• 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:
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"?
Click to expand...

Once again, you seem to be under the impression that Gina Carano is entitled to her job, and to have her contract renewed.
 
Distracted1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's been an era where a supporting actor for a family friendly and VERY big money brand could make a series of public facing, highly charged political statement and not have reason to fear for their continued employment.

The tech differences are that:

1) She had the platform of Twitter to make her statements and in the past she might have needed to wait for an interview for some publication.

2) The reaction could come quicker and people could be more easily engaged in the reaction through the same media, and the company had more of a real time guage of public reaction.

The cultural difference might be that:

3) The particular kind of content that was deemed innappropriate is particular to this moment in history.

In this case, it just seems like such a similar situation to older norms. The fact that feedback could come quicker through twitter doesn't seem to really effect the outcome.

This looks to me like an instance of newer tools being used in a way that's not particularly different from older tools.
 
Cavemonster said:
I'm not sure there's been an era where a supporting actor for a family friendly and VERY big money brand could make a series of public facing, highly charged political statement and not have reason to fear for their continued employment.

The tech differences are that:

1) She had the platform of Twitter to make her statements and in the past she might have needed to wait for an interview for some publication.

2) The reaction could come quicker and people could be more easily engaged in the reaction through the same media, and the company had more of a real time guage of public reaction.

The cultural difference might be that:

3) The particular kind of content that was deemed innappropriate is particular to this moment in history.

In this case, it just seems like such a similar situation to older norms. The fact that feedback could come quicker through twitter doesn't seem to really effect the outcome.

This looks to me like an instance of newer tools being used in a way that's not particularly different from older tools.
Click to expand...
So we are talking about the same thing.
What "highly charged political statement" are we talking about?

The Godwin?
Very, very, very, weak if so.
Considering the number of people who would actually be bothered by that (without being told that they are supposed to be in order to meet an ideological standard) as a proportion of the population, I think it is the ability the technology has given them to be more of a bother thatn their numbers would have made them in previous years that caused Disney to make their move.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
What are you talking about?
We worked out that no one is "entitled" to their job pages ago.
Click to expand...

You're the one JAQing off about Gina not having her contract renewed. She apparently violated the terms of her contract, she was warned about it. ignored the warnings, and her contract was not renewed.

You seem to think this was wrong, and that Gina is entitled to her job.
 
johnny karate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your point was that the end result is the same. It isn't.

Like with most things it is the scale that is hard to grasp. Social media uses algorithms that feed into peoples' outrage. They do it millions of times a second, 365 days a year. That's why events that happen in any backwater town can become a global viral phenomenon. The articles are written to cause outrage and then fed to the people they will outrage.

Back in the day there was a half page in the local newspaper for world events. If you lived in Butt****, Montana you never heard what was going on outside your community unless you went looking. Subscribing to a national paper for instance. And certainly no one heard that some school principle wouldn't let a girl hang her boobs out for everyone to enjoy in your little town or that Taylor Swift got triggered because of a joke on a TV show.

Now every one of those articles written to achieve maximum outrage and is spoon fed to everyone in the world who is even remotely likely to become outraged by it.
 
Shalamar said:
Damned if I know. I'm not party to the contract. Ask Disney/Lucasfilm.
Click to expand...
As a skeptic, how can you make factual claims about the terms of the contract if you've no idea which terms you're talking about? Are we simply supposed to assume that the corporation in question is giving us unspun and unvarnished truth?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
As a skeptic, how can you make factual claims about the terms of the contract if you've no idea which terms you're talking about? Are we simply supposed to assume that the corporation in question is giving us unspun and unvarnished truth?
Click to expand...

I did add the word 'apparently'. For all I know, Disney /lucasfilm simply didn't want a conspiracy theorist and jackass on their payroll who also compared to conservatives to victims of the holocaust.

Apparently she was warned about her activities, chose to ignore it, and her contract was not renewed.
 
Shalamar said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not cancel culture despite what Fox Says, The director all on his own with no prompting decided to strip the bunny of her femininity then masculanize and infantalize her to send the message that a woman with boobs can't be taken seriously.

If he really wanted to be progressive, he would have made her a transwoman and shown her kicking cis girl's asses to send a message of empowerment to whoever watches movies like this.
 
d4m10n said:
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?
Click to expand...

This was also a citizen on citizen attack, there was none of this speaking truth to power where the little people are wielding influence to get the big bad corporate meanies to change their ways.

By shifting the definition of cancel culture to what Fox News tells them it is then it's quite a bit easier to avoid the massive amount of little guy on little guy that goes on with cancel culture.

Did anybody actually read that yoga studio story from a few pages back and do a where are they now search ? Do that and you come away with a story that would make Wall Street corporate raiders green with envy.
 
Stout said:
That's not cancel culture despite what Fox Says, The director all on his own with no prompting decided to strip the bunny of her femininity then masculanize and infantalize her to send the message that a woman with boobs can't be taken seriously.

If he really wanted to be progressive, he would have made her a transwoman and shown her kicking cis girl's asses to send a message of empowerment to whoever watches movies like this.
Click to expand...

... uh-huh..

*backs away slowly*
 
Shalamar said:
For all I know, Disney /lucasfilm simply didn't want a conspiracy theorist and jackass on their payroll who also compared to conservatives to victims of the holocaust.
Click to expand...
It's too bad she didn't reach for the Cultural RevolutionWP, IMO. (At least conservatives were actually targeted.)
 
Distracted1 said:
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"?
Click to expand...

She used her platform as a celebrity to mock wearing a mask during a deadly pandemic.

Is this behavior you’d like to defend?
 
d4m10n said:
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?
Click to expand...

What happened doesn’t meet the definition of “cancel culture” that you provided and yet you still referred to it as “cancel culture”.

You need to account for that or admit that you’re not making good faith arguments.
 
qayak said:
Your point was that the end result is the same. It isn't.

Like with most things it is the scale that is hard to grasp. Social media uses algorithms that feed into peoples' outrage. They do it millions of times a second, 365 days a year. That's why events that happen in any backwater town can become a global viral phenomenon. The articles are written to cause outrage and then fed to the people they will outrage.

Back in the day there was a half page in the local newspaper for world events. If you lived in Butt****, Montana you never heard what was going on outside your community unless you went looking. Subscribing to a national paper for instance. And certainly no one heard that some school principle wouldn't let a girl hang her boobs out for everyone to enjoy in your little town or that Taylor Swift got triggered because of a joke on a TV show.

Now every one of those articles written to achieve maximum outrage and is spoon fed to everyone in the world who is even remotely likely to become outraged by it.
Click to expand...

No, the results are the same. If a letter-writing campaign lead to a boycott of a business 50 years ago, that boycott is no different than the one that would occur today as a result of a social media campaign. A boycott is a boycott. It’s not like social media makes it a “nuclear” boycott.
 
Distracted1 said:
Nor is using hyperbolic click-bait terms to define largely innocuous opinions.
Click to expand...

She mocked wearing masks during a deadly pandemic. Nice to know you think that’s “innocuous”. Makes it pretty clear where you’re coming from on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom