Cancel culture IRL

[d4m10n]

How was Kroger Andy “cancelled”?

He was not cancelled, thankfully.

Not every manifestation of _______ culture is a completed _______, as I'm sure you're already aware from other contemporary phrases such as "rape culture."

The amount of straw in this thread is really messing with my allergies.

Ceterizine supplies running low.

It really shouldn't be all that hard to admit that at least some people have been acting in a (more or less) coordinated fashion to stoke moral outrage (i.e. "outrage culture") at specific individuals and to call for organizations to disemploy, deplatform, or divest from those individuals (i.e. "cancel culture") on account of their outrageous speech/actions. Examples abound, after all.

For the sake of discussion about cancellation efforts, it really shouldn't matter whether the phrase "cancel culture" is being more effectively deployed by MSNBC or Fox News. We don't stop caring about falsehoods presented as journalism because conservatives have rebranded "fake news" to mean something else, right?

It also shouldn't matter whether the individuals are being canceled for performing conservative speech (e.g. taking a knee to honor American Jesus) or progressive speech (e.g. taking a knee to protest American police) or some other speech. Whether any given cancellation is warranted shouldn't hinge on partisan politics, per se.

 

[johnny karate]

He was not cancelled, thankfully.

Not every manifestation of _______ culture is a completed _______, as I'm sure you're already aware from other contemporary phrases such as "rape culture."

Weird then that you would start a thread called “Cancel culture IRL” about an incident that doesn’t meet the definition of “cancel culture”.

It’s almost as if the idea of “cancel culture” is based more on feelings than any kind of objective measure.

 

[Cain]

Context:

Squeeegee made a typically daffy comment about impressionable people enjoying Gina Carano on a kids' show and then taking the next step of following her Twitter feed.

I sardonically said that Disney should digitally alter her likeness from their show, which could further protect people from thinking "she's cool" and following all things Gina Carano.

What in the ever-living **** is this stupid straw-man supposed to mean?

It's gently suggesting that you should try to stop being ridiculous.

I said it wasn't clear what was "dangerously racist," and asked you to quote her. You responded:

Sure it isn't.

I suppose that's most straight-forward way of dodging a question.

Why should a stupid person spreading dangerous racist conspiracy theories be more able to spread dangerous racist conspiracy theories than a malicious person spreading the exact same dangerous racist conspiracy theories? Doesn't the actual harm come from the dangerous racist conspiracy theories actually being spread? Especially if the person doing the spreading has a certain degree of cultural caché and thereby an audience who will actually listen to them.

First, if this is so dangerous, then you should probably be calling for state action. Second, again, it's still not clear what's dangerous as you refuse to be clear on what you're referencing.

The difference in intent has been explained without rebuttal. The argument at hand also critically depends on what is so dangerously racist, and you refuse to elaborate. It should be gobsmackingly obvious that stupid people and malicious people, all other things being equal, are not equally dangerous. I do not know how to explain this to a mental five year-old, but it has a lot to do with the meaning of malicious. Moreover, stupid people, or maybe we should say ignorant people, are more easily reformed. Your own stubborn ignorance is a challenge, but I haven't given up hope.

Now, you can insist that not all things are equal because the supporting character on a TV show has a "certain degree of cultural caché." People listen to all kinds of people.

And you still didn't answer the actual question. I can ask it for a third time: "Assuming that there actually is a 'culture war', why is objecting to someone posting antisemitism escalating the culture war while posting antisemitism isn't?"

It's been answered than once. Yet again, there's a difference between intentionally posting something anti-Semitic versus maliciously posting something that's anti-Semitic. Elementary.
We're always going to have bigotry, terrorism, and shoddy comparisons to the Holocaust. As noted previously, "objecting" is doing the heavy-lifting here. Now, are you really so clueless that you can't see the difference between an airhead re(?)tweeting something versus a campaign to get her fired? And that campaign triggers another camp that wants to provide her opportunities (and people undoubtedly hate-scrolling liberal stars' Twitter feeds to find comparisons between Trump and Hitler).

 

[Cain]

On Terminology...

Michael Albert of Z Magazine said calling someone "politically correct" was a way committed activists would mock left-tourists who mouthed fashionable opinions, but did not know or believe what they were saying. It was dismissive: "Yes, that's politically correct." It was pre-"virtue-signaling" before the term was (allegedly) co-opted by right-wingers. I say "allegedly" because it could have arisen independently. Who knows or cares?

Browsing through a lot of these posts, apologists for cancel culture online mobs getting people fired from their jobs are saying "cancel culture" is being used as a cudgel by right-wing hypocrites for political gain. And that's true. Conservatives would cancel even more people if they could -- and proudly call it "capitalism." Bill Maher and Phil Donahue (whilst at MSNBC) were canceled for being patriotically incorrect. At this point, however, debating whether or not the term is coherent, the phenomenon is new, or if anyone is ever technically "canceled" is misdirection.

 

[dirtywick]

He was not cancelled, thankfully.

Not every manifestation of _______ culture is a completed _______, as I'm sure you're already aware from other contemporary phrases such as "rape culture."

Ceterizine supplies running low.

It really shouldn't be all that hard to admit that at least some people have been acting in a (more or less) coordinated fashion to stoke moral outrage (i.e. "outrage culture") at specific individuals and to call for organizations to disemploy, deplatform, or divest from those individuals (i.e. "cancel culture") on account of their outrageous speech/actions. Examples abound, after all.

For the sake of discussion about cancellation efforts, it really shouldn't matter whether the phrase "cancel culture" is being more effectively deployed by MSNBC or Fox News. We don't stop caring about falsehoods presented as journalism because conservatives have rebranded "fake news" to mean something else, right?

It also shouldn't matter whether the individuals are being canceled for performing conservative speech (e.g. taking a knee to honor American Jesus) or progressive speech (e.g. taking a knee to protest American police) or some other speech. Whether any given cancellation is warranted shouldn't hinge on partisan politics, per se.

I’d roughly agree with all that. I think the discussion frequently gets bogged down by some people’s inability to admit that public shaming and boycotts and petitioning businesses are things people did before the internet as well. Cancel culture is a much faster, accessible, and efficient version.

To me the discussion at that point is whether or not any of it is wrong and what to do about it. If you believe that public shaming, boycotts, and petitions to businesses can be justified in any case there’s really not much to talk about except whether it is in individual cases, which isn’t that interesting in my opinion.

 

[Shalamar]

It seems that Conservative have found a new target lost to 'Cancel Culture'.

Lola Bunny.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Zs1xFEV


The whole 'cancel culture' thing is ridiculous.

 

[jnelso99]

Well, if you can’t wank to a children’s cartoon character, you might as well be living in Nazi Germany.

 

[Distracted1]

A lot of people are claiming it is new. That it’s something of modern times. A bit like you are saying.

Whipping up “instant” mobs is what pressure groups have always done. You think those complaining about Tom and Jerry cartoons coincidentally all wrote to the BBC board the same day?

Yes, whipping up a mob, starting a letter-writing campaign, phoning non-stop, etc. are things that have been around for a while.
I was discussing something similar in another thread.

The changes in the speed, volume, and reach of those type of behaviors that have come about with the current technology do make it a "new" thing. The way the detonation of a nuclear bomb created a "new" age. People had been trying to blow up their enemies for as long as there have been people- but the development of the ability to do so instantly- and to such devastating effect- made "nuclear war" something decidedly new.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, whipping up a mob, starting a letter-writing campaign, phoning non-stop, etc. are things that have been around for a while.
I was discussing something similar in another thread.

The changes in the speed, volume, and reach of those type of behaviors that have come about with the current technology do make it a "new" thing. The way the detonation of a nuclear bomb created a "new" age. People had been trying to blow up their enemies for as long as there have been people- but the development of the ability to do so instantly- and to such devastating effect- made "nuclear war" something decidedly new.

That analogy fails in terms of consequences.

Yes, technology has allowed banning and boycott campaigns to occur more easily and rapidly, but the end result is still essentially the same. It hasn’t somehow gone “nuclear”.

 

[tyr_13]

It seems that Conservative have found a new target lost to 'Cancel Culture'.

Lola Bunny.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Zs1xFEV


The whole 'cancel culture' thing is ridiculous.

It would be dumb regardless, but it's also worth pointing out that the Lola Bunny on the left isn't the original design; it's fan art. Fan art that made her crop top shorter and her breasts larger.

The conservatives are not ok.

 

[qayak]

That analogy fails in terms of consequences.

Yes, technology has allowed banning and boycott campaigns to occur more easily and rapidly, but the end result is still essentially the same. It hasn’t somehow gone “nuclear”.

No, it isn't the same. Letter writing campaigns, calls to talk shows, articles in newspapers, etc. are a world away from any social media campaign. First off in the number of people they reach but even more importantly in the time they take. Outrage has a shelf live and for most people it is extremely short. In the past the outrage was gone before the next letter was written, the next talk show scheduled, or the next article published.

The time it used to take for these things put a speed limit on the spread of outrage as well as limiting its scope. Social media has removed those limits. Those limits are what allowed cooler heads, and reason, to prevail in the past.

The speed of social media feeds the outrage but sacrifices on facts, evidence, and truth.

 

[johnny karate]

No, it isn't the same. Letter writing campaigns, calls to talk shows, articles in newspapers, etc. are a world away from any social media campaign. First off in the number of people they reach but even more importantly in the time they take. Outrage has a shelf live and for most people it is extremely short. In the past the outrage was gone before the next letter was written, the next talk show scheduled, or the next article published.

The time it used to take for these things put a speed limit on the spread of outrage as well as limiting its scope. Social media has removed those limits. Those limits are what allowed cooler heads, and reason, to prevail in the past.

The speed of social media feeds the outrage but sacrifices on facts, evidence, and truth.

A) This doesn’t address the point I made.

B) And it’s also not factually supported. If anything, the increased speed of these things happening also applies to the speed at which they blow over and people move on to the next outrage. Remember way back in the mists of time of a couple of weeks ago when “The Muppets” were “cancelled”? Yeah, me either.

 

[johnny karate]

It would be dumb regardless, but it's also worth pointing out that the Lola Bunny on the left isn't the original design; it's fan art. Fan art that made her crop top shorter and her breasts larger.

The conservatives are not ok.

When they came for the over-sexualized images of cartoon rabbits, I said nothing...

 

[Distracted1]

A) This doesn’t address the point I made.

B) And it’s also not factually supported. If anything, the increased speed of these things happening also applies to the speed at which they blow over and people move on to the next outrage. Remember way back in the mists of time of a couple of weeks ago when “The Muppets” were “cancelled”? Yeah, me either.

Indeed, they move by quickly with little time for reflection on the ultimate good or bad of the attempt. Further, as has been argued in this thread, the cancellers themselves are subject to cancellation- as information about their attempts moves so quickly in a kind of "meta" cancellation.
People move from one to the next to the next. Almost as if there is some kind of "cultural" shift taking place.

 

[johnny karate]

Indeed, they move by quickly with little time for reflection on the ultimate good or bad of the attempt. Further, as has been argued in this thread, the cancellers themselves are subject to cancellation- as information about their attempts moves so quickly in a kind of "meta" cancellation.
People move from one to the next to the next. Almost as if there is some kind of "cultural" shift taking place.

Cool What does any of this have to do with, say, Gina Carano?

 

[Distracted1]

Cool What does any of this have to do with, say, Gina Carano?

Gina Cerano?
The young woman that Disney dropped from their television show because they were afraid an intolerant mob of cancellers might impact their profits?

That Gina Cerano?

 

[johnny karate]

Gina Cerano?
The young woman that Disney dropped from their television show because they were afraid an intolerant mob of cancellers might impact their profits?

That Gina Cerano?

No, the Gina Carano that didn’t have her contract renewed by Disney because she repeatedly behaved like a jack ass in public.

The Gina Carano you’re referring to only exists in the fevered imaginations of people who need to use scary-sounding words devoid of factual content to bolster their weak arguments.

 

[Distracted1]

No, the Gina Carano that didn’t have her contract renewed by Disney because she repeatedly behaved like a jack ass in public.

The Gina Carano you’re referring to only exists in the fevered imaginations of people who need to use scary-sounding words devoid of factual content to bolster their weak arguments.

What was the "behavior" that was "like a jackass"?

I already know that it must not be expressing an opinion via social media, because Disney does "fail to renew the contracts of" people for doing that. And since they do not (i have been assured) enforce any type of ideological conformity, it cannot be that the content of a social media post is the reason.

So, What is the "behavior"?

 

[d4m10n]

Weird then that you would start a thread called “Cancel culture IRL” about an incident that doesn’t meet the definition of “cancel culture”

You are free to believe Danielle was not trying to have Andy publicly shamed and corporately sanctioned, if you so choose. Seems to me that was the obvious intent of the original tweet, but hey, who knows?

...public shaming and boycotts and petitioning businesses are things people did before the internet as well. Cancel culture is a much faster, accessible, and efficient version.

Agreed on all that.

If you believe that public shaming, boycotts, and petitions to businesses can be justified in any case there’s really not much to talk about except whether it is in individual cases, which isn’t that interesting in my opinion.

If you believe the use of physical force against individuals can be justified in some cases (as most do) then all that is left to talk about is when it's unjustified in specific cases. It would be nice to formulate a general rule, if possible.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What was the "behavior" that was "like a jackass"?

I already know that it must not be expressing an opinion via social media, because Disney does "fail to renew the contracts of" people for doing that. And since they do not (i have been assured) enforce any type of ideological conformity, it cannot be that the content of a social media post is the reason.

So, What is the "behavior"?

"Expressing an opinion on social media" and "acting like a jackass" are not mutually exclusive.

Using neutral-soundimg euphemisms for inexcusable behavior is, like the primary thread subject, not new.