Yep. I saw this thread yesterday when it first started, was at work so was like I do not have time trying to articulate my thoughts, but this puts it well and succinctly.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I don’t think cancel culture exists and we should stop giving the term credence.
- Thread starter Deleted member 42484
- Start date
It's an inevitable part of the "attention economy."
Just like the real economy has defaults and bankruptcies and failed startups, so too does the attention economy bring its own pitfalls. I have no money and I get no attention so I have to live with the consequences of that. No one is forced to participate in the attention economy and if they do they have to be aware that whatever they put out into it is going to return with interest.
Just like the real economy has defaults and bankruptcies and failed startups, so too does the attention economy bring its own pitfalls. I have no money and I get no attention so I have to live with the consequences of that. No one is forced to participate in the attention economy and if they do they have to be aware that whatever they put out into it is going to return with interest.
People drawing attention to something you posted online should be a foregone conclusion in every situation. Period. Don't be surprised when it happens, expect it.
... Unsure if true, contextually. Or, at least, I'm unsure if that's the case all the time. Should people expect that the internet mob will dig up random old tweets from a decade ago that were insensitive, and then push for them to lose their livelihood, even after they try to apologize and make amends? That's basically what happened to James Gunn.
Honestly, automatically when I hear cancel culture my trusto chango brain translates it to 'white grievance'. It's mostly about at the end of the day a certain segment of society wants to continue be able to do what they want without consequence; while other groups had always known that they had to obey certain cultural norms or get 'cancelled'. Black people and hairstyles, queer people keeping their status on the low and stashing their partners in a closet, etc.
Even within that ingroup, I remember the Dixie Chicks being literally banned from country rmusic for a hot take that most of them would agree with now, being against the Iraq War.
People may bring up the internet mob as important part of this so called cancel culture but the internet mob is well, a mob, and it cares less about 'cancelling' than just ruining someone's life in general unless death and rape threats also fall under the 'cancel culture' (not going to touch how the mob doesn't necessarily care about your sociopolitical views, you can just do something like direct a movie a bunch of fans don't like and get the same response as if you said a slur). It's a new tool for the same bullshit that's been happening forever, so to me the only thing that changed is who gets to be the target.
And the fucked up thing is really, the social justice vigilantism that people try to pass as this cancel culture scourge exists because...well it's hard to get someone cancelled isn't it? Not like Mel Gibson didn't drop an Oscar nominated movie a few years back. If lets say sexual harassment claims were actually investigated and dealt with swiftly the internet mob the masses fear wouldn't even have a chance to rally, it would be old news. But here we are. These systems of justice and equality have failed us to the point people are hoping to go plead on the internet to hope they get some justice as as usual in the internet it's a mixed bag. I can't work myself up to one person who may or may not have fairly been accused of sexual assault when we've got thousands of untested rape kits and victims without recourse, and people intentionally not seeing it's effectively the same problem.
Even within that ingroup, I remember the Dixie Chicks being literally banned from country rmusic for a hot take that most of them would agree with now, being against the Iraq War.
People may bring up the internet mob as important part of this so called cancel culture but the internet mob is well, a mob, and it cares less about 'cancelling' than just ruining someone's life in general unless death and rape threats also fall under the 'cancel culture' (not going to touch how the mob doesn't necessarily care about your sociopolitical views, you can just do something like direct a movie a bunch of fans don't like and get the same response as if you said a slur). It's a new tool for the same bullshit that's been happening forever, so to me the only thing that changed is who gets to be the target.
And the fucked up thing is really, the social justice vigilantism that people try to pass as this cancel culture scourge exists because...well it's hard to get someone cancelled isn't it? Not like Mel Gibson didn't drop an Oscar nominated movie a few years back. If lets say sexual harassment claims were actually investigated and dealt with swiftly the internet mob the masses fear wouldn't even have a chance to rally, it would be old news. But here we are. These systems of justice and equality have failed us to the point people are hoping to go plead on the internet to hope they get some justice as as usual in the internet it's a mixed bag. I can't work myself up to one person who may or may not have fairly been accused of sexual assault when we've got thousands of untested rape kits and victims without recourse, and people intentionally not seeing it's effectively the same problem.
Actions have consequences, but if you are the one taking personal responsibility to enforce that consequence, you are part of cancel culture. If you are calling their employers or posting them on social media hoping for a backlash and definitive real world consequences, you are actively taking part in cancel culture. If you now refuse to watch a movie/show, buy a product, listen to a song, or otherwise associate with a person in any way/shape/form based on things they say or do then you are taking part in cancel culture.
Cancel culture is absolutely 100% a thing. I've cancelled dozens of people, from Michael Jackson (child molester) and Bill Cosby (serial rapist) to basically the entire Republican party (just plain evil). These aren't just people I simply don't like. These are people that have done terrible things and are 100% unapologetic. That is my litmus test.
Cancel culture is absolutely 100% a thing. I've cancelled dozens of people, from Michael Jackson (child molester) and Bill Cosby (serial rapist) to basically the entire Republican party (just plain evil). These aren't just people I simply don't like. These are people that have done terrible things and are 100% unapologetic. That is my litmus test.
Last edited:
If an alt-right site like Kiwifarms screenshoted your posts, made fun of you, and then doxxed you and your close ones I don't think you would agree with your post.
Absolutely. If what you're saying is offensive, you should consider not saying it, or be prepared to judged by whomever you said it to. It's kindergarten basic levels of self control. If you said it a group in-person, expect to be judged by the people you told it to and whomever they might tell it to. If you say it on the internet, no matter the platform, expect it to be everyone.
Every post may as well be a billboard next to a highway.
Also, a person as wealthy as James Gunn never lost his livelihood from being fired. They lost a job, but their livelihood was never in question.
That's not even cancelling. But it's absolutely a possibility that I take into account.
James Gunn was able to keep working, but it could've drastically impacted his lifestyle. But that's the most base-level example, right? And I'm using it because it's an example of something that, at the time, wasn't seen as particularly incendiary by the masses, but years and years later, due to the political climate shifting to the left a decent amount, it was seen as decidedly much more problematic.
The general learning experience from all of these sorts of things should be simple: People should post less shit on social media, because it can come back to bite you in the ass.
Despite their constant railing against it, the Right are a huge part of cancel culture now. Any time a famous person speaks out against something they don't like, you immediately see the backlash as their past gets scoured for anything that might be considered even a little bit suspect.
I completely agree. Words matter. What you say can have consequences. When you say it online, everyone can judge it. Everyone should be conscious of it.
I know it's not cancelling. I was just mentioning an extreme situation because of your blanket statement in your previous post. I hope you can understand that sometimes the "mob" can react in unjust ways to the harm that you have caused.
Last edited:
Canceling mostly works when it's a legit legal matter. There's an audience for everything. Remember Shane Gillis, the comedian who got booted off SNL for making racist Asian jokes? His podcast does very well on Patreon and he tours the country just fine.
I miss in the 5 minutes where cancel culture wasn't co opted by people who were getting shit on for being racist
It's still a problem though especially on Twitter
Some loser nobody knows about getting fired for a racist Facebook post doesn't count as "cancellation" to me. You have to be big to get cancelled and very few rich or famous people get "cancelled" to any great or lasting degree. The only person I can think of is Milo Yiannopoulos and since I don't follow his goings ons maybe even he's still doing okay.
Yes it exists. This forum is a smaller example of a larger trend in how online communities mobilize. On Era, when news breaks on an actor, athlete, or musician's problematic behavior - past or present - it may result in threads with a "you're either with us or you're against us" vibe. Or there may be no thread. Depends on the fanbase of the offenders work here.
I think people should get fired for making prejudiced statements and it's often the result of an online movement not unlike what happens here. Just on a larger scale. I would get fired if I said the things on social media actors get "cancelled" for. One problem with the effects of cancel culture is everyone here enjoys the work of an athlete, musician, author, director, podcaster, etc that has done objectively shitty things. But here on Era (and more broadly) an effort is often mobilized to eliminate a conversation all together IF the target's work is not particularly popular in the community.
We can't even have a Chapo thread because they made offensive comments. But Wrestling has a thread. Bill Burr understandably has a divisive thread where he's called "garbage" "can get fucked" and a "piece of shit" for defending Gina Carano, when a thread doesn't even exist to discuss Dwayne Wade defending Nick Cannon. Ginny & Georgia is slammed as sexist, but Conan (who harasses women for laughs) is an institution?
My point isn't to defend Chapo, Burr, Ginny & Georgia, or Conan. I just have a problem with the pretentious and self-righteous mindset when "cancel" news breaks in hopes to eliminate an opposing viewpoint, while ignoring or softly qualifying the same behavior because many on Era are fans.
I think people should get fired for making prejudiced statements and it's often the result of an online movement not unlike what happens here. Just on a larger scale. I would get fired if I said the things on social media actors get "cancelled" for. One problem with the effects of cancel culture is everyone here enjoys the work of an athlete, musician, author, director, podcaster, etc that has done objectively shitty things. But here on Era (and more broadly) an effort is often mobilized to eliminate a conversation all together IF the target's work is not particularly popular in the community.
We can't even have a Chapo thread because they made offensive comments. But Wrestling has a thread. Bill Burr understandably has a divisive thread where he's called "garbage" "can get fucked" and a "piece of shit" for defending Gina Carano, when a thread doesn't even exist to discuss Dwayne Wade defending Nick Cannon. Ginny & Georgia is slammed as sexist, but Conan (who harasses women for laughs) is an institution?
My point isn't to defend Chapo, Burr, Ginny & Georgia, or Conan. I just have a problem with the pretentious and self-righteous mindset when "cancel" news breaks in hopes to eliminate an opposing viewpoint, while ignoring or softly qualifying the same behavior because many on Era are fans.
Last edited:
What does that have to do with "cancel culture?" That's the fault of the organization that hired them. If that's "the problem," then it's entirely up to that organization to rectify it. It's one thing for a bunch of people on Twitter to call out someone for yet-to-be-proven allegations; it's another thing for that person's place of employment to fire them based off of said yet-to-be-proven allegations.
I don't understand why calling it cancel culture is bad?
If you say terrible shit, you should be cancelled.
Why is everyone getting hung up on the terminology?
If you say terrible shit, you should be cancelled.
Why is everyone getting hung up on the terminology?
It has two definitions because people have intentionally muddled it. There's the mob mentality of finding worst possible reading of something/jumping to conclusions and harassing the individual to an insane degree, which is definitely a thing exacerbated by social media, but people have tied it to cases where bigots get rightfully called out and removed from influential positions.
I know...lol at cancel culture being something that happens to Republicans or other people with real socio-political evils.
Just like being called a boomer has nothing to do with your actual age.
"Cancel culture" is using intelligent ignorance to virtue signaling and avoiding people in real life over things that aren't important and only serves to isolate yourself socially, and more important, economically. There are a reason that the people that "cancel" people the most, often talk about how they have no friends in the very next sentence...
"Selective perfection" is a better term, I think. But cancel culture isn't new, and neither is being a boomer. Both groups belittle and concern troll about people who simply disagree on some things that aren't very important in the scope of things.
The fact that we have some people that constantly (and rightfully) say that Fox News is trash...but only Fox News' definition of "cancel culture" (which for them, is the same as fake news)...that's the only real definition. Like...we literally have people that will harass you because if you paid $60 for Super Mario 3D World, you are somehow "ruining gaming". Or people that think you are suspect if you have an American flag outside or inside your house...or don't have one. Or how earning a certain amount of money makes you evil by default. Don't get me started with sports...
You'd be surprised how many people don't want to hang out with you because they find out you are vegan...or not vegan...or find out you like a certain genre of music...or you don't have like a genre of music.
That's the thing...that video is just a response to Fox News talking points and has nothing to do with actual cancel culture. It's something that happens everyday, even before social media. Because you are right...it's almost like no one is "actually" being cancel in some literal sense.
Cancel culture is about real-world behavior where people create "good reasons" (aka intelligent ignorance) to justify them ignoring and isolating themselves from you...and worse, constantly making fun of you and harassing you.
Some of you don't understand there are people that do and say bad things besides politicians and famous people...
Last edited:
Etika and I saw all of that damn nonsense happened here on this very damn forum in real time.
User Banned (3 Days): Inflammatory Generalization
IMO "Cancel culture" is turning into the same thing that "Deep state" already was: a simple way for people with working brains to tell who is full of crap/brainwashed.
If they say it, they are either full of crap, or brainwashed. If you have a working brain, it is meaningless, like "lion banana" or "bleep blorp blurp" or "toboggan tarantula."
If they say it, they are either full of crap, or brainwashed. If you have a working brain, it is meaningless, like "lion banana" or "bleep blorp blurp" or "toboggan tarantula."
People attempting to cancel others based on their actions absolutely happens. These are often called consequences, but in the world of online it's amplified by people digging and spreading.
I often see "well famous person xyz wasn't canceled," and think of course not. Famous people will need significantly more of a crowd trying to cancel to outweigh those who disagree or don't care/unaware.
That's my take on it anyway.
I often see "well famous person xyz wasn't canceled," and think of course not. Famous people will need significantly more of a crowd trying to cancel to outweigh those who disagree or don't care/unaware.
That's my take on it anyway.
Do you say that when you say Black Lives Matter and they say "but all lives matter"?
That's the point...the people who are actually saying and doing terrible shit aren't being canceled, because we have loser slacktivists who believe that saying some snarky comment on social media makes them go away...when in fact those people are total isolated from any damage.
It's like some of you ONLY know about things some celebrity or politician said that Fox News told you about...there is a whole world outside of cable TV and if you knew that, you'd see some content creator getting dogpiled on because doing some dance wrong is culture appropriation or how buying Pokemon Sword and Shield makes you a corporate scumbag that always gives rich people a pass. Or how styling your hair a certain way is caving in to some white man's beauty standards.
Who can forget those evil women exercising on Instagram, that so many people here were outraged about! How dare they wear tight clothing and work, while being attractive...setting back the REAL hardworking women out there! How dare they accept endorsement deals and allow people to give them money on Patreon or Onlyfans! If your looks are any more than 0.000000000001% of the reason someone gives you money, then you are hurting feminism!
Let me tell you about the time someone told me that buying a bacon, egg & cheese sandwich at a restaurant from Manhattan is stealing the culture of PoC (who apparently invented all breakfast sandwiches)...or how someone is uncomfortable meeting me or talking to me because they saw me eating "white people shit" (I thought that an eel and cucumber sushi roll was from Japanese cuisine but what do I know?)
Who can forget when people tried to "cancel" the Coco movie from Disney because NO WAY COULD ACTUAL MEXICAN PEOPLE LIKE IT!
Someone brought up The Chicks...because a few country music establishments stopped playing your music...how about all the other people that would never support you...because you perform country music! No matter how liberal you are...let's not act like they were flooded with sales after Beyonce performed with them a few years back.
Did you know that Kendall Jenner is releasing her own brand of tequila? Such white audacity!!
Last edited:
And sometimes the consequences are made up and the points don't matter. Remember the, "I work with a murderer" thread? Folks were tripping over themselves to have the OP report the person to the boss and have them fired without even knowing the history of the individual and what he may have done between then and now.
There's holding people accountable and then there's obsession. I think Brazil was right, in that Cancel Culture does exist and it doesn't always work, but there are folks out there who feel as if this is a way to control the world around them.
Yes, we can hold Bill Burr, Rosanne, Elon Musk, etc accountable but it's hard to argue this isn't a power hit for some folks to do this type of stuff, and their goal is to get someone cancelled in the way we all know. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I've been reported numerous times for my takes on the MCU.
I thought there was a good 2 part podcast from the NYT on Cancel Culture that shows it's a pretty nuanced discussion. But like everything that once had some nuance it's been bludgeoned to hell by the conservative movement enough that CPAC's subtitle was CPAC 2021: UNCANCEL AMERICA.
It's the dumbest shit ever
Here's the Epi from The Daily, but take note it's from last summer and obviously the world has changed a bit even since August 2020. I like that the episode goes into the etymology of the phrase too, because, like, it was a joke.
www.nytimes.com
Cancel culture does not exist in the way that the American right claims it does. E.g., "The Muppets are now cancelled!" ... Why? Because in reissuing the entire muppet collection on UHD bluray, 2 episodes were removed, one of which was (IIRC) for a license violation because they didn't have the rights to reproduce a song from the episode. And then Don Jr goes on Fox and Friends and tells America "The left is cancelling the muppets!" Well ... no.
But I think there's a analogous situation which might not be "cancel culture," but certainly is this system of immediate judgement and demand for consequences without knowing all of the facts. This isn't new, but I think the rate that it has accellerated in the last 5-10 years is now very fast. There's a couple situations that I think of. One is with Bruce Springsteen. Bruce Springsteen, love him or don't love him, has generally been a progressive music artist writing songs for the little guy over the last 40+ years. He then does a pretty lame voice over for a Jeep commercial basically calling on Americans to "come back to the middle," or what have you, instead of going to the extremes. As a political statement, it's tone deaf given the last 4 years of American politics and especially the last 3 months and ESPECIALLY in light of the capitol siege. Now, I think Springsteen deserves some criticism for that, it's a dumb ad and while it was likely recorded before January 6, I'm sure he cashed the check for that ad appearance too. I think the eye-rolling criticism is valid, but then the turn it takes with this supposed drunk driving incident takes it up another notch. Springsteen suddenly has something leaked that he was booked for drunk driving in ~october or november, it's likely leaked by a right-wing police department, it's picked up by the right-wing New York Post, and I think rather than waiting for the facts, that permission structure to drag Bruce Springsteen because of the lame, centrist Jeep commercial is out for red blood. There's no facts, no information about it, but it doesn't matter, and he gets dragged, not just because of the allegations of drunk driving -- none of which was verifiable and was being reported by the NY Post from a leaked police department (not exactly allies of most folks in this forum) -- but also likely because of that lame ad. The initial post here dragging him gets hundreds of replies and is a top story, everybody's enjoying dunking on him based on the few facts that they know and also having a great time zinging him for songs that relate to the lame jeep ad. But then, the retraction comes quietly a few weeks later ... he wasn't drunk driving, he wasn't even driving, he wasn't even drunk. What was he actually booked for? ... Having a drink on a remote beach that was a national recreation preserve. I personally have drank alcohol at a busier public beaches dozens and dozens of times in my life, I've smoked weed (A FEDERAL CRIME!) on public beaches. After 250+ posts in the initial thread about the false charge, there's only about 10 when he's cleared and it's clearly shown to be bunk. Am I shedding any tears for Bruce Springsteen? No, not really, he's mega rich and is doing a podcast with Obama, he's not "Cancelled," and I don't really believe in "cancel culture," but I think we do have a system of quick-to-reach-judgement consequences.
I think this sort of quick-to-judge consequences system goes far beyond celebrities, but celebrities are just the example that's easies to think of. The true victims of the quick-to-judge consequences system is like the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing... not the victims who were killed or horribly maimed, but the victims who also happened to be present that day in that place that internet "sleuths" pinned for the crime, and then a newspaper ran the headline "BAGMEN" the next day. Ultimate the NYP or Herald, whoever ran that, got sued for it, but it was the culture of internet sleuthing, finding people to blame, and trusting this sort of decentralized internet police squad that actually rushed to judgement, and none of those "sleuths" had consequences. This isn't "cancel culture" -- sure those two victims had their lives ruined -- but cancel culture and whatever that is derive from the same quest for vengeance without consequence: Lob an internet-bomb and reap the social media capital if you're right, and duck into the crowd without consequence if you're wrong.
Personally I think that Obama was right about "Callout culture," that we -- young, generally liberal, generally millennials and younger -- mistake calling people out as activism. I think he's right, and I'm not a religious person but I think we're like the pharisees when we do that, mistaking sanctimony for activism. But even in making that point that "Obama is onto something with this," I expect a sanctimonious reply of, "Well of course that's something a war criminal would say." Being sanctimonious is not being an activist, it's not being progressive, but I think that sanctimony masquerades as progressive activism frequently on the internet.
What's more, sometimes saying, "Well let's wait for all of the facts before reaching judgement" ends up being conflated as providing permission for bad behavior or being complicit in bad behavior. You saw it in the Bruce Springsteen thread, where a few people were like, "well, hmmm, does this pass the smell test...?" and there's even some pushback against that. Like unless you're racing to condemn, you're part of the problem.
It's the dumbest shit ever
Here's the Epi from The Daily, but take note it's from last summer and obviously the world has changed a bit even since August 2020. I like that the episode goes into the etymology of the phrase too, because, like, it was a joke.
Cancel Culture, Part 1: Where It Came From (Published 2020)
Many people claim to have been “canceled.” What does that mean? And how did it start?
Cancel culture does not exist in the way that the American right claims it does. E.g., "The Muppets are now cancelled!" ... Why? Because in reissuing the entire muppet collection on UHD bluray, 2 episodes were removed, one of which was (IIRC) for a license violation because they didn't have the rights to reproduce a song from the episode. And then Don Jr goes on Fox and Friends and tells America "The left is cancelling the muppets!" Well ... no.
But I think there's a analogous situation which might not be "cancel culture," but certainly is this system of immediate judgement and demand for consequences without knowing all of the facts. This isn't new, but I think the rate that it has accellerated in the last 5-10 years is now very fast. There's a couple situations that I think of. One is with Bruce Springsteen. Bruce Springsteen, love him or don't love him, has generally been a progressive music artist writing songs for the little guy over the last 40+ years. He then does a pretty lame voice over for a Jeep commercial basically calling on Americans to "come back to the middle," or what have you, instead of going to the extremes. As a political statement, it's tone deaf given the last 4 years of American politics and especially the last 3 months and ESPECIALLY in light of the capitol siege. Now, I think Springsteen deserves some criticism for that, it's a dumb ad and while it was likely recorded before January 6, I'm sure he cashed the check for that ad appearance too. I think the eye-rolling criticism is valid, but then the turn it takes with this supposed drunk driving incident takes it up another notch. Springsteen suddenly has something leaked that he was booked for drunk driving in ~october or november, it's likely leaked by a right-wing police department, it's picked up by the right-wing New York Post, and I think rather than waiting for the facts, that permission structure to drag Bruce Springsteen because of the lame, centrist Jeep commercial is out for red blood. There's no facts, no information about it, but it doesn't matter, and he gets dragged, not just because of the allegations of drunk driving -- none of which was verifiable and was being reported by the NY Post from a leaked police department (not exactly allies of most folks in this forum) -- but also likely because of that lame ad. The initial post here dragging him gets hundreds of replies and is a top story, everybody's enjoying dunking on him based on the few facts that they know and also having a great time zinging him for songs that relate to the lame jeep ad. But then, the retraction comes quietly a few weeks later ... he wasn't drunk driving, he wasn't even driving, he wasn't even drunk. What was he actually booked for? ... Having a drink on a remote beach that was a national recreation preserve. I personally have drank alcohol at a busier public beaches dozens and dozens of times in my life, I've smoked weed (A FEDERAL CRIME!) on public beaches. After 250+ posts in the initial thread about the false charge, there's only about 10 when he's cleared and it's clearly shown to be bunk. Am I shedding any tears for Bruce Springsteen? No, not really, he's mega rich and is doing a podcast with Obama, he's not "Cancelled," and I don't really believe in "cancel culture," but I think we do have a system of quick-to-reach-judgement consequences.
I think this sort of quick-to-judge consequences system goes far beyond celebrities, but celebrities are just the example that's easies to think of. The true victims of the quick-to-judge consequences system is like the victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing... not the victims who were killed or horribly maimed, but the victims who also happened to be present that day in that place that internet "sleuths" pinned for the crime, and then a newspaper ran the headline "BAGMEN" the next day. Ultimate the NYP or Herald, whoever ran that, got sued for it, but it was the culture of internet sleuthing, finding people to blame, and trusting this sort of decentralized internet police squad that actually rushed to judgement, and none of those "sleuths" had consequences. This isn't "cancel culture" -- sure those two victims had their lives ruined -- but cancel culture and whatever that is derive from the same quest for vengeance without consequence: Lob an internet-bomb and reap the social media capital if you're right, and duck into the crowd without consequence if you're wrong.
Personally I think that Obama was right about "Callout culture," that we -- young, generally liberal, generally millennials and younger -- mistake calling people out as activism. I think he's right, and I'm not a religious person but I think we're like the pharisees when we do that, mistaking sanctimony for activism. But even in making that point that "Obama is onto something with this," I expect a sanctimonious reply of, "Well of course that's something a war criminal would say." Being sanctimonious is not being an activist, it's not being progressive, but I think that sanctimony masquerades as progressive activism frequently on the internet.
What's more, sometimes saying, "Well let's wait for all of the facts before reaching judgement" ends up being conflated as providing permission for bad behavior or being complicit in bad behavior. You saw it in the Bruce Springsteen thread, where a few people were like, "well, hmmm, does this pass the smell test...?" and there's even some pushback against that. Like unless you're racing to condemn, you're part of the problem.
Last edited:
Yeah it's bizarre that some people insist this isn't a thing when it very obviously is, with countless high profile examples over the last few years alone.
I think there's a fair argument to be made that with the advent of social media, it's made it a lot easier for consequences to be significantly disproportionate to the actions.
And who defines what's "shitty"? Today, it's you or someone you agree with. Tomorrow? Who knows?
That's another valid point. Trends ebb and flow. Right now, society leans progressive, but tomorrow, it could be more conservative, and then what happens?
You've exposed the crux of all this discussion. The term is being used to create a false equivalence between good faith criticism and bad faith dirt digging/exposure.
Anyone who think the phenomenon is new must be very young or naive.
Look at Colin Keapernik or any number of people who spoke truth to power.
People who didn't support the invasion of Iraq got fucking canceled ASAP.
Now that the process has been democratized and people in power are being affected we are witnessing a backlash.
Look at Colin Keapernik or any number of people who spoke truth to power.
People who didn't support the invasion of Iraq got fucking canceled ASAP.
Now that the process has been democratized and people in power are being affected we are witnessing a backlash.
It was more that some here where saying that it's a term only used by the far right. Yet Contrapoints used it and she's pretty clearly not far right. I was just confused.
Anyway my take is just don't be a piece of shit, and if you are don't complain when others don't like you.
""Cancel culture"" as repubs describe it doesn't exist and people have always faced consequences for what they say/do. That being said, social media has 1,000% amplified that. Too many people fart every thought that enters their brain onto the internet, and there are absolutely people who use social media as a venue for performative outrage day in and day out.
Too much stuff posted online + people who spend too much time online == more people getting fired for saying dumb shit.
Too much stuff posted online + people who spend too much time online == more people getting fired for saying dumb shit.
The disproportionality of the consequences is what bothers me. Sometimes it's as if saying something dumb or ignorant online, about anything, must be repaid with the harshest form of social ridicule and financial punishment that there is, because the mob is really out for blood.
This is exactly the problem. The term in a vacuum isn't referencing a non-existent phenomena, it's been hijacked and twisted by people who have simply received a consequence for legitimately reprehensible actions.
You're right that what the right considers "cancel culture" really isn't what they say it is and it's just them engaging in cultural grievance politics, these people have no moral consistency when it comes to this crap due to stuff like the aforementioned Dixie Chicks. That post I made was mainly in reply to someone that said you deserve to have a mob descend on you if you say something that gets them to in the first place, which is obviously wrong.This is disingenuous because the people who demanded that the Dixie Chicks be boycotted are the same people complaining about Cancel Culture.
Dixie Chicks comments on George W. Bush - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The right are demanding that they alone should be allowed to "cancel" people.
The entire point of the right's use of the term is to create an image of a group of united people on the left all going around criticizing everything. This would mean that any criticism is rendered meaningless because no one actually means it. Except for obviously when the right does it which is why they see any criticism of the police or a war as really an attack on America itself.
The right-wing outrage over shit like Gina Carano being fired for comparing her reactionary views getting pushback on social media to being a Jew in Nazi Germany is not what I'd consider cancel culture, that's just basic consequences for your actions. Cancel culture to me is people who dwell on social media day in and day out looking to be outraged at what they don't like and look for any reason to make sure their perceived enemies never sees the light of day again. This applies to conservatives getting mad at athletes for kneeling during the anthem or speaking their mind on politics, this applies to liberals/progressives who ganged up on that MAGA kid with the shiteating grin at that Washington DC protest thinking he should've been permanently expelled. It's a very real phenomenon and people who are denying it exists are being stubborn partisans. It's NOT holding people like Trump accountable, deciding to not keep up Confederate monuments, or not showing kids racist Dr Seuss cartoons. That's disingenuous bullshit and is mere Republican pearl-clutcing ala "War on Christmas" or "Pokemon is Satanic".
e: i have shit grammar
Last edited:
As in shitty I mean people who actively did harm like racists or sexual predators and ppl like that. Ppl being held accountable for their actions.
Not the republican fantasy where thousands of ppl are losing their jobs for saying dumb shit online 10 years ago
At the end of the day those are all just partisan attacks, mainly coming from hate merchants who make money attacking minorities.
Imagine trying to report on say TheQuartering attack on She-ra like "TheQuartering cancels She-ra because she is not feminine enough for him" instead of "TheQuartering attacks She-ra for promoting the idea that women dont have to have large breasts and have a boyfriend"
I dont consider this cancel culture because I think it needs to be taken more seriously than "Mr. Potato Head has been cancelled".
It's one of those things that exists but not in the context that the people who use the term think it does.
People do tend to jump the gun on the internet and enjoy doing it so long as it keeps the crosshairs off of themselves but most people who use cancel culture are just upset that they couldn't escape consequences for being a dick
People do tend to jump the gun on the internet and enjoy doing it so long as it keeps the crosshairs off of themselves but most people who use cancel culture are just upset that they couldn't escape consequences for being a dick
It's usually pretty easy to tell what's shitty with common sense. Use context clues, read your audience, understand your own perspective vs theirs, etc.
Would you find it morally permissible to be a fan on Mike Tyson? He went to prison for rape in the 90s. So unlike others, he didn't get away with it, but his contributions to the world ever since he got out of jail have been positive (in my opinion). I remember a thread about Tyson's podcast on here and some of the responses were rather hostile towards Tyson if I recall correctly. I'd like to know whether someone who's done something awful, served their sentence and successfully rehabilitated into society should be welcomed back into whatever position they were in before, provided they have something of value to add. Or whether associating with them should be considered indefensible forever.