Cancel culture IRL

[Emily's Cat]

Well, these were decades ago - and the entire Death Row crew was well known for violence even at the ti me. That's actually why Dre and Snoop eventually abandoned the label - while owner Suge Knight is going to be in prison for a couple more decades. 'Cuz of the murdering he did.

THere's a pretty common understanding among older rap head that a lot of the 90s excess should be seen as a cautionary tale. Dre himself nods to this about his past in Eminem's "Conscience", Common refuses to perform his older songs that have homophobic content, and so forth.

Like folks said, pretty different from the guy that got fired from Apple.

I'm not sold.

Look, personally, I'm perfectly fine with accepting that people's views change over time, especially with respect to what is culturally acceptable. I have no issue with acknowledging that some people might have accepted racist tropes in the 80s without questioning them, and have since changed their assumptions. I have no doubt that many people may have unthinkingly accepted that homosexuality was immoral in the 90s, and through education and exposure no longer hold that view. Personally, I think that's a reasonable and rational approach.

What I take issue with is the selective approach to who merits forgiveness and who doesn't.

Why should Dr. Dre - who was involved with some incredibly violent and misogynistic content, as well as having personally abused females - be forgiven for his 'prior' views toward women... but other people do NOT merit any compromise? For example, there was the guy hired at Boeing, who "resigned" the position after repeated calls for his resignation, over some sexist remarks he had made decades prior. There was the baker who fired his own child after they child disclosed that they had made racist comments on line several years prior, and regretted them, but the baker still lost a huge amount of business because someone else's past remarks made him a leper. Now we've got Garcia-Martinez, whose comments in context are clearly hyperbolic, hypothetical, and intended as a counterpoint to the characteristics he found so attractive in an intimate partner.

Why does Dre's actual violent and clearly misogynistic creative content and real life actions get a pass in current times, but the much less impactful prior comments of other people are forever held over their heads?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe the bigger question is this: Why do so many in our society accept a misogynistic product?

Because, and this is the closest thing to an anti-"Cancel Culture" argument as you'll get out of me, people who don't completely live in bubbles are learning the fact there's just not enough people out there who agree with them 100% about everything to function if that's all you'll lower yourself to interact with.

You have to pick your battles. If you're 100% pro-Bleen, you don't vote for an anti-Bleen Senator, you don't marry an anti-Bleen person, you don't have anti-Bleen friends but if you try to never buy a product, engage a service, enjoy media, or basically do anything that has a single anti-Bleen fingerprint anywhere on it... you're not going to be able to function.

But this is exactly the the "OMG Cancel Culture" argument is so stupid because it just focus on dumb **** like being screamed off Twitter. The real world is much more interconnected and complicated. Cause-tards online are the only ones who have the privilege of even pretending they can create a perfect self stable micro-society full of nothing but cause-pure people they can interact with and nothing else and, surprise, it's obvious they don't really believe that either.

Chick-fil-a. Everyone online hates Chick-fil-a because they are homophobic. But Chick-Fil-A's profits have tripled since 2009, while acceptance of homosexuality has only gone up. Is there a paradox here? No, not really. Not unless you want there to be one. The reality is... it's a chicken restaurant. Its opinions on homosexuality don't matter as much as the Catholic Church or the GOPs. So... you can get over it. I'm sorry but you can.

Yes, yes, I know everyone here is surely too cause-pure to have ever eaten a homophobic chicken sandwich and I wouldn't dare suggest I don't believe each and every one of you... but the numbers aren't lying. There's not 3 times as many homophobes in society now as there were in 2009 yet Chick-Fil-A's profits have tripled in that time and no "I'm going to eat this chicken just to spite the homos" is not enough to account for it either.

What is enough to account for it is "Yeah I didn't ask your goddamn opinion about gay people chicken restaurant, shut up and give me my #3 with waffles and a diet Coke."

Now you can call this hypocrisy, you can call it compartmentalization, to sure it's both those things technically, but it's also not being a whiny little cause-tard who thinks every fight is every fight.

A Chicken Restaurant can't take rights away from gay people like the Congress can. You can argue that any interaction taints your soul a little bit but buying a Chicken sandwich from a restaurant that might use some of its money to do something fund something else that might hurt gays down the road maybe and voting for a Senator who absolutely will hurt gays in some direct, tangible, measurable way are the not the same thing.

"Cancel Culture" is one thing. "Cause Purity" is whole other thing. Real people who don't spend their lives role-playing as pompous idealists on the internet have to live in the world and choose which battles are worth it.

And, before this strawman comes out, I'm not saying if you choose to not eat at Chick-Fil-A you are wrong or ignoble or wasting your time or effort. Only that you can't fight this war on all fronts and still stay a functioning member of society (not even to mention the fact that you'll become a bitter toxic ******* long before you actually get to non-functioning) and not everyone one is going to fight on the same fronts as you.

//And for the record I hate Chick-Fil-a and never eat there because pickle is not a flavor.//

 

[Mumbles]

I'm not sold.

That's fine. Honestly, Dre is pretty close to the edge of where I'll forgive a person, regardless of how they try to redeem themselves. I strongly remember the part of him beating Dee Barnes when she was hosting Pump It Up on FOX (because the show also interviewed rival former NWA member Ice Cube on the same show!), and then wrecking her career - as well as Death Row just putting people into hospitals if they didn't like their audition rap.

That's pretty awful stuff, and I think anyone who just says "I want nothing to do with that guy" is on pretty firm ground.

But like I said, I, personally, think he's redeemed himself insofar as a person can do so, while Garcia-Martinez has not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I can't link them (because I didn't care enough to bookmark them - yay depression episode I guess), but there were women who worked with him that had some pretty nasty stories about him harassing and belittling them. So apparently the book reflected his actions, and not just some nonsense he wrote.

Kinda like Dre, but without any sort of redemption arc thus far.

I can't find anything suggesting that he has treated females poorly in real life. The only complaints I can find are about his writing in Chaos Monkeys. If you run across anything more than that, I'd love a link.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Someone in management should put on their big boy pants and go tell these hysterical broads to pipe down. Clearly they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[dirtywick]

One thing about Dre that sets him apart is he’s presumably using Twitter to sell headphones and not to air out his personal moral views on controversial social issues

 

[Emily's Cat]

Someone in management should put on their big boy pants and go tell these hysterical broads to pipe down. Clearly they don't know what they're talking about.

I really do find it baffling that males presume to opine in this fashion. For example, in this thread, some males are expressing the opinion that this paragraph in a book is appropriately and accurately viewed by females as a threat to their personal safety that merits removing a person from employment. Simultaneously, some of those very same posters opine in a different thread expressing the opinion that females who are concerned about voyeurism, flashing, and sexual assault in changing rooms and prisons are hysterical, overreacting, fearmongering, and full of hate.

Make it make sense.

 

[Cain]

The right wing taking a quick break from caring about "cancel culture" to get a journalist fired from the AP for supporting Palestine.

Let's just wait for Bari Weiss to get outraged over this censorship, shall we?


https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Emily-Wilder-Associated-Press-Israel-Palestine-AP-16192391.php

It's almost as if the accusations of cancel culture is a blatantly cynical, bad-faith smokescreen. The traditional gatekeepers of power and discourse have no intention of giving up their own censorious power, they just resist anyone else ever acquiring the same.

ETA: There is probably few other issues that have as consistently lead to people being blacklisted, fired, or otherwise silenced than speaking out against Israel or in support of Palestine in the last few decades. It's very telling that on this undeniable example of system wide censorious conduct, the people frothing at the mouth about "cancel culture" have very little to say. The silence speaks volumes. They don't oppose "cancel culture", they just oppose changes in who gets a say in what's acceptable discourse.

Not counting always, when do Republicans ever operate in bad faith? She should have learned from Helen Thomas' cancellation -- I mean the consequences of the old bag's remarks. It'd probably be nice to know specifically what triggered the firing, but being completely vague will keep the Palestinian huggers on their toes.

As bad as media coverage of Israel/Palestine has been in the US press, it's actually been getting better in recent years. I'm inclined to credit social media for bringing more awareness to the plight of Palestinians.

 

[Meadmaker]

The right wing taking a quick break from caring about "cancel culture" to get a journalist fired from the AP for supporting Palestine.

Let's just wait for Bari Weiss to get outraged over this censorship, shall we?



https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Emily-Wilder-Associated-Press-Israel-Palestine-AP-16192391.php



It's almost as if the accusations of cancel culture is a blatantly cynical, bad-faith smokescreen. The traditional gatekeepers of power and discourse have no intention of giving up their own censorious power, they just resist anyone else ever acquiring the same.

ETA: There is probably few other issues that have as consistently lead to people being blacklisted, fired, or otherwise silenced than speaking out against Israel or in support of Palestine in the last few decades. It's very telling that on this undeniable example of system wide censorious conduct, the people frothing at the mouth about "cancel culture" have very little to say. The silence speaks volumes. They don't oppose "cancel culture", they just oppose changes in who gets a say in what's acceptable discourse.

Definitely an example of cancel culture.

In my humble opinion, people should be judged on their job based on what they do on their job. This kind of thing is very, very, bad, regardless of what direction (left, right, or not easily definable) that it comes from.

I didn't read what she said, because I don't really care. She said it before she was hired.

 

[d4m10n]

There is probably few other issues that have as consistently lead to people being blacklisted, fired, or otherwise silenced than speaking out against Israel or in support of Palestine in the last few decades.

It would be convenient, IMO, if we had a sort of shorthand phrase for the process of gathering people together to make that highlighted bit happen to individuals who've transgressed some norm or another, and the culture which normalizes said process.

 

[Stout]

I really do find it baffling that males presume to opine in this fashion. For example, in this thread, some males are expressing the opinion that this paragraph in a book is appropriately and accurately viewed by females as a threat to their personal safety that merits removing a person from employment. Simultaneously, some of those very same posters opine in a different thread expressing the opinion that females who are concerned about voyeurism, flashing, and sexual assault in changing rooms and prisons are hysterical, overreacting, fearmongering, and full of hate.

Make it make sense.

Also of concern is the sexist assumption that only women were signatories to the letter condemning Garcia-Martinez. There had to be a sizable amount of those signatories from the bepenised camp Whether they signed out of genuine concern or piety to the corporate culture is an interesting question as nobody, anywhere want's a note from the diversity department on their file.

Now what Garcia-Martinez wrote may serve as a caution to those who might consider hooking up with Garcia-Martinez should such a distopian situation arise. A caution that this guy is going to expect you to pull your weight rather than just escort you to some safe space while you listen to ASMR and play with puppies until somebody makes it all go away and returns the world to it's former pumpkin spice brand of stability.

Maybe it's just me but is anybody else picturing an Apple employee screaming "I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE EATEN ! while a ravenous zombie horde approaches he/she/they from all sides ? If not, then you do now.

 

[autumn1971]

Essentially, you're arguing that blatant and outright demeaning sexism is acceptable as long as it's from someone who makes them a lot of money... but a mildly hyperbolic paragraph in a book several years prior makes employees legitimately feel "unsafe" and therefore is a good, solid, well-thought out reason to terminate someone.

Financially, yes.
I’m not saying it’s right, but at least some sexism is seen as troublesome.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Still surprised that Mark Wahlberg has never gotten cancelled. Yes, the incidents were in the 80s - but there were at least 4 incidents - mostly violent, all seemingly racial.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It would be convenient, IMO, if we had a sort of shorthand phrase for the process of gathering people together to make that highlighted bit happen to individuals who've transgressed some norm or another, and the culture which normalizes said process.

Sure, but this has very little to do with social media and is by no means novel. Unless you're accepting my assertion that cancel culture is a term that is broad to the point of meaninglessness.

I've never denied there are now, and have been, censorious forces at work in our discourse. I just take issue with the baseline premise of "cancel culture" that it is somehow novel or particularly unique to the internet era. I very much doubt that this journalist was fired based on the complaints of decentralized internet randos. Very much the opposite, I think she was fired because she spoke against an orthodoxy enforced by powerful interests in often opaque ways.

Journalists and academics having their careers torpedoed for crossing the wrong powerful people and institutions is a very old problem.

Baris Weiss, a signatory of the Harper's letter decrying cancel culture, is unapologetic about her history of attempting to silence anti-Israel voices in academia. Her complaints about cancel culture are just crocodile tears.

 

[autumn1971]

Right. I think this is all about virtue signaling and making meaningless public gestures in that pursuit.

Cancel culture IRL in other words.

No, it’s about money and the cost of social opprobrium.

Same as it has been from time literally immemorial.

There is nothing new or different about human behavior; I am truly amazed that so many here are surprised by it.

 

[d4m10n]

I very much doubt that this journalist was fired based on the complaints of decentralized internet randos.

We may never know the internal deliberations at the AP, but I find it difficult to imagine internet randos were out of the loop when the headline literally describes an "uproar over tweets."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/05/20/emily-wilder-associated-press-palestine/

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We may never know the internal deliberations at the AP, but I find it difficult to imagine internet randos were out of the loop when the headline literally describes an "uproar over tweets."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/05/20/emily-wilder-associated-press-palestine/

There was an uproar, but was that the cause? Hard to say for sure.

Taking an anti-Israel stance has been career poison for a very long time, including well before whatever era of "cancel culture" we may be living in. I see no reason to assume a bunch of conservative freaks getting worked up on social media actually had much impact on this decision.

 

[pgwenthold]

One thing about Dre that sets him apart is he’s presumably using Twitter to sell headphones and not to air out his personal moral views on controversial social issues

My Beats wireless headphones are absolutely the best wireless headphones I have ever had (and I've tried a ton of them). They fit comfortably, they connect well with my fitbit, even when it's on my left wrist (I've had a lot of headphones that can't make a good connection with the fitbit on my left because the sensor is on the right), and they sound quality is excellent. The only thing it lacks is a clip to connect it to be back of my collar to keep the cord from drifting, but it's generally heavy enough to not be much of a problem.

That's all I know about Dr. Dre.

 

[Cain]

I very much doubt that this journalist was fired based on the complaints of decentralized internet randos. Very much the opposite, I think she was fired because she spoke against an orthodoxy enforced by powerful interests in often opaque ways.

I have not followed the story closely, but from what I've read, the offending Tweets were initially flagged by Stanford Republicans (where the woman went to school and protested against Israel). Not exactly Internet randos; there was some coordination (ETA: I see the greyed WaPo link; that's what I read earlier).

It is instructive to compare the situation to the one with Gina Carano. Mouse apologists in that case said Disney is traditionally very strict when it comes to image. Well, so is the Associated Press. They want to protect their brand of non-biased reporting.

Given the politics of Hollywood and people in the entertainment industry, it's easy to see why conservatives would say the powers that be were itching to can her. Moreover, in Carano's case it wasn't one thing, but a combination of things. If nothing else, the firing of this journalist is probably more justifiable since the tweets were at least job-related.

 

[pgwenthold]

Definitely an example of cancel culture.

I agree, by any reasonable definition, it is.

And, in fact, that's not my concern. Call it "cancel culture" all you want. I don't care.

But what this shows is that "cancel culture" is just fine for the GOP if it's the right people getting cancelled. It's not "cancel culture" they don't like, it's that their brand of racists and bigots are getting cancelled. Of course, we know that. See Dixie Chicks, etc.

And if they'd just come out and admit it, we could move on. But no, there is this huge pretense that this thing called "cancel culture" is terrible. Nope, it's just your folks are getting cancelled.