• 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.

Cancel culture IRL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Perhaps.
I have similar consideration for the opinions and behaviors of entertainers (including athletes) when they are not directly engaged in the process of entertaining me.

I do not care a whit if an actress who makes me laugh enjoys torturing animals, or a talented center for a basketball team I watch plays his games on work-release from prison for molesting children.
These are not people whom I know. They are people manufacturing a product (my entertainment) and that is completely separate from the total strangers they are to me IRL.
Further, I believe it to be a stupid habit to give consideration to the opinions and actions of these strangers by anyone. A habit that should not be dignified with a response.
Click to expand...

Luckily for us, people who express a different opinion on the subject do warrant a response.
 
d4m10n said:
Why exactly should we assent to this arrangement? It seems to empower corporations at the expense of employees, typically for the sake of ideological or moral conformity.
Click to expand...

You would have to ask the people who assent to this arrangement.

Having used yourself as the sole reference point, you've convinced me not to stand up for you.
Click to expand...

But I’m sure the poor beleaguered millionaires you are standing up for really appreciate it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh come on. Nobody is being "canceled" for things like showing ankle or not having sex through a hole in the sheet like it's the 1940s. In Amish Country. The Conservative Part of It.

These aren't "morality causes" they are "Holy **** how is it that it's 2021 and you still don't get this" level of complaints, almost repeated, almost away for people who don't even try to open a dialog and dig their heels in and act like that can even understand what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...

You’ll notice that no one is actually going to defend Carano’s behavior.

No one is actually going to make an argument that Disney was obligated to extend her contract.

It’s all a bunch of “I don’t like it!” arm-waving and vague complaints about freedom.
 
JoeMorgue said:
How does society move forward when being wrong has no consequences?
Click to expand...

The way it always has. Funeral by funeral.
Most people don't change much, but their kids being raised in an environment with new ideas will be on average different than their parents.

I suppose the new ideas their kids pick up aren't always a step "forward" and even when they are it isn't 100% transmitted, but that's how we integrated stuff like accepting that the sun doesn't go around the earth and that Semmelweis was on to something with that handwashing schtick.

Eventually you and I will be old and wrong about most things and our grandchildren or failing that, the kids who throw eggs at our houses will have slightly better ideas about some things. Maybe they'll be free range eggs.
 
Distracted1 said:
Everything has consequences.
Getting fired because some idiots can't stand that one has a viewpoint that disagrees with theirs should not be one of them.
Click to expand...

There are viewpoints we shouldn't stand.

No I don't want to play "Define the line" with you.
 
JoeMorgue said:
How does society move forward when being wrong has no consequences?
Click to expand...

Because Disney deciding they no longer want Gina Carana on their show is exactly the same thing as people being blacklisted in the 50s, Joe.

Haven’t you been paying attention?
 
johnny karate said:
It’s hard to take your worker’s rights stance seriously when you’re outraged over a millionaire no longer having her job pretending to shoot laser guns in outer space.
Click to expand...
Where did I express outrage? I have to assume you are projecting.

I am concerned about the general principle here, that we are happily assenting to the idea that corporations ought to vet their employees based on ideological or political expressions made outside of the workplace. Not seeing any reason why that principle would prove to be self-limiting to well-paid employees, nor any reason why it would limit itself to people who express right-wing opinions, given the prior history of Hollywood blacklists.
 
Last edited:
Seeing as how literally ******* everything is a "political opinion" these complaining about being fired being "political" is functionally the same as saying you should never be fired for anything.
 
Cavemonster said:
The way it always has. Funeral by funeral.
Most people don't change much, but their kids being raised in an environment with new ideas will be on average different than their parents.

I suppose the new ideas their kids pick up aren't always a step "forward" and even when they are it isn't 100% transmitted, but that's how we integrated stuff like accepting that the sun doesn't go around the earth and that Semmelweis was on to something with that handwashing schtick.

Eventually you and I will be old and wrong about most things and our grandchildren or failing that, the kids who throw eggs at our houses will have slightly better ideas about some things. Maybe they'll be free range eggs.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
All the coolest regimes in history were products of the young.
Even the Nazis got the bulk of their support from the young Germans.

It turns out that older people rarely go on witch-hunts. Maybe because they have lived long enough to doubt their own certainty.
 
d4m10n said:
Where did I express outrage? I have to assume you are projecting.

I am concerned about the general principle here, that we are happily assenting to the idea that corporations ought to vet their employees based on ideological or political expressions made outside of the workplace. Not seeing any reason why that principle would prove to be self-limiting to well-paid employees, nor any reason why it would limit itself to people who express right-wing opinions, given the prior history of Hollywood blacklists.
Click to expand...

Of course you’re concerned about the “general principle”. That gives you all sorts of leeway to misrepresent and grandstand.

What you won’t and can’t do is actually deal with the specifics of this particular situation because that would deflate the little bubble of self-righteousness you’ve built for yourself.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Seeing as how literally ******* everything is a "political opinion" these complaining about being fired being "political" is functionally the same as saying you should never be fired for anything.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the "outside the workplace" bit?

johnny karate said:
What you won’t and can’t do is actually deal with the specifics of this particular situation because that would deflate the little bubble of self-righteousness you’ve built for yourself.
Click to expand...
Projection once again. As I said above, I enjoyed the Cara Dune character (nice to see a woman playing the badass fighter for a change) and I've not yet seen a good enough reason to scrub it from the lineup. Thread moves pretty fast, though, I may have missed what that reason was. Still looks like an implicit morality clause (backed up by a Twitter mob) from where I'm sitting.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
And here is where we will simply have to disagree. As a matter of ethics and (on occasion) public policy, I'd prefer our corporate overlords to have somewhat less influence over our off-the-clock behaviour.
Click to expand...

If your public persona was created with heavy investment by your corporate overlord then you can be expect that they will have some influence over your off-the-clock behavior. It is almost as if there could be some sort of relationship between how much your image is tied to the corporations image. As that relationship becomes stronger your freedoms diminish.

If this is a foreign concept to you I suggest an entirely new thread because we are going to have to really break this down into little bites.
 
d4m10n said:
Where did I express outrage? I have to assume you are projecting.

I am concerned about the general principle here, that we are happily assenting to the idea that corporations ought to vet their employees based on ideological or political expressions made outside of the workplace. Not seeing any reason why that principle would prove to be self-limiting to well-paid employees, nor any reason why it would limit itself to people who express right-wing opinions, given the prior history of Hollywood blacklists.
Click to expand...

Its always been that way though as far as when its publicly knowable and can be tied to a particular corporation. Whats news is "joe blow six-pack"can make a facebook post, or tweet, and it can go viral. Whereas before it was limited to public figures. Celebrities dealt with blow back for their opinions many decades ago and usually because they were on the left. Charlie Chaplin struggled to find work for sometime after he dared make fun of this one guy in Germany with a little mustache.

ETA: hell read up on what Henry Ford insisted of his employees even when they were off the clock.

I don't disagree that its worth discussion. I just don't know what the better alternative is? Tribunals setup to decide if someone says something "bad enough" to be "let go" or just not have a contract renewed? If I decide not to renew the contract with my landscaper will I have to prove in court that its because I didn't like his work, not the Trump sticker on his truck?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom