Cancel culture IRL

[ponderingturtle]

"And then cancel culture got wind of" O'Reilly's transgressions and "suddenly" reacted badly? What nonsense. Calls for O'Reilly's firing began with the first disclosure and have never abated; he has always been subject to a steady stream of ridicule by the left. Despite your bizarre analysis that "he failed to keep his sexual harassment a secret for years", only that one single harassment lawsuit and counter-suit vs Andrea Macknis was in the public sphere of awareness until the sudden revelation in 2017 that Fox News had actually settled separate lawsuits with five different women on his behalf. The earliest lawsuit actually pre-dated the Macknis lawsuit, and the most recent one was in 2016. This revealed for the first time a pattern of behavior that persisted long past the Macklin scandal and it was this that proved too much for sponsors to accept.

He was taped wanting to rub falafel on her pussy in the shower. You really talk to your subordinates like that in phone calls? It was a joke, and no one could seriously believe it was a one off event. People who do that don't just do it out of the blue to only one person.

It was known and was a joke, not something anyone thought would seriously cost him his job.

Take a look at this nice public timeline of what was not a big deal in that time when supposedly nothing came up.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/a-timeline-of-bill-oreillys-vileness-114896/

That was the point of me too, that this was not some deep dark secret that it was an open secret and then became a nice example of cancel culture, hell it was even tied into the usage of the word cancel with the whole cancel Cosby thing.

It was me too and its effect against the likes of O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, Louis C.K. and Spacey that created the whole thing of being canceled.

So again the only reason people seem to take issue with including them as victims of cancel culture is that they support cancel culture in those cases and it isn't cancel culture if they support it.

 

[dirtywick]

How do you determine a person's intent? How much confidence do you have in your determination?

By examining the situation for evidence and my confidence would vary depending on the evidence I've found.

The comment I made, in context, is that there are people on social media who are reacting in good faith and bad faith. Although the end result may be the same, I think it's important to recognize the difference between people who are reacting to a situation because they are genuinely bothered or offended in it for different reasons than the ones who are pulling things out of context, doxxing and harassing people, creating videos and drama to drive their own income streams, etc.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why there's so few solutions offered by opponents of cancel culture. Turns out it's actually pretty tough to balance free markets and free speech when the interests of each is opposed to one another. Especially when the main opponents to cancel culture are the right, which are trying to protect their brand of pro business, pro freedom, pro capitalism at any cost.

Then of course trying to cancel coke or MLB for making a statement against voter suppression. It isn't like they like free speech at all, it is far more about the content of the speech and if it furthers their agenda that any support for general speech principles.

 

[dirtywick]

Then of course trying to cancel coke or MLB for making a statement against voter suppression. It isn't like they like free speech at all, it is far more about the content of the speech and if it furthers their agenda that any support for general speech principles.

I agree and also there's a component of politicians and pundits not wanting to get address it because it's a great distraction. "Look who the left is going after now, and it could be you next" is a pretty timeless right wing reactionary headline.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

One thing is for sure, before the whole advent of the internet and cancel culture, showbiz wasn't hyper-vigilant when it came to actor's public image and how it impacted the bottom line of entertainment products. /s

It's laughable to suggest that Carano got fired because of "cancel culture". The Mouse has been a strict taskmaster since well before the internet era, and any actor that wasn't filling the desired personality as specified, on or off screen, gets shown the door.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One thing is for sure, before the whole advent of the internet and cancel culture, showbiz wasn't hyper-vigilant when it came to actor's public image and how it impacted the bottom line of entertainment products. /s

It's laughable to suggest that Carano got fired because of "cancel culture". The Mouse has been a strict taskmaster since well before the internet era, and any actor that wasn't filling the desired personality as specified, on or off screen, gets shown the door.

Hell they canceled Bobby Driscoll for a case of acne right after he was the star behind peter pan. Puberty has always been the death knell of careers at Disney.

 

[Checkmite]

So again the only reason people seem to take issue with including them as victims of cancel culture is that they support cancel culture in those cases and it isn't cancel culture if they support it.

Literally the only reason anyone could mistake O'Reilly for being a "victim of cancel culture" is because of when he happened to finally get fired. He was under the public outrage gun for years.

The first time I personally joined the chorus that O'Reilly deserved to be fired was in 2007 when he stated on his show that child kidnapping victim Shawn Hornbeck, who had been held captive by a pedophile for over four years, must've never tried to escape "because he liked not having to go to school".

There was nothing "special" about the social media reaction to that specific incident versus any more recent incident. It was the career volume that did O'Reilly in.

 

[ahhell]

But when you agree with say Mel Gibson being canceled for talking about how Jews started all the wars in the world, then that is cancel culture.

And that is the point, it is a continuum were there are cases that everyone agrees with, to cases few people agree with. We can debate the merits of individual cases but that does not make them distinct at a fundamental level from the same thing happening only we agree with it.

Having issues with the star of the show because you are bigoted against his sister seems a fairly straight forward reason for someone being fired even when they are actually fired, instead of just not written into the next season as a recurring guest star. But clearly that is totally immoral or something now.

This is reasonable, but them I'm not exactly pulling my hair out over cancel culture, I am however, concerned about the appearance of a greater censoriousness on the left. That I grant, is played up and exaggerated by the right of political points.

There is another aspect of this you bring up though. I think her bigotedness is greatly exaggerated. I think that is pretty much inargueable. The bit about the NAZI's just wasn't anti-semitic as she was accused and the beep/bop/boop is much more about the performative posturing of non-trans folks. Her feelings regarding trans women in MMA are entirely reasonable.

I think Commies have terrible destructive dangerous ideas, especially in the cold war when the were mostly on the side of Stalin, I still think the blacklist was terrible too.

Edit to add, its not like Mel Gibson has actually gotten cancelled either. He still gets parts. As I mentioned earlier, its mostly just the powerless and not famous that actually get cancelled.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I possibly on wrong on one thing so....no need to actually answer. So, what actually happened then?

According to her Disney actually asked her to issue an apology written by Disney and she refused. She issued her own apology and was removed from the promotional tour for the show.

So, this was not a one time thing that she was not aware that they would be taking seriously. According to her own version of the tale she was warned that her actions could impact her career and yet she did not stop them.

Her co-stars have different versions of what happened but that becomes a he-said she said, so I'll stick to her version.

When you work for the House of Mouse you just can't be that stupid.

 

[d4m10n]

It is still cancel culture as it fits exactly the description of it, the only change is that for some reason you are now supporting canceling people like O'Reily and Spacey.

Has anyone here argued that O'Reilly or Spacey were terminated as the result of cancel culture run amok? If not, why should those of us who freely admit some cancellations are worthwhile find those specific examples instructive?

 

[dirtywick]

Has anyone here argued that O'Reilly or Spacey were terminated as the result of cancel culture run amok? If not, why should those of us who freely admit some cancellations are worthwhile find those specific examples instructive?

It would be helpful in understanding how you're determining what's worthwhile and what isn't and how those reasons don't apply to the many examples you've cited when talking about how harmful cancel culture is. What is unique to you about O'Reilly or Spacey that makes them valid targets?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Has anyone here argued that O'Reilly or Spacey were terminated as the result of cancel culture run amok?

Nice goalpost moving there, it is not if they were terminated as a result of cancel culture anymore but cancel culture run amok. We have once again done exactly what I said, it isn't the mechanism that anyone has a real issue with, but debate about the effects on specific targets.

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to her Disney actually asked her to issue an apology written by Disney and she refused. She issued her own apology and was removed from the promotional tour for the show.

So, this was not a one time thing that she was not aware that they would be taking seriously. According to her own version of the tale she was warned that her actions could impact her career and yet she did not stop them.

Her co-stars have different versions of what happened but that becomes a he-said she said, so I'll stick to her version.

When you work for the House of Mouse you just can't be that stupid.

I am still wondering why no one is outraged about a guy losing millions for drinking a soda. That seems far more egregious than her case, where is the outrage for that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is Liz Cheney now a victim of cancel culture?

 

[ahhell]

Is Liz Cheney now a victim of cancel culture?

I would say yes. As I've mentioned, she did the one thing you can't do among the current republicans. She'll be replaced by a lickspittle who is a much more squishy trumpist when it comes to voting records.

I am still wondering why no one is outraged about a guy losing millions for drinking a soda. That seems far more egregious than her case, where is the outrage for that?

Seems obvious to me, in the one case, it is directly related to the job he's being paid for, in the other not so much. Just saying things the management didn't like. Its not like they didn't know she was a conservative when they hired her.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seems obvious to me, in the one case, it is directly related to the job he's being paid for, in the other not so much. Just saying things the management didn't like. Its not like they didn't know she was a conservative when they hired her.

He wasn't being paid to represent coke at that press conference though. That was all about being an athlete not a coke spokesperson. But he seen publicly doing something off brand, and that cost him his job. Rather exactly like Gina Carano claims happened to her. But clearly a job can only dictate what you are allowed to drink in any situation not what groups you can be bigoted against. And it didn't even cost her anything, it just prevented getting written into future shows.

 

[ahhell]

He wasn't being paid to represent coke at that press conference though. That was all about being an athlete not a coke spokesperson. But he seen publicly doing something off brand, and that cost him his job. Rather exactly like Gina Carano claims happened to her. But clearly a job can only dictate what you are allowed to drink in any situation not what groups you can be bigoted against.

I would suspect he some line in his contract to the effect, "...don't be seen in public drinking anything but coke." Again, the one is directly related to what he was being paid to do, sell coke. The other not so much. It also doesn't help that Disney is fine with actual genocide but say something off brand in the US and you get canned.

And it didn't even cost her anything, it just prevented getting written into future shows.

Seems like that sentence directly contradicts itself.

 

[Armitage72]

When you work for the House of Mouse you just can't be that stupid.

The bigger a company is, the more protective they are of their brand and the more concerned they are about their employees hurting that brand. Just look at Food Network, for example.
Paula Deen gone after racist statements were made public.
Lenny McNab, a chef who was about to get his own show after winning Next Food Network Star, getting his contract terminated after racist, homophobic, and misogynistic blog posts were discovered, including attacks on another Food Network chef who was a lot more established and profitable than him.
A competitor on Next Food Network Star once got flustered and swore during a challenge. Bobby Flay told him "If you curse on live TV, you'll embarrass the network and you'll be done in this industry."

 

[d4m10n]

It would be helpful in understanding how you're determining what's worthwhile and what isn't and how those reasons don't apply to the many examples you've cited when talking about how harmful cancel culture is.

Not as helpful as discussing the edge cases, where reasonable people may differ.

What is unique to you about O'Reilly or Spacey that makes them valid targets?

Among other things (such as power, prestige, and wealth) these two engaged in flagrantly unlawful and unethical conduct. Contrast w/ Justine Sacco, who made a joke which ought to have been seen as mocking people who revel in ignorance and privilege, or with Adria Richards who pointed out a violation of a tech conference code of conduct, or with Kroger Andy who failed to go above and beyond store policy in order to appease an activist with a significant Twitter following, or with Gelato Andy who was openly bigoted against atheists for maybe ten minutes before thinking better of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

By examining the situation for evidence and my confidence would vary depending on the evidence I've found.

The comment I made, in context, is that there are people on social media who are reacting in good faith and bad faith. Although the end result may be the same, I think it's important to recognize the difference between people who are reacting to a situation because they are genuinely bothered or offended in it for different reasons than the ones who are pulling things out of context, doxxing and harassing people, creating videos and drama to drive their own income streams, etc.

I don't know that the difference is material to the target.

On the one hand, yes, there are certainly malicious people who are manipulating information for their personal gain. Those people cause harm to their targets, because they care more about their benefit than they do about the effect on other people.

On the other hand, yes, there are certainely people who are genuinely offended (whether for themselves or on behalf of some archetype). Those people cause harm to their targets because they care more about voicing their opinions and being on the "right side" than they do about the effect on other people.

On the gripping hand... I rarely see any similar sort of grace being extended to the targets of such behavior. If there is a distinction being drawn between pile-on-ers who are genuinely offended and pile-on-ers who are doing it for their own gain... why is there not also a distinction to be drawn between people who express an opinion that intentionally hurts someone's feelings and someone who expresses an opinion that unintentionally hurts someone's feelings?

Let's add in a left foot here, just to round things out: Why is it acceptable that the targets, whether their expressions were intentionally hurtful or not, experience real harm - loss of livelihood, mental and emotional trauma from harassment, doxxing, threats, etc... But it is considered beyond the pale that some people might have their feelings rubbed wrong?