• 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.
Declaring examples that are inconvenient as just right wingers twisting the definition and only focusing on others is just stacking the deck. In my opinion being against cancel culture in principle is nonsensical, and that the primary opposition of it in principle is frequently doing it themselves highlights that. It’s an important point.
 
Agreed, being against cancel culture in principle is futile and useless since it's something that's existed since forever and always will exist.

It's not stacking the deck if conservatives are't bringing real examples of cancel culture to the table. What can be said about the Seuss and Potatohead examples other than they're not cancel culture. I suppose if you want to use the thread to go....hahaha stupid conservatives it's fair but this thread has been gutted a few times for "off topic" posts so it may be worth starting a Laughing at Conservatives thread instead. :thumbsup:

Here''s one

Race and Inclusion editor fired for racist tweet.
 
Stout said:
Agreed, being against cancel culture in principle is futile and useless since it's something that's existed since forever and always will exist.

It's not stacking the deck if conservatives are't bringing real examples of cancel culture to the table. What can be said about the Seuss and Potatohead examples other than they're not cancel culture. I suppose if you want to use the thread to go....hahaha stupid conservatives it's fair but this thread has been gutted a few times for "off topic" posts so it may be worth starting a Laughing at Conservatives thread instead. :thumbsup:

Here''s one

Race and Inclusion editor fired for racist tweet.
Click to expand...

I mean it’s stacking the deck in the sense that if they’re declaring something as bad, and then doing it themselves, allowing them to say when they do it doesn’t count is just reframing the debate in their favor. I think that should be pointed out every time they do it, especially since some lawmakers are introducing legislation based on their poor arguments.
 
If you've got some examples of conservatives besmirching cancel culture and then indulging in it then post them. Proper cancel culture, not just conservatives whining about companies discontinuing things and calling it cancel culture because they're butthurt.

Here's one.

This article is all over the place but it outlines the cancellation ( forced to resign from her job ) the interviewee received for mistakenly identify nazi imagery tattooed on an ICE agent.

When the Mob Comes
 
dirtywick said:
I don’t find it strange at all. Many people were made aware of its existence by hearing about it in political speeches and lawmakers public addresses, or political pundits monologues. That said, if you don’t want to recognize, or don’t think it’s an interesting point, that those same ACC people listed above will gladly call for or participate in cancellation of people and businesses who oppose their political agendas that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s fair to accuse them of politicization of the issue either.
Click to expand...

In this thread? I don't think that's true.

I think my first exposure to "cancel culture" was probably Brett Weinstein when they were teaching at Evergreen College in WA. So far as I can tell, Weinstein would count as a "leftist". I opposed the treatment they received, and thought it was grossly unjust that they were subjected to such harassment and threats.
 
dirtywick said:
I mean it’s stacking the deck in the sense that if they’re declaring something as bad, and then doing it themselves, allowing them to say when they do it doesn’t count is just reframing the debate in their favor. I think that should be pointed out every time they do it, especially since some lawmakers are introducing legislation based on their poor arguments.
Click to expand...

Who in this thread has done this?
 
As I said I’m not interested in limiting the discussion in that manner. But I’ll continue to read and comment on others as well.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Who in this thread has done this?
Click to expand...

Well I haven’t read the whole thread but nobody recently and I have no interest I. personalizing anything anyway. Many public figures have though and that’s who I was directing that at in the context of the discussion.
 
d4m10n said:
That's an interesting case. Ordinarily I'd say that making a sweeping generalization based on race and sex would (and probably should) be discouraged for those doing HR and/or PR, but on the other hand her job isn't really to make white men feel comfortable and it's just one tweet from her own account on her own time.
Click to expand...

They should have just demoted her and moved her into a position where she doesn't have to work with white men. It does feed into a long held suspicion I've had that those who are the most vocal about anti-racism are themselves racist.

If she's looking for work, I hear Teen Vogue is hiring.
 
dirtywick said:
As I said I’m not interested in limiting the discussion in that manner. But I’ll continue to read and comment on others as well.
Click to expand...

dirtywick said:
Well I haven’t read the whole thread but nobody recently and I have no interest I. personalizing anything anyway. Many public figures have though and that’s who I was directing that at in the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Okay, but that does make the discussion a bit weird. It ends up coming across as if you're dismissing everyone in this thread who has concerns about the reach and effect, and the potential for abuse, of this kind of social-media-amped behavior as being "right wing" and just dismissing them out of hand. There's not really anything in your posts that indicates that you're talking about external actors rather than fellow posters who have broached the subject here.
 
Emily's Cat said:
My general stance is that "Grab the torches and pitchforks" is a bad idea from a social cohesion perspective, even if they're digital torches and text-based pitchforks.
Click to expand...
'Shunning', for want of a better term, has a history of use back even before Charles Cunningham Boycott.
 
smartcooky said:
For me, it is about NOT supporting someone who is reprehensible, or has acted reprehensibly, and not wishing to associate my brand with his.
Click to expand...
This.
I've boycotted shops and suppliers over their stance on a range of issues and informed them of why it was happening. I've encouraged others to act similarly.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sure, within the bounds of basic civility.
Click to expand...

Well, that's pretty much cancel culture, according to some.

If after due consideration I decide I don't like what person X has said or done and I therefore stop buying their wares then I am a woke-a-dope who has bought into the cancel culture without proper consideration. Especially if I have the audacity to let others know about my decision and the reasoning behind it.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Okay, but that does make the discussion a bit weird. It ends up coming across as if you're dismissing everyone in this thread who has concerns about the reach and effect, and the potential for abuse, of this kind of social-media-amped behavior as being "right wing" and just dismissing them out of hand. There's not really anything in your posts that indicates that you're talking about external actors rather than fellow posters who have broached the subject here.
Click to expand...

It does make it a bit weird I agree. There are right wing legislators right now introducing bills to punish companies who are publicly opposing their political agenda in Georgia, publicly warning them to stop or there will be consequences. They are directly attributing this response to cancel culture. This is a real first amendment and free speech issue. How these politicians are using it as cover to abuse their power is interesting to me. The right wing media that enables them to do it is also interesting. The people that are against cancel culture but gladly cheer it on are interesting.

If certain posters in this thread think that doesn’t count or isnt really cancel culture and would rather talk about potential abuse or reach on social media, that’s fine, I don’t want to stop you. I’m just telling you that’s not a topic that interests me as much and that I’m not going to limit myself to discussing it when there’s much more interesting aspects to it happening currently. I’m sorry if I wasn’t as clear abou that as I could have been.
 
catsmate said:
So what? The majority of USAians have stupid opinions about a lot of things. Three quarters of Republicans, for example, believe the lie they've been fed that the 2020 election was "stolen".
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The phrase "Cancel Culture" is designed to be tough and fearful. "There's a Culture that they (you know who they are) have where they crush...kill...Cancel those unlike them!"

Great for a moral panic, but in the end, all you see standard left wingers doing is saying "WWait, why isn't Trump 'cancelling" sports leagues, sugary drinks, and the like? And how are we "canceling" things we never even said anything about, much less organized against?" And the answer is, as I said, it's not a coherently defined term.

ETA: there's no *massive* disagreement that, say, sometimes people are fired unfairly for a social media post, some people who get attacked on Youtube for screaming and howling in public are really just having a mental illness episode and need help - although where these lines are drawn, exactly, is debatable. But adding "culture" to what moves it away from any individual boycott, and into the horrifying idea that there's some unspecified, but clearly *implied* mob that just goes around seeking revenge for petty offenses, something like a volcano god or dragon that can only be appeased through sacrifices or slaughtered - an ascribing of ill will to what are, rally, events that are effectively unrelated when you examine them.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
His wife left him, took the kids and headed back home to China, so, yes I guess.

...

For me, it is about NOT supporting someone who is reprehensible, or has acted reprehensibly, and not wishing to associate my brand with his.

However, I know his bottom line suffered to the tune of $500 - $1000 per month from me alone, and there were several other retailers who did what I did.
Click to expand...

I'm circling back to this. I was pondering last night why your response and your actions bothered me. I don't have any objection to deciding that you don't want to associate with someone because of their behavior or their views, I'm all for it in fact. Freedom of association, belief, etc. is something I value. But your response still left me feeling unsettled and a bit irritated. So I gave it some brain-power and some introspection.

It bothers me, because you took actions to protect your reputation... when your complaint is that the supplier was beating and harming their spouse.

Now, at a glance, that seems okay. What sticks with me and leaves a bit of a bad taste is that you didn't do anything to help the victim. You objected to the supplier causing harm to their spouse... but you didn't get the police involved, you didn't directly confront him, you didn't try to provide the spouse with information and support to leave the supplier and seek a shelter for abuse victims... nothing that actually demonstrates your care for the victim.

Your priority, your focus, was on yourself. Your focus was on not tarnishing your own sterling reputation by being associated with that sort of riff-raff.

You didn't actually care about the well-being and safety of the supplier's spouse. You only cared about how the supplier's reprehensibleness reflected on you and 'your brand'.

You made a decision not to work with that supplier (which I don't actually object to, btw)... but you did nothing to actually address the situation to which you objected so strongly. All you did was signal your virtue.

That the abused spouse eventually managed to leave the supplier is purely coincidental - your actions in no way provided support to the spouse. It could have gone very differently. It just as easily could have resulted in the supplier beating the spouse even more, and potentially killing their spouse, as a result of increased financial pressure.

By your own account... protecting the spouse from abuse, stopping the abuse, changing the supplier's behavior - those weren't your point, those weren't your objective. Your objective was "not associating your brand" with that of the supplier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom