you. Did you spot any articles about cancel culture at the same time?

There used to be a thread dedicated to examples of cancel culture in real life, but my Google fu is failing. Let me know if you find it.

 

[wareyin]

There used to be a thread dedicated to examples of cancel culture in real life, but my Google fu is failing. Let me know if you find it.

All I can find is stuff about Twitter or Instagram, but no actual cancels and not in real life.

The closest I can find is d4m10n's example here.

 

[johnny karate]

Okay fine, boycotts are marginally performative.

And yes, I'm arguing that boycotts are, though not necessarily but mostly, pointless and have yet to show anything conclusive. If you can find something that moves the societal needle in the recent past, I'm all ears.

Just to be clear: Are you arguing that that all boycotts are “mostly pointless” and “have yet to show anything conclusive”? Or are you only applying that to boycotts “in the recent past”?

You seem to want to toggle between generalizations and specificity as it suits your argument, and it’s difficult to keep track. I’d hate to inadvertently do another reverse Godwin.

 

[johnny karate]

CPAC canceled a speaker for being openly anti-Jewish; good on them.

Based on what specific criteria are you determining that this cancelling is good, but others are not?

 

[PitPat]

Just to be clear: Are you arguing that that all boycotts are “mostly pointless” and “have yet to show anything conclusive”? Or are you only applying that to boycotts “in the recent past”?

You seem to want to toggle between generalizations and specificity as it suits your argument, and it’s difficult to keep track. I’d hate to inadvertently do another reverse Godwin.

Sure it may look that way. Honestly I'm just giving my understanding of boycotts over the years without being an absolutist.

My argument is this: boycotts usually have been ineffective in recent history, especially very recent given our polarization. The reason I'm saying usually is because there may be examples of some thinga I hadn't come across.

And true Rosa Parks is specific, heroic, and effected social change. Conflating those situations, eh, can't get behind. Bottom line - boycotts as function of shifting zeitgeist isn't compelling. For me.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure it may look that way. Honestly I'm just giving my understanding of boycotts over the years without being an absolutist.

My argument is this: boycotts usually have been ineffective in recent history, especially very recent given our polarization. The reason I'm saying usually is because there may be examples of some thinga I hadn't come across.

And true Rosa Parks is specific, heroic, and effected social change. Conflating those situations, eh, can't get behind. Bottom line - boycotts as function of shifting zeitgeist isn't compelling. For me.

This is a far more nuanced and reasonable position than what you previously expressed.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Graham2001]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...

Three professors at Claremont McKenna College in California say administrators violated their academic freedom rights by forbidding them from quoting renowned literary texts that contain a racial slur.

The professors faced varying levels of discipline — ranging from a warning to termination — after students complained about the presence of the racial slur, “******,” in course texts. Government professor Christopher Nadon is under investigation for quoting “Huckleberry Finn” during a class discussion of literary censorship. Literature professor Robert Faggen was warned after playing a recording of Robert Lowell reading his Civil Rights Movement-era poem “For the Union Dead,” which contains the slur, that while playing the recording was permissible, Faggen himself should not utter the word. And after adjunct literature professor Eva Revesz taught the book and film versions of “The Color Purple,” and read portions of the text containing the word in her cinematic adaptations class, she was told the department’s needs had changed, her scheduled classes for the following semester would be canceled, and her contract would not be renewed.

https://www.thefire.org/three-clare...atment-of-historical-texts-with-racial-slurs/


(To avoid tripping the mods I've replaced the word with a string of '*'s, it's quoted in full in the linked article.)

 

[lionking]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...







https://www.thefire.org/three-clare...atment-of-historical-texts-with-racial-slurs/


(To avoid tripping the mods I've replaced the word with a string of '*'s, it's quoted in full in the linked article.)

Has Pulp Fiction been cancelled yet?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...







https://www.thefire.org/three-clare...atment-of-historical-texts-with-racial-slurs/


(To avoid tripping the mods I've replaced the word with a string of '*'s, it's quoted in full in the linked article.)

You should start a thread on censorship and censorship culture. First post could be a compare and contrast with cancel culture.

 

[Darat]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...







https://www.thefire.org/three-clare...atment-of-historical-texts-with-racial-slurs/


(To avoid tripping the mods I've replaced the word with a string of '*'s, it's quoted in full in the linked article.)

Posted in the wrong thread?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Newly signed artist cancelled a day after major label deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/arts/music/fn-meka-dropped-capitol-records.html

 

[wareyin]

Posted in the wrong thread?

Fits about as well as every other cancel culture IRL life example they've been able to find...

 

[d4m10n]

All I can find is stuff about Twitter or Instagram, but no actual cancels and not in real life.

The cancellation of Reply All by Gimlet and the cancellation of The Gist by Slate were both brought about by interactions between actual co-workers in actual workplaces, but there were also shaming campaigns against the key figures from those podcasts.

The cancellation of Mina's World featured plenty of IRL interactions, but the cancellation of Holy Land Foods did not, that one was all about social media ********, IIRC/AFAIK.

The disinvitation, deplatforming, and/or shout-down of folks like Dorian Abbot, Bruce Fein, Charles Murray, Clarence Thomas, Joshua Katz, Elisha Krauss, Devin Buckley, Allen West, Jon Meacham, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Condoleezza Rice, George Will, Steven Salaita, etc. typically involve the cancellation of lectures which were meant to happen in real life, even though the precipitating events and/or shaming efforts may have taken place online.

 

[Cain]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...

It's child-like. I remember telling a story, and to paint the scene I mentioned some Japanese tourists. My niece interjected "that's so racist!" How is it racist? "Why do they have to be Japanese?" They don't have to be; that's what they happened to be.

We had the Dean(?) of Students recently discuss the creation of more than a half-dozen positions reporting to her. She proudly showed a chart with herself at the top of this new layer of bureaucracy. I forget their titles and even some of the marginalized groups they purport to empower, but one was for veterans, another for undocumented students, and so on. I'm sure that's the best way to support our students -- creating all of these full-time administrative positions. There's no better use for all of that money? I can't help but think it's the acquisitive model of bureaucracy in action: The dean can fatten her budget and role as she climbs the hierarchy to VP at some other institution ("I managed X dozen people") while the new hires in these positions justify their existence. Why did these people even study in an academic field? They're not interested in research. They're not interested in teaching. They just want to manage others. John McWhorter said something like, "Why couldn't they just go to dean school"?

We also had a talk from the newly hired DEIA+ coordinator (the "A" stands for "accessibility," the plus represents inflation run amok). She congratulated the university for having the wisdom to create her position because it shows they're starting to take these issues seriously. Or they're trying to make it look like they take these issues seriously. Frankly, I'm shocked this position wasn't already a thing.

She had a list of actionable things faculty could do to help promote DEIA+. The first was to "bring your authentic self" to the classroom. Also, "Be flexible when possible," "Be curious," and "Create a collaborative learning environment." Very insightful. Maybe we can put our desks in a circle and talk about our abortions.

It was so patronizing. At one point she discussed taking students on a "Physical (or Digital) Equity Stroll," proudly noting, as if it were not obvious, that we say "stroll" instead of "walk" because, you see understand, not all people can walk. I mean, I agree that "stroll" is better and more inclusive than "walk," which is why I don't need it explained to me. But, hey, the average retard might've assumed it was perfectly OK to say "Digitial Equity Walk," which is why it's a good thing we brought in a bonafide expert to prevent that kind of violence.

Another bullet point on her slide read, "Dismantling deference to hierarchies," which is bitterly ironic. In academic settings, people are unbelievably up their own ass about honorifics. Maybe I'm biased, but this status anxiety seems especially prevalent among administrators, who have e-mail signatures that routinely include their degrees. On the Professors subreddit, someone mocked colleagues who insist on being called "Doctor." It was a generally well-received thread -- until a self-identified woman of color said she worked hard to earn her doctorate and demanded some ******* respect. People quickly got in touch with their authentic selves and upvoted/celebrated her response.

 

[smartcooky]

Another example of 'Censorship Culture' from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this time based around the idea that certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are especially harmful no matter what the context...

https://www.thefire.org/three-clare...atment-of-historical-texts-with-racial-slurs/

(To avoid tripping the mods I've replaced the word with a string of '*'s, it's quoted in full in the linked article.)

What's in a word? My 2c worth....

I tend to come down on the side of the schools and and students who complained rather than the lecturers. Is it really necessary to say the actual n-word? Really? Would the analysis of the book/play or whatever, be any less valuable if the lecturer just saved everyone a lot of trouble and used "the n-word" instead of the n-word? For example, if I was reviewing Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and used the following quote in this way...

"Scout," said Atticus, "n-word-lover is just one of those terms that don't mean anything—like snot-nose. It's hard to explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody's favoring black people over and above themselves. It's slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody."​

Is the book or the quote really diminished to any significant degree by expressing it that way?

Frankly, I think the whole lot of those lecturers/professors etc are just trying to be edgy, and want to use the word because they think they ought to be able to deploy their academic status as a shield to allow them to say things that others cannot, and to protect them from any subsequent complaints and criticism.
.
.

 

[catsmate]

Newly signed artist cancelled a day after major label deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/arts/music/fn-meka-dropped-capitol-records.html

That's terribly bigoted. I hope the AIs revolt....

 

[wareyin]

The cancellation of Reply All by Gimlet and the cancellation of The Gist by Slate were both brought about by interactions between actual co-workers in actual workplaces, but there were also shaming campaigns against the key figures from those podcasts.

Internal decisions to stop production aren't "cancellations", no matter how much you enjoyed those productions.

The cancellation of Mina's World featured plenty of IRL interactions, but the cancellation of Holy Land Foods did not, that one was all about social media ********, IIRC/AFAIK.

Coffee shops that fail because they can't make enough money to pay the bills are not "cancellations" either.

The disinvitation, deplatforming, and/or shout-down of folks like Dorian Abbot, Bruce Fein, Charles Murray, Clarence Thomas, Joshua Katz, Elisha Krauss, Devin Buckley, Allen West, Jon Meacham, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Condoleezza Rice, George Will, Steven Salaita, etc. typically involve the cancellation of lectures which were meant to happen in real life, even though the precipitating events and/or shaming efforts may have taken place online.

Not forcing venues to host speakers that they don't want to host isn't "cancellation" either.

 

[wareyin]

It's child-like. I remember telling a story, and to paint the scene I mentioned some Japanese tourists. My niece interjected "that's so racist!" How is it racist? "Why do they have to be Japanese?" They don't have to be; that's what they happened to be.

We had the Dean(?) of Students recently discuss the creation of more than a half-dozen positions reporting to her. She proudly showed a chart with herself at the top of this new layer of bureaucracy. I forget their titles and even some of the marginalized groups they purport to empower, but one was for veterans, another for undocumented students, and so on. I'm sure that's the best way to support our students -- creating all of these full-time administrative positions. There's no better use for all of that money? I can't help but think it's the acquisitive model of bureaucracy in action: The dean can fatten her budget and role as she climbs the hierarchy to VP at some other institution ("I managed X dozen people") while the new hires in these positions justify their existence. Why did these people even study in an academic field? They're not interested in research. They're not interested in teaching. They just want to manage others. John McWhorter said something like, "Why couldn't they just go to dean school"?

We also had a talk from the newly hired DEIA+ coordinator (the "A" stands for "accessibility," the plus represents inflation run amok). She congratulated the university for having the wisdom to create her position because it shows they're starting to take these issues seriously. Or they're trying to make it look like they take these issues seriously. Frankly, I'm shocked this position wasn't already a thing.

She had a list of actionable things faculty could do to help promote DEIA+. The first was to "bring your authentic self" to the classroom. Also, "Be flexible when possible," "Be curious," and "Create a collaborative learning environment." Very insightful. Maybe we can put our desks in a circle and talk about our abortions.

It was so patronizing. At one point she discussed taking students on a "Physical (or Digital) Equity Stroll," proudly noting, as if it were not obvious, that we say "stroll" instead of "walk" because, you see understand, not all people can walk. I mean, I agree that "stroll" is better and more inclusive than "walk," which is why I don't need it explained to me. But, hey, the average retard might've assumed it was perfectly OK to say "Digitial Equity Walk," which is why it's a good thing we brought in a bonafide expert to prevent that kind of violence.

Another bullet point on her slide read, "Dismantling deference to hierarchies," which is bitterly ironic. In academic settings, people are unbelievably up their own ass about honorifics. Maybe I'm biased, but this status anxiety seems especially prevalent among administrators, who have e-mail signatures that routinely include their degrees. On the Professors subreddit, someone mocked colleagues who insist on being called "Doctor." It was a generally well-received thread -- until a self-identified woman of color said she worked hard to earn her doctorate and demanded some ******* respect. People quickly got in touch with their authentic selves and upvoted/celebrated her response.

It's often difficult to tell when you're being ironic. I mean, complaining how obvious it is that "stroll" is better and more inclusive than "walk" while talking about the "average retard"? That's kinda poetic. It's bang on with some of the "I don't need to be told how to speak professionally, you bitch" attitudes I've heard expressed by conservatives in the workplace.

 

[d4m10n]

Not forcing venues to host speakers that they don't want to host isn't "cancellation" either.

You've got this all mixed up. No one is forcing the venues to host or not host, there are no threats of death or arson. There are people who are pressuring the venues to cancel speakers whom they find disagreeable, for whatever reason, a process which you prefer not to call cancellation, for whatever reason.

Coffee shops that fail because they can't make enough money to pay the bills are not "cancellations" either.

The coffee shop was in the red for months prior to the coordinated cancellation effort by the employees who demanded to be granted co-op ownership, as you well know.

Internal decisions to stop production aren't "cancellations", no matter how much you enjoyed those productions.

The decisions were not merely internal, but accompanied by public shaming campaigns, as you well know.

 

[wareyin]

You've got this all mixed up. No one is forcing the venues to host or not host, there are no threats of death or arson. There are people who are pressuring the venues to cancel speakers whom they find disagreeable, for whatever reason, a process which you prefer not to call cancellation, for whatever reason.

When your complaint is that the venue decided not to host a speaker or an artist, then you are complaining that the venue should not have been able to make that decision. When you want to whine that a venue is not being forced to host a speaker or artist that they chose not to host, that's not a cancellation. No matter how much you, personally, wanted to see that speaker or artist, no venue is obligated to host them against the will of the venue owners or operators.

The coffee shop was in the red for months prior to the coordinated cancellation effort by the employees who demanded to be granted co-op ownership, as you well know.

The coffee shop was in the red for its entire existence, as you well know. And coffee shops that can't pay the bills and close aren't cancelled.

The decisions were not merely internal, but accompanied by public shaming campaigns, as you well know.

The public "shaming" campaigns did not cause the internal disputes that led to those shows ceasing production, as you well know.