Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[johnny karate]

Uh oh… Disney has once again capitulated to the woke mob.

This time, they’re going after the pocketbooks of hard-working Florida legislators:

Disney has been facing mounting pressure from some customers and employees for not taking an aggressive public stand against the bill. Some had also called for the company to stop contributing to lawmakers who supported it.

It may be difficult to sympathize with these politicians, but we need to remember that there’s a principle at stake here.

“Cancel culture” critics have taught us that using public pressure to influence a corporation to make a decision that negatively impacts someone else financially is bad.

Therefore, this is bad, no matter how you feel about the underlying issue.

 

[Lithrael]

Picasso’s an interesting case because he’s contemporary, a humongously big name artist, and a really just absolutely shocking misogynist. Neither the art nor the artist should be swept under the rug. Showcasing Picasso’s work without mentioning the women he was chewing up and spitting out as inspiration for each of his periods is IMO as stupid as trying to ignore his work because he was an *******. It was directly related to the art he was creating and uncoupling it as ‘why do we care about his personal habits’ is… incomplete, at best and at worst is just being an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Showcasing Picasso without any mention of his treatment of women is like trying to do Henry the 8th but only the bits that weren’t about all the wives and mistresses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

untenable proposition

The most extensive discussion of the cancellation of concerts that would have been performed by Alexander Malofeev that I found came from David Walsh at the World Socialist Web Site. Mr. Marsh decried the "whipping up of chauvinism and ethnic hatred." After having read this and one other article of his, I believe that Mr. Walsh is mainly focused on overzealous anti-Russian behavior (he did not use the phrase "cancel culture"). Yet the notion that criticism of cancel culture comes only from the right wing and not the left wing is not a tenable proposition.

 

[tyr_13]

I do not agree. A concert was planned. Part of it was cancelled.

Well I think it does. Your serve.

What a silly way to use the term with nothing to support it but your say so.

He backs away from the keyboard, peering out the window at the wind-blowing snow. "This storm has brought cancel culture to millions I bet. I guess that means I am under the weather." Craning his neck he calls out, "Honey, I don't want to watch Catherine the Great tonight, so let's do it later." Unknowingly he has perpetrated cancel culture upon the long dead ruler of Russia via HBO Max not getting used this night.

His hand reaches for his glass even after his eye spies that it is empty. "I've fallen into a thirst trap."

 

[Dr. Keith]

This is Dr Seuss all over again.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The most extensive discussion of the cancellation of concerts that would have been performed by Alexander Malofeev that I found came from David Walsh at the World Socialist Web Site. Mr. Marsh decried the "whipping up of chauvinism and ethnic hatred." After having read this and one other article of his, I believe that Mr. Walsh is mainly focused on overzealous anti-Russian behavior (he did not use the phrase "cancel culture"). Yet the notion that criticism of cancel culture comes only from the right wing and not the left wing is not a tenable proposition.

I think what you are missing from your understanding of cancel culture is that if it is to have any meaning at all it is in the realm of a campaign of social pressure for an individual or organization to change something they otherwise would not have changed.

Here there is no no campaign of social pressure leading to a change at all. The change has come without any pressure, whatsoever. If that is cancel culture then everything is cancel culture. Including my lack of exclamation points in this post.

 

[Graham2001]

Getting back to more traditional 'censorship culture' a university in Texas is being sued by three 'left-of-centre' teachers because they disagree with comments the university made about mask wearing during the pandemic and other more contentious political matters.

As Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s pledge to end both critical race theory teachings and faculty tenure at state public universities threatens to redefine academic freedom in Texas, a community college in North Texas has already become an early battlefield over faculty members’ free speech rights.

History professor Michael Phillips is the third faculty member at Collin College to sue the school alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech. Phillips’ lawsuit, filed in federal court on Tuesday, says he was fired because he spoke publicly about politically contentious issues like the school’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the removal of Confederate statues in Dallas.

Phillips filed the lawsuit against the college, which serves more than 52,000 students northeast of Dallas, as well as the board of trustees and multiple college administrators, including President H. Neil Matkin, Provost Mary Barnes-Tilley and Abe Johnson, senior vice president of campus operations.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/08/collin-college-free-speech-lawsuit/

 

[Darat]

Getting back to more traditional 'censorship culture' a university in Texas is being sued by three 'left-of-centre' teachers because they disagree with comments the university made about mask wearing during the pandemic and other more contentious political matters.







https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/08/collin-college-free-speech-lawsuit/

Left of centre?

And explain how this is cancel culture? It sounds quite the opposite.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That right there ^ That's an inane sentiment. The entirety of Russian history, art, and culture - including things well over a hundred years old - somehow have "bad optics" because they came from the same geographical location as Putin. This take guilt by association to a whole new level of dumbness.

Maybe Russia shouldn't go invading other countries then there wouldn't be any guilt by association.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

No. Neither was slavery, Jim Crow, segregration, women's oppression, or homosexual oppression.

None of that was "OMG Cancel Culture"

Funny... that.

 

[johnny karate]

Yet the notion that criticism of cancel culture comes only from the right wing and not the left wing is not a tenable proposition.

It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it still requires clear articulation.

And there is no doubt that the right has weaponized it and made it part of their agenda. If I found myself on the same side of an issue as the talking heads of right wing media, I’d reconsider my position.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what the government does versus what society does

I think what you are missing from your understanding of cancel culture is that if it is to have any meaning at all it is in the realm of a campaign of social pressure for an individual or organization to change something they otherwise would not have changed.

Here there is no no campaign of social pressure leading to a change at all. The change has come without any pressure, whatsoever. If that is cancel culture then everything is cancel culture. Including my lack of exclamation points in this post.

You are drawing a helpful distinction; however, both the pianist and the soprano were asked to make certain statements regarding the war (and were judged not to have gone far enough). I believe that we are in agreement that for a definition of cancel culture to be useful, it must have limits. I am inclined to put the criminal and civil justice system outside of cancel cultural on that basis. However, I recognize a grey area with respect to public colleges and universities sanctioning their employees or students.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

real fake news versus phony fake news

It doesn’t matter where it comes from, it still requires clear articulation.

And there is no doubt that the right has weaponized it and made it part of their agenda. If I found myself on the same side of an issue as the talking heads of right wing media, I’d reconsider my position.

A given head of state may claim that something is "fake news" to cover his or her transgressions, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as fake news. The same principle applies to cancel culture. However, I beginning to come to the conclusion that the term "cancel culture" is so overused as to have lost much of its meaning (that may be something Suburban Turkey implied in a recent comment). If I found myself agreeing with someone one the right (which I have on occasion), I would consider it to be a coincidence of opinion, nothing more.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unsound inference

When you make your position purposely opaque, if forces people to guess at what it is.

If you don't like that, maybe start being a little more specific and straightforward.

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.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

My opinions only

Yes and, I really, really getting ******* tired of explaining this and not getting an answer, that's how society HAS ALWAYS WORKED.

Why, other than "The wrong people are winning" IS IT A PROBLEM NOW?

ANSWER.... THE.... *******... QUESTION.

I disagree with one part of your premise; in some of the instances that I brought up there were clear losers and that there were even any winners is dubious. Nevertheless, I will do what I can to answer your question, first by explaining what I find objectionable in the incidents where I have a working knowledge.

Problems in at least one of examples I provided over the last few months. One, collective punishment—someone faces negative consequences for the actions of another. Two, an undefined standard of proof that the person did what was claimed. Three, a poorly defined misbehavior. Four, an excessive punishment. Five, the engagement of people will little direct involvement in an incident (there have been discussion boards devoted to discussing a single criminal case and the participants proclaiming the guilt and depravity of the accused, which is a similar phenomenon). Six, dubious logic regarding the offense (I will try to expand on this in a separate comment as time permits).

If many incidents discussed in this thread featured an item from this list, I would be more inclined to include this item in a working definition of misapplied cancel culture than I would be otherwise. Offhand, items 3-6 look more central than items 1-2.

Role of the internet and social media. We interact with one another differently on discussion boards, via email, or on Facebook than we would in person (examples are available in this very thread). One reason for this is that electronic communication fails to convey nuances of meaning that nonverbal behaviors would. Broadcasting information electronically and storing it allows people who would not have even known of a given offense to form an opinion and to propose a sanction. My point in writing this paragraph is to explain one of the reasons that I think of cancel culture as a new phenomenon.

Students and educational institutions. As Suburban Turkey has pointed out, students being foolish is not a new phenomenon. I am not certain that school administrations were always as willing to give in to students who claimed to feel “unsafe” as present ones.

MOO.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Broadcasting information electronically and storing it allows people who would not have even known of a given offense to form an opinion and to propose a sanction.

Impressively proving JoeMorgues point of "'Conservatives' are very very angry at the fact that now the WRONG people are able to apply pressure!!!!!!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Because of the internet more people are aware of racist, sexist, bigoted statements and that's a problem" is a weird flex, but okay.

"The wrong people can now use societal pressure instead of the 'proper' people doing and that makes me irrationally angry!" isn't just the point anymore, it's turning into the flex.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Conor Friedersdorf on a critical distinction

Six, dubious logic regarding the offense (I will try to expand on this in a separate comment as time permits).

At The Atlantic Conor Friedersdorf wrote, "The first example comes from red America: School-board officials in McMinn County, Tennessee, voted to remove Maus, Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about Holocaust survivors, from its eighth-grade curriculum, largely because of eight curse words, including goddamn, in its text....The second example comes from blue America: Administrators punished Jason Kilborn, a law professor, over an exam question meant to test students' knowledge of civil procedure in a race- and gender-discrimination lawsuit....Both acted to bolster preexisting community taboos against nasty words, but in doing so, they failed to distinguish between using nasty words in order to wound, profane, or disparage, and mentioning nasty words in order to teach about the problems they represent." (emphasis mine)

The step from Jason Kilborn used one letter of a bad word, and Jason Kilborn is a racist is the erroneous logical leap that I had in mind when I wrote the passage above.

The situation is slightly different in regards to an actor's using dark make-up. However, the basic principle is still the same. Yes Lawrence Olivier did use dark make-up (and Bright Sheng did show the film Othello) but the leap from that to Lawrence Olivier's or Bright Sheng's being a racist is similarly faulty.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At The Atlantic Conor Friedersdorf wrote, "The first example comes from red America: School-board officials in McMinn County, Tennessee, voted to remove Maus, Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about Holocaust survivors, from its eighth-grade curriculum, largely because of eight curse words, including goddamn, in its text....The second example comes from blue America: Administrators punished Jason Kilborn, a law professor, over an exam question meant to test students' knowledge of civil procedure in a race- and gender-discrimination lawsuit....Both acted to bolster preexisting community taboos against nasty words, but in doing so, they failed to distinguish between using nasty words in order to wound, profane, or disparage, and mentioning nasty words in order to teach about the problems they represent." (emphasis mine)

Literally nobody calls that Cancel Culture.

This bit where you and others find real, actual censorship and go "iS ThiS CaNCeL CuLTURE!?" got old a while ago and just further proves my point that you (nor anyone else) has an actual point to make, just a troll routine someone else thought of that you are now parroting.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A logical leap too far

"Because of the internet more people are aware of racist, sexist, bigoted statements and that's a problem" is a weird flex, but okay.

"The wrong people can now use societal pressure instead of the 'proper' people doing and that makes me irrationally angry!" isn't just the point anymore, it's turning into the flex.

The first paragraph is a great example of point six in one of my previous comments; thank you. As for the second paragraph, all I can think of to say ATM is that I am not the author of comment #1515.