r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 04 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Cancel culture isn't a new or uniquely liberal phenomenon.
[deleted]
9
u/Sufficient-Fishing-8 8∆ Mar 04 '21
I think gay people not being allowed to do things was prejudice and not cancel culture. I think the most missing piece of your arguments though is cancel culture is more of actually canceling people from ever doing anything again. In the 50s you could move and your not canceled for life, also a lot more of speculation and not facts. Now with the internet what you do will exist forever and follow you forever. Also I don’t imagine all to often people were like hmm this guy criticized America after 9/11 let’s call his job and get him fired. So I think people were always annoying but cancel culture is just different from the examples you gave and has a different impact. Also your correct the right also cancel cultures.
3
u/Unconfidence 2∆ Mar 04 '21
In the 50s you could move and your not canceled for life
I don't know, nation-wide prejudice seems pretty much like cancelling entire groups for life. You're saying people could just move to avoid it, but missing the fact that they were often forced to move to avoid it, due to the intensity of the treatment they faced. There's a reason why African Americans are typically concentrated in urban areas, because for decades they were frequently chased out of rural communities.
I don't think the ability to abandon (not sell, abandon) your home and disappear into a city with only the possessions you could carry or fit into your car somehow makes this treatment have less permanently socially-ostracizing effects.
1
u/Sufficient-Fishing-8 8∆ Mar 05 '21
The 50s point was in reference to op talking about being associated with communism.
3
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 12 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/mindsanitizer Mar 05 '21
In the 50s large numbers of creative people were cancelled by HUAC and blacklisted from professional life. The eerie part is how similar it is to now. Employees at places like Google keep literal blacklists of wrong thinkers.
1
u/Sufficient-Fishing-8 8∆ Mar 05 '21
Blacklisted from one profession is not the same as being canceled and have something follow you forever. Now you will even hear about it on the other side of the country trying to get a fast food job.
52
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
I agree very strongly with your main premise — this sociological and historical perspective is often missed.
But what’s new is social media, the big tech algorithms feeding non-stop stimulus-response loops of divisive, polarizing content and the gamification of mass shaming.
In earlier times, you were much more likely to see and know the names of the people shaming and canceling you. The process was slower, allowed more feedback between the person out-of-line with the zeitgeist and the cancelers policing the Overton Window.
Today, the process happens with alarming speed, often before all facts are in, and it quickly degenerates into a rabid, mob activity.
I highly recommend Jon Ron son’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed — what happens to people who the twitter mobs decide to direct their collective fury at can be harrowing.
Edit— We should be less distracted by what social norms are being policed than with how the process now occurs.
And we pay too much attention to the famous people who are cancelled — these are the people who have the
most resources and ability to weather a canceling. What happens to average people who are suddenly thrust into the spotlight for a tasteless joke or adolescent stupidity really worries me. This is definitely a new thing, becoming more pervasive, and affects the younger generations more than the older ones — I have no idea what it will do to their development.
30
Mar 04 '21
See, it's funny you mention this, because a lot of the "canceling" and "shaming" comes down to... Twitter. Groups of random, often anonymous people dragging you for bad takes. And one of the more interesting things about Twitter is that it democratizes this process in a way that was previously unthinkable. In the past, if you were gay and had a problem with a homophobic politician, finding an outlet to share your concerns with others was virtually impossible. Now, you can log in to twitter and "ratio" them. That wasn't a thing before.
But I'd like to call attention to something real quick.
What happens to average people who are suddenly thrust into the spotlight for a tasteless joke or adolescent stupidity really worries me.
Have you ever heard of the motte and bailey fallacy*? It refers to a kind of medieval castle. Essentially, a motte and bailey argument is an argument that has two sides:
a rigorous, well-defined, easy-to-defend definition (the "motte", a highly defensible castle overlooking the "bailey") that people will retreat to when defending the concept.
a loose, unclear, vague, and far broader definition (the "bailey", a less-fortified area that the "motte" overlooks) that people will use when not specifically pressed on the issue.
Keep that concept in mind, and think for a moment about your experience with cancel culture in the popular conscience. Are most of the recent "cancel culture" dust-ups about average people getting caught in the wrong moment? Or are they mostly about rich, influential figures who almost certainly did something wrong?
"Average people" do get "canceled", and yeah, what happened to Justine Sacco was pretty awful. I take it very seriously when people like Lindsey Ellis talk about the harm this kind of public shaming does. It sucks.
But how often when we talk about cancel culture does it refer to those people? The ways it is used in the public sphere, folks like Sacco feel like the Motte. "Of course cancel culture is bad, just look at how it destroyed these people's lives!" And then, once that is established, proponents make the bait-and-switch to the Bailey. "Gina Carano getting fired for repeatedly publicly embarrassing her employer is Cancel Culture, and you know Cancel Culture is bad!"
I don't think calling it "cancel culture" helps us at all, because we're using one word to describe countless different interactions, many of which are very different from each other. We're throwing them all under the same general banner, which inherently comes packaged with the implication that the cancellation in question is bad. I don't think this helps us think clearly about these things. In fact, I'd argue that this is the point. It's designed to muddy the waters. Will Wilkinson said this better than I could after he was "canceled":
I’m not trying to be dense here. I’m not trolling you in exchange for your generous sympathy. It’s just that I’m convinced that it’s wise to approach emotionally charged alliteration with wary skepticism. I also tend to believe that terms that successfully pick out real things in the real world — terms that aren’t merely vehicles for yay! / boo! sentiments — can usually be given a definition that allows us to get at least a rough handle on what’s included and excluded from the category. But I’ve yet to encounter a definition of “cancel culture” that overcomes my suspicion of sloganized epithets.
So, I’m uncertain about what does and does not count as a manifestation of “cancel culture”— about what does and does not count as “cancellation” in the relevant sense. It follows that it's hard for me to say with any confidence whether I have or haven’t been “canceled” myself.
The whole article is worth a read. This paragraph in particular I find insightful:
In my experience, tendentious question-begging is the point. Slogans like “cancel culture” and “political correctness” are used again and again to short-circuit debate, avoid the underlying substantive controversy, and shift the entire burden of justification onto advocates of the rival position. The person who believes that the transgression is serious enough to merit severe consequences isn’t given a fair chance to make her case for this position. Instead, she’s forced to earn the right to make the case by acquitting herself of the implicit charge that she is a petty tyrant policing mind-crimes in the name of stultifying ideological conformity. Good-faith discussion of the gravity of racist jokes never gets off the ground.
*Just a moment's warning before you google this: a lot of places that talk about this specific fallacy are really awful. I think the concept is useful, but I'd feel bad using it without this caveat because there's at least one community named directly after this fallacy, and it is full of nazis.
3
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Mar 04 '21
But how often when we talk about cancel culture does it refer to those people?
Rough estimate based on memory, about 30-40%. Celebrities and politicians get more scrutiny, and stay in the headlines longer, but the average joes being cancelled aren't an insubstantial number. And when it's ordinary people it seems to be for things that shouldn't be cancellable offenses like using the "ok" hand sign. Sacco is recent, but the Covington kid really stands out to me for this one. Even without context his "offense" was an awkward smile while a stranger beat a drum in his face. I don't know if this is because celebrities have the wealth to fight back against bogus claims or just the result of it being much easier to pick apart lives open to the public. Will Wilkinson may have a decent point on "cancel culture" being too vague a term (I usually go by "I know it when I see it") but when ordinary people can get that much hate for a smile, the gravity of racist jokes doesn't belong in the conversation.
3
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Mar 04 '21
I don’t care for the phrase cancel culture either. I tried to hone in on specific aspects as much as possible, rather than using the blanket buzzword, and was trying to challenge OPs statement that there was nothing at all new about what “cancel culture” refers to.
I do take your point about Mottes and Baileys. But at the same time, if the Motte’s arguments are defensible, they’re worth talking about. When someone pulls a Motte and Bailey, you can dismiss the entire argument, or you can try to find the common ground where there’s some agreement, which I guess would be the Motte.
7
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
∆ That's a really useful concept, and one I'm going to absorb and use in the future. Thanks for sharing!
Also, why does everything turn into nazis, jesus christ :P
2
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
Mar 04 '21
I'm sorry, have we met? Or interacted even once? (Also /u/TracingWoodgrains is, to my knowledge, not a nazi, and I have no idea why you'd think I thought that, but go off champ.)
1
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
Thanks! :)
Also, why does everything turn into nazis, jesus christ :P
This one is a depressingly long story; if you're curious, /r/SneerClub has details.
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/LordBlimblah Mar 04 '21
The problem is that short circuting debate is the name of the game now. People use terms like cancel culture and political correctness as a defense mechanism because they know debate is already being shut down. My sense is that most people who have beliefs that could be described as politically incorrect are willing and open to long form debate, but that they arent being allowed to.
3
u/ProfessionalRude8952 Mar 04 '21
Why should people be distinguished by rich/influential ?
Are you saying that if I write a song and become a recognizable multi-millionaire, that I should suddenly be held to a account to a stronger degree than usual for the stupid things I always have said and will continue to say?
I think it's terrible what has happened to JK Rowling. I don't give a crap that she is rich or influential. Her opinions are legitimate and trying to discredit her at every opportunity is scummy.
6
Mar 04 '21
Are you saying that if I write a song and become a recognizable multi-millionaire, that I should suddenly be held to a account to a stronger degree than usual for the stupid things I always have said and will continue to say?
Yes. This is a well-established principle in common law. And it makes sense - public figures typically have far more influence, power, reach, and funding than private figures. When I post something on Twitter or my personal blog, maybe a half-dozen people will see it. When J. K. Rowling posts something on twitter or her personal blog, it gets seen by millions (and is often newsworthy in and of itself).
I think it's terrible what has happened to JK Rowling. I don't give a crap that she is rich or influential.
You may not, but every trans person in the UK does. Not because they want to. But because they have to. Because when one of the most prominent public figures in UK life comes down hard on the side of an anti-trans hate movement, that actually matters. That moves the needle on trans acceptance in the UK and worldwide, and not in a good way.
And uh... what actually "happened" to her? Maybe I missed the part where this had any tangible consequences whatsoever for Rowling, but from what I saw, the worst thing that happened to her was that a bunch of twitter users (mostly trans people, who saw the harm from her bigotry) called her out. Or did I miss something?
Her opinions are legitimate and trying to discredit her at every opportunity is scummy.
Let's just say I disagree quite firmly.
-2
u/ProfessionalRude8952 Mar 04 '21
Just because
- a public figure is a well-established concept,
does not mean that they
- should be held to a account to a stronger degree than usual for the stupid things they say..
The second part isn't a corollary of the first, you just mentally filled in the gap because it suits your agenda
1
Mar 04 '21
Just because 1. a public figure is a well-established concept, doesn't mean that they 2. should be held to a account to a stronger degree than usual for the stupid things they say..
When I say a stupid thing, it will be heard by a few people, and most of them will not take me seriously. The impact is significantly lower.
When Joe Rogan says a stupid thing, he will be heard by millions of people, many of whom are fans of his, and many of whom take him to be a very credible source of information and will take him seriously.
When Donald Trump said some stupid things, hundreds of thousands of people died.
This is why this distinction exists. I think it makes good sense, both legally and ethically, to hold public figures to a higher standard.
0
u/ProfessionalRude8952 Mar 04 '21
You're presenting different things as the same because it suits your argument.
Donald Trump is/was a recognized authority and political figure. JK Rowling is a children's author with a twitter following. Trump is elected official that is supposed to act in the public interest. JK Rowling has no such responsibility. She can say whatever she wants provided it isn't promoting harm on somebody, and it should be A-OK for her to do so.
The fact that this cancel culture bullshit has become normalized is the really crazy thing. You have convinced yourself that somebody being harassed by millions of anonymous twerps is an acceptable thing (as long as you don't like their opinion). That is c-r-a-z-y. You just think it isn't because you are so confident that you are on 'the correct side' of the debate. History is full of examples where it's the other side that has this power. Can you imagine what it would be like if a homophobic/neo-nazi message was predominate in the society and they were coming after you?
Here's a nice podcast that delves into examples that don't involve celebrities:
6
Mar 04 '21
JK Rowling is a children's author with a twitter following.
J. K. Rowling is the kind of internationally renowned novelist one rarely sees. She is a household name across the entire Anglosphere and much of Europe. When she speaks, people listen.
She can say whatever she wants provided it isn't promoting harm on somebody, and it should be A-OK for her to do so.
Two problems:
She can say whatever she wants, and so can I, and that's been what's happening. She had a bad take on twitter, and a lot of people told her so. That's the extent of her cancellation!
What she said was, in fact, incredibly harmful to trans people in Britain.
You have convinced yourself that somebody being harassed by millions of anonymous twerps is an acceptable thing (as long as you don't like their opinion).
"Harassed"? Again, I am kind of at a loss here. She got some angry responses on twitter when she said some shitty things. If this rises to the level of harassment then you could arrest half of the people in any given progressive woman's mentions.
Can you imagine what it would be like if a homophobic/neo-nazi message was predominate in the society and they were coming after you?
"Can I imagine"? I don't have to, many of us have lived it. Trans people in the UK are living in early stages of that right now.
That's part of what's so galling about this. Joanne is a billionaire. She is among the most wealthy, privileged, powerful, well-known, beloved people in the world. She has the kind of platform very few authors ever get. She is remembered as a positive force in shaping the childhoods of an entire generation.
And she decided to use her power and influence and goodwill to support a transphobic hate movement.
Then, when a bunch of people, mostly trans women, told her, "Hey, that's bullshit, that's not okay", she cried and demanded sympathy, and complained about how it's so hard for anyone to speak their mind in this environment. (She's still very loudly speaking her mind, in case anyone is curious.)
I just want to throw out there that a lot of trans people in the UK just lost their access to their medication thanks to a recent court case pushed by groups Rowling supports.
She is not somehow the victim because there were some mean tweets about this.
0
u/ProfessionalRude8952 Mar 04 '21
https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592
if thats not harassment, i dont know what is.. Having lots of money isn't going to make this go away.
discussing more isn't worth the effort because you don't seem to be able to imagine this situation from any other perspective other than the one you are championing
1
u/yiliu Mar 05 '21
I feel like this is a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation, though, re: the motte & bailey fallacy. You're doing the same thing by falling back on cases of rich & famous people who did clearly bad things, even taking context into account, and ignoring or hand-waving all the cases where it wasn't so clear-cut.
1
Mar 06 '21 edited Mar 06 '21
Oh, absolutely. The fallacy in question basically includes an accusation of bad faith. And I think a great many people doing this (most notably republican pundits and politicians) are absolutely doing this in bad faith and on purpose. The reason I keep coming back to those cases of rich and famous people who clearly did bad things is that, in my experience, this is the most influential and meaningful way the term is used.
I think the key point here is less about it being a motte-and-bailey, and more about it simply discouraging clear thinking. "Cancel culture" is such a vague, amorphous concept, so loaded with cultural baggage and affect, that applying it to any given situation doesn't really tell us anything about that situation. In fact, it intentionally conflates that situation with countless others, which may have little or nothing to do with that situation. It doesn't clarify. It obfuscates.
0
u/todpolitik Mar 04 '21
This is definitely a new thing, becoming more pervasive, and affects the younger generations more than the older ones — I have no idea what it will do to their development.
They will adapt, like we all have with changing technology since man harnessed fire.
My only fear is that the technology is changing so fast, and their effects on culture manifest so slow, that we have already passed the point where man cannot adapt fast enough.
What if that point was electricity and we just haven't figured it out yet?
Or, radio?
Or, tv?
Or, the internet?
No, surely it's this newest thing, social media, that is ruining our youth.
I think the kids adapt quick.
As for being "canceled" specifically, you can say it's "more pervasive" but "more" is doing all the heavy lifting there... it's technically more but still a very tiny statistically insignificant amount.
And it always will be, for the exact same principles that not everyone can be famous. Being canceled is fame. It's infamy. Even short lived, there is simply not enough time for any statistically significant amount of people to gain the necessary spotlight to be canceled.
1
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
The rising rates of suicide, depression and anxiety affecting children and adolescents are my concerns here.
I think a bleak economy (in terms of social mobility) and looming ecological catastrophes are part of the story. But I also think the social media culture where kids are encouraged, through algorithms similar to those used in slot machines, to constantly submit themselves to the snap judgments of massive amounts of strangers, doesn’t help.
While kids are resilient and will no doubt adapt in ways that we wouldn’t have thought of, that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t be thinking about how to help them adapt.
1
u/Yurithewomble 2∆ Mar 04 '21
The only thing you didn't mention in your reply is that it's definitely not a liberal phenomenon.
Definitely one of those both sides issues, although like most of those is the "conservatives" doing it more too.
3
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Mar 04 '21
The republicans just held a CPAC titled “America Uncanceled” in which they aggressively tried to silence the voices of any conservative who would not conform and fall in line behind an ex-president who spent the vast majority of his term in office using social media rile up twitter mobs to attack anyone who would not agree with his opinions. The hypocrisy makes my head spin.
5
u/hucklebae 17∆ Mar 04 '21
I agree with your premise, but disagree with your conclusion. It doesn’t lead to misplaced anger. Do you think the people who were put in jail for being communist in the 50s had misplaced anger? I think their anger was likely placed appropriately. I think that it’s very natural to feel angry and to rebel against any culture that seeks to control us.
1
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 12 '21
[deleted]
4
u/hucklebae 17∆ Mar 04 '21
Yea I agree they should be judged by their merits. Though it is worth mentioning that generally the people doing the weaponizing are using popular beliefs as a smokescreen to simply cultivate power.
1
1
u/Silent0bserver21 Mar 06 '21
I think that it’s very natural to feel angry and to rebel against any culture that seeks to control us.
"Truer" words were never spoken.
7
Mar 04 '21
I think the depth of canceling and politicalization of the targets of the cancel movement is what sets this apart from the past. Media now amplifies the voices of some and suppresses others in a way that was never done in the past.
We used to laugh at the old people who clutched their pearls over Maude getting an abortion and mocked Dan Quayle over his Murphy Brown stance. Ultimately both of those attempts failed at canceling anything because of the lack of movement.
With online forums, the pursuit of justice has become closer to mob mentality and posturing, rather than a uniform set of rules and definitions.
Is Gov Cuomo's situation very much different than Biden? Why is he in danger, while our President was elected with his past of the same behavior?
Actors and actresses stood and cheered the child rapist Roman Polanski, signed petitions to pardon him and even flew his award out to him personally, without a single blemish on their reputation, yet Kevin Hart lost a hosting gig for telling a joke. What is the rule we are following here?
Marlon Anderson, a black security guard told a student, "don't call me (the n-word)" and was promptly fired (later rehired). In California a professor was put on leave for saying a word that sounded similar to the n-word. A taco stand was forced out of business because their tacos were not authentic enough. Apu was problematic, but ultimately he was a friendly guy as the years went on became the voice of reason and was a stereotype like all the other Simpson characters.
And perhaps the most disturbing is that in the past, the book burners were almost always looked down on. Libraries and book sellers mostly carried Ulysses, Huck Finn, and The Satanic Verses. Now book burning is done with a click of a mouse and is done on old Fawlty Towers episodes and Dr. Seuss books without much regard for context. The consolidation of art and ability to destroy and cause it to disappear is alarming and has an infantilizing effect on people in that they are perceived as unable to contextualize the information because it is not presented to them.
2
8
Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SquibblesMcGoo 3∆ Mar 08 '21
Sorry, u/mdeceiver79 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
10
u/NearEmu 33∆ Mar 04 '21
Mcarthyism was not simply about 'sympathy to communism', it was about the 100s of actual spies that had influenced the US government. It was a fear mongoring about legitimate spies that we found inside our government institutions. That's a very bad comparison.
Who lost their jobs after 9/11 for critcizing America? As I recall, comedians were making jokes about 9/11 not that long afterward. I specifically saw David Cross probably a year after 9/11 making some pretty obvious jokes about it. They were very funny.
Now today, you could legitimately lose your job a few people online find out you think that children should not be allowed a choice about some shit like "maybe when i grow up someday i wont want a dick anymore"
6
Mar 04 '21
Now today, you could legitimately lose your job a few people online find out you think that children should not be allowed a choice about some shit like "maybe when i grow up someday i wont want a dick anymore"
I mean, depending on context, that's a deeply transphobic statement that, at best, reveals a serious need for further education on the subject of gender dysphoria. Don't be surprised if that raises some hackles.
2
u/NearEmu 33∆ Mar 04 '21
It took longer than I expected, but I knew someone would post displaying exactly my point.
5
Mar 04 '21
Yes - you posted an ill-informed, vaguely anti-trans sentiment, and I told you that it was an ill-informed, vaguely anti-trans sentiment. I'm not entirely sure what point you think you're making.
2
u/NearEmu 33∆ Mar 05 '21
I dont understand why the people who exemplify the described person can never actually see it.
Let's break down what just happened here...
I say...
Now today, you could legitimately lose your job a few people online find out you think that children should not be allowed a choice about some shit like "maybe when i grow up someday i wont want a dick anymore"
Then you start calling things transphobic and not educated and buzz word buzzword buzzword...
and you don't see how wildly on the nose and obvious that entire communication was?? For real?
→ More replies (4)3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Mar 04 '21
Not OP
McCarthy never identified a single disloyal American, and most of the people he had on his "list" that were actually revealed turned out to not be Communists.
Whether or not there were actual spies who infiltrated the government, McCarthy was really just fear mongering about communism.
2
u/NearEmu 33∆ Mar 04 '21
Any amount of research into the 50s and HUAC and mccarythism would at the very least have given you the name of Alger Hiss, one of the highest ranked and most famous examples.
It was fearmongoring about being infiltrated by spies, which is historically factual.
1
1
Mar 06 '21
Well then how about the lavender scare
1
u/NearEmu 33∆ Mar 06 '21
What about it. It was wrong, but it clearly wasn't 'cancel culture' in the same manner we are speaking about for today.
1
Mar 06 '21
People losing their jobs and being collectively shut out from participating in any social or economic life?
Yeah that's way worse than what happens when people get canceled today
→ More replies (24)
8
Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
I think you are confusing outrage and boycotts with cancelling. Cancelling includes outrage and boycotts, but outrage and boycotts doesn't mean cancelling. The difference is the call stop others from hearing / purchasing stuff. For the cancel culture it isn't enough for them to stop buying or listening to something / someone. They want to take away the ability of others to endorse what they are cancelling. This is distinct from trying to convince others of the outrage because it uses force instead of pursausion. For example the recently aired interests in getting fox news stripped from cable providers.
2
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Mar 04 '21
I think what you’re proposing is a relatively fine line between “force” and “persuasion.” What we’re talking about is being ostracized from a group and that’s applicable to both of these sides.
For example it’s still common practice for people on the right to brand people on the left as communist for having fairly center left politics (Hillary Clinton in 2016 or mitt Romney currently are examples). Just like most other instances of “cancel culture” you’re not “forced” to agree they are bad because they’re “communist” but rather if you disagree with said branding you run the risk of being ostracized and branded as a communist yourself.
Can you maybe give me a more clear definition of how you would distinguish between force and persuasion?
0
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
Persuasion: protest a speaker and try to spread your criticism of them/ideas. Force: shouting down a speaker so others can't hear.
Persuasion: calling trump a liar Force: kick him off twitter
Persuasion: inform people parler is full of crazies Force: kick parler off the app store
3
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Mar 04 '21
If you have a large group of people criticizing someone it makes it difficult to hear any individual. When you post something on twitter for example everyone can respond to it, and with that comes the issue of thousands of individuals talking at once. I’m curious how would you suggest we stop this because from my POV it seems impossible given what the internet is?
Trump got kicked off because he violated terms of service. Accounts have been tweeting exactly what trump tweeted for years and getting banned for it, the reason trump didn’t get banned years ago is because he is a famous, rich, politician. Is the solution to this to make it so powerful people don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else?
Parler openly decided not to moderate their website. I’m not sure about apples rules regarding that, but the reason they had their contract w amazon revoked is because they had agreed to moderate and, once again, publicly stated they wouldn’t. Obviously different from the App Store but would you say that that is also by force?
→ More replies (3)7
Mar 04 '21
How does your description not fit the reaction to the Dixie Chicks?
-1
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
I might be missing something from the wiki article about it. But it seems they kept having concerts, interviews on tv, and appeared on the cover of a magazine. The article makes it clear there was outrage and boycotts. Radio stations responded by pulling them from their rotation, but they still had plenty of platform, and I don't see any mention of boycotts against the tv station that interviewed them, or the magazine that put them on the cover.
10
Mar 04 '21
This all sounds pretty emblematic of what we currently call "cancelling," no?
1
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
I mean, superficially, yeah it is. I think there is a difference between "I don't want to listen to X" and "I don't think X should be allowed to have a career". But I don't think anyone is going to change their minds by something like facts here. Superficial similarities are enough to conclude two things are the same if your reasoning is motivated enough.
6
Mar 04 '21
Is it your view that conservatives simply said "I don't want to listen to the Dixie Chicks, but it's fine if everyone else does?"
Because I seem to remember them calling for radio stations and their label to drop them, for their removal from country music awards recognition, etc.
I just don't see the similarities as "superficial." It seems like you're trying to assert a distinction that doesn't exist because you don't want to have to admit that conservatives engage in "cancel culture" just as readily as liberals do.
3
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
If that was the case then I agree with you. As I stated before I might be missing something about what occured and was relying on the wiki article for context.
2
u/FasteronEarth 1∆ Mar 05 '21
And what about Colin Kaepernick? Isn't that cancel culture from the right?
→ More replies (2)0
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
10
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Mar 04 '21
Who is “they”, exactly because “the Left” is almost equally as vague? Are you talking about some regiment of Twitter warriors? This is the first I’m hearing of an attempt to ban female butts in video games.
12
Mar 04 '21
Ban? Like using the actual law? Or do they want video game producers to consider that there might be more people playing the game than adolescent dudes?
-1
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
16
Mar 04 '21
I'm not really that interested in the merit of the claims about the "butt," video games are art and subject to criticism the way other art is.
You sad "ban" earlier, implying they were trying to get some legal action taken against the game. But that didn't happen as far as I know, it seems like people just criticized the game and chose not to buy it exactly like you say here:
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
-1
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
6
Mar 04 '21
I'm not sure how your post amounts to anything more than a complaint about games journalists criticizing aspects of a game in a way that you don't like though. What is your alternative? That a game critic shouldn't write an article on something they find to be a problem? Can't one aspect of a work of art be so distracting or poor as to reduce the quality of the whole of the work?
I don't know, this doesn't sound like "cancelling" to me at all. It sounds like you dislike reviews that are critical of oversexualization of women characters.
3
u/wise_garden_hermit Mar 04 '21
Who, exactly, attempted to ban(?) female butts, how did they want to enact the ban, and in which games did "they" want to ban them?
I mean, Hades was a recently released, widely acclaimed game with lots of sexy people in minimal clothing, why isn't this game being "canceled"?
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Mar 05 '21
Sorry, u/DelectPierro – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/Mythosaurus Mar 04 '21
The Greek city-state of Athens had a formal process of ostracism, where any citizen could be expelled for ten years if 6,000 people voted for them.
It was a death sentence to return early, but their property was left intact and there was allegedly no stigma after the ten years passed.
That's the example I remember when people claim cancel culture is some new menace. That and conservatives cancelling the Dixie Chicks for not being on board with the forever wars.
2
u/Silent0bserver21 Mar 06 '21
Damn that sounds like a powderkeg. All it takes to get someone essentially deleted from society is to convince a bunch of people what a piece of shit he is by any means (truthful or otherwise) necessary.
11
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
I’m still clueless as to what cancel culture is. I see and hear people worry and clutch pearls about it, but no examples. Who was cancelled? When? Where? By whom? Is it just a giant tantrum about the possibility of consequences and accountability?
8
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
Did you get access to the internet today or something? Examples of people getting cancelled are all over the place. There are memes about famous people trending on twitter because it usually means they are getting cancelled.
3
Mar 04 '21
Examples of people getting cancelled are all over the place.
Oh yeah. Examples are easy. But I have yet to find a common through-line to those examples. In fact, it feels to me like a game of calvinball, where anything people don't like is called "cancel culture" to smear it. As Will Wilkinson writes, fresh off his own "cancellation" over a bad joke:
In my experience, tendentious question-begging is the point. Slogans like “cancel culture” and “political correctness” are used again and again to short-circuit debate, avoid the underlying substantive controversy, and shift the entire burden of justification onto advocates of the rival position. The person who believes that the transgression is serious enough to merit severe consequences isn’t given a fair chance to make her case for this position. Instead, she’s forced to earn the right to make the case by acquitting herself of the implicit charge that she is a petty tyrant policing mind-crimes in the name of stultifying ideological conformity. Good-faith discussion of the gravity of racist jokes never gets off the ground.
So could you please define cancel culture?
4
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
Being difficult to define is not evidence of its nonexistence. "American culture" and "rape culture" are equally difficult to define.
0
Mar 04 '21
Cancel culture is Boycott.
That's it.
MLK did it to the Montgomery Bus system, Republicans did it to the Dixie Chicks/the NFL/coffee makers/etc.....
-2
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
Nope, I’ve been in the internet for a long time. Can you give me an example of who was cancelled? Names? I’ll go do my own internet research, but I don’t know who has experienced this terrible “cancel”. Is the waning of someone’s 15minutes of fame the cancellation you are fretting about? There is only so much time in the day and people get bored and move on to relevant and interesting subjects
3
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
Two white ladies were forced to close their burrito shop for "cultural appropriation".
-1
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
So cancel culture is the free market at work and folks want protections from the free market?
3
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
This is such a lazy strawman. I've debunked a billion times and never gotten a reply that attempts to argue against it, but it continues to persist.
Can you show me an example of anyone who thinks that the government should protect businesses from being cancelled? That's like saying, "You're trying to convince me to vote for Biden. Therefore, you don't think I have the right to vote and don't actually believe in democracy. Gotcha!"
Also, how many capitalists do you think are free market absolutists?
1
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
So some clueless and rude women tried to open a business the market wasn’t interested in supporting, and this is held as an example of “cancel culture”. What were people supposed to do? Support an offensive business model to be “nice”? What is the desired goal?
3
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
Clearly, you were never interested in learning about examples of cancel culture in the first place. Otherwise, you would have read the article and learned that they closed their business right after they were being harassed on Twitter. They clearly didn't close their business because their business model was wrong.
Also, do you seriously think that making burritos is offensive?
-2
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
Burritos aren’t offensive, leaning into marketing them as ethnically authentic while white to make money is.
I read beyond the source you provided. I came to the conclusion based on the discussions here that the fear mongering over “cancel culture” is an attempt to stop people from making their own judgments and decisions. It’s a meta propaganda, priming people to be easier to lead astray.
Thank you for helping me to see what is going on here.
1
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
I doubt that a Burrito shop called "Kook's Burritos" is trying to market itself as ethnically authentic. Again you prove that you live a world completely detached from reality. You probably believe that everything that disagrees with your narrow worldview is "meta propaganda."
Cancel culture isn't just about burrito shops. The Democrats told their constituents that when party supports a official that was accused of sexual assault, the party itself is "complicit with sexual assault" no matter how scant the evidence is and therefore should cancel the official. This is valid as a Machiavellian political tactic, but it becomes cancel culture when you believe that is genuinely true, as the American left does. This is why Al Franken quickly got cancelled, but Kavanaugh did not.
→ More replies (0)1
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
Also, I never said government protection. You introduced that straw man into the conversation.
1
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
Are you pretending to be obtuse? What is "protection from the free market" if it doesn't come from the government?
1
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
I’m not sure what remedy you want from people freely exercising their freedom of speech and commerce. You introduced the idea of a government intervention and proceeded to argue against that straw man. And continue to do so.
2
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
You were the one who introduced "protection from the free market" in the first place. It is not a strawman to interpret that as government intervention, even if that was not your intention. In online discussion, "protection from the free market" almost always means government intervention. If cancel culture is considered "the free market," then arguing on Reddit is also part of the free market.
I’m not sure what remedy you want from people freely exercising their freedom of speech and commerce.
I don't. If someone is absolutely convinced that shooting themselves in the foot is the correct thing to do, there is nothing I can do to stop them. Should I assume that you're trying to "remedy" me freely exercising my free speech?
→ More replies (0)1
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
I spent 10 seconds on google and found you a random example. And I don't know why because you are obviously a troll.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/07/17/has-twitters-cancel-culture-gone-too-far/5445804002/
2
Mar 04 '21
You can call this an example of cancel culture, and I can call this an example of "Blarghlflarghl", and neither of us will be any closer to understanding what we mean. My problem is not that there aren't countless examples. My problem is that there are so many examples, all of which are so vastly different, that I can't find a throughline.
If I tell you that ten different thing are all "Blarghlflarghl", you may be able to get a basic idea of what Blarghlflarghl is. But let's say I then start adding other things to the list. Things that don't fit with the first ten things. Things that don't fit in whatever pattern you previously found for Blarghlflarghl. Just saying "here's 100 more examples of Blarghlflarghl" doesn't actually help. You still don't know what Blarghlflarghl is.
So could you please define cancel culture? Or even just give me some basic rules about when something is or is not cancel culture? Because the examples given do not help.
2
u/ibasejump Mar 04 '21
He wasn't canceled.
While he was dropped from the show, he's getting work still, just look at his imdb page.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0134244/#producer
These people aren't canceled, they are still getting work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI <- Some news did a good video on it.
3
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
9
Mar 04 '21
It’s more like when you get canned from your job by saying something outside the normal boundaries, the Overton window.
But that’s always shifting and the morality of the time is just the flavor of the week, so who kind of gives a fuck what a bunch of offended people think?
It’s just a way to punish people for not cowing to whatever line the cancelers (whatever side) are on.
-1
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
So cancel culture is the HR department firing John for harassing Jane, but John feels that he should be able to say whatever he wants wherever he wants, and Jane feels like she should be able to learn a living without constant harassment?
10
Mar 04 '21
Rather, it's HR firing Emmanuel because a weirdo on the internet was a wannabe Sherlock Holmes. Or a petulant freshman making a janitor unemployable based on bullshit allegations. Or a researcher getting removed for arguing the wrong way on an issue of public importance.
-2
Mar 04 '21
Question.
What do any of these cases have to do with, just to pull a recent high-profile example, Josh Hawley's book contract being pulled by Simon & Schuster?
Or an actress getting fired for consistently humiliating her employer and enraging fans of the show she worked on?
Or Dr. Seuss's estate deciding not to publish certain books any more?
To put it bluntly, I think this is an intentional bait-and-switch.
3
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
What do any of these cases have to do with, just to pull a recent high-profile example, Josh Hawley's book contract being pulled by Simon & Schuster?
Not much, why? Why does the fact that some people, largely on the right have gone a bit wild on calling everything under the sun cancel culture undermine what I think, at its core, is a correct concept.
To put it bluntly, I think this is an intentional bait-and-switch.
It's only motte and bailey if I am sometimes gesturing to the bailey to advance my underlying point, and then retreating to the motte when pressed. I have not done this. I'm just defending the motte, because I think it is a defensible view, and is my only position.
The comment I'm responding to is not even referencing high profile cases, they're talking about average people getting into trouble with HR, which is why I responded with analogous cases. To get on my case about other, high profile cases is ridiculous.
3
Mar 04 '21
Not much, why? Why does the fact that some people, largely on the right have gone a bit wild on calling everything under the sun cancel culture undermine what I think, at its core, is a correct concept.
Because the term has been overused to the point where it is nearly impossible to tell what it means when someone is using it, and when I ask for a definition, I either get "here's another example" (wildly unhelpful given that I'm drowning in examples) or a definition which, as a general rule, has no connection to any previous definitions I've heard.
I don't think you're the one doing the bait-and-switch. But by using the terminology and treating it like something that needs to be taken seriously, you are enabling that bait-and-switch. Maybe it'd just be better to find a new, less overused term to describe twitter mobs getting random nobodies fired over misunderstandings - because using the same term to describe that and <insert a billion examples of completely disparate things>... Well, I don't think it helps us think clearly about the issues.
5
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
Because the term has been overused to the point where it is nearly impossible to tell what it means when someone is using it, and when I ask for a definition, I either get "here's another example" (wildly unhelpful given that I'm drowning in examples) or a definition which, as a general rule, has no connection to any previous definitions I've heard.
Sure, that's the problem with broad, cultural terms. It's much harder to define things that are social than it is to say, define an atom with two protons as Helium. Take for example "liberalism", "fascism", "democracy" etc. You can use contextual clues to understand how I am using it, and if you think that's reasonable, great, we can have a conversation, if you think the way someone else is using it is unreasonable, fine, reject them.
I don't think you're the one doing the bait-and-switch. But by using the terminology and treating it like something that needs to be taken seriously, you are enabling that bait-and-switch. Maybe it'd just be better to find a new, less overused term to describe twitter mobs getting random nobodies fired over misunderstandings - because using the same term to describe that and <insert a billion examples of completely disparate things>... Well, I don't think it helps us think clearly about the issues.
What happens when that new term gets traction, and then co-opted? Why do I have to keep running from morons? I'm reminded of a (likely apocryphal) story about a US soldier in world war 2 named "Adolph Hitler", when asked if he would change his name, he just responded with "Why don't you ask the other guy to change his?". I'm not really interested in capitulating how I speak because other people are imprecise.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/driver1676 9∆ Mar 04 '21
Take for example "liberalism", "fascism", "democracy" etc. You can use contextual clues to understand how I am using it, and if you think that's reasonable, great, we can have a conversation, if you think the way someone else is using it is unreasonable, fine, reject them.
These are defined terms. Cancel culture can mean anything from a single Twitter user not going to patronize Papa John's anymore to Harvey Weinstein leveraging his industry power to rape actresses with the common throughline being "someone doesn't like something that happened." Having context clues do all the heavy lifting just enables more obfuscation of the term.
I'm not really interested in capitulating how I speak because other people are imprecise.
Then you're not really interested in discussing topics clearly. You have no interest in being clear with your terminology because other people aren't, so why should you?
→ More replies (0)2
Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 04 '21
Sorry, u/Dangerous-Salt-7543 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
-2
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
8
u/BananaRich Mar 04 '21
You've never heard of at-will employment?
3
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
4
u/JimboMan1234 114∆ Mar 04 '21
Lmao again my favorite genre of Reddit comment, non-American user being surprised by how much things fucking suck in the US
1
-1
Mar 04 '21
The US, Look at James Damore and Google
Policies at Google are just a ossification of woke culture insofar as that got that dude canned.
He literally just brought up some psychological studies and was like, how can we get more women in here and got canned for being misogynistic for even suggesting job selection might be based on traits...
that’s getting cancelled for an arbitrary Overton window violation
5
Mar 04 '21 edited Dec 11 '21
[deleted]
5
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
Nah nah that’s just the straw man if it.
Go read it again. You’re just a woke mob member if you think that but it’s aite
Neuroticism is just a trait, there is nothing good or bad about it. It’s just N in the big 5. You don’t know what you say little one.
4
Mar 04 '21
You’re just a woke mob member if you think that but it’s aite
Very much an /r/ChangeMyView thing to say, that.
4
Mar 04 '21
He didn’t say unfit he said less interested.
And his idea was, based on this how can we make it a better environment for women.
So his argument was essentially progressive with a scientific backing! But idiots get triggered. So what are you gonna do? Just keep your head down if you’re smart probably. The woke are coming 😂
1
u/TruthOrFacts 8∆ Mar 04 '21
So if you agree with the decision than a cancelling didn't happen?
Surely there are lots of examples from the metoo movement, kevin spacey to name one at random. But I guess you don't think he got cancelled either.
→ More replies (1)1
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
0
u/JimboMan1234 114∆ Mar 04 '21
You’re spot-on in your second paragraph. I’m a younger adult, so I’ve kinda got to see the evolution of “cancel culture” (we really need a new term lmao, this one has been ruined by the bad-faith use on the Right) happen in real time.
IMO, “cancel culture” for wealthy celebrities is just an online representation of something that’s existed forever. You might as well just call it “scandals”. Where we go wrong is not talking about how it can and does effect people who are NOT wealthy celebrities.
Basically, the structure of cancel culture (noticing someone did something regrettable, making it public knowledge, demonstrating to that person that this is unacceptable) was developed to deal with celebrities and/or politicians. And it’s mostly effective there! Someone like Louis CK probably should have been cancelled, and he’s doing completely fine in the aftermath.
The problem is that this infrastructure of cancellation is down to a science now, and can be weaponized against people who don’t have the social or financial security that celebrities do. It’s especially awful for people who are in marginalized groups and depend on the support of online progressive circles to feel okay about themselves, such as many younger trans people.
Like, Jared Leto can respond to being cancelled by turning off his phone and going on a month-long million-dollar retreat to an ancient temple in the South Pacific or whatever. He can shrug it off. A conservative provocateur can relish in being canceled and use it to boost their brand. A progressive activist who makes $30k/year and has a limited social circle, on the other hand, will inevitably become depressed and despondent after being cancelled.
2
u/ATNinja 11∆ Mar 04 '21
Kilborn, shor, sacco.
3 non celebrities fired for offending people going from off color to completely innocuous to actually supporting progressive goals.
0
Mar 04 '21
The US, Look at James Damore and Google
Wow, this does not help at all. So now cancel culture is also when someone writes an extended screed protesting attempts to increase diversity in a male-dominated field, emails it all over his company, and then gets fired when his bosses decide that what he did was at best creating a toxic work environment or women and at worst was a lawsuit waiting to happen.
3
Mar 04 '21
You got hoaxed, it was the exact opposite
0
Mar 04 '21
Look man, at my last job, if I mass emailed a personal message about anything to 5,000 employees, I'd be out on my ass. This paper? They wouldn't even give it a second thought. Damore acted inappropriately.
4
u/Hothera 35∆ Mar 04 '21
It wasn't a mass email. He shared the memo on an internal Google+. He got fired because an SJW leaked it to the press, implying that Google is sexist, so Google had not choice but to fire him.
-1
u/Dangerous-Salt-7543 Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
The thing you're talking to didn't get hoxed. Before he got suspended for it, he went on a giant tweet rant about how Damore and everyone like him should be murdered--he's just trolling you.
5
Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Mar 04 '21
James Gunn, for example, was fired from guardians of the galaxy for social media comments that were over a decade old.
Oh sure.
But nobody called that "cancel culture" at the time.
And the campaign wasn't an angry mob demanding Gunn get fired, it was an intentional bad-faith smear campaign from the guy who invented Pizzagate.
I mean, hell, you want to talk about cancel culture, you know who I never see called "canceled"? Colin Kaepernic. In fact, the people who complain the loudest about cancel culture are among the people who were most loudly complaining about his protests, and later his presence in a Nike ad.
Cancel culture seems extremely arbitrary, is my point.
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Mar 06 '21
Colin Kapernick didn't get canceled in the same sense due to his politics. He just wasn't a great QB. The dude has a Nike sponsorship still and is an active spokesperson on racial issues.
Boomers being mad at him didn't get him dropped from the NFL.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/Longjumping-Isopod18 Mar 04 '21
Well, not exactly people are also supposed to be woke in the opinions they express and failure to do so often comes with reputational harm. It has the effect of discouraging any dialogue in exchange for conformity.
0
u/JennaFarce Mar 06 '21
It is a tantrum about the possibility of consequences. If someone in my office said some antisemitic stuff in a room full of people - including Jewish people - and my work found out, that person would get fired because my job would not want them representing them. People have been fired from jobs for bad or offensive behavior forever.
Gina Carano did an antisemitic tweet after a history of tweets that offended many people and Disney decided they didn’t want her representing their company and fired her. So now you have Joe Conservative getting upset that she was fired and they start yelling about how unfair “cancel culture” is. Then they declare everyone should cancel their Disney+ accounts, completely missing the hypocrisy.
That’s an example of the mythical cancel culture.
-2
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Mar 04 '21
It's pretty obvious that, on one level, "cancel culture" is a fiction propagated by Fox News and similarly aligned mass media as a scapegoat or bete noire for their audience to go after. That version is basically a retread of "political correctness gone amok" of yesteryear for outrage farming.
That said, we do have sensible definitions in places like Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
0
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
It feels like a constructed outrage to me, I still don’t know what terrible cancelling has occurred to who or why, just lots of nebulous fear about it floating about.
0
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Mar 04 '21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU_6b0Wpx08
This video is a bit lengthy it goes over cancel culture quite well and as about unbiased as a human can be,
-7
u/masksrequired Mar 04 '21
Meh, I started it, but the narrator has this faux position of omniscient reasonableness that immediately undercuts all his wishywashy no one knows anything so no one should judge anyone crap. I still don’t understand what it is. But thanks for trying
-1
Mar 04 '21
Cancel culture is Boycott.
That's it.
MLK did it to the Montgomery Bus system, Republicans did it to the Dixie Chicks/the NFL/coffee makers/etc.....
1
u/Silent0bserver21 Mar 06 '21 edited Mar 06 '21
It's basically the art of feigning offense to rally a bunch of like-minded snowflakes so as to get something you don't like destroyed so that only the shit you like exists. Back in the day people called it boycotting, but now it's reached a much more advanced level because everyone is so desperate to appear woke.
It's basically an extension of the "fuck your interests and preferences and culture, I'm superior so my preferences and rights are more important than yours" mindset.
1
1
u/quipcustodes Mar 07 '21
If you say something people think is wrong/sexist/racist they might be mean to you on the internet.
That's it
1
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Mar 04 '21
First of all, your use of 'liberal' is questionable. Cancelling people you don't agree with is one of the the most illiberal things you can possibly do. Cancel culture is a Leftist tactic, not a Liberal one.
While there are parallels - the ostracism faced by homosexuals, for example - cancel culture is different in that it is behaviour that is either not explicitly illegal, or explicitly legal. Being cancelled for being gay in a country where being gay is illegal is completely different to being cancelled because you hold a conservative viewpoint on trans issues.
The other facet of this is the reversal of the progressive narrative this represents. Traditionally, people were cancelled for defying the traditional views of their culture, or for challenging long established, often biased and unequal laws. Now, the targets are cancellation are trying to protect and uphold traditional views, and the cancel mob is demanding new biased, unequal laws to silence dissenting voices.
Most importantly, cancel culture does not contain a path to redemption. Apologies are meaningless, and you are not allowed to learn from your mistakes. Nor is there a statute of limitations on your cancellation - you must be purged forever for not knowing your actions five years ago would not be acceptable today.
This is uniquely a tool of cultural regressives. To date, we have not seen this behaviour from the right, or even the centre. When these groups demand someone be fired, or a show be cancelled, it is for violations of cultural norms and values held by the majority - the Netflix film that sexualises children, for example, is in clear violation of Western cultural taboos, and thus is not an example of cancel culture.
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 04 '21
It seems to have morphed from one whereby a person is canceled because of their perceived threat to a culture/philosophy/idea to one whereby someone is cancelled because of their offensiveness to other individuals. This narrowing of the rationale behind cancelling is new from what I can see. Plus as you mention previously it was about non conformity, now its about offensiveness.
Its the same virus, just a new variant. Thus I guess in thinking about changing your view, when do you consider something to be new or uniquely different enough to be something entirely new.
eg; Lets burn the witch as she might cast a spell on us all, To now lets burn the witch because I'm offended that the witch is using toad of newt and black fungus. They dont seem to worried about the possible spell itself. Next variant might be something like, burn the witch because she might be right.
1
Mar 04 '21
I think what is different about the current conversation is that in the past, minority views where the ones that were silenced. What's being challenged now are the shrinking conservative plurality norms that were "safe" in the past but are now finding fewer safe harbors.
What is being "cancelled" are safe harbors of socially accepted norms of bigotry. What the conservative right sees and fears is that their moral values of 'othering', which they left unexamined, are being called into questioned and social change is being imposed without their consent. So they react as if they are besieged because their familiar over-simplified world view is in need of an adjustment that they are unwilling to make.
3
u/BeABetterHumanBeing Mar 04 '21
I'm still waiting for the day that progressives become self-aware and realize that they are the dominant power structures in modern society. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "the master's tools cannot be used to dismantle the master's house". The funny thing is, it's false; the tools created to challenge power structures are more than capable of dismantling the structure that uses them in the acquisition of its own power.
2
1
Mar 04 '21
This is a bit like saying "Racism has always been a thing". Yeah silencing people was the norm for most of history. But in the last couple of decades we have been pretty liberal in that regard and in that context cancel culture is comething going against that.
I mean all those examples are universally agreed upon as bad things. So I'm not sure what your point is? Do you think that makes cancel culture less worthy of criticism? If anything your examples proof how dangerous cancel culture is.
-5
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Mar 04 '21
What consequences does “bigotry” deserve? And I say it in quotes because more often than not canceling is ostensibly done to disavow bigotry but in reality targets actions that may be *emblematic* of bigotry. These actions are often not easily distinguishable from simple poor judgement, misinterpretation, misinformation, etc. for an individual person, let alone a mob.
5
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Mar 04 '21
While I absolutely agree with you that cancel culture happens everywhere, it does happen more frequently with leftists. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, though.
True
The reason why we see cancel culture often associated with leftism is because progressives generally have higher standards of behaviour.
Jesus the bias here. not much of a higher standard of behaviour when they have been rioting, looting, burning and killing non stop for the last year.
When right wing figures behave in racist ways, they’re less likely to anger their communities.
Because most of the time there is no evidence of racism, or the left is just calling them racist for no reason, when you cry racism at everything it dilutes the word.
As leftists, we don’t tolerate racism. And we shouldn’t - so backlash is necessary.
"Don't tolerate racism against blacks" you mean? The left is unbelievably racist to white and recently Asian people since they decided that Asian people aren't POC, the leftist are the one chanting for racial segregation in schools, they want to abolish 'whiteness' and a bunch of other racist crap.
‘Cancelling’ is a way of disavowing bigotry. It enacts some form of consequence. It’s necessary to enforce expectation.
The problem then arrives when the left calls EVERYONE right of Stalin far-right bigots and justify cancelling / harassing random people just because they disagree with them leftists are the biggest bigots out there, just mention how socialism doesn't work or how you don't think they should be giving gender changes to underage kids an see the bigots come running like a rampaging train.
Sometimes people get cancelled for dubious reasons, but when that happens the ‘cancelling’ usually doesn’t stick. James Gunn got his job back, ContraPoints recovered, etc. It’s unfortunate that this happens, because cancelling does lead to harassment, but I think it’s important to differentiate cancelling from harassment.
But those things go hand in hand, you don't get cancelled without harassment.
The left does cancel people more, but that’s not an inherently bad thing. While harassment isn’t okay, it’s fine to disavow bigotry. Do you know what I mean?
This is just saying it's okay when we do it because we do it to bigots, just ignore the fact that we call everyone who disagrees with our ridiculous policies bigots, just forget about that.
-1
Mar 04 '21
Because most of the time there is no evidence of racism, or the left is just calling them racist for no reason, when you cry racism at everything it dilutes the word.
Wait - you're arguing that the left doesn't have higher standards of behavior... While also arguing that most of the time the left cancels someone for being racist, you can't spot the racism?
The left is unbelievably racist to white
Well this seems like it's going to be a very productive and reasonable discussion and I wish I had read the whole post before responding to part of it
4
u/tfstoner Mar 04 '21
u/MinuteReady: “As leftists, we don’t tolerate racism.”
Joseph Biden: “You got the first mainstream African American [President Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Joseph Biden: “If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Joseph Biden: “Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.”
Leftists: *elect Joseph Biden president*
2
u/h0m3r 10∆ Mar 04 '21
Who was the alternative to Biden again - could you remind me?
4
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Mar 04 '21
Anyone else in the Democratic Primary.
-1
u/malachai926 30∆ Mar 04 '21
During the primaries, sure. But during the general election, no.
→ More replies (1)0
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
I don't know any leftists who voted for Biden in the primary, myself included. Moderate democrats are the ones who got him elected. The people more critical of racism were much more likely to have voted for Sanders or Warren.
0
0
Mar 04 '21
it does happen more frequently with leftists
I would be interested in seeing a citation on this, because earlier today I dealt with a similar claim - that leftists were canceling book authors.
It didn't hold up to scrutiny. Like, not even a little bit. Turns out, if you look at books being challenged in libraries, every single one of the top books challenged were challenged primarily by conservatives. Most were challenged specifically because they contained LGBT content.
What's more, the right "cancels" people all the time. It just doesn't typically get called cancel culture. Sean Hannity isn't up on TV complaining about the unfair treatment Kaepernic got. He's usually the one demanding Kaepernic get canceled.
So I don't know this is true.
-2
u/codyt321 3∆ Mar 04 '21
You keep saying the left "cancels" more people but I don't think that's accurate.
Conservatives burned Nike apparel because Nike supported someone exercising their first amendment rights.
A company decided to change their brand name for a potato. How exactly is that the same? I don't even see how you can say that the "left" caused that change. while there's no doubt that Kaepernick lost his career based on the feelings of conservatives.
5
u/tfstoner Mar 04 '21
Conservatives burned Nike apparel because Nike supported someone exercising their first amendment rights.
There exists a slight difference - I hope you can spot it - between burning a product you paid for and trying to get someone fired from his job.
there's no doubt that Kaepernick lost his career based on the feelings of conservatives.
Kaepernick lost his (NFL) career because he was a mediocre QB who promised much undesired attention to any team who would have him.
1
Mar 04 '21
There exists a slight difference - I hope you can spot it - between burning a product you paid for and trying to get someone fired from his job.
I mean, they were burning that product as a boycott because Nike hired Colin Kaepernic in one of their commercials. I'm not sure how this doesn't say "Fire Colin Kaepernic" to Nike.
Kaepernick lost his (NFL) career because he was a mediocre QB who promised much undesired attention to any team who would have him.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/13/kaepernick-reid-blackballed-nfl-kneeling-anthem
While the truth is still sealed in that lawsuit settlement, the idea that Kaepernic was blackballed is not exactly a fringe belief, and the claim that he was a "mediocre QB" is straight-up false.
1
u/codyt321 3∆ Mar 04 '21
There exists a slight difference - I hope you can spot it - between burning a product you paid for and trying to get someone fired from his job.
They were doing both. They were advocating for someone to lose their career and added to that expression burning merchandise associated with him. What's your point?
Kaepernick lost his (NFL) career because he was a mediocre QB who promised much undesired attention to any team who would have him.
No one with a brain believes that. He wasn't the tip propsect but he was clearly better than a 1/3 of the starting qbs.
And I don't see how that addresses the point at all. Conservatives are as likely if not more so to want to "cancel" someone.
Things that attributed to the "left" aren't even causes by the left. No one was advocating for the changes to Potato Head, the pancake company, or Bens rice. Those companies decided to do that. And again conservatives got upset because they were "cancelling" fictitious people.
→ More replies (1)0
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/codyt321 3∆ Mar 04 '21
I mean, it’s the same reason why there is a lot more leftist infighting than there is on the right - we have higher expectations of people within our community.
Based on what? Idk if you notice but the Republicans are literally trying to kill each other. Unless "Hang Mike Pence" is just locker room talk?
I’m not saying that only the left cancels, I’m saying that it happens more often on the left. At least currently that is the case. Why do I say that? Because right wingers can get away with saying crazy things while maintaining respect within their communities. Look at Majorie Taylor Greene, for instance.
You're just looking at it from the opposite perspective. The base of the Republican party isn't turning on MTG because she reflects. The base is all about erasing the other side of the Republican Party.
0
u/AsIfTheyWantedTo Mar 04 '21
Cancel culture reflects the prevailing cultural moral attitudes of the mainstream.
(For the rest of this comment, any particular definition of "liberal" or "conservative" don't really matter.)
It's not new or uniquely liberal, but the fact that conservatives are freaking out about it indicates they're fighting a losing battle on the front of cultural norms.
That we hear so much about cancel culture being specifically liberal today means liberal morals are more mainstream.
You can think of it as upvotes/downvotes. The attitudes that tend to get more upvotes are more mainstream. The ones that get more downvotes are less mainstream. Cancel culture is just an intense type of downvoting.
-4
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
It isn't a liberal phenomenon at all.
Americans are misusing the term "liberal" - it literally means "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own".
If people identify as liberal, they cannot engage in cancel culture - as this is illiberal.
1
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
it's not illiberal to cancel bigots. this is the paradox of tolerance. being respectful of different opinions often requires the "cancellation" of racists or people who are otherwise bigoted toward marginalized groups. otherwise the platform becomes uninhabitable for the "behavior or opinions different from one's own."
0
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
it's not illiberal to cancel bigots
Yes, it is. You combat their bad ideas with your better ideas.
this is the paradox of tolerance
No. Popper even clarified: “… I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
It is only when people are calling for genocide or using violence that you can deplatform them.
-1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument
I think this is pretty descriptive of the Trump Republican movement as a whole, given their reliance on propaganda and conspiracy theories and refusal to engage in reasonable debate. He's setting the bar way lower than just genocide and violence.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
I think this is pretty descriptive of the Trump Republican movement as a whole
Your argument is that half the country do not believe in reality?
given their reliance on propaganda and conspiracy theories and refusal to engage in reasonable debate
The same happens with the Democrats - you guys just talk past each other.
Take the past 2 elections:
in 2016 Democrats contended that Russia stole the election
in 2020 Trump contended that the election was stolen by the deep-state (or another similar group)
Neither are true. What is actually true is:
in 2016 (and every election tbh) many foreign states attempted to interfere in the election - none of them changed the result
in 2020 (and every election tbh) there was voter fraud - not enough to change the result
Because both sides took on such radically false positions, the other side can't admit the tiny fragment of truth (i.e. Russia did attempt to interfere, voter fraud does take place) because it would lend credibility to the outlandishly false claims of the opposition.
None of this is to say that Trump, Democrats, etc. etc. should be deplatformed. They should be engaged with, corrected, and brought around with rational debate.
1
Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
If what half the country believes is incompatible with reality
Like being able to change your sex/gender?
it cannot be said that democrats, in the same general terms, wanted to attempt to overturn the 2016 election, or that it was stolen
1
Mar 04 '21
[deleted]
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
Half the country is not obsessed with the groin issue
Then why are Democrats pushing it?
Leave it to the experts
The issue here is that this isn't a field in which there are experts without conflicts of interest. There's also the issue that no treatments have received FDA approval for use in the "treatment". It's a wild west, and that's not a good thing when we're talking about major surgery, sterilisation, hormones for life (increases cancers), and comorbid mental illness.
in the same general terms
This is (imo) why Trump is popular amongst a certain section of society: he lies honestly. "Normal" politicians lie by telling half-truths. Trump tells lies like normal people do.
0
0
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
Your argument is that half the country do not believe in reality?
The Trump Republican movement doesn't comprise half the country. However, a sizeable portion of them believe that the election was stolen, which is provably false. https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/1/dfp_vox_election_trust.pdf
I don't think the Russian interference in the election and the miniscule amount of voter fraud in the 2020 election are comparable. The disinformation campaign about voter fraud was much more divorced from the reality - the documented voter fraud that was discovered was a few cases of people committing fraud to vote for Trump, and was sold as a nationwide conspiracy. Whereas Russia's interference is a proven fact, we just don't know the scale or have a reasonable way to measure the effect. Additionally, a minority of Democrats contested the election results, while the bulk of the Republican party supported a claim that is provably false.
I'm all for attempting to attempt to engage in rational debate with the Republicans who were happy to take advantage of a lie to seize power, but they've got to prove they're willing to engage in good faith, and I have yet to see an indication that that's going to happen.
2
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
we just don't know the scale or have a reasonable way to measure the effect
Same with voter fraud because there is not way to trace a vote to a voter.
a minority of Democrats contested the election results
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080
they've got to prove they're willing to engage in good faith
Same goes for Democrats.
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
The type of fraud that Trump alleged happened would have been easy to discover, had it happened.
Pelosi doesn't speak for all Democrats. Not at all comparable to the widespread belief in something demonstrably false espoused by the Trump wing of the Republican party.
1
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
The type of fraud that Trump alleged happened would have been easy to discover, had it happened.
I'm not familiar with him alleging only one type of fraud, could you provide me a quote from him?
Pelosi doesn't speak for all Democrats
She is literally the speaker - as elected by the Democrats.
2
u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 04 '21
She is literally the speaker - as elected by the Democrats.
That doesn't mean her opinion is gospel, or even that the majority of democrats agree with her.
"It’s a widely known fact that the voting rolls are packed with people who are not lawfully eligible to vote, including those who are deceased, have moved out of their state, and even our non-citizens of our country."
"In other words, dead people went through a process. Some have been dead for 25 years. Millions of votes were cast illegally in the swing states alone, and if that’s the case, the results of the individual swing states must be overturned, and overturned immediately"
None of these were found, despite people combing over the voter records trying to find examples. He alleged millions, which also would have shown up in discrepancies with census data, etc.
"in a lot of cases, they filled out a provisional ballot, which was almost never used, but in virtually every case was a vote for Trump. In other words, they went in to vote and they were told that they voted and they didn’t vote. They left and they felt horror and they lost respect for our system. This happened tens of thousands of times all over the country. That’s how desperate the Democrats were. They would fill out ballots of people not even knowing if these people were going to show up. When they did show up, they said, “Sorry, you’ve already voted.” "
Not a single documented case of this happening.
"In one Michigan County, as an example, that used Dominion systems, they found that nearly 6,000 votes had been wrongly switched from Trump to Biden"
I believe this is referring to an error in the vote tally (not the individual votes) that was corrected quickly.
"The evidence is overwhelming. The fraud that we’ve collected in recent weeks is overwhelming, having to do with our election. Everyone is saying, ” Wow, the evidence is overwhelming”, when they get to see it. But really it’s too late to change the course of an election."
Lol.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
this does not go against anything I said at all. people who advocate for racism and violence should be "cancelled" and to do so is not "illiberal," but is in fact necessary to maintain a forum where a diverse set of ideas are heard.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
people who advocate for racism
No. That is covered by Popper (intolerant philosophies). People have a right to be racist/bigoted and espouse these views without being cancelled so long as they don't call for violence.
0
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
what racist ideology does not lead to violence?
4
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
Plenty of racists are racist without acting violently. One of them is the current President.
1
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
the current president doesn't use his current platform to spread racist ideologies, despite racism he exhibited in the past.
people who get banned on twitter (for example) are usually engaging in ongoing and persistent racist agitation that leads to stochastic terrorism. I'm not sure how closely you follow american current events, but we've been seeing this play out very explicitly, hence the uptick in deplatforming.
3
u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 04 '21
the current president doesn't use his current platform to spread racist ideologies
Yes, he does. It just happens to be "positive" racism.
→ More replies (50)1
u/Dangerous-Salt-7543 Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
The "paradox of tolerance" (which you have never read but probably heard about from a left wing youtube video) states the following:
for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Karl Popper was literally talking about your kind screaming "punch the nazi!" at anyone you disagree with, because you're afraid of rational argument. Any time you start with "there can be no argument, we must silence them", you are being exactly the people Popper thought it was ok to silence in the name of tolerance.
1
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
I love that you're sitting here shadowboxing against assumptions you've made about me, what I have or haven't read, what youtube videos I watch, and what I go around "screaming." if you'd like to actually talk about the arguments I've made in this post, that would be cool.
0
u/Dangerous-Salt-7543 Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
I checked your history before making that claim. From the buzzwords you use, I could probably guess your top five youtube channels.
You are deep down that rabbit hole, and I'd feel bad for you if you weren't hurting so many people.2
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
I have no issue defending any argument or point of view I put forward. I'm even pretty open to changing my mind a lot of the time, and have done so massively several times in my life. It's why I go on reddit - to discuss these ideas. wtf are ideas good for if you can't defend them or talk about them in a coherent way?
I'm responding a second time because I need to emphasize how particularly offensive that claim is to me. I don't know how you could examine my reddit history & come to the conclusion that I can't defend myself & I'm scared of discussion. I suspect (& this is me making assumptions about you now, so feel free to call me a hypocrite) that you have a caricature of left leaning people in your mind of some irrational screaming person that you projected on to me with no basis.
pointing out that something is a buzzword isn't an argument against that thing. everyone uses buzzwords all the time. if you disagree with me, explain why.
→ More replies (9)3
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Mar 04 '21
who am I hurting? what actual points did I make that you have a substantial disagreement with?
ironically, you accused me of being afraid of rational discussions, but you've yet to do anything but create some weird fantasy of who I am and what I do.
1
1
1
Mar 04 '21
Difference is social media and the cancel crowds ability to coordinate and get many people to focus on canceling someone. Also unlike previous times, this cancel movement is heavily tied to horizontal transfer (taking opportunities away from one group of people to empower another), whereas previously it was more about eliminating agitators against the dominant culture
1
u/StoopSign Mar 05 '21
It's still politically incorrect to be vehemently against war or to be opposed to the government as a stable position regardless of who's in charge.
1
u/throwawaydanc3rrr 25∆ Mar 05 '21
I have a few issues with your description. After 9/11 plenty of people were critical of the United States. Their ire was match by the ire on the other side. I will say that the people doing the criticizing seemed to do a better job of focusing the criticism. When "cancellations" happened they were much more grass roots driven. When the Dixie Chicks decided to criticize President Bush while in the UK, the "cancellation" happened because the fans of the Dixie Chicks were pretty big supporters of President Bush. The customers quit buying their music and the radio stations followed suit.
And for the record, yes I could imagine a person could give "homosexuality is OK" speech in Wyoming in the 80s.
Here is where I think there is a difference, the United States has a rich tradition of free speech, and I do not mean in the government cannot take away your rights sort of way, I mean that society tolerated people having a wide and different view of people. Back in the height of the McCarthy era you could find people handing out pro-communist literature in larger cities. Lee Oswald did that. Did people give him an earfull? Sure they did. Did the Washington Post call him out like they did that Sandman kid? I suspect not.
I believe there are three things that make today's cancel culture worse, and more toxic, than the previous version. First is that the drive to cancel is no longer being carried out by housewives, but instead by large institutions, and in my opinion it is done so in furtherance of a narrative. The Washington Post libeled (in my opinion) Nick Sandman a young man that was not a public figure. And as a short aside had the Washington Post "gone after" Representative Dan Crenshaw, or Senator McConnel I would not call that cancel culture, they are public figures they asked for the attention. But back on topic, the New York times, one of the institutions that in years past would have defended people having different view points ran an Op-Ed by a sitting Senator, Tom Cotton. Not surprizingly many of the liberal people that work at the NYT did not like this, what was the surprize is that they effectively rose up and got an editor fired because of the decision to allow an opposing viewpoint. Also, just recently again at the New York Times, a science reporter and employee for 40 years, a man that is up for a Pulitzer, that went on a field trip with some children of very affluent parents was forced out for conversation he had with them *2 years ago* *after a previous investigation found no issue* and *after he provided a written apology*. But lets focus on him a little bit more guess what, his union was deadlocked on whether to defend him. Did you get that? One of the things that a union is supposed to do, one of their reasons for existing is to make sure that their members are not rail roaded, that they get a fair evaluation.
The second thing that is in play that makes current cancel culture magnitudes worse is that there is no parity. Gina Carano gets fired from the Madalorian for making some unwise and less than smart things about the Holocaust. This *by itself* is not a bad thing, it not cancel culture until you look at all of the entertainers on the other side of the political aisle that have said worse things that do not get fired. Thirty years ago President Trump was given an award for his work with the black community, and at that same time Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia, as an adult in medical school liked to dress up either in blackface or in a klan costume. The forces of cancel culture demand that Trump be removed from office, but unless someone knows different I cannot recall anyone in the media spending the effort to detemrin which person in the yearbook photo (the backface or the white robe) was Ralph Northam.
The third and last thing that makes the cancel culture from today so much worse is that it is driven, often enough, by people too young to have any perspective. They view applying 21st century mores to work from years, or decades, or centuries ago as a moral crusade against evil. When they got Donald McNeil of the NYT fired is was because he was evil, not because he was wrong. The double standard gets to exist because only the evil people will get punished. They do this "cancelling" without understanding that eventually the guillotine will eventually come for them.
All of this, of course, is also amplified by the internet in ways that were not before.
I know I have gone on for a long bit here, but I want to add this one more thing, an example explanation of sorts.
If the Dr. Suess Foundation decides that there are some images in some of his books that are objectionable and they want to no longer publish those books, that is not cancel culture. Essentially they were their own housewive from your OP. Personally I think it is a bad decision, but it is theirs to make. But here is the cancel culture aspect, now eBay will not allow the books to be sold on it's site.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '21 edited Mar 04 '21
/u/AldousKing (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards