Cancel culture IRL

[johnny karate]

And do you think that was a good thing?

Does it need to be for it to be a valid point?

Because no one is arguing “This has always existed and therefore it is good”, the argument is “This has always existed and you suddenly being worried about it seems disingenuous”.

Wokescolds would rather address the former because they have no legitimate response to the latter.

 

[johnny karate]

Is Kaepernick one of the right people or the wrong ones?

Wokescolds always bring up Kaepernick as some kind of slam-dunk counter argument, as if his life was destroyed. It wasn’t. He’s gone from just another player in the NFL to the face of a social movement, which has granted him prestige, an outpouring of support, and access to opportunities he did not have before.

That doesn’t make what happened to him right, but it does show the self-correcting nature of these things.

If “cancel culture” comes for you and actually does irreparable harm to your life, more than likely it’s because you’re a terrible person who did something terrible.

 

[HansMustermann]

Why does this matter, though?

Until it's supported that such a group is different from other groups, and in a relevant way (e.g., in the same way that an Al Qaeda cell is different from your average cat fancier group), yeah, the whole point is that it doesn't actually matter what group originated it, or what group (among others) does it.

I think it's interesting that the phrase "cancel culture" appears to have been originally popularized within a particular subculture, but it doesn't actually tell us too much.

I don't think it's interesting or telling us anything at all, except in some historian kind of way. Drawing any conclusion at all, but ESPECIALLY about its morality or value, based on how something originated is literally the genetic fallacy.

I mean, for example, chemotherapy has its origins in the mustard gas used in WW1 -- which was an absolutely horrible weapon -- but it saves a hell of a lot of lives, so it's a good thing.

 

[HansMustermann]

Human have always done this, so it's no big deal. Not worth talking about.

You know what else isn't new? Racism, sexism, murder, slavery, thievery... Yep, it's nothing new, why would we ever bother to spend any time talking about those things and the negative impact they have on people and society as a whole?

You know what else isn't new? Dumb false analogies for appeal to emotion sake, lying about what actually happened, etc

 

[JoeMorgue]

We are now firmly in the "Oh no YOU were the one who originally made a big deal out of, not me" gaslighting stage of the discussion.

 

[Thermal]

Does it need to be for it to be a valid point?

Because no one is arguing “This has always existed and therefore it is good”, the argument is “This has always existed and you suddenly being worried about it seems disingenuous”.

Wokescolds would rather address the former because they have no legitimate response to the latter.

Its not that it was always fine; it was never ok. Increasing the quantity without increasing the quality is nothing to cheer about.

 

[dirtywick]

Wokescolds always bring up Kaepernick as some kind of slam-dunk counter argument, as if his life was destroyed. It wasn’t. He’s gone from just another player in the NFL to the face of a social movement, which has granted him prestige, an outpouring of support, and access to opportunities he did not have before.

That doesn’t make what happened to him right, but it does show the self-correcting nature of these things.

If “cancel culture” comes for you and actually does irreparable harm to your life, more than likely it’s because you’re a terrible person who did something terrible.

My thoughts on Kaepernick: He started a huge, national conversation, and due to a few different factors, a lot of people didn't like what he was doing and said so. I didn't agree with them but they're entitled to form their own opinions and vocalize them and I respect that. The NFL reacted the way a business does which is to protect itself and try to retain as many customers as it can. In doing so, it violated the NFLPA, which after trying to cover it up they paid a settlement for doing. They revised their flag and anthem policy and publicly supported athlete protests, and eventually revised their uniform policy so that athletes can make social statements with their apparel as public opinion turned. Kaepernick began a new career as an activist, and the NFL continues to play football games. He actually accomplished some stuff.

But, I don't really have a problem with how any of that went. It sucks that he lost his career over it, but being an NFL QB is as much a PR gig as it is playing ball. He knew that going in. To me it's "wrong" in the sense that I support what he was protesting on a few levels, including the idea that athletes shouldn't have to just "shut up and play" like they aren't allowed to think for themselves, and feel that people should have understood that and supported his choice to speak up. But it's not "wrong" in the sense that people that disagreed with me on that shouldn't have said anything. I support their choice to speak up as much as his, even if I don't agree with the message.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its not that it was always fine; it was never ok. Increasing the quantity without increasing the quality is nothing to cheer about.

I note that this contains two separate assertions, that the quantity has increase and that the quality is the same.

Maybe an actress not getting written into more episodes is a price we have to pay so that three men who chased down and killed a black man for jogging in their neighborhood don't get let go scot-free. Is that worth it? I mean we can already accept that the actress not getting cast in more episodes is equal to at least 100,000 jews getting sent to the gas chamber as cancel culture is just like the nazis.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My thoughts on Kaepernick: He started a huge, national conversation, and due to a few different factors, a lot of people didn't like what he was doing and said so. I didn't agree with them but they're entitled to form their own opinions and vocalize them and I respect that. The NFL reacted the way a business does which is to protect itself and try to retain as many customers as it can. In doing so, it violated the NFLPA, which after trying to cover it up they paid a settlement for doing. They revised their flag and anthem policy and publicly supported athlete protests, and eventually revised their uniform policy so that athletes can make social statements with their apparel as public opinion turned. Kaepernick began a new career as an activist, and the NFL continues to play football games. He actually accomplished some stuff.

But, I don't really have a problem with how any of that went. It sucks that he lost his career over it, but being an NFL QB is as much a PR gig as it is playing ball. He knew that going in. To me it's "wrong" in the sense that I support what he was protesting on a few levels, including the idea that athletes shouldn't have to just "shut up and play" like they aren't allowed to think for themselves, and feel that people should have understood that and supported his choice to speak up. But it's not "wrong" in the sense that people that disagreed with me on that shouldn't have said anything. I support their choice to speak up as much as his, even if I don't agree with the message.

If only he had stuck to more family friendly behavior like domestic violence he would have remained a football star.

 

[d4m10n]

Fair enough. That just leaves racism, murder, and thievery.

I think we can safely assume Emily's Cat opposes all three of these things. Probably this isn't the thread for reviewing her record, though, unless someone is trying to cancel her from ISF for insufficient hand-wringing.

...the argument is “This has always existed and you suddenly being worried about it seems disingenuous”.

Silly argument, IMO. People should feel free to openly address whatever cultural phenomena they happen to find disconcerting at the moment, so long as they aren't causing undue harm by doing so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think we can safely assume Emily's Cat opposes all three of these things. Probably this isn't the thread for reviewing her record, though, unless someone is trying to cancel her from ISF for insufficient hand-wringing.

But of course you can't call people who engage in such things deplorable that is right out.

 

[d4m10n]

To me it's "wrong" in the sense that I support what he was protesting on a few levels, including the idea that athletes shouldn't have to just "shut up and play" like they aren't allowed to think for themselves, and feel that people should have understood that and supported his choice to speak up. But it's not "wrong" in the sense that people that disagreed with me on that shouldn't have said anything. I support their choice to speak up as much as his, even if I don't agree with the message.

I cannot support their choice if they were taking a "shut up and play" approach to Kaepernick, especially if they didn't complain whenever Tebow publicly took a knee.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I cannot support their choice if they were taking a "shut up and play" approach to Kaepernick, especially if they didn't complain whenever Tebow publicly took a knee.

Yeah because those are the same thing and that totally makes sense and that's totally not just whataboutism mixed with random dream logic.

What are you even on about? When Tim Tebow ever get cancelled?

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah because those are the same thing and that totally makes sense and that's totally not just whataboutism mixed with random dream logic.

It does not make sense to me to complain when a player takes a knee to make an ideological point on camera, but it makes even less sense if one complains only when the player in question is making a good point.

(ETA: Thanking a transcendent cosmic mind for one's gridiron performance doesn't strike me as a good point.)

 

[johnny karate]

Its not that it was always fine; it was never ok. Increasing the quantity without increasing the quality is nothing to cheer about.

No one is cheering for that.

 

[Darat]

Sure. Was that a good thing? I'm guessing probably not. So let's up the ante and go global with the same poor idea, right? Bunch of random tweeters are sure to fix that, what with how unerring they are.

That’s a non sequitur to my post.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm going to continue to use the phrase in the 2017 sense, if that's okay with you. I'm also going to discount your claim that "'cancel culture' as a description of the action comes from conservative media" at least until someone comes up with evidence supporting that claim. I've seen her do quite a bit of hand-wringing over sexism, by which I mean the disparate treatment of people on account of sex.

The reason I don't trust your scholarship is, yet again, your first two links don't support your contention each in a different way.

Your own sources show the phrase to have both the recent and negative connotation. Continue with your own special use, but no one is obligated to pretend it is well supported. It isn't 'okay' with me, but you aren't going to stop anyway.

Your reasoning isn't valid so I can't use the kind of citations you demand. I could provide a hundred links, and you'll claim it isn't the common usage. If you don't see that your own sources are in line with my claim, my sources never will.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"LOL whoever said cancel culture was bad? I demand we stop the discussion everyone prove to me that the phrase which has literally only been used in negative ways means something bad."

 

[d4m10n]

The reason I don't trust your scholarship is, yet again, your first two links don't support your contention each in a different way.

What do you think the first two or three posters meant by the phrase "cancel culture" back in 2016-2017 when the phrase hadn't yet been adopted in conservative circles?

I could provide a hundred links, and you'll claim it isn't the common usage.

I doubt you could provide a dozen, seeing as you've provided zero.

"LOL whoever said cancel culture was bad? I demand we stop the discussion everyone prove to me that the phrase which has literally only been used in negative ways means something bad."

Whom are you (mis)quoting?

 

[johnny karate]

I think we can safely assume Emily's Cat opposes all three of these things. Probably this isn't the thread for reviewing her record, though, unless someone is trying to cancel her from ISF for insufficient hand-wringing.

Great, can we also safely assume that acknowledging the concept of “cancelling” existed long before we had a catchy name for it is not necessarily a condonement? Because that seems to be a difficult concept for some people.

Silly argument, IMO. People should feel free to openly address whatever cultural phenomena they happen to find disconcerting at the moment, so long as they aren't causing undue harm by doing so.

No one said you aren’t free to do that, and of course, you absolutely are. Just like the rest of us are free to point out that we think you’re full of **** when you do. Kind of how this whole “free speech” thing works.