Cancel culture is fine in some cases

[EcK]

it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?

sorry just had to quote this masterclass in irony from the pro-cancel culture permabanned guy - it's hilarious.

I also think it makes my case pretty neatly for the fucking ouroboros from hell that is cancel culture. The censors always end up censored themselves, which in an of itself is not a problem (live by the sword..); the issue is that they participate in censoring / attacking many other people who have nothing to do with whatever -ism these dicks obsess about and force bystanders to either 'pick a camp' or self censor to fly under the radar.

 

[EcK]

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.

I thought of that too. Yeah ostracism is a natural and useful social dynamic. But it's been weaponized with social media. It's one thing to be ostracized for a universally (at least in western cultures) loathed act (rape, murder etc.). It's another to lose one's job, friends, being shamed online for months because one used the wrong word in private or expressed an opinion some political extremists don't like. We essentially 'let' the losers & misfits in society band together to bully people en masse. It's to ostracism what cancer is to a healthy cell, it's what communists lovingly called a struggle session.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What I think is bizarre sometimes is that all these right wing buzz words, "cancel culture", "echo chambers", "triggering", "virtue signalling" etc. they are all pretty clever, in fact they often describe conscious and unconscious trends, efforts and wishes of the right wing themselves who're inclined to deploy them a lot.

Yup. Speaking of this....

sorry just had to quote this masterclass in irony from the pro-cancel culture permabanned guy - it's hilarious.

I also have to quote the masterclass in irony of complaints about cancel culture from the guy who threadbans people for disagreeing with him. Also, it was a thread about being against anti-bullying, so if I hurt your feelings, that's ironic, as well. It's also ironic that thread was basically you wanting to cancel Gillette.

I think, perhaps, you are better qualified to teach the master class in irony.

 

[Lark]

I thought of that too. Yeah ostracism is a natural and useful social dynamic. But it's been weaponized with social media. It's one thing to be ostracized for a universally (at least in western cultures) loathed act (rape, murder etc.). It's another to lose one's job, friends, being shamed online for months because one used the wrong word in private or expressed an opinion some political extremists don't like. We essentially 'let' the losers & misfits in society band together to bully people en masse. It's to ostracism what cancer is to a healthy cell, it's what communists lovingly called a struggle session.

What communists? You were making sense right up until you mentioned that, I've read a lot of communist sources and known a lot of communists, past and present, havent ever heard of a "struggle session" let alone heard it "lovingly called" that, where did you get this from? Or did you just invent it?

 

[EcK]

What communists? You were making sense right up until you mentioned that, I've read a lot of communist sources and known a lot of communists, past and present, havent ever heard of a "struggle session" let alone heard it "lovingly called" that, where did you get this from? Or did you just invent it?

Struggle session - Wikipedia this is what is was referring to [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]. I find a lot of these organised online bullying (or emergent ones, but functionally it looks the same) quite reminiscent of a struggle session adapted to the digital era. Both seek admission of 'guilt', and in both cases, the admission doesn't make it better. It's more about torturing people really.

 

[EcK]

I also have to quote the masterclass in irony of complaints about cancel culture from the guy who threadbans people for disagreeing with him. Also, it was a thread about being against anti-bullying, so if I hurt your feelings, that's ironic, as well. It's also ironic that thread was basically you wanting to cancel Gillette.

I think, perhaps, you are better qualified to teach the master class in irony.

Julius, I am sorry, maybe you felt targeted when I was talking about "losers & misfits"? I was only talking in general terms and the thought of you didn't cross my mind at all.
I see you are still obsessed with me, ok. I don't think spending your time fixated on someone who doesn't reciprocate is very healthy.
I would have thought that you of all people, a self-professed 2021 left-leaning male, would have learned to take no as an answer from either a chick or guy and leave it at that. But alas.

Now if you would kindly keep your personal feelings out of the thread and stay on topic it would be ideal. Shanks x1000. Ta ta

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I love that you didn't refute or deny any of the points I made. Actually, you provided me with yet another example of the behavior I was talking about.

Now if you would kindly keep your personal feelings out of the thread and stay on topic it would be ideal. Shanks x1000. Ta ta

See? More cancelling people for expressing opinions you find upsetting.

Also, the admonitions to stay on topic and not be personal is rich coming from the guy who chimed in to comment on the irony of the OP being banned, as though the reason he was banned had anything to do with cancel culture, right or left. I believe he was a dupe of somebody that was banned quite some time ago, IIRC.

sorry just had to quote this masterclass in irony from the pro-cancel culture permabanned guy - it's hilarious.

Wow, very on topic post! Also, it's funny that you complain about bullying a few posts later after writing this. (You also didn't seem to have an issue with bullying in the Gillette thread).

As for cancel culture, I don't particularly like it, but I also have issues with people who spend a lot of their time complaining about it, for the simple reason that they usually participate in it themselves. They simply cancel different things. The same people bitching about cancel culture cancelled Colin Kaepernick and the DIxie Chicks beforehand. They participate in the exact same behavior but somehow see it as not being the same behavior. Eck is providing an excellent example of what I'm talking about in this thread., which is why I felt mentioning his past behavior was relevant. He is an excellent example of why I have no patience for people complaining about cancel culture. 9 times out of 10, they are engaging in it themselves. I feel pointing out real life examples of the phenomenon of anti-cancel culture people engaging in cancel culture is extremely relevant to a discussion about cancel culture. People want to make "cancel culture" something that is the domain of just one side of the political spectrum, when nothing could be further from the truth. Cancel culture, rather than something that is exclusively the domain of lazy social media warriors who want to feel that they are fighting for social justice without getting off their ass, is rather a key element of contemporary political discourse in general. I believe it's a function of the culture wars that I am sick of, but it probably benefits the people in power for them to continue, which is why we keep having it. "Cancel culture" is a tactic of the culture wars employed by both sides, rather than a plot by globalist SJWS to destroy Western Civilization or whatever.
I think the right-wing denial of the existence of a right-wing cancel culture (often by the participants in it!) is another symptom of hyper-individualism and inability to grasp the concept of enlightened self-interest. Problems with the behavior of cancel culture (and I would actually say there are problems) are only problems if there's a chance it might affect them. I'd say the last sentence could sum up many aspects of the right-wing worldview, as well as why they are ill-equipped to actually solve anything, because they are prone to denying the existence of problems if it doesn't happen to personally inconvenience them. The recent right-wing attacks on the power of big business is a key example of this. People have been saying for years that big corporations have too much power and the response of the right was to shrug it off as not mattering because they deserve that power for being successful or something like that. Now that a corporation banned their God-Emperor from their platform, it's a massive crisis and we need to rein them in and omigod corporations are destroying American democracy. It makes it very hard for me to take anything they say seriously; the attitude that problems are not worth caring about unless they threaten to personally inconvenience them does not elicit much sympathy from me.

Anyway, I'm certain that Eck isn't going to have any response of value, let alone acknowledge that he engages in the same behavior he is denouncing, so now that I've made my point, I think I'll bow out. No need to repeat the Jaguar situation and waste people's time with endless back and forth sniping that have nothing to do with the actual issue.

 

[tinker683]

Been gone a while, came back because of the survey Highlander sent me, didn't read the rest of the thread, figured I'd offer my 2 pennies for whatever it's worth...

I, personally, do not believe cancel culture is really a thing in the real world, from what I've seen in my day to day life it appears only to be a thing that exists largely online. The only individuals who have been what fits the description of 'cancelled' are individuals who did or said things that universally considered awful and were thus ostracized for it.

I have been told, for literally decades, by salt-of-the-earth, fuck-your-feelings-tshirt-buying, political-correctness-and-big-government-is-killing-us-all,red-blooded-fuck-mothering Americans that this was how it was supposed to work, that the government shouldn't come out and say, "You're not allowed to say or do [XYZ thing]" and that in the court of public opinion is where you should be judged!
thing] and that the court of public opinion should be where we are judged.

Imagine my shock (shock I tell you!) that same said above group of people are now upset that large groups of people are advocating that people shouldn't interact with/do business with/whatever with some company or some person because said person or company did or said something really awful and stupid!

As such it is my conclusion that the people who complain the loudest about cancel culture are usually the same individuals who say and do really awful and ugly things and appear to be operating under the assumption that they should suffer no real consequences for said things they've said and done. That's all there is too it, and I remain thoroughly uninterested in giving any of these individuals the time of day.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As such it is my conclusion that the people who complain the loudest about cancel culture are usually the same individuals who say and do really awful and ugly things and appear to be operating under the assumption that they should suffer no real consequences for said things they've said and done. That's all there is too it, and I remain thoroughly uninterested in giving any of these individuals the time of day.

Well, the other thing is that the people complaining about cancel culture actually engage in it themselves. Some folks cancel J.K Rowling, other folks cancel Gillette. Why am I supposed to be outraged about one of those cancellations, but not the other? It's being framed as an "objective" stance of having problems with the way people act on opinions, but it isn't actually objective, because they act like cancelling Gillette is somehow different than cancelling J.K Rowling. The pretense is that the issue is not with the opinions, but the way people act on them by not maintaining a "civil marketplace of ideas" or something, but they have the same attitude to Gillette for making an anti-bullying/harrassment ad or Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem,. Those things are just different because, well "they're different!" The issue for them is obviously not the behavior then, but the opinions themselves. As someone who doesn't have an issue with people being angry at J.K. Rowling for dumb opinions, why am I supposed to care, then? They don't regard this behavior as a problem when they do it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

remember when all those angry right wingers cancelled their netflix subscriptions over that show Dear White People?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

also, it was kind of funny when people went out and bought gillette razors just to video themselves setting them on fire or clogging their toilets with them. Gillette still got paid over that silly ad, by some of the people who thought their statements would change anything. Whether people bought them to shave or burn, I doubt Gillette cared, considering the likely bump in sales they saw.

 

[ceecee]

Been gone a while, came back because of the survey Highlander sent me, didn't read the rest of the thread, figured I'd offer my 2 pennies for whatever it's worth...

I, personally, do not believe cancel culture is really a thing in the real world, from what I've seen in my day to day life it appears only to be a thing that exists largely online. The only individuals who have been what fits the description of 'cancelled' are individuals who did or said things that universally considered awful and were thus ostracized for it.

I have been told, for literally decades, by salt-of-the-earth, fuck-your-feelings-tshirt-buying, political-correctness-and-big-government-is-killing-us-all,red-blooded-fuck-mothering Americans that this was how it was supposed to work, that the government shouldn't come out and say, "You're not allowed to say or do [XYZ thing]" and that in the court of public opinion is where you should be judged!
thing] and that the court of public opinion should be where we are judged.

Imagine my shock (shock I tell you!) that same said above group of people are now upset that large groups of people are advocating that people shouldn't interact with/do business with/whatever with some company or some person because said person or company did or said something really awful and stupid!

As such it is my conclusion that the people who complain the loudest about cancel culture are usually the same individuals who say and do really awful and ugly things and appear to be operating under the assumption that they should suffer no real consequences for said things they've said and done. That's all there is too it, and I remain thoroughly uninterested in giving any of these individuals the time of day.

I have no issue with what I call consequence culture. That means being held accountable for what you do and what you say. Cancel culture, on the other hand, is this boogeyman that people have come up with to explain away bad behavior and when their faves experience consequences. So in that sense no, cancel culture doesn't exist. The problem is that we haven’t figured out what consequences should be. So it’s all or nothing. Either there are no consequences, or people lose their jobs, or other sort of sweeping grand gestures that don’t actually solve the problem at hand.

But what the right generally engages is is neither of these things. It's manufactured outrage against the culture wars they will never win. That's how they're able to take $3k of NFL tickets and set them on fire. Or their Keurig's. Or Target, the Superbowl, rap music, Dixie Chicks....this goes back years and years with the right and the moderates that pander to them.

It's beneficial for the GOP brand and their followers lap it up. Have a good look at the legislation Republicans are proposing all over the country to invalidate, criminalize and disenfranchise anyone they feel are "other" if there are any questions about who is being cancelled and who is being held accountable for their actions.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

remember when all those angry right wingers cancelled their netflix subscriptions over that show Dear White People?

I don't, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[tinker683]

Well, the other thing is that the people complaining about cancel culture actually engage in it themselves. Some folks cancel J.K Rowling, other folks cancel Gillette. Why am I supposed to be outraged about one of those cancellations, but not the other? It's being framed as an "objective" stance of having problems with the way people act on opinions, but it isn't actually objective, because they act like cancelling Gillette is somehow different than cancelling J.K Rowling. The pretense is that the issue is not with the opinions, but the way people act on them by not maintaining a "civil marketplace of ideas" or something, but they have the same attitude to Gillette for making an anti-bullying/harrassment ad or Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem,. Those things are just different because, well "they're different!" The issue for them is obviously not the behavior then, but the opinions themselves. As someone who doesn't have an issue with people being angry at J.K. Rowling for dumb opinions, why am I supposed to care, then? They don't regard this behavior as a problem when they do it.

That's a good point, and I would say I agree with you

 

[tinker683]

So in that sense no, cancel culture doesn't exist. The problem is that we haven’t figured out what consequences should be. So it’s all or nothing. Either there are no consequences, or people lose their jobs, or other sort of sweeping grand gestures that don’t actually solve the problem at hand.

A good point, and this particular nuanced part of it I think merits further conversation, though I will admit I don't really have an answer myself to how to respond.

I am a straight white Christian male, I am western society's default setting. Coming to grips with my own privilege, honestly evaluating how I'm treated versus how women and people of color are treated, has been challenging and sobering.

I feel like we, as a culture, are in uncharted waters and I feel the only thing I can do is trying to be best person I can be willing to admit when I make a mistake.

Sorry, I realize I went on a tangent there but this is just one of those things I just don't feel like I have much I can add, save to roll my eyes are what is clearly bad faith nonsense by Trumpers.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I don't, but it wouldn't surprise me.

It's just funny, the irony of a bunch of people who complained about cancel culture rushing to cancel netflix before even seeing the series. I suppose there was a shock effect with a title like that, but that was done by design, to get people's attention. The series itself did not even do what I would consider to be bashing white people, but try explaining that to the army of angry karens who cancelled netflix without even seeing a single episode.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Lark]

It's just funny, the irony of a bunch of people who complained about cancel culture rushing to cancel netflix before even seeing the series. I suppose there was a shock effect with a title like that, but that was done by design, to get people's attention. The series itself did not even do what I would consider to be bashing white people, but try explaining that to the army of angry karens who cancelled netflix without even seeing a single episode.

Its almost like they were triggered or something, almost like they were aiming to accomplish some sort of echo chamber.

But I thought it was just the liberals who did that?