theablekingedgar
Permabanned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 229
It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.
so why then is cancel culture bad?
so why then is cancel culture bad?
it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?Cancel culture or not, there will still be secret support for cancelled opinions as long as some people find them desirable. These opinions may get uncancelled in a near or distant future.
This kind of cancelling doesn't actually "cancel" any opinions except their mass visibility.
I really hate cancel culture, but something decent does happen from it because of the reason above : cancelled opinions will cease to be shared among people who don't know/understand these opinions, or only know/understand them superficially. Those who still believe in cancelled opinions will work on these opinions in a "private" way, like an uncentralized think tank.
it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?
What is wrong ? People and their opinions are not the same thing. But as most people seem to confuse them, it is the best interest of the people who don't agree with the opinions they wish to cancel, and who have the authority to cancel people who hold these opinions, to cancel that people. The opinion war is... a business, and businesses who can make competitors go bust will do it when it's their interest. Nothing really personal I think, even if it looks personal to people who know about the cancelling.
Thank you for helping me, I didn't think of that originally. I still think "wrong" things may have a "good" effect.
it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?
"Cancelling" a human being is actually kind of worse than cancelling an idea. Human beings have thoughts, feelings, and etc. and some of the things people get "cancelled" for is ridiculous. Sure, maybe cancelling someone like Harvey Weinstein wouldn't be such a bad idea, but say, the cancelling of people for saying stupid shit when they were 15 that gets pulled up just because they're famous now? Go ahead, lie and tell me no 15 year old says stupid shit. It sends them tons of hate, suggests the world was better without them, and moreless is a small gesture of "go kill yourself." Morally, it is actually not really okay.
If you personally cancel something to yourself and perhaps discuss your opinion, it is one thing.
the point of outrage or cancel culture is to take away others ability to rationalize and choose for themselves, which takes away freedom. For instance, I do not like Chris Brown's behavior and abusive nature so I do not support his career. If someone asks me, I will state why I dislike and do not actively look for Chris Brown cds. But if you listen to Chris Brown, that's your decision and your business.
It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.
so why then is cancel culture bad?
Biggest reason is the ambiguity left open here. What is deemed bad or toxic to our society and how is that determined? If one argues that it should be determined by the majority, then how does opposing thought come into the fray? How is the status quo challenged? Ultimately, I see cancel culture as a resistance to change and to a broader degree, a power struggle of the majority seeking to hold onto that power.
Will also note, that cancel culture isn't merely online bullying, but as we have seen in recent years, taken to such extremes in some cases as to publicly broadcasting someone's personal information out into the ether where one then must fear for their personal security and life, outside just one's livelihood.
As much as some might not like or value some of the outlying thought out there in the public space and might even find it repulsive, in the least, such divergent thought allows us as a society to reassess our own values on a fairly regular basis and determine whether said values and beliefs need realignment. Belief and values are just as interchangeable as anything else, granted on differing timelines than say, what your favorite food or color of the day is, but ties back to what I meant in saying cancel culture inevitably prevents change and progress.
Biggest reason is the ambiguity left open here. What is deemed bad or toxic to our society and how is that determined? If one argues that it should be determined by the majority, then how does opposing thought come into the fray? How is the status quo challenged? Ultimately, I see cancel culture as a resistance to change and to a broader degree, a power struggle of the majority seeking to hold onto that power.
Will also note, that cancel culture isn't merely online bullying, but as we have seen in recent years, taken to such extremes in some cases as to publicly broadcasting someone's personal information out into the ether where one then must fear for their personal security and life, outside just one's livelihood.
As much as some might not like or value some of the outlying thought out there in the public space and might even find it repulsive, in the least, such divergent thought allows us as a society to reassess our own values on a fairly regular basis and determine whether said values and beliefs need realignment. Belief and values are just as interchangeable as anything else, granted on differing timelines than say, what your favorite food or color of the day is, but ties back to what I meant in saying cancel culture inevitably prevents change and progress.
I had a similar thought. I had to look up "cancel culture" to see what this recent buzzword is even supposed to mean. The descriptions I found mentioned it is social or professional ostracism. Is that not warranted in some cases? A friend's teenage daughter was repeatedly raped by a family "friend" several years ago. He was tried, convicted and sent to jail, but he was also ostracised from various gaming and reenactment groups he had belonged to, not to mention our friend group. I don't see the problem here.It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.
so why then is cancel culture bad?
I had a similar thought. I had to look up "cancel culture" to see what this recent buzzword is even supposed to mean. The descriptions I found mentioned it is social or professional ostracism. Is that not warranted in some cases? A friend's teenage daughter was repeatedly raped by a family "friend" several years ago. He was tried, convicted and sent to jail, but he was also ostracised from various gaming and reenactment groups he had belonged to, not to mention our friend group. I don't see the problem here.
Cancel culture is really only a direct threat to people on the left, from people who are even further to the left than they are. Nobody on the right ever gets canceled. Because nobody on the right is trying to pander to anyone on the left. Normally I'd say "fine, let the left eat their own," but if enough of their own do get eaten and the Borg becomes a uniform 50% of the country (and growing), there might be a problem for us as well. So knock it off.