Has Cancel Culture Gone too Far?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Moonman said:

I propose that we just deactivate our profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and all these idiotic sub-par alternatives to actually socialising with other human beings and just start living in the real world instead. 

Seriously. Main reason I  don't have a Facebook or Twitter account.

 

Way too easy to be taken out of context.

 

I remember being taken out of context in college in support of freedom of choice, vs siding with abortion being murder.

 

Cue in heavy handed pressure from 40+ students. Even my friends remained silent, not wanting to come under that fire. I was hung out to dry.

 

Even the teacher asked if I was okay, as the attack was blistering. It was a debate class so he didn't intervene, but made sure once their attacks turned personal.

 

For me, I will not respect someone who wilts under that pressure and switches opinions, unless its a genuine change and not just to shut up their detractors.

 

Pressuring people to align with your opinions or they are canceled is crazy. 

 

But, yeah all for connecting with others especially at social events and stopping to accept plumbing as part of our new phone etiquette.

[Homer]

8.00: Built a snowman

8.10: Feminist walks by and complains that it's not a snowwoman

8.15: Built a snowwoman

8.17: Kindergarden teacher complains about the snowwoman's implied boobs

8.20: Gay dude from across the street yells at me because there should also be a couple of snowmen

8.25: Vegan neighbour screams that the carrot noses are a waste of food

8.30: I'm being called a racist because the snow is white

8.33: Aisha from around the corner demands a hijab for the snowwoman

8.40: Police arrives at the scene

8.46: SWAT team arrives because the snowman's broom is a potential weapon

8.52: ISIS claims to be responsible for the snowman

8.58: My phone is being confiscated and examined while I'm escorted to a helicopter heading to the Supreme Court

9.04: Police issues a ticket because the snowpeople do not wear masks and there's not a distance of at least 6ft between them

 

How to build a snowman in 2020...

[Tetus]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Cancel culture, is when people are grasping at straws to cancel someone. 

 

IE People banishing comedians for jokes that offended them. 

 

Kevin Hart made a gay joke years ago, and people tried to cancel him a decade later.

Again, famous/prominent people don't need you to defend them - they already have lots of money and clout. Famous/prominent people being mired in scandal is nothing new either. In the case of your specific example, a Google search reveals on the first page:

 

- No mention of any scandal

- Speculation about which Marvel movies he'd be a great fit for

- Comments on how he's filming a new movie in Toronto

- References to his new standup Netflix special

 

If this is what being canceled looks like - in what way has it gone too far? It seems like this person is once again incredibly successful, having weathered a scandal of some kind. This does not seem to me like a dire threat to freedom of expression.

 

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

People have tried to cancel dead people. They are dead! 

 

The destruction of statues of prior politicians or historical figures, because they did things that offend you generations ago. 

 

You know, VS open a dialogue. 

 

The freedom gets blurred when you cross the line of stating they are pieces of crap people, and taking action to attempt to upend their careers over it.

Dead people...canceled?

 

Okay, let's break this down (no pun intended):

 

1 - What exactly are we talking about, here? Forgive me for asking for specifics, but I have an inkling that if I were to try to address a particular instance that I can think of, someone might swoop in and say "Ah ha! Well! We actually meant this other thing! Thus and so, it is proven that you automatically assume terrible things about your opponents - for shame!" My apologies if you meant to include specifics or thought that what you were referring to was obvious, but I've had a lot of experience with people trying to move the goalposts, and I just don't have a lot of patience for it.

 

2 - Destruction of statues in the abstract.

 

Since we have no specific examples to discuss or explain, let's address the idea that maybe we just should never destroy statues. Well, there's KIND of an issue here. What if everyone hates the statue? Not even for a political reason, what if it's just like a rogue art installation of something unpleasant? Are we required to keep that up forever, lest we cancel the artist, or whatever the subject of their statue is? Is having a town hall meeting to discuss removing the 12ft tall statue of a porn star, the heroic equestrian statue of Vladmir Lenin, or an enormous bronze set of genitalia another symptom of #cancelculture? Or is it just, you know, being part of a community, and agreeing that you don't like some kinds of things in public places?

 

And just to make this point a little clearer and more relevant to what I sense as an undertone in the celebrity related items, let's say that 10 years ago, someone had erected a statue of Jeffery Epstein outside a school he used to teach at, to commemorate his time at the school and honor his success in finance as kind of an aspirational deal for the kids. Given recent revelations about the quality of his character and actions, would it be at all unusual or inappropriate to remove the statue? If not, how would you go about it? A community meeting? Unilateral action by the school board?

 

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The freedom gets blurred when you cross the line of stating they are pieces of crap people, and taking action to attempt to upend their careers over it. 

 

I see it like in my grade 9 class. A girl had a crush on me. I didn't like her back. 

 

She tells the gym teacher I groped her breast. 

 

I get berated by the teacher, and am assumed as guilty. I am humiliated because she is this "innocent girl".  How dare I attempt to remove her innocence!

 

My pleading my innocence is irrelevant. 

 

Am black, so as good as guilty. I could feel the disgust of others, and I literally did nothing to deserve it. These are allegations. 

 

I mercifully had two girls who were nearby who pleaded for me as they saw everything unfold. I never even touched her. Not even accidentally. 

 

Sure, she is free to slander my name, but to me that is not what freedom of speech is. There are laws in place for a reason. 

 

The punishment should fit the crime, I can agree with. Me making a joke they didn't get, isn't befitting a mob doxxing and canceling me.

 

Again, I'd like to break this down a bit:

 

First, the experience you describe sounds miserable and you have my sympathies. Being accused of something you didn't do is indeed terrible, and I think everyone here, regardless of their stance on the larger topic, would agree that your experience is an all too common type of unjust treatment and implicit assumption for a variety of reasons.

 

Second, there's a disconnect here:

 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

The freedom gets blurred when you cross the line of stating they are pieces of crap people, and taking action to attempt to upend their careers over it.

 

--SNIP-- (Your experience of being wrongly accused of a specific action at school)

 

The punishment should fit the crime, I can agree with. Me making a joke they didn't get, isn't befitting a mob doxxing and canceling me.

 

But for someone to get unfairly canceled, and then being told they're rich anyway, takes away from just the very freedoms you state that they have. 

 

Ironically what you're describing, is how you snuff such freedoms and silence voices because they're not aligned with your own.

 

The clearest evidence that we're losing the thread here a little is: "Me making a joke they didn't get, isn't befitting a mob doxxing and canceling me."

 

To go back to Kevin Hart, it doesn't seem to me like his experience was similar to yours. In his experience, my understanding is that he definitely made a joke that a lot of people felt was not cool, so they called him out on it. He does not deny making the joke, he just did not feel like people should be mad about it.

 

In your case, you did NOT grope someone, and were wrongfully accused by that someone. You deny taking the action, and presumably agree that you WOULD deserve scorn if you HAD groped the other student.

 

One case is an instance of someone not wanting to be held accountable to the opinions of others.

 

The other is a case of someone not wanting to be lied about/accused of doing something they didn't do.

 

I agree that false accusations are bad, and we shouldn't do them. But all reasonable people already agree with that.

 

Everyone in this thread agrees that when someone says or does something that we judge to be out of line, unacceptable, or destructive, we should make an effort to raise awareness of the problem and try to convince people to stop doing or saying those things. I know this, because if you think "cancel culture" has gone too far, you're advocating for it to come to an end. By having a discussion with other people, you're trying to convince them to recognize a flaw in their thinking, or change a behavior that you think is negative. This isn't a bad thing, this is discourse and a vital part of being in a community.

 

If you say things people don't like, then people won't like you. I'm not here to say you have to enjoy that, but it is a part of living with other people that you're not entitled to their agreement. We do have laws to protect against actual crimes and things like death threats or harrassment, but we don't have laws against boycotts, because you can't force people to go see a show they don't want to see. If I don't want to watch Kevin Hart's comedy special because I thought he did something I found reprehensible, that's on me. I can't stop you from going if you thought it was hilarious. If I tell my friends, "Hey, I don't think you should see Kevin Hart's comedy special," and they listen to me, that's again, not really anyone's problem but me and my friends. I often recommend some media or products to people while recommending against others. Is it sinister to avoid buying bottled water and drink from the tap? No. Is it sinister to not buy a brand razors if the company runs an ad you don't like? Also no.

 

Most importantly, you and I don't have to agree on what constitutes a good reason to avoid or embrace a particular product, celebrity, or political party. And we can both try to convince the other that their reasons aren't very good. And none of that is inherently bad or even necessarily antagonistic.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Epic Tetus said:

What if everyone hates the statue?

What if everyone hated black people. Aboriginal people. Asian people?

 

Issue is a specific group of people took exception. Not even a demographic.

 

That statue or statues had been there for a long time, and did not commit any attrocities against humanity while there. 

 

It represents a history you can't cancel. Best to open a dialogue about it, no?

 

Cancel police? Seriously? Numbers don't even add up to justify it.

 

What this is, is vandalism. Plain and simple.

 

Justifying vandalism, is no different than you justifying my assault for wearing a MAGA hat, and being peaceful while wearing it.

 

You disagree with the ideology, so it must be canceled and destroyed.

 

How does this differ from an ideology that ISIS had?

 

Aunt Jemima, and countless pro sports teams being canceled because a small group is offended and overly sensitive. 

 

It will get to the point where black will be an offensive word. We will have to point to a shade chart, to describe my skin color. 

[Tetus]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

What if everyone hated black people. Aboriginal people. Asian people?

 

Issue is a specific group of people took exception. Not even a demographic.

 

That statue or statues had been there for a long time, and did not commit any attrocities against humanity while there.

I'm not sure I understand the parallel you're trying to draw here. Are you trying to say that we should give statues the same rights as people? I guess we don't agree there.

 

Again, you haven't actually cited a specific case of a statue, and you're not really responding to my points. Should no statues ever be taken down for any reason? If there are valid reasons to take down a statue, how do you go about it? What specifically are you objecting to here?

 

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

It represents a history you can't cancel. Best to open a dialogue about it, no?

 

Cancel police? Seriously? Numbers don't even add up to justify it.

 

What this is, is vandalism. Plain and simple.

 

Justifying vandalism, is no different than you justifying my assault for wearing a MAGA hat, and being peaceful while wearing it.

It would be helpful if we could organize these thoughts in a way that is a little more structured, as there seem to be at least 3 entirely separate conversations being hinted at in these 4 lines, with several large assumptions creeping in without being explicitly stated.

 

1 - Who is canceling history? What does that mean?  How is, for example, calling a town hall meeting to discuss removing a statue different from opening a dialogue about it? It seems like that is literally a dialogue being opened.

 

2 - Where did the idea of "cancel police" come in? What numbers are you referring to? What is being justified?

 

3 - Vandalism is in fact a crime already. Having a town hall meeting or contacting your local government to remove a statue is not. This seems pretty clear cut, no? I'm not really out to defend vandalism here. I don't really believe there's a widespread belief that vandalism is the best way to address this kind of thing, which is why you hear about protests and petitions to remove statues. Obviously some people commit vandalism as well, but that's not really what we're talking about with "cancel culture", is it? Statues have been vandalized for thousands of years, and probably will continue to be vandalized, and we'll just all have to try and stay calm and encourage people to engage in civil processes.

 

4 - Even if I were defending vandalism, which I'm not doing, that's a far cry from defending assault, which I'm also not doing. As per above, statues are different from people for a number of reasons, and we should probably avoid conflating the two ethically or legally. I am more than happy to agree that calmly wearing a MAGA hat is not valid grounds for assault, and again, I think that pretty much everyone in this thread regardless of affiliation would agree with us there.

16 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You disagree with the ideology, so it must be canceled and destroyed.

 

How does this differ from an ideology that ISIS had?

What part of what I said makes this a reasonable response?

 

I submit that being okay with the idea of removing a statue is not equivalent to endorsing acts of terror and murder of innocents. If we disagree there, it may be difficult to engage in meaningful dialogue.

 

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Aunt Jemima, and countless pro sports teams being canceled because a small group is offended and overly sensitive.

Corporations aren't people. If a corporation succumbs to public pressure and changes the name of a brand to something it thinks is more appealing to more people, that's not really evidence of sinister actions (other than, I suppose, the free market doing its thing, in which case, I'd be more than happy to hear about your thoughts on the evils of capitalism).

 

If a sports team thinks they'll sell more tickets or get more endorsements if they change their name, they will. If they don't, they won't. Corporate officials have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the corporation. When a corporation takes an action, trying to interpret that from a moral standpoint is pretty fruitless. They take actions that they believe will make more money. Doesn't mean they can't be wrong, obviously, or no one would ever lose any money, but again, it's no more sinister than the concept of capitalism itself.

 

36 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

It will get to the point where black will be an offensive word. We will have to point to a shade chart, to describe my skin color. 

This doesn't seem likely to me. As an example: When I was growing up, 'gay' was often used in a derogatory manner or as a slur. I guess it still is, but also the gay community is not trying to stop people from using the word, they just don't want it to be equated to 'bad'. I don't think black folks are going to try and stop people from saying the word 'black' either, though there have been some reasonable efforts to stop people using specific slurs. I don't think discouraging the use of those slurs has had a significant negative impact on our society.

 

I will note, however, that you certainly can say pretty much any slur or other thing you want. And other people can turn around and say things you don't like right back to you. Everyone is permitted to offend one another back and forth ad nauseum if that's how we want to spend our time. Not really my cup of tea, but - shrug.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Epic Tetus said:

I agree that false accusations are bad

And I feel canceling someone due to sensitivities that are too high, is equally bad. 

 

Kevin Hart made a bad joke, and got canceled from hosting an event. For the record, I thought the joke was hilarious because I understood its context. People who took it literally, assumed he would actually assault his kid for coming out as gay, totally missing the point of the joke making it that much funnier to me.

 

Justin Trudeau wore a black face. Got elected to a second term as the prime minister of Canada. 

 

Biden made racist comments. Only praise. Trump? Condemnation trickling down to even his supporters. All are racists to some.

 

Just be consistent in your cancelations. Otherwise, hard to take a movement serious.

[Tetus]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

And I feel canceling someone due to sensitivities that are too high, is equally bad. 

 

Kevin Hart made a bad joke, and got canceled from hosting an event. For the record, I thought the joke was hilarious because I understood its context. People who took it literally, assumed he would actually assault his kid for coming out as gay, totally missing the point of the joke making it that much funnier to me.

If by "cancel culture", you mean specific venues literally cancelling appearances due to a scandal of some kind, please see my reply about corporations. They aren't people, they are going to do what they think is in their own best interest, and that may include not associating with someone embroiled in a scandal.

 

I also think that saying you think someone told a bad joke and you don't want to see their comedy show is a far cry from falsely accusing someone of sexual assault, even if their joke was really good.

 

Not having good taste in jokes is not the same as lying about someone's actions.

 

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

Justin Trudeau wore a black face. Got elected to a second term as the prime minister of Canada. 

 

Biden made racist comments. Only praise.

I seem to remember the reporting and outcry about both of these items. As do you, apparently, since I'm not sure how you would have heard of them if no one was condemning these actions.

 

As for the fact that they then continued to be successful - yes, that is exactly my point. As did Kevin Hart. We don't have to defend these people's honor, really, they are more than capable of fighting clear of their own clouds of scandal.

 

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

Trump? Condemnation trickling down to even his supporters. All are racists to some.

I'm not sure I really agree with the 'all are racists to some' sentiment, unless you're wanting to have a more nuanced conversation about implicit bias. I don't think that's really in the scope of "cancel culture" though.

 

I will be honest here, the argument that "cancel culture" had an unfair impact on Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States of America, is a little silly on its face to me. He's doing all right for himself. I think he's made it pretty evident he doesn't lose much sleep over what society at large thinks of him, which is, you know, his call. The man got elected President. Pitching the holder of the most powerful office on the planet as a victim is gonna be a hard sell.

 

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Just be consistent in your cancelations. Otherwise, hard to take a movement serious.

What movement? Who is "your" in this? I'm just a guy on the internet. I don't attend any organizational meetings more sinister than production standup at work in the mornings and, I guess, my weekly DnD game on Sundays.

 

I think it is easy to ascribe shadowy, unclear motivations to vague entities like "movements", but I'm not really aware of a secret cabal of "cancelers" lurking in the shadows. I'm sorry to be a bit glib here, but I feel like you have quoted my posts several times, then issued rebuttals to arguments I'm not making. It is a little disorienting.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

Are you trying to say that we should give statues the same rights as people?

Calling the act what it is. Vandalism. Cancel culture.

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

Where did the idea of "cancel police" come in?

Defunding police. Many wishing its abolition.

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

Vandalism is in fact a crime already.

Glad we agree on something.

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

As per above, statues are different from people

It is still illegal to destroy public property.

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

I submit that being okay with the idea of removing a statue

Silencing something you don't like by force, isn't something I agree with. That's where we disagree.

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

If a corporation succumbs to public pressure

If they don't, they get canceled. This is giving SJWs way too much power. 

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

This doesn't seem likely to me.

It was sarcasm o_O

 

2 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

and you don't want to see their comedy show is a far cry

Accusing them of bigotry. Racism. Dragging their name in the mud, for being offended. 

 

Many things many have found cancel culture worthy have been silly at best.

 

We are way too sensitive as a generation. 

 

Remember when Jerry Springer had a show? What happened to if you don’t like it, don't watch.

 

Don't agree? Don't buy.

[Homer]

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

We are way too sensitive as a generation. 

I don't think that sensitivity is an issue. The way I see it, it's more of a power trip.

 

Here I am, a meaningless Jack Smith on the interwebs with zero accomplishments in life... but all I have to do to be recognised for once is acting offended about some SJW bullshit and then mighty or famous people will be forced to deal with me. Because I'm oh so offended. I'm also going to call all my friends so we can act offended together and demand stuff.

 

The major mistake in this is that companies/actors/whoever the SJW chosen victims of the day are seem to be unwilling to stick it out for three days. That's all it takes - let people throw tantrums on Twatter or Faecesbook for a bit, they'll get bored eventually and find something else to act offended about.

[SpaceDustbin]

5 hours ago, Homer said:

8.30: I'm being called a racist because the snow is white

you could use yellow snow... 

 

 

... but then again, that's racist as well

[Homer]

Just now, SpaceDustbin said:

... but then again, that's racist as well

See, I can't win. Poor snowpeople.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Homer said:

The way I see it, it's more of a power trip.

I would have to agree its high entitlement and a power trip.

 

I remember in my city a teen got kicked out of class for wearing see through leggings. 

 

She threw a tantrum. Her parents followed suit. Cited her daughter's freedom of expression. 

 

Sorry, but geography class isn't where the entire damn class should be able to see you shaved a landing strip into your pubic hair because not wearing underwear is how you express yourself while wearing virtually see through pants. This was the complaint from the school. I would have kicked her out, too. You're there to learn.

 

Cue in the protest, and social media pressure to shut down the barbaric school. 

 

What pissed me off, was the fact the school buckled to the pressure. Vs enforcing its dress code.

 

You're now sending that SJW into life knowing she can throw a tantrum and get whatever she wants in life. Good job.

[Guest]

I worked with someone who wanted Canada day canceled because its "not your country".

 

People will grasp at straws at things to get offended by. 

[Tetus]

I can't help but notice that as I've asked if we could narrow the scope of the discussion and more clearly organize the points, you seem to be becoming even more staccato in your replies, chopping tiny pieces out of my posts and responding as if I'd made different arguments than I have.

 

I think you might be able to appreciate that this is frustrating, and while you certainly don't have to quote my rambling posts word for word, it would be very much appreciated if you would try to at least not imply that I'm saying thing's I'm not. Case in point:

 

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

 

Calling the act what it is. Vandalism. Cancel culture.

 

It is still illegal to destroy public property.

There's no disagreement here. I don't know what point you're trying to make, as I've not advocated for vandalism in any of my posts. I even specifically say that if a group wants a statue removed, they need to go through normal channels, NOT commit crimes. My comments about statues not being people were specifically in response to your attempt to equivocate statues being removed from a public space to people of a given race being removed from the same.

 

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Silencing something you don't like by force, isn't something I agree with. That's where we disagree.

Again, you quote me talking about advocating in a peaceful, normal manner for removing a statue, and then imply that I'm condoning use of force/violence. I'm not. I state clearly in every post that I don't condone violence or vandalism. You can't disagree with me on this point because I don't advocate that things should be silenced by force.

 

12 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If they don't, they get canceled. This is giving SJWs way too much power.

Again, I don't know what you could mean by this? What happens to a sports team if they 'get canceled'? Do they sell less tickets? What's the actual consequence and the process here?

 

If what you're saying is that you don't think it is fair that people can decide what they can spend their money on, I'm confused.

 

If what you're saying is that people should not encourage others to see their point of view, I'm still confused.

 

If you're saying something else, please tell me what exactly it is that you're concerned is happening here, because corporations doing things for PR reasons is neither new nor surprising to me.

 

16 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Accusing them of bigotry. Racism. Dragging their name in the mud, for being offended. 

 

Many things many have found cancel culture worthy have been silly at best.

 

We are way too sensitive as a generation. 

Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I get this wrong.

 

My reading of this is that your chief concern here is that you do not think that the people speaking out about being upset about a given action are justified in being upset. Then their speech act becomes upsetting to you and/or the original person who upset them. And that isn't okay? How would we fix this issue?

 

It also seems like this is a very subjective measure - that is, if you thought someone WAS justified in being upset, then it would be all right for them to speak out. But then whether or not someone should speak out is dependent on whether you think they are saying something worthwhile. But what if you and I disagree about what counts as justification for speaking out? How would we resolve this in a way that is fair to everyone?

 

The way this is generally handled in US law is that, with few highly specific exceptions, everyone is allowed to say what they think, and then everyone else is allowed to say what THEY think about that. Does that seem unreasonable to you? If not, then I'm not sure what is objectionable about groups of people expressing their dismay or disgust with what another person says - that seems to be exactly the kind of thing we would expect to happen.

 

If I misstepped above, I'd really appreciate an explanation that involves specifics or examples, as it is a lot easier to discuss.

[Guest]

I think cancel culture is the "Karen" of social media. Pretty much identical. Sometimes being a "Karen" is of just cause. Most of the time, one's (over)sensitivities have been hampered, to the tune of where they feel justified in ruining a person's life.

 

I still remember seeing a Karen call the police, and harass their black neighbors due to "feeling unsafe". I see the exact same entitlement with cancel culture.

 

Its not just taking your business elsewhere. No. Not enough. You have to post, and humiliate to high heavens and take down the big guy with this fight that only proves the said person is out of touch with their first world problems. 

[Alaska Native Manitou]

The 1st world elitists who scream the loudest about how statues of White supremacists can't be touched also cheered the loudest when US soldiers violated the hard work of honest artisans in Iraq.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

The 1st world elitists who scream the loudest about how statues of White supremacists can't be touched also cheered the loudest when US soldiers violated the hard work of honest artisans in Iraq.

I think you forget the protests about the Iraq war.

 

Taking down a statue of any politician who owned a slave, is taking down a "white supremacist" statue under the correct context.

 

Under your logic, if Justin Trudeau had a statue, taking it down is justified due to the black face that he wore. He was clearly racist.

 

Twisting the context, doesn't justify vandalism. Less to justify unwarranted war.

[Tetus]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I think cancel culture is the "Karen" of social media. Pretty much identical. Sometimes being a "Karen" is of just cause. Most of the time, one's (over)sensitivities have been hampered, to the tune of where they feel justified in ruining a person's life.

 

I still remember seeing a Karen call the police, and harass their black neighbors due to "feeling unsafe". I see the exact same entitlement with cancel culture.

 

Its not just taking your business elsewhere. No. Not enough. You have to post, and humiliate to high heavens and take down the big guy with this fight that only proves the said person is out of touch with their first world problems. 

Well, it remains unclear to me who you're addressing in your comments. 

 

I don't post on any mainstream social media sites, and I don't have a platform to try and "cancel" anyone even if I wanted to do so. It feels like maybe you were less interested in a discussion about this topic than the opportunity to commiserate with like-minded individuals. I'm unable to help you with that.

 

I do recommend trying to engage with someone who disagrees with you, even if it isn't me - people are becoming more and more siloed within echo chambers of people who already agree with them, and unfortunately, it is difficult to learn or grow in that kind of environment.

 

Good luck.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

I do recommend trying to engage with someone who disagrees with you

I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement which goes against cancel culture.

 

6 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

Well, it remains unclear to me who you're addressing in your comments. 

Not who. What. Online shaming. Mob mentality. Doxxing. Histrionic tantrums when not getting one's way, or one's over-sensitivities being touched.

 

Vigilantism that doesn't come close to fitting a crime. "Activists" with zero actual rational thought, feeling destroying someone for a comment made a decade ago, yet turned their lives around, destroying property indicative of a past that a society has far been removed from, is actually doing anything.

 

Using moral righteousness as a justification.

 

Demonizing their targets, yet ironically hiding behind computers to put down and attempting to crush and ridicule someone as well as publicly shame them under the guise of "holding them accountable".

 

If you still don't understand, then you're not truly holding your end of the bargain based on the first quote of yours I've highlighted.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

That's interesting coming from someone who tried to divert my words by quoting me & then falsely accusing me of being pro-war.

https://onourmoon.com/cancel-culture-the-good-the-bad-its-impact-on-social-change/

[Iam9man]

Please keep in mind the Terms of Service. Take a step back if needed.

 

Iam9man

PPS Moderator

[Tetus]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement which goes against cancel culture.

Oh, believe me, I fully appreciate all the irony of statements being made in this thread.

 

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Not who. What. Online shaming. Mob mentality. Doxxing. Histrionic tantrums when not getting one's way, or one's over-sensitivities being touched.

 

Vigilantism that doesn't come close to fitting a crime. "Activists" with zero actual rational thought, feeling destroying someone for a comment made a decade ago, yet turned their lives around, destroying property indicative of a past that a society has far been removed from, is actually doing anything.

 

Using moral righteousness as a justification.

 

Demonizing their targets, yet ironically hiding behind computers to put down and attempting to crush and ridicule someone as well as publicly shame them under the guise of "holding them accountable".

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

Oh, believe me, I fully appreciate all the irony of statements being made in this thread.

At least we agree. Good enough for me. 

[_Neon_]

11 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Not who. What. Online shaming. Mob mentality. Doxxing. Histrionic tantrums when not getting one's way, or one's over-sensitivities being touched.

I think that's exactly the problem with cancel culture at the moment. It's one thing to choose not to support someone who you don't like and tell others your logic, it's another entirely to threaten and yell at someone because they disagree. I could say "I don't support x because I am not okay with y thing(s) that they did/said. You should do the same." I should not send death threats over decade old comments - which happens.

 

I, for example, love Harry Potter. I think J.K. Rowling is a horrible person, and I refuse to further support her with my words or my money. I don't go to her website, or the Wizarding World website anymore. However, I still read the books, albeit more critically. I've had conversations with others about this. Some of them think it is too little, and some too much, but in the end, I think it is the right decision.

 

Could you say I cancelled Rowling? Yes, you could. However, I didn't do it in the fashion of current cancel culture, which seems to be screaming accusations and threats at everyone who ever dared support her.

 

In terms of the statue discussion, I think statues honoring problematic figure should be moved to a history museum where they can be given proper context, and they serve as a reminder of an issue.

 

That's the problem with canceling dead people. Not because their actions were justified, but because they weren't. Canceling them causes their actions to be forgotten, and well, we don't want history to repeat itself.

 

But even more so is the increasing issue with canceling children. Like, why ruin a kid's life if you know they are probably just parroting their parents? Why bully them and degrade their mental health for an honest mistake? 

[Iam9man]

24 minutes ago, Neon Green Packing Peanut said:

In terms of the statue discussion, I think statues honoring problematic figure should be moved to a history museum where they can be given proper context, and they serve as a reminder of an issue.

Good idea. Personally hadn’t considered this 🤔

[Morays]

38 minutes ago, Neon Green Packing Peanut said:

In terms of the statue discussion, I think statues honoring problematic figure should be moved to a history museum where they can be given proper context, and they serve as a reminder of an issue.

 

13 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

Good idea. Personally hadn’t considered this 🤔

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this idea, but I did read an illuminating series of tweets by a museum educator that called attention to some of the problems with this (in this case, the specific issue of Confederate statues in the U.S.) Putting the highlights in a spoiler because it's image-heavy:

 

Spoiler

 

The original, full thread is here: https://twitter.com/seelix/status/1275067882838192128

 

[Iam9man]

I guess I was thinking more in the “specialist” museum sense. E.g. like I don’t care much for Lenin, but I’d love to see some of those statues that used to be dotted all over Eastern Europe eastwards until really not that long ago. A specialist museum would seem the right forum.

[_Neon_]

10 minutes ago, SocialMorays said:

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this idea, but I did read an illuminating series of tweets by a museum educator that called attention to some of the problems with this (in this case, the specific issue of Confederate statues in the U.S.) Putting the highlights in a spoiler because it's image-heavy:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The original, full thread is here: https://twitter.com/seelix/status/1275067882838192128

 

Oh, that makes sense... I was referring to a specialized museum, but I didn't realize the impact that could have. I have multiple history museums in my area, and I agree that it would be very uncomfortable to have that content in them.

 

Even the best of history museums here don't include a lot of it - you have to specific museums for many events, and even people.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Neon Green Packing Peanut said:

Could you say I cancelled Rowling?

What you did, is actually quite reasonable and rational. You didn't like what said person did. You took your business elsewhere. Perhaps even, told a few friends not to buy from there. This is perfectly fair. As a business it is my job to earn your return patronage.

 

To me, cancel culture is often bordering on defamation. At times I can admit, is justified (IE the me too movement and some of the seemingly untouchable sex offenders that it took down). In a few clicks, the playing field was leveled in ways it just could not have been until the rise of social media.

 

To me the risk falls where a person isn't looking to be heard. Aren't trying to level the playing field. IE Being bullied by a large corporation. I am actually okay with this, in the correct context. 

 

They are looking to take down the 1%, and acquire some social status, themselves. The instant fame. The viral video that nets you staggering settlements or profitable media exposure. Essentially, when it is done in poor taste. Bad intent.

 

I experienced this once.

 

Did business with a client who wasn't satisfied. I offered a solution. He wanted his entire order for free. He clearly wasn't being reasonable from the start.

 

Like me painting your home, and you point to a 10cm patch I missed near a bedroom door. Well the "error" my technician had made was closer to .100 inches. Invisible to the naked eye.

He had to take a digital measuring device and an extreme zoom to make it look bad, pointing to his bad intent from the start.

 

Like if a gap on one of the tiles of your floor was smaller than that distance.

 

Reasonable, is my apology, a prompt fix and a discount for the inconvenience. 

 

Unreasonable, is you demanding the entire job for free for that 10cm omission, and if I don't give in--you posting videos on social media, and stating I yelled at you, and refused to fix it.

 

That's exactly what that client did. I knew I didn't do anything wrong, but also did not want my company name dragged in the mud.

 

He posted videos on YouTube, and on other platforms, and threatened to essentially harm our business by posting a false narrative of the service he obtained. I had a paper trail that refuted what he was threatening me with. 

 

I had made generous offers, but his demands kept getting crazier. He involved even the manufacturer, who couldn't find a fault in the installation. Based on the dozens of pictures. 

 

Just to end the headache, I took a 1, 200.00$ hit. 

 

I apologized for any inconvenience, and he thanked me for doing the right thing, even though he held a gun to my head, figuratively. 

 

This to me is the danger with cancel culture. 

 

To him, he stuck it to the big guy. Got a nearly free install. 

 

We buckled under his pressure, even though our legal team would have dusted him. The damage to the reputation wasn't worth it.

 

I want to make it clear. I have zero problem with one genuinely sticking up for themselves based on the big guy crushing the little guy. 

 

What I am against is the exploitation of the big guy by the little guy via this loophole, especially when it is done in an unfair way.

 

Them being a successful business or wealthy doesn't make it right, in that light.

 

It would be like a homeless person stating I had discriminated against them, and forcing me to settle out of court over lies or fabrication. 

 

Being a multi million dollar entity doesn't make that okay. 

 

To me, thats like reversing the shoe, and okaying the exploitation of migrant workers, because they come from third world countries. Where else would they get pay like this, right?

 

Same logic, in my opinion.

[_Neon_]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

What I am against is the exploitation of the big guy by the little guy via this loophole, especially when it is done in an unfair way.

 

Those are the type of people who write bad reviews online without even buying the product.

 

We had a neighbor who, a year after we moved away, tried to sue us for a crack in a slab of sidewalk that they didn't even own. They said that my sister and I (then 8 and 9) had somehow cracked solid concrete while playing. My dad had to go through 2 decade's worth of pictures to prove that the crack had always been there and get the lawsuit dismissed. 

 

It's those type of people that largely come to mind when I think of cancel culture. The kind who take something small and use it as a weapon against someone.

 

If it was just people advocating a boycott of brands or people because they did something truly despicable, I would have no problem with it. Both parties would be exercising their right to free speech. That's how it started, but that's not where it's at.