i don't understand your logic here. one person calling for cancellation is not cancel culture but 'a load' calling for cancellation is?
how many is a load?
alasdair
Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion
- Thread starter mal3volent
- Start date
i don't understand your logic here. one person calling for cancellation is not cancel culture but 'a load' calling for cancellation is?
how many is a load?
alasdair
SvnLyrBrto
Bluelighter
You should really look into the history of Henry II, the murder of Thomas Becket, and the phrase: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?". And perhaps you should keep that dynamic in mind when you consider cutting him any slack on this, 1/6, anti-mask/vax-ers, the SS rune at CPAC, and the rest.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Very appropriate post. Nice. (But it was a ‘turbulent’ priest in the original).
IIRC it was Dave Chapelle who provided the label "cancel culture", because in showbiz it's said that you're canceled if your show was pulled off the air.
That aside, Twitter-borne harassment campaigns have gone on for years and been much uglier at times than simply a showbiz millionaire losing an endorsement.
For example -
thoughtcatalog.com
Some more articles at random over the years -
forward.com
reason.com
ricochet.com
It would be more appropriate to call this delete culture, given how the perpetrators don't seem to have been deterred by some of their victims committing suicide.
The whole idea of harassing and intimidating someone until everyone in their life suffers for it is just really ugly and antisocial behaviour.
That aside, Twitter-borne harassment campaigns have gone on for years and been much uglier at times than simply a showbiz millionaire losing an endorsement.
For example -
How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists
SJWs do not realize is that they are single-handedly cultivating a generation of fascists. The more extreme the left becomes, the more right-wing and reactionary people will become as a result.
thoughtcatalog.com
Some more articles at random over the years -
Opinion | It’s Time To Call Out Bullying By Social Justice Warriors
Much of liberal culture sees social justice bullying online as well-intentioned anger gone too far. It’s time to see it simply as bullying.
forward.com
A Guide to Surviving Your 15 Minutes of Hate
Here's how to navigate America's newest ritual.
reason.com
Lessons from an SJW Mob (or, Horror in Romancelandia)
Isolate the target. That’s the first rule of mobbing. But who knew it would result in so many targets? My sister and I are writers. She’s romance, I’m mystery. We’re both members of Romance Writers of…
ricochet.com
It would be more appropriate to call this delete culture, given how the perpetrators don't seem to have been deterred by some of their victims committing suicide.
The whole idea of harassing and intimidating someone until everyone in their life suffers for it is just really ugly and antisocial behaviour.
dalpat077
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2019
- Messages
- 3,091
As some will know I was a little quiet last week. Doesn't mean I wasn't monitoring. And the above came through the ether and I've been meaning to find it and re-post it ever since. And to say "what a masterpiece"! Well now I've found it this morning. And what a masterpiece! It's taken me almost a year and well over 1 000 posts (don't let the current count fool you) to attempt to get the same point across (albeit in a crass manner)! And he gets it right in two paragraphs!
Respect to you Sir!
(I'm guessing now that because I personally am raving about it it's probably lost it's credibility of course but, oh well, shit happens)!
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Does anybody else find it weird that people like Woody Allen (who has fucked at least one of his daughters) and Charlie Sheen (who sodomized an underage Corey Haim, among a million other transgressions) continue to get work?
I assume with Woody Allen that people forgive him because he's such a talented writer, like how people defend Michael Jackson even though he's one of the creepiest kiddy fiddlers of all time... But Charlie Sheen?
Then you have people like Joss Whedon that are cancelled, despite basically not doing anything other than being a bit of an asshole.
I don't get it.
I assume with Woody Allen that people forgive him because he's such a talented writer, like how people defend Michael Jackson even though he's one of the creepiest kiddy fiddlers of all time... But Charlie Sheen?
Then you have people like Joss Whedon that are cancelled, despite basically not doing anything other than being a bit of an asshole.
I don't get it.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
How cancel culture evolved: Conservatives spent decades telling liberals "if you don't like it, vote with your wallet" and after decades of getting stoned in protest pot was legalised and conservatives started smoking it too so liberals needed another way to protest so they took up the conservatives suggestion to a raucous cry of "CANCEL CULTURE!" from the conservatives.
No, seriously! Does nobody else see this? This is simply economics. Businesses need liberals to buy their products. Liberals won't buy products from businesses they see as unethical or immoral. This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for literally decades - vote with your wallet. They said it to dismiss liberal complaints, assuming that liberals wanted the products more than they wanted to push their causes. That equation changed at some point for the liberals and conservatives literally got what they asked for. Conservatives created cancel culture and now they are whining about it.
No, seriously! Does nobody else see this? This is simply economics. Businesses need liberals to buy their products. Liberals won't buy products from businesses they see as unethical or immoral. This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for literally decades - vote with your wallet. They said it to dismiss liberal complaints, assuming that liberals wanted the products more than they wanted to push their causes. That equation changed at some point for the liberals and conservatives literally got what they asked for. Conservatives created cancel culture and now they are whining about it.
GodFatherPoppy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 64
Cancel culture needs to stop. What a bunch of fucking pussies. Boo hoo you hurt my feelz, where's my safe space to cry.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
Except that the "wallet" is only a small part of the equation.
You're just taking random things, and adding them together, to prove a point that is incredibly pointless in the first place. Even if we're only talking businesses and money, your argument fails because people literally don't care, they cancel, forget and move on, this has got few to do with making a statement or something. People are still happily buying from companies with terrible factories, mines whatever. If these liberals you talk about are so concerned with human suffering, I will happily conjure up thousands of things that need to be addressed. Spoiler: they are not.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
Why would anyone pay attention to cancel culture at all if not for the money? Spoiler: businesses don't have ethics, as a group. They just care about dollars and their faux-ethics are dictated by the sort of things their customers will put up with. It doesn't even have to be all their customers, just enough to make a dent in the bottom line. If a business has a profit equal to 5% of its revenue, only 5% of its customers need to take offense and stop buying in order for it to go under. Things get cancelled because not cancelling it costs more than cancelling it does. It's economics, pure and simple. That is exactly what conservative voices have been saying for decades.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not falling on either a liberal or conservative side of this fence. I could care less about both. I'm just making an observation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not falling on either a liberal or conservative side of this fence. I could care less about both. I'm just making an observation.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
People get cancelled too. This is important to note, it's like the simplest example to show that money doesn't matter for the people you're describing. There's no real well intending agenda behind it or something that wants to cancel all evil structures. It's about feeling morally superior together in ones internet bubble.
Yes, you're describing capitalism. Are you saying that these things are mostly setup by rivaling companies or something? Maybe, but likely on a scale that is irrelevant. Game is rigged for megacorps anyway. Feel free to bring up relevant examples.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
People, generally speaking, get cancelled because of money too. They get cancelled because businesses won't employ them anymore out of fear of reputation damage. Advertisers won't associate their products with them anymore. Don't mistake a celebrity resignation for a real-world one. They resign because their position is untenable and it just prolongs the bad press and further sullies their name if they opt to get fired rather than resign. Nobody is making those decisions on moral or ethical grounds, they do it because of the financial cost of those decisions.
I'm not arguing that it's morally right or wrong here. You're right that it's about feeling morally superior in an internet bubble. The mechanism that allows that to happen though is capitalism and the simple fact that it costs more to not cancel than to cancel, in the current socio-political environment.
I'm not arguing that it's morally right or wrong here. You're right that it's about feeling morally superior in an internet bubble. The mechanism that allows that to happen though is capitalism and the simple fact that it costs more to not cancel than to cancel, in the current socio-political environment.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
Ah, like that, yeah I agree, might've misunderstood this earlier, but obviously true.
Yes, but I really do disagree that this exactly is the core of cancel culture, this is the logical follow up, what can you do. Maybe it's a matter of definition.
I looked some things up, just for shits and giggles.
- J.K. Rowling — The famous author of the Harry Potter series has faced backlash for voicing her fears that the push for transgender rights will ultimately endanger women’s rights. She’s since defended her comments on her website and joined 150 authors and academics denouncing “cancel culture.” These actions have only further infuriated her critics, who called for a boycott of her books and for her publisher to stop paying royalties.
- Gina Carano — The “Mandalorian” actress was fired by Disney after posting on social media that being a Republican in 2021 was similar to being Jewish during Nazi Germany. Her Hollywood agent dropped her, and Hasbro scrapped her “Star Wars” action figures.
- The longtime host of ABC’s “The Bachelor” franchise decided to “step aside” after defending current contestant Rachael Kirkconnell when old photos surfaced of her attending an Old South antebellum party. “While I do not speak for Rachael Kirkconnell, my intentions were simply to ask for grace in offering her an opportunity to speak on her own behalf,” Harrison explained. “What I now realize I have done is cause harm by wrongly speaking in a manner that perpetuates racism, and for that I am so deeply sorry.”
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
This is cancel culture is in my opinion. Three parts - Motivation - liberals either for ethical/moral objections or group-think wanting to feel morally superior. Mechanism - liberals boycott products or businesses associated with individuals or practices which have fallen into disfavour with the motivated group. Consequence - Businesses cancel in order to cut loose the individuals or practices which are objected to by the motivated group.
None of it exists in isolation from the rest, it's a system.
None of it exists in isolation from the rest, it's a system.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
I think you are again wrong, look at the examples above., how do they fit in there. Please give some examples yourself.
There is no mechanism, or only very rarely. In order to avoid potential boycotts (but most of the time this is just some reputation damage) businesses do something.
In practice there is rarely a long lasting boycott. People forget so fast. I believe you're trying to project this '''''phenomenon''''' on something that is not directly related.
Of course everything comes down to money in the absolute end, but here the connection is so trivial that it only distracts from the true origins that are a problem, which I'm avoiding to go into because it's a rabbit hole.
There is no mechanism, or only very rarely. In order to avoid potential boycotts (but most of the time this is just some reputation damage) businesses do something.
In practice there is rarely a long lasting boycott. People forget so fast. I believe you're trying to project this '''''phenomenon''''' on something that is not directly related.
Of course everything comes down to money in the absolute end, but here the connection is so trivial that it only distracts from the true origins that are a problem, which I'm avoiding to go into because it's a rabbit hole.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
I think we're at crossed wires. Let me try and put it a different way. The purpose of a boycott is to pressure businesses to abandon their association with the individuals who are out of favour. This is a mechanism. Consumers abandon the businesses until such a time as the business removes the objectionable association. Cause and effect. There exists intentionality. The very purpose of the boycott is to produce the effect that is desired. Boycott's are typically short-lived, yes, but in large part this is because the desired outcome of the boycott is achieved.
To use your example of Gina Carano, there was public backlash against her comments (and to be fair there was a lot of anticipated backlash which really didn't factor in because Disney was fairly proactive about packing up her desk). Backlash, calls for boycotts etc, Actress fired, Disney returns to business as usual. The connection isn't trivial, Disney was not willing to risk the loss of business from reputational damage, so the protesters got exactly what they wanted. They flipped a metaphorical switch by threatening boycott, or at least making enough noise that Disney felt its sales would suffer.
My own example - Gamestop. Mom and pop investors tried to punish hedge funds for shorting the business. Many had moral or ethical objections to the practice of shorting. They were in effect trying to run them out of business (cancel them) and almost succeeded in a few cases. The moral objection to the practice of shorting is meaningless, they'd been complaining for decades about it. It was only the facilitating of them being able to trade en-mass as a kind of group that allowed them to punish the hedge funds. Motivation had to be translated action via a mechanism.
I guess what I am trying to convey is that all the moral outrage and internet shouting and excessive punctuation in the world doesn't on its own cause or achieve anything at all. Even if everyone in the world reads it, nothing happens. Cancel culture only occurs when that talk is translated into actual action or threats of actual action. Typically that action is a boycott of some description. Cancel culture is orchestrated by a minority, but a large enough minority to significantly impact business profit margins. As I said earlier, they only need enough people to squeeze the already tight margins that businesses have. The pandemic probably makes that even easier with many businesses already struggling. Without the threat to profits all you have is people complaining on the internet, and that's not new at all.
People complain about an issue (motivation) -> people threaten or act to boycott goods and services (action) -> businesses disassociate themselves from the issue (consequence)
You can place the blame for cancel culture on the motivation part of that system, but I personally don't see the point - are you going to stop people complaining? Alternatively, you can look at the larger system in which it takes place. What has changed? People seem more motivated to forgo certain goods and services for ethical or moral reasons. Are there more alternative goods now? Do they hold stronger to their ethical and moral principles now? Do modern technological innovations facilitate organising boycott's better now? Do modern technological innovations better facilitate group-think moral-superiority thinking now? Are businesses more sensitive to bad publicity now? Are business profit margins more squeezed now such that they don't have the luxury to ride out a boycott?
People have always wanted to punish individuals and groups they see as bad. That hasn't changed. That will likely never change. What has changed is their agency to do that.
To use your example of Gina Carano, there was public backlash against her comments (and to be fair there was a lot of anticipated backlash which really didn't factor in because Disney was fairly proactive about packing up her desk). Backlash, calls for boycotts etc, Actress fired, Disney returns to business as usual. The connection isn't trivial, Disney was not willing to risk the loss of business from reputational damage, so the protesters got exactly what they wanted. They flipped a metaphorical switch by threatening boycott, or at least making enough noise that Disney felt its sales would suffer.
My own example - Gamestop. Mom and pop investors tried to punish hedge funds for shorting the business. Many had moral or ethical objections to the practice of shorting. They were in effect trying to run them out of business (cancel them) and almost succeeded in a few cases. The moral objection to the practice of shorting is meaningless, they'd been complaining for decades about it. It was only the facilitating of them being able to trade en-mass as a kind of group that allowed them to punish the hedge funds. Motivation had to be translated action via a mechanism.
I guess what I am trying to convey is that all the moral outrage and internet shouting and excessive punctuation in the world doesn't on its own cause or achieve anything at all. Even if everyone in the world reads it, nothing happens. Cancel culture only occurs when that talk is translated into actual action or threats of actual action. Typically that action is a boycott of some description. Cancel culture is orchestrated by a minority, but a large enough minority to significantly impact business profit margins. As I said earlier, they only need enough people to squeeze the already tight margins that businesses have. The pandemic probably makes that even easier with many businesses already struggling. Without the threat to profits all you have is people complaining on the internet, and that's not new at all.
People complain about an issue (motivation) -> people threaten or act to boycott goods and services (action) -> businesses disassociate themselves from the issue (consequence)
You can place the blame for cancel culture on the motivation part of that system, but I personally don't see the point - are you going to stop people complaining? Alternatively, you can look at the larger system in which it takes place. What has changed? People seem more motivated to forgo certain goods and services for ethical or moral reasons. Are there more alternative goods now? Do they hold stronger to their ethical and moral principles now? Do modern technological innovations facilitate organising boycott's better now? Do modern technological innovations better facilitate group-think moral-superiority thinking now? Are businesses more sensitive to bad publicity now? Are business profit margins more squeezed now such that they don't have the luxury to ride out a boycott?
People have always wanted to punish individuals and groups they see as bad. That hasn't changed. That will likely never change. What has changed is their agency to do that.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Interesting. Nice point.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
Indeed we are
Yeah you touch on it here, reputational damage, as in not pissing off the horde. The financial 'motives' are circumstantial and the logical consequence of living in a capitalistic world.
Yes but I wholeheartedly disagree that the agency has changed. This is the core of our discussion I believe, just to reiterate
the mob hasn't got much to gain from cancelling others, other than artificially feeling good about themselves and pretending like some issue was solved for the betterment of everyone.For example, think witches in the medieval age, it was all about dehumanizing, sure you can make connections to financial systems (as in that witches were blamed for adverse events leading to hunger or poverty), but the core is in the scapegoating and mass mentality. It's these mechanisms that imo should be discussed and are interesting, it's only logical for businesses that want to make money and have to succumb to the mob
Scapegoating, as old as humanity itself and never more relevant than today.
Yeah but this is just bordering on criminal behavior by hedge funds, standing up against that isn't what 'cancel culture' is about.
Good paragraph, forgive for digging into it, asking the good questions here
In essence, not much.
'seem' being the keyword, rarely implemented with success in practice where people actively lose big. I don't buy the hedgefunds argument, there is nothing to lose, and it's just unethical in the first place, and they're right to address that, disregarding the way in which it's done + the apparent perseverance and somewhat more dodgy motives.
They think they do, it's no different than in medieval times, burn some witches and think you've solved shit, until the next one comes along. I don't buy that at it's core it's really about ethical reasons, on the surface it does seem like it, but kinda hard for me to get into without more psychology knowledge.
Yes, (social) media appear to make a lot of people mentally ill.
Yes, and yes. We've gotten there
you see why I find it pointless to get back to these questions every time? The answer is simple and a resounding yes. The core of the discussion around cancel culture should revolve around the other questions. If we do get into these questions more deeply than it's just a discussion about capitalism, and in that context 'cancel culture' is such a minor consideration that it's pretty much irrelevant.One more point that I need to get across is that cancel culture is, given pretty much all practical evidence, is about incredibly minor and minute issues. People die, suffer and starve but you won't hear a peep unless specifically pushed by media. This makes it so that the moral highground is a complete illusion, artificially heightened by the mob.
In short, the agency for cancellation has always been the same, the manifestation of those agencies, as well as the manifestation of the act of scapegoating, is different.
But I think I screwed myself in this argument
let me explain and tie it all together: I have to agree that the manifestations are pretty strongly related to our financial system. I believe that should be our middle ground?Forgive me for being all over the place in this post, don't wanna go back and tie everything beautifully together in corresponding paragraphs.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
Indeed. It has been a thoroughly engaging discussion and I thank you for that because I think we were both able to better explain our points of view on the subject for the disagreement and still reach a middle-ground.
tubgirl.jpg
Bluelight Crew
It's a weird game, for sure.
Few things get me a rallied up as rapists and pedophiles (slugs are _so_ much cheeper than trial- and prison-expenses), but I do feel that we need to seperate the artist and the art from the person creating it - if we'd only accept the art coming from individuals who aren't fucked in their tops one way or another,
who the fuck would we listen to, read or enjoy visual art from?
I don't get the whole Sheen-thing either.