# Cancel Culture is Cancer



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

This thread was inspired by https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/art-made-by-bad-people.349930/ but I don't want to hijack his thread with a generalist topic. I think it's a good topic to discuss this with the wide impact that technology and media has on our society and its moral and ethical implications. 

First off, the idea of a bunch of people coming together and holding signs to get someone "cancelled" is an extremely cringe idea to me. Most of the time, it's just harassment, which I think some people think because they have a justification for it, it's okay. It's essentially just group hate and tarnishing a person's reputation. Don't get me wrong, some people deserve the bad reputation, but I disagree with the way it's done. Most people supporting cancel culture have who have no relevance to whoever they've decided to put under fire. 

Bringing an example to life now...

Ari Shaffir, comedian, hilarious guy. I'm a fan. He refuses to do comedies partially because he got "cancelled" and I think we're moving towards a generation of fucking pussies. Don't over interpret this, it's not a philosophical inquiry or anything of that nature. It's my opinion. 

So Ari Shaffir never got cancelled for doing shit like this. I won't link it to keep it SFW, but you're welcome to look it up on YouTube. 




What did he get cancelled for? For calling out Kobe Bryant... 




Kobe Bryant... 




I think people should be allowed at minimum, the freedom of expression and not be cancelled. Additionally, I think it's wrong to restrict exposure to the masses so other people don't get the opportunity to make a decision of whether or not to support someone's work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

Back in my day we just called it "voting with your wallet."


----------



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Back in my day we just called it "voting with your wallet."


I suppose you're not wrong haha. EOD that's what it comes down to.


----------



## Matt08642 (Nov 19, 2021)

evade said:


> I think people should be allowed at minimum, the freedom of expression and not be cancelled.



Guy makes comment > People don't like the comment > Clubs don't want to pay someone to perform because people dislike him and won't come to his show > Loss of revenue for the clubs

He hasn't been "cancelled", he's still free to work places that want to hire him. Freedom to say whatever you want does not come with the freedom from whatever consequences you might incur. If I do nothing but shit talk Best Buy, I don't feel I have the "freedom" to expect a job there.

So either we go all authoritarian and force clubs to book this guy so he isn't "cancelled", or we do the opposite and give them the freedom to book who they choose.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 19, 2021)

Ari cancelled himself by opening his mouth and forcing people to form an opinion about him. His actions/words/etc had consequences.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 19, 2021)

It's society's job to determine what is socially acceptable and what is socially unacceptable, so this is nothing new, it's just new terminology for something that has been going on since our ancestors stopped hunting and gathering nuts and berries and started farming.

That said, our current society, for whatever set of reasons, can't seem to get a base hit with any judgement lately. It's like we've all become so polarized and cliquey that we look for any and every excuse to exercise our power to destroy the social lives of anyone we can just for the sake of saying we can. Honestly, doling out a similar level of social punishment on a guy who told an inappropriate joke on twitter with a guy who systematically abused his career to rape women over the course of several decades is nothing more than a perfect way to ruin the meaning of any judgement or punishment we dole out.

Barring violence, we need to relearn how to pull someone aside and say, "hey, that's not cool," before trying to completely shut them down and ruin their lives. I think it's a good power for society to hold onto and reserve for when it's absolutely necessary to further social progress, but this current cancel culture is too totalitarian and stupid and completely lacks subtlety.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 19, 2021)

Yeah it's almost like there are consequences for actions?

Reminds me of when Matt Gaetz is all over Fox (TV and online), OAN, and Newsmax shouting about being canceled.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 19, 2021)

USMarine75 said:


> Yeah it's almost like there are consequences for actions?
> 
> Reminds me of when Matt Gaetz is all over Fox (TV and online), OAN, and Newsmax shouting about being canceled.



He was cancelled - from stations that sane people watch.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 19, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Back in my day we just called it "voting with your wallet."


IMO there's a difference between voting with your wallet and actively calling for someone to lose their job, or shows, etc. "I don't like this so I won't buy it" is distinct from "I don't like this, so we have to make sure nobody else can see it", or "I've decided this person is bad, so lets ruin their lives". 

You might say, "but Ted, that's not what's happening", to which I'd say I've met people who spend their spare time searching for people to harass until they're deplatformed or fired etc. because they don't like said person's values. It happens. I won't claim to know how much of that contributes to "cancel culture", but it's a non-zero amount.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

TedEH said:


> IMO there's a difference between voting with your wallet and actively calling for someone to lose their job, or shows, etc. "I don't like this so I won't buy it" is distinct from "I don't like this, so we have to make sure nobody else can see it", or "I've decided this person is bad, so lets ruin their lives".
> 
> You might say, "but Ted, that's not what's happening", to which I'd say I've met people who spend their spare time searching for people to harass until they're deplatformed or fired etc. because they don't like said person's values. It happens. I won't claim to know how much of that contributes to "cancel culture", but it's a non-zero amount.



There will always be bad actors. Folks who look to harass to fulfill their ends, and those who use the spector of that to promote their own interests.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 19, 2021)

I don't know that I attribute that difference to "bad actors" - I assume most people actively trying to cancel people do so with what they think are good intentions. But sure, if that's what we're going with, what people mean when they say "cancel culture", IMO is that those bad actors - or anyone with an opinion, really - have a lot more power than they used to. There have always been consequences for going against public opinion, but there's no precedent for how much power a twitter mob has over individuals, whether it's just or not. Are they still bad actors if you agree with the general public (and by public I mean twitter etc.) opinion? Is that a fair a way to dole out some kind of justice? Should we decide what is or isn't allowed or accepted on the basis of who is the loudest on the internet about it?

I mean sure, on some level it's just a new word to describe how going against the public opinion has consequences, but that doesn't mean it's not happening, potentially happening in a new way, or that it's necessarily a good thing.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 19, 2021)

I agree with this to a certain extent, though from a much different angle.

I'm sure I'm not the only one whose local scene has had various dramas over the years of assaulters/abusers etc being outed and ostracized, or not. I'm all about outing these people. I think #metoo is, at its core, great, and I'm super glad that so many victims who previously had no platform now have one. However, what I often see take place is that if the individual perpetrator is perceived as "valuable" to the scene (great drummer, owns a cool club, etc) they get a pass. If they are perceived as disposable, (not "good," not cool, not white etc) they get made examples of and ostracized as a way for the dominant clique to virtue signal their allegiance to trendy liberal values while actually reinforcing the power structures that give them their clout in the first place.

Unfortunately this particular behavior is self-serving and has nothing to do with protecting victims or dismantling rape culture. Be a lot cooler if it did. Aside from that, it doesn't allow people the chance to hold themselves accountable. Rape culture doesn't begin and end with people randomly deciding to assault other people, it's sociocultural, and so if there's going to be a real solution part of it has to be allowing people the opportunity to see that their actions were wrong and try to be a better person. Not everyone is able to be rehabilitated, but I strongly suspect many more are than are ever given the chance to find out.

That said, I have zero tolerance for or willingness to share stage space with/promote/work with in any way people who have been outed and refused to hold themselves accountable when given the opportunity, same with their "friends" who refuse to hold them accountable. I've made that mistake before, too many times. Never again so far as I can help it. It's a lonely hill to die on but it sure helps me sleep at night.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 19, 2021)

wheresthefbomb said:


> That said, I have zero tolerance for or willingness to share stage space with/promote/work with in any way people who have been outed


Outed as what and by who? If you're talking someone who was convicted of something, sure maybe. If you're talking about someone who said something dumb on twitter, I can't, as a blanket statement, say I'm behind that. Again, contextually, most of the time "cancelled" tends to come up when someone's fallen on the wrong political side of an issue. I mean, I don't want to promote a rapist either - but I'm not going to shut down a show or fire someone over a twitter argument, etc. It doesn't bother me to share a stage or an office with someone whose politics I don't share.

But the pressure is there. I can understand being a venue or business owner and not wanting that mark on your reputation as the place that was "willing to work with the wrong kind of people". To me, that's what I understand "cancel culture" to be - it's that sense of pressure exerted by loud internet people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

TedEH said:


> Outed as what and by who? If you're talking someone who was convicted of something, sure maybe. If you're talking about someone who said something dumb on twitter, I can't, as a blanket statement, say I'm behind that. Again, contextually, most of the time "cancelled" tends to come up when someone's fallen on the wrong political side of an issue. I mean, I don't want to promote a rapist either - but I'm not going to shut down a show or fire someone over a twitter argument, etc. It doesn't bother me to share a stage or an office with someone whose politics I don't share.
> 
> But the pressure is there. I can understand being a venue or business owner and not wanting that mark on your reputation as the place that was "willing to work with the wrong kind of people". To me, that's what I understand "cancel culture" to be - it's that sense of pressure exerted by loud internet people.



There's saying something stupid and there's saying something _stupid_.

Regular stupid is saying something that your boss might not like, big stupid is saying something objectively racist, sexist, xenophobic, violent, etc. that most definitely would get you fired as it can show bias or create a hostile workplace which is a HUGE liability. 

If I jump on Twitter and say [completely hypothetically] "Bud Light tastes like piss", yeah, there's a policy I signed saying I shouldn't engage the competition that way. So stupid, but realistically it's harmless. At worst I'd get a polite email telling me to cool it. But if I say "only stupid honkeys drink Bud Light", and I have subordinates that are caucasian, well that's a different story. That's big stupid.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 19, 2021)

Cancel Cancel Culture. Anyone participating in Cancel Culture shoud be canceled.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 19, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's saying something stupid and there's saying something _stupid_.
> 
> Regular stupid is saying something that your boss might not like, big stupid is saying something objectively racist, sexist, xenophobic, violent, etc. that most definitely would get you fired as it can show bias or create a hostile workplace which is a HUGE liability.
> 
> If I jump on Twitter and say [completely hypothetically] "Bud Light tastes like piss", yeah, there's a policy I signed saying I shouldn't engage the competition that way. So stupid, but realistically it's harmless. At worst I'd get a polite email telling me to cool it. But if I say "only stupid honkeys drink Bud Light", and I have subordinates that are caucasian, well that's a different story. That's big stupid.


Yeah, I agree with that. And I think people forget that there is nuance and tone involved too. What Ari said was not wrong. In fact, I read other people posting similar things, about how people are lionizing him after his death, and had forgotten about the rape. But Ari did it a) too soon, and b) with zero crafting for tone. It makes a difference if your boss says, “hey, you screwed this up, dumbass,” vs, “hey, I know you probably had the best intentions here, but unfortunately it didn’t work out well.” So canceling people, as it were, is not 100% about their statements, but about them being tone deaf in the process.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 20, 2021)

We have to cancel the people that are trying to cancel cancel culture otherwise those that were canceled previously will need to be canceled by the previously canceled cancel culture and we cannot have that.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 20, 2021)

You'd think the whole internet would have seen this by now, but I guess not.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 20, 2021)

"Cancel culture" just seems like another version of complaining about "the haters". You have to legitimize the stupid shit you said or did as some sort of martyrdom at the hands of imagined (or rightfully-earned) adversaries. When was it ever not that if you pissed people off they might dislike you? Accepting the consequences of one's actions is part of having the courage of your own convictions, right?

And regarding the subject of the OP, people who weren't Kobe died in the crash, people who weren't Kobe are suffering because of the crash, and chances are people other liberals may have rooted for the Lakers despite Kobe's history. There's not a touch of taste or good faith in what that guy said. Leveraging a fucking helicopter crash to pwn the libs- what a wonderful human, brought low by virtue-signalers.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

I'm in the camp that we should call all rich pieces of shit out, cancel anyone perpetuating this racist and sexist culture we live in, and KILL celebrity. Not kill celebrities, but kill the idea of celebrity in itself.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 20, 2021)

TedEH said:


> IMO there's a difference between voting with your wallet and actively calling for someone to lose their job, or shows, etc.


The difference is that in the before times if the news that a TV personality was a POS got out at all, they had to wait until the next episode was aired to see if viewership declined. Nowadays with the social internet TV producers and advertisers can see the immediate backlash and don't want to be associated with it.

It's just removing some unnecessary steps.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 20, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> big stupid is saying something objectively racist, sexist, xenophobic, violent, etc.


I'm not saying that there should be no consequences for doing something stupid - but that the standard for what counts as stupid or not shouldn't be decided by twitter. Sometimes twitter is wrong. Sometimes twitter is very wrong. Twitter, IMO, is not a good metric for "objectively bad".

I mean, it takes zero effort to find people piling on about how much of a trash fire most social media is, but we somehow still use that at the standard for whether or not anything is acceptable. That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2021)

Meh, for the most part "cancelling" only works when the person caves to the pressure. If you're adamant you did nothing wrong, you can still dust off your career and continue (see: Dave Chappelle, Trump?)

Cancelling is a several step process.

First you have to do something shitty, then you have to get caught, then you have to be in a situation where someone else dictates if you're allowed to continue to profit (ie: Roseanne being fired from her show) and/or you have to extract yourself because of your own shame (see: Cuomo, Al Franken).

But saying just because there's a group of people on Twitter that are an outrage mob who scurry from one subject to the next and they happened to choose you that week and that means "you've been cancelled", no I don't buy that. The best you can muster is maybe how big the lumps are if you've got a major deal that you lose as a result of being "cancelled" but that's not a cancel culture thing, anytime you work for somebody you've gotta be mindful of what you say/do that runs counter to the brand.

If you work at a pharmacy and blab to your friends that someone you all know comes in for herpes medication, and your boss finds out and you get fired, that's not being cancelled. If you work in show business and you have a show on ABC and they're able to pay you with their advertising revenues, and then you say something racist their advertisers don't want juxtaposed next to their brand and you get fired because losing revenues for stupid shit you do on your platform is counter to their goal of making money to pay you, that's also not cancelling.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2021)

I've got a ton of single guy friends complain all the time about getting #MeToo'd.

You work a shitty cubicle job. I'd like to know how far you expect to fall if someone finds out you made a dirty joke in a bar some time. Give me a break.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

Randy said:


> If you work at a pharmacy and blab to your friends that someone you all know comes in for herpes medication, and your boss finds out and you get fired, that's not being cancelled. If you work in show business and you have a show on ABC and they're able to pay you with their advertising revenues, and then you say something racist their advertisers don't want juxtaposed next to their brand and you get fired because losing revenues for stupid shit you do on your platform is counter to their goal of making money to pay you, that's also not cancelling.


 Fucking THIS. Jesus christ.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 20, 2021)

Randy said:


> Meh, for the most part "cancelling" only works when the person caves to the pressure. If you're adamant you did nothing wrong, you can still dust off your career and continue (see: Dave Chappelle, Trump?)
> 
> Cancelling is a several step process.
> 
> ...


from your perspective and in this example, what did ari say that was wrong?


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 20, 2021)

evade said:


> from your perspective and in this example, what did ari say that was wrong?


I'm sure Randy will answer, but I'll give my perspective:

I probably wouldn't have taken this as much of a big deal, honestly. To me it just sounds like someone who doesn't know how to have a normal conversation. Like, the one friend you're always apologizing for, because he can't have a normal conversation with people. But, specifically, I think the first sentence is OK. I think it would be totally OK to say, "I don't know why everyone is angry that Kobe died. It's not like he was a god. He raped someone, and got away with it." But then he went on to make it about himself, by saying liberals dislike comedy. Uh, no. We just dislike shitty comedy that isn't funny, and is just shocking, _trying_ to be funny. Maybe there are different tastes in comedy, but it's not that Kobe's defenders are wrong because they dislike his particular type of comedy. Then he went on to say that they like the Lakers more than they dislike rape. That's a weird stretch, and is also off topic. So now he's not just standing against rape, he's trying to say Lakers fans like rape. And then he wraps up by saying he hates the Lakers. Which is totally off topic. So, in a nutshell, he A) Made it about himself, B) somehow dragged "liberals" into it, C) showed how thin skinned he his because apparently anyone who doesn't like his comedy is a liberal who likes rape, and D) decided to have an off topic sentence about a team he doesn't like.

I don't even know who he is, but I can already tell his a thin skinned racist asshole with incel qualities. If he's not, he should really get his manner of speech to more accurately reflect his character.

IMO, if he was "canceled" he was canceled for being an asshole, not speaking out against a rapist. It's very hard to define what an asshole is, but most of us know it when we see it. For me, this is kind of like that. 

(And, as an aside, I love comedy, and am not one to hate edgy comedy at all. What I DO hate is whiney comedians that expect me to laugh at all of their jokes. Do your comedy, and if we laugh, great - you did your job well. If we didn't, that's on you, not me.)


----------



## StevenC (Nov 20, 2021)

Hollowway said:


> I'm sure Randy will answer, but I'll give my perspective:
> 
> I probably wouldn't have taken this as much of a big deal, honestly. To me it just sounds like someone who doesn't know how to have a normal conversation. Like, the one friend you're always apologizing for, because he can't have a normal conversation with people. But, specifically, I think the first sentence is OK. I think it would be totally OK to say, "I don't know why everyone is angry that Kobe died. It's not like he was a god. He raped someone, and got away with it." But then he went on to make it about himself, by saying liberals dislike comedy. Uh, no. We just dislike shitty comedy that isn't funny, and is just shocking, _trying_ to be funny. Maybe there are different tastes in comedy, but it's not that Kobe's defenders are wrong because they dislike his particular type of comedy. Then he went on to say that they like the Lakers more than they dislike rape. That's a weird stretch, and is also off topic. So now he's not just standing against rape, he's trying to say Lakers fans like rape. And then he wraps up by saying he hates the Lakers. Which is totally off topic. So, in a nutshell, he A) Made it about himself, B) somehow dragged "liberals" into it, C) showed how thin skinned he his because apparently anyone who doesn't like his comedy is a liberal who likes rape, and D) decided to have an off topic sentence about a team he doesn't like.
> 
> ...


Also, you can't be cancelled if no one knows who you are. Idk who that guy is, if he were funny I probably would.

It's like the guy from Vektor. Even if 100% of your audience doesn't care anymore, it's still only a handful of people.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 20, 2021)

Yeah, I thought I was out of the loop, not knowing who he is, but maybe not.

Also, are people using the term "Cancel culture" actively? The only people I hear using the term are people who are claiming to have been canceled. Like, I've never heard anyone say, "Let's cancel this guy."


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2021)

> Ari Shaffir, comedian, hilarious guy. I'm a fan. He refuses to do comedies partially because he got "cancelled"



If this is accurate, this is a dude that went out of his way to be cancelled. Like, that is supposed to be his hook. Fake edginess. Like making an act where he just stands on stage drawing Allah for an hour.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 20, 2021)

Randy said:


> I've got a ton of single guy friends complain all the time about getting #MeToo'd.
> 
> You work a shitty cubicle job. I'd like to know how far you expect to fall if someone finds out you made a dirty joke in a bar some time. Give me a break.


I work on TV and film sets. I just watched a gaffer (a department head) get fired because of a homophobic slur that he verbally made in a joking manner at an off-the-clock party totally outside of working relations. Someone somewhere found out; and that alone was enough to get him canned.

Meanwhile, I've seen stories of guys committing Cuomo-level misbehavior/harassment and getting off free with no repercussions. It's so strange how these rules brought about by "cancel culture" are enforced.

With that said, the abuse of the #MeToo movement (which I think is/was an extremely positive movement at its core initially) has caused so many men in the TV/film industry to be too scared to communicate with coworkers on set who are women. I've been on sets where it has felt like a powder keg because any woman can #MeToo any man, and the man will immediately be fucked out of work because women are immediately believed (regardless of any evidence or lack of) nowadays due to the vast over-correction that has been brought about by "cancel culture". A lot of interactions on some sets come across as awkward (like overly formal or overly terse), casual talking is kept to a minimum, the concept of "set crushes" (which are a very real thing that I've witnessed many times, and even had a discussion with a HMU department head about recently) has been pretty much abolished, and it feels like there is a tangible degree of separation amongst crew members now.

Shit in my industry is wild. People get canned left and right for stuff as little as dirty jokes or even more trivial. People screech for the heads of alleged/supposed offenders (regardless of evidence or lack of), which obviously affects the ability of the "cancelled" ones to source work and keep food on their table.

Maybe worth mentioning here: on one of my first-ever big gigs (which was for a major news network), I was called to the HR office because I politely asked a young, white girl who was fresh out of college to stop going around and calling all of her white, male coworkers "cis, white, male scum" simply because Twitter/Tumblr/whatever told her to. I was legitimately looking out for her as her overseer because we all can agree that such behavior is absolutely _*not*_ acceptable in the professional office environment. Yet, I was the one who was reprimanded for "silencing a woman". I'll probably never get hired by that company/network ever again. She was let off the hook and was simply shifted off from my team to another team. Utterly insane.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2021)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> With that said, the abuse of the #MeToo movement (which I think is/was an extremely positive movement at its core initially) has caused so many men in the TV/film industry to be too scared to communicate with coworkers on set who are women. I've been on sets where it has felt like a powder keg because any woman can #MeToo any man, and the man will immediately be fucked out of work because women are immediately believed (regardless of any evidence or lack of) nowadays due to the vast over-correction that has been brought about by "cancel culture". A lot of interactions on some sets come across as awkward (like overly formal or overly terse), casual talking is kept to a minimum, the concept of "set crushes" (which are a very real thing that I've witnessed many times, and even had a discussion with a HMU department head about recently) has been pretty much abolished, and it feels like there is a tangible degree of separation amongst crew members now.



There's some truth to this, yeah. 

Slight derail, I say something similar about "canceling" on branding. Big push lately changed Land O Lakes, Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's. I didn't really dive into the case-by-case on those but as far as the outcome, you look at boxes in the grocery store and all the minorities are gone but Marie Callender, Paul Newman, Little Debby, etc are still there on the shelf. Idk, maybe there's was some kinda racist animus in where the branding came from but the result basically white washed the grocery store. Is that the desired outcome?

Social media is a cancer, and the way people interact on it has zero viability in the real world. The scene you describe is what happens when normal human interaction is stripped and everyone is talking to each other IRL with the algorithm that's spit out of Facebook. 

The outcome becomes a fear of someone thinking you said/did the wrong thing and you just avoiding the situation all together. I am 100% sure the fear of awkward sexual or characterized as sexual situations probably are keeping *more* women from being represented in a lot of workplaces. Again, was this the desired outcome?


----------



## Adieu (Nov 20, 2021)

What a minefield this country has become

Neonazi terrorists with guns to the right of you, offlimits topics of the month to the left of you...

Putin must be laughing somewhere.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 20, 2021)

Adieu said:


> Putin must be laughing somewhere.


Pretty much every other first-world and second-world country around the world is probably laughing at the USA right now.
_...well...every country except Australia._


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 20, 2021)

While it's obviously impossible to say for sure, research generally estimates false rape reports at 2-10% of total reports. Yes, those 2-10% of people are victims, and that's not okay. They're also not who this movement is about.

Taking #MeToo and turning it upside down to make a case for the plight of the victims of false reporting actively undermines the platform that it gives to the majority of reports by _real _victims. This is textbook concern trolling. Moreover, it isn't the responsibility of sexual assault victims to figure out what to do for the victims of false reporting.

This isn't a zero-sum game, and if one wanted to make a platform for victims of false reporting it could be done without undermining the platform of actual sexual assault victims. For example, here is a list of people who were wrongfully accused of rape and then exonerated by the innocence project:

https://innocenceproject.org/tag/rape/

While I assume/hope none of you have any intrinsic motivation to de-platform sexual assault victims, lots of people with power do.

. . .

An interesting aside, I also learned in my brief research of the above that an innocent black person is 3.5x more likely to be convicted of a sexual assault than an innocent white person. 

I _also _learned that the _belief_ that false rape allegations are widespread has been cited as a basis for less-than-thorough investigations by law enforcement.

These pieces of information certainly introduce additional complications to the "false reporting" narrative.


----------



## Adieu (Nov 20, 2021)

Pretty sure sexual misconduct cancellation is very 2019.

Here and now, being a leftie opening up about having any kind of gender realist views is what brings down the fury.

Ironically, righties are immune to this kind of thing.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 20, 2021)

Hollowway said:


> I'm sure Randy will answer, but I'll give my perspective:
> 
> I probably wouldn't have taken this as much of a big deal, honestly. To me it just sounds like someone who doesn't know how to have a normal conversation. Like, the one friend you're always apologizing for, because he can't have a normal conversation with people. But, specifically, I think the first sentence is OK. I think it would be totally OK to say, "I don't know why everyone is angry that Kobe died. It's not like he was a god. He raped someone, and got away with it." But then he went on to make it about himself, by saying liberals dislike comedy. Uh, no. We just dislike shitty comedy that isn't funny, and is just shocking, _trying_ to be funny. Maybe there are different tastes in comedy, but it's not that Kobe's defenders are wrong because they dislike his particular type of comedy. Then he went on to say that they like the Lakers more than they dislike rape. That's a weird stretch, and is also off topic. So now he's not just standing against rape, he's trying to say Lakers fans like rape. And then he wraps up by saying he hates the Lakers. Which is totally off topic. So, in a nutshell, he A) Made it about himself, B) somehow dragged "liberals" into it, C) showed how thin skinned he his because apparently anyone who doesn't like his comedy is a liberal who likes rape, and D) decided to have an off topic sentence about a team he doesn't like.
> 
> ...


Want to say I appreciate the context and the analysis, but I think cancelling someone because of their opinion for something that isn't that far fetched is abuse and harassment. We could argue semantics etc, like...

"So now he's not just standing against rape, he's trying to say Lakers fans like rape. And then he wraps up by saying he hates the Lakers. Which is totally off topic."

He probably was saying that because the Lakers fans didn't do enough to out Kobe or bring enough attention to that case and overlooked stuff like this and as a result, didn't like Lakers. Or he did it to be controversial. Either way, he was, in essence like Dave Chappelle, unapologetic....

Oh actually, i found this post



> On Tuesday, Shaffir published a lengthy statement on Instagram calling the routine "dark comedy" and that he was just making "a joke."
> 
> "Every time a beloved celebrity dies I post some horrible s*** about them. I've been doing it for years now," he began. "I like destroying gods. And right when a famous person dies they're at their most worshipped. So as a response to all the outpouring of sympathy on social media, I post something vile. it's just a joke. I don't really hate any of the people."
> 
> ...




Oh


----------



## /wrists (Nov 20, 2021)




----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 20, 2021)

TedEH said:


> I'm not saying that there should be no consequences for doing something stupid - but that the standard for what counts as stupid or not shouldn't be decided by twitter. Sometimes twitter is wrong. Sometimes twitter is very wrong. Twitter, IMO, is not a good metric for "objectively bad".
> 
> I mean, it takes zero effort to find people piling on about how much of a trash fire most social media is, but we somehow still use that at the standard for whether or not anything is acceptable. That makes no sense to me.



There is real world legal precedent for this stuff. 

Look up lawsuits pertaining to workplace discrimination and hostile work environments.

Folks don't get shit canned because the internet arbitrarily says they did something "bad", it's because folks do or say something that opens up their employer to liability.

That's the line 99% of the time: "are we going to get sued?"

At least that's how it works for non-famous people, which is most people.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 20, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> We have to cancel the people that are trying to cancel cancel culture otherwise those that were canceled previously will need to be canceled by the previously canceled cancel culture and we cannot have that.


 
Cancelling all people participating in cancel culture sounds perfect. Since were both participants we're canceled too. 



Emperor Guillotine said:


> .....
> Maybe worth mentioning here: on one of my first-ever big gigs (which was for a major news network), I was called to the HR office because I politely asked a young, white girl who was fresh out of college to stop going around and calling all of her white, male coworkers "cis, white, male scum" simply because Twitter/Tumblr/whatever told her to. I was legitimately looking out for her as her overseer because we all can agree that such behavior is absolutely _*not*_ acceptable in the professional office environment. Yet, I was the one who was reprimanded for "silencing a woman". I'll probably never get hired by that company/network ever again. She was let off the hook and was simply shifted off from my team to another team. Utterly insane.



- These type of people are the problem with the world (the HR people taking that action, not so much the girl).


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 21, 2021)

evade said:


> Want to say I appreciate the context and the analysis, but I think cancelling someone because of their opinion for something that isn't that far fetched is abuse and harassment. We could argue semantics etc, like...
> 
> "So now he's not just standing against rape, he's trying to say Lakers fans like rape. And then he wraps up by saying he hates the Lakers. Which is totally off topic."
> 
> ...


Yeah, I get that it was supposed to be a joke. And outside of puns and some physical comedy, much of comedy is making fun at someone else’s expense. But that also fits the definition of being a bully, and of being an asshole. So it’s rarely about what was said, but more about how it was said, and when it was said. People who aren’t very good at humor often get into trouble for saying inappropriate thing, and always complain that they “were just joking.” But a joke needs someone to laugh at it, otherwise it’s just a statement. It’s totally legitimate for this guy to make a joke. But it’s also totally legitimate for people to not find it funny. There’s no rule that says if he makes a joke we have to laugh at it the same way I would if Chris Rock said it. It’s the same thing that says that one guy can say something to a girl that would be considered flirting, but another guy can say the same thing and it’s considered creepy. Basically, we all have to accept that what we say is going to be interpreted by people, and there are consequences. People often complain about the consequences, but no one gets a free pass to say whatever the want. We have to remember our audience, and consider our tone and timing.

edit: I should point out - or make more clear -I didn’t find this particular joke bad. I would have seen it and kept scrolling. I didn’t find it funny, either. But I certainly wouldn’t have been offended. His mini rant on liberals hating comedy and liking rape went way over my head if that was satire or joking. And it sounds like that was the case for a lot of people. But that’s kind of his job, as a comedian - to make us “get” the joke.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 21, 2021)

evade said:


> View attachment 100332



Well, that's certainly a good example of how to say something that's technically correct but worded to imply something else. There was a fucking lockdown. Comedy wasn't banned. The government wasn't enacting a coverup on the deal with airline food.


----------



## AMOS (Nov 21, 2021)

I remember when Americans "grew a pair" This concept of creating new situations in our minds that offends us will have no end. We'll end up in cookie cutter molds with no individualism because we'll be afraid to be ourselves. Cancel Culture is the exact opposite of Freedom of Expression, it's an extreme form of censorship for people that complain about censorship. All people need to do is learn how to be good people, respect your fellow man and accept that he thinks differently than you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 21, 2021)

Demiurge said:


> There was a fucking lockdown. Comedy wasn't banned. The government wasn't enacting a coverup on the deal with airline food.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 21, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Folks don't get shit canned because the internet arbitrarily says they did something "bad", it's because folks do or say something that opens up their employer to liability.


You know I work in video games. People get shit canned over inane internet arguments and political views often enough. When your audience is mostly made of up Very-Online-Mostly-Progressive-People, any association with a conservative idea is a liability. They were "toxic to the workplace" or "not a good cultural fit". The industry is trying very hard at the moment to correct for how it's viewed as being full of shitbags. Which, to be fair, it's a little bit full of shitbags.

Don't get me wrong, if you're working with/for reasonable people, and aren't actually a shitbag, I think you're relatively protected from that kind of thing - I agree with you on that. But even just on the "it's mildly annoying even if I don't think my job is literally as risk" side of things, you can tell that values are shifting, which sometimes comes with repercussions for innocuous offences. Like, it's perfectly fine for me to call someone at work an asshole, or tell someone to fuck off, or claim the industry is full of shitbags - but the words "dude" or "guys" are off limits.

We actually have a slack bot at the moment monitoring for gendered words - someone posted "it is Wednesday my dudes" and slackbot pops up to remind him he's not being inclusive enough .


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 21, 2021)

TedEH said:


> We actually have a slack bot at the moment monitoring for gendered words - someone posted "it is Wednesday my dudes" and slackbot pops up to remind him he's not being inclusive enough .


Well…I guess so many famous Vine quotes are now going to be banned from being said in your industry. 

Priorities, am I right?


----------



## StevenC (Nov 21, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> I remember when Americans "grew a pair" This concept of creating new situations in our minds that offends us will have no end. We'll end up in cookie cutter molds with no individualism because we'll be afraid to be ourselves. Cancel Culture is the exact opposite of Freedom of Expression, it's an extreme form of censorship for people that complain about censorship. All people need to do is learn how to be good people, respect your fellow man and accept that he thinks differently than you.


And what should become of those that aren't good people and don't respect others?


----------



## AMOS (Nov 21, 2021)

StevenC said:


> And what should become of those that aren't good people and don't respect others?


They're out there, in all respects. Outing someone won't change what's in their hearts. So you do nothing, go along your path and karma will catch up with those who deserve it.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 21, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> They're out there, in all respects. Outing someone won't change what's in their hearts. So you do nothing, go along your path and karma will catch up with those who deserve it.



Ok but since karma isn't a thing, you're basically just saying "nothing should happen to them now because maybe something will happen to them later".


----------



## TedEH (Nov 21, 2021)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Well…I guess so many famous Vine quotes are now going to be banned from being said in your industry.
> 
> Priorities, am I right?


Didn't Vine die like a year or two ago? It's all TikToks now.

Edit: also maybe yes? I know we've had occurrences of people posting memes, getting a talking to and having to apologize and delete it before any gets a chance to see it. I can't speak to the content, cause it was deleted though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## StevenC (Nov 21, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> They're out there, in all respects. Outing someone won't change what's in their hearts. So you do nothing, go along your path and karma will catch up with those who deserve it.


And you were in the military for how long?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 21, 2021)

TedEH said:


> Didn't Vine die like a year or two ago? It's all TikToks now.


Vine was shut down years ago (like five years ago?) after Twitter bought out the platform.

There were so many memorable Vine videos though for the millennial generation. And that is where these quotes come from. None of them are from TikTok. The only thing TikTok has brought to the table has been encouraging Gen-Z (the "Zoomers") to dance in front of their phones while the world burns around them. No internet-famous quotes have ever come from TikTok (yet).



TedEH said:


> Edit: also maybe yes? I know we've had occurrences of people posting memes, getting a talking to and having to apologize and delete it before any gets a chance to see it. I can't speak to the content, cause it was deleted though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


JFC... Unless the meme was unquestionably, blatantly offensive, then that seems like an over-the-top response. A vast over-correction. But again, you can't speak to the content due to rapid deletion.


----------



## jaxadam (Nov 21, 2021)

profwoot said:


> Ok but since karma isn't a thing, you're basically just saying "nothing should happen to them now because maybe something will happen to them later".



I think that karma is a thing. I believe a person's thoughts and actions eventually weigh on their subconscious. We had a saying in martial arts: a thought leads to an action, an action leads to a habit, a habit leads to a lifestyle, and a lifestyle leads to a destiny. Therefore I believe a person's persistent negative thoughts and actions will lead them down a path of life that may not be as positive as they may have hoped, and that's what I call karma.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 21, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> I think that karma is a thing. I believe a person's thoughts and actions eventually weigh on their subconscious. We had a saying in martial arts: a thought leads to an action, an action leads to a habit, a habit leads to a lifestyle, and a lifestyle leads to a destiny. Therefore I believe a person's persistent negative thoughts and actions will lead them down a path of life that may not be as positive as they may have hoped, and that's what I call karma.


Wasn't a huge believer of karma, etc, but when contextualized like so, it makes sense and is actually more rational than it is abstract.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 21, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> I believe a person's thoughts and actions eventually weigh on their subconscious.


You could just as easily frame that the opposite way, in that if an action was going to weight that heavily on someone, they wouldn't have done it in the first place.



Emperor Guillotine said:


> JFC... Unless the meme was unquestionably, blatantly offensive, then that seems like an over-the-top response. A vast over-correction. But again, you can't speak to the content due to rapid deletion.


For all I know it might have been. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Someone must have thought so, to have provoked such a swift response.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 21, 2021)

TedEH said:


> Didn't Vine die like a year or two ago? It's all TikToks now.
> 
> Edit: also maybe yes? I know we've had occurrences of people posting memes, getting a talking to and having to apologize and delete it before any gets a chance to see it. I can't speak to the content, cause it was deleted though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Make a program/app that does the cancelling, apologizing, reintegratiion with a mouse click so everyone can get on with their lives instead. This way everyone can say whatever they want and business has no downtime/interaction.

- If the person gettng it is offended, in a couple clicks they can send the "I'm offended" script, and in a couple clicks you can go view the highlighted offensive text, click to confirm you've been reintegrated and move on. The 'victim' will get a form letter indicating their perpetrators 'rehabilitation status' so they know when it's safe to go near them again. They can pay a fee to get additional social status updates to their phone in real time too. - It wlil cheapen all sincerity for humanity in the process and piss off/on the entire workforce. Can I have a corner office?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 21, 2021)

c7spheres said:


> They can pay a fee to get additional social status updates to their phone in real time too.


And thus, we are at the “social value rating system” like in that one episode of _Black Mirror_. Reviewing people like they are Uber rides based on interactions in order to assign “status” or “value”. It’s something that many current talking head figures have said they’ve feared coming true.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 21, 2021)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> And thus, we are at the “social value rating system” like in that one episode of _Black Mirror_. Reviewing people like they are Uber rides based on interactions in order to assign “status” or “value”. It’s something that many current talking head figures have said they’ve feared coming true.


 It's basically there, just not streamlined yet. Ultimately it's all a guise and conditioning process so people won't feel guilty about murdering their fellow man, when food and water shortages come more into play, and they have to vote against people for who's getting booted from their community and into the badlands. Yes, I just made that up.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 21, 2021)

I was all for "maybe there's a bit more to it than just consequences for shitbags", but lets not go off the deep end.


----------



## Crungy (Nov 21, 2021)

c7spheres said:


> Make a program/app that does the cancelling, apologizing, reintegratiion with a mouse click so everyone can get on with their lives instead. This way everyone can say whatever they want and business has no downtime/interaction.



To me, this sounds like one thing the meta verse could help with. Though I'm not really for the meta verse at all.... But the people that are ready to cancel, it sounds the perfect solution for them and the ones who are not offended.


----------



## c7spheres (Nov 21, 2021)

Crungy said:


> To me, this sounds like one thing the meta verse could help with. Though I'm not really for the meta verse at all.... But the people that are ready to cancel, it sounds the perfect solution for them and the ones who are not offended.



- I was only kidding honestly, but at this point nothing would surprise me. It's already beyond preposterous. 
- While were at it why not just make the entire court system a real time phone app democracy? We can vote to imprison people over saying half-semi-offensive things like the word 'dude' at the office, or cops that shoot people for trying to shoot them, or children that scribble pictures of guns in class. When everyone's a member of government that will solve everything! Just think of it.. A true democracy! um, yeah, no thanks. I didn't sleep last night and I think it's catching up. haha.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 21, 2021)

Because tangents are fun: I don't expect "the meta verse" is ever going to get off the ground. It's too little too late. At least from where I'm sitting, it looks like Facebook has already burned any good will they had, basically run it's course and is slowly going to become the next MySpace - not gone, but mostly forgotten about or relegated to being one of the bajillions of messenger apps available. Some new platform will probably spring up in it's place and be just as much of a trash fire.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 21, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> I think that karma is a thing. I believe a person's thoughts and actions eventually weigh on their subconscious. We had a saying in martial arts: a thought leads to an action, an action leads to a habit, a habit leads to a lifestyle, and a lifestyle leads to a destiny. Therefore I believe a person's persistent negative thoughts and actions will lead them down a path of life that may not be as positive as they may have hoped, and that's what I call karma.



I can agree with all that in principle, but I don't think it applies to everyone. And calling it karma is an odd choice. To me, "karma" is simply the belief that some vague cosmic force will hold people accountable for their wrong-doing, as an excuse to avoid caring about social justice in how we arrange our society.


----------



## Crungy (Nov 21, 2021)

@TedEH I do hope the Zuck fails hard with meta and metaverses are something none of us will have to deal with. It sounds like such horseshit to me.


----------



## AMOS (Nov 21, 2021)

profwoot said:


> Ok but since karma isn't a thing, you're basically just saying "nothing should happen to them now because maybe something will happen to them later".


It's not illegal to have thoughts and beliefs. But it is illegal to harass them because they don't agree with your sensibilities


----------



## AMOS (Nov 21, 2021)

profwoot said:


> I can agree with all that in principle, but I don't think it applies to everyone. And calling it karma is an odd choice. To me, "karma" is simply the belief that some vague cosmic force will hold people accountable for their wrong-doing, as an excuse to avoid caring about social justice in how we arrange our society.


Arrange Society?


----------



## profwoot (Nov 21, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> Arrange Society?



? Yes, humans tend to arrange themselves into societies, and those within each collectively arrange it in accord with prevailing ideas and moral beliefs. Holding people and institutions accountable for bad behavior, however determined, is essential for a healthy society, but American society has degenerated to the point where there are no prevailing ideas and moral beliefs, the culture war having so thoroughly divided us. 

So we're now in the unenviable position of, on one side, being ever more aware of the injustices of our society while not able to do anything about them, and on the other side, being incentivized to [at first] deny all these obvious problems(and in turn various other aspects of reality). The latter is the scary part for me -- shared delusion is a powerful way of determining and enforcing in-group/out-group, the crazier the better.


----------



## Anquished (Nov 22, 2021)

I totally think that people should be held accountable for their words/actions, I think companies have a right to fire/remove opportunities for people airing something blatantly bigotted/racist/homophobic etc. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. 

That being said there was an interesting poll at my work asking if people were afraid to post on the work forum (it's used for sales, common room chats, hobbies, discussions etc) with something like 60% saying they were. 

People acknowledge not to be blatantly racist, sexist etc. but the main fear was "tripping up" and saying something that could be interpreted as "microaggressive". The forum has a handful of people who regularly post with one being a self proclaimed SJW who happily stated that they weren't sorry for the fear they'd created in staving off this 60% of people in order to "keep the forum clean". 

In theory this is a good thing, they're trying to keep the space inclusive and safe, but its clearly scaring off a large portion of the community who don't want the sledgehammer repercussions of either saying something they don't fully understand or simply being misinterpreted that way.


----------



## AMOS (Nov 22, 2021)

profwoot said:


> ? Yes, humans tend to arrange themselves into societies, and those within each collectively arrange it in accord with prevailing ideas and moral beliefs. Holding people and institutions accountable for bad behavior, however determined, is essential for a healthy society, but American society has degenerated to the point where there are no prevailing ideas and moral beliefs, the culture war having so thoroughly divided us.
> 
> So we're now in the unenviable position of, on one side, being ever more aware of the injustices of our society while not able to do anything about them, and on the other side, being incentivized to [at first] deny all these obvious problems(and in turn various other aspects of reality). The latter is the scary part for me -- shared delusion is a powerful way of determining and enforcing in-group/out-group, the crazier the better.


There are no sides, there are individuals, you act as though half the country is racist.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 22, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> It's not illegal to have thoughts and beliefs. But it is illegal to harass them because they don't agree with your sensibilities


Weirdly, we aren't actually talking about privately held beliefs, but the consequences of outward actions.

And weird that you justify things as being legal or illegal when on the last page you said there shuttle be no consequenced for breaking societies agreed upon codes of interaction.


----------



## AMOS (Nov 22, 2021)

StevenC said:


> Weirdly, we aren't actually talking about privately held beliefs, but the consequences of outward actions.
> 
> And weird that you justify things as being legal or illegal when on the last page you said there shuttle be no consequenced for breaking societies agreed upon codes of interaction.


This whole woke thing is crooked, you use Fascism to fight Fascism. I'm no part of that on either side, but the country sees it. Good luck in the mid terms!


----------



## AMOS (Nov 22, 2021)

StevenC said:


> Weirdly, we aren't actually talking about privately held beliefs, but the consequences of outward actions.
> 
> And weird that you justify things as being legal or illegal when on the last page you said there shuttle be no consequenced for breaking societies agreed upon codes of interaction.


Even Bill Maher and Barack Obama called out Cancel Culture. In another year or so plan on seeing it gone


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

Anquished said:


> That being said there was an interesting poll at my work asking if people were afraid to post on the work forum (it's used for sales, common room chats, hobbies, discussions etc) with something like 60% saying they were.


I can definitely relate to this. We've got a number of communities that aren't necessarily "work" forums, but are tangential - one for the sort of indie communities surrounding us, a forum for the bunch of business we share a building with, etc. - and a number of very intense characters who mean well have basically driven a lot of voices away. I don't post in any of those places very often anymore because they immediately dogpile on any expression that doesn't align exactly to their viewpoints.

I used to take the viewpoint that it was important for people to contribute their own angle on things - you know.... diversity! Diversity is supposed to be good right? I don't think any one voice or viewpoint should monopolize a space. But then you end up butting heads with the most intense and adamant characters in that space, making the whole place uncomfortable for _everyone_. I'd later get private messages from a bunch of people apologizing for not backing me up just because they don't want to put themselves in the crosshairs. As a result, there's maybe 5 people who post there anymore with any regularity - in a community of 400+ people.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 22, 2021)

There is one neat trick for avoiding ever having to put one's foot in their mouth on company social media...


----------



## StevenC (Nov 22, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> Even Bill Maher and Barack Obama called out Cancel Culture. In another year or so plan on seeing it gone


The fact you think Bill Maher is some sort of leftist icon is telling.


----------



## AMOS (Nov 22, 2021)

StevenC said:


> The fact you think Bill Maher is some sort of leftist icon is telling.


I agree with him when he makes sense, but I respect the fact that he doesn't jump on bandwagons. I think it's time for the Confederate flag to go, in public places. But this removing statues crap is erasing our history as though Stalin was in charge. History is there to remind us of where we went wrong.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 22, 2021)

Leaviathan said:


> I agree with him when he makes sense, but I respect the fact that he doesn't jump on bandwagons. I think it's time for the Confederate flag to go, in public places. But this removing statues crap is erasing our history as though Stalin was in charge. History is there to remind us of where we went wrong.


Didn't you say you were a veteran? Should there be statues of Bin Laden in Central Park?


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

^ While I agree with your general sentiment, there's a distinction between adding a monument and removing a preexisting one. Not to say I think certain things shouldn't come down, but I do think there should be some consideration taken at the same time to not hide something that had historical significance. Replacing a monument with something that acknowledged what was previously there and why it came down would be cool. Taking the old monument and giving it to a museum or something that can display it with appropriate historical context would be a good idea too. i dunno if those kinds of things happen already, maybe they do.


----------



## jaxadam (Nov 22, 2021)

StevenC said:


> Should there be statues of Bin Laden in Central Park?



Wouldn't that be the equivalent of putting Confederate statues in Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan?


----------



## profwoot (Nov 22, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> Wouldn't that be the equivalent of putting Confederate statues in Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan?



No. Bin Laden attacked the US, just as the confederates did.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 22, 2021)

Dang, this is, like, the sixth thread to derail into the metaverse.

So, question, who are the people primarily driving cancel culture? Not the cancelees, but the cancelors, so to speak. Is it just people in general or is there some talking head or heads that dictate to the public at large when a celebrity has gone too far and needs to be laid off from entertainment opportunities?


----------



## jaxadam (Nov 22, 2021)

profwoot said:


> No. Bin Laden attacked the US, just as the confederates did.



Bin Laden wasn’t from here, just as the Confederates were.


----------



## StevenC (Nov 22, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> Bin Laden wasn’t from here, just as the Confederates were.


So it's OK to have statues of domestic terrorists but not international ones?


----------



## jaxadam (Nov 22, 2021)

StevenC said:


> So it's OK to have statues of domestic terrorists but not international ones?



I think the only statues that are OK are of Victoria's Secret models, both domestic and _especially _international.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 22, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> Bin Laden wasn’t from here, just as the Confederates were.



The Confederates started their own country and then attacked ours. Sure, we let the traitorous losers come crawling back after their thorough humiliation, but at the time they were not "from here".


----------



## eaeolian (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> IMO there's a difference between voting with your wallet and actively calling for someone to lose their job, or shows, etc. "I don't like this so I won't buy it" is distinct from "I don't like this, so we have to make sure nobody else can see it", or "I've decided this person is bad, so lets ruin their lives".
> 
> You might say, "but Ted, that's not what's happening", to which I'd say I've met people who spend their spare time searching for people to harass until they're deplatformed or fired etc. because they don't like said person's values. It happens. I won't claim to know how much of that contributes to "cancel culture", but it's a non-zero amount.



I won't say it doesn't happen, because it does. I will say that it's not anything new. You just hear more about it - it was just fine when conservatives were getting people fired for being "immoral" in the 60s and 70s. The difference now is that a.) the people who view themselves as being "the majority" are the ones subject to retribution and b.) the right wing media is once again amplifying garbage to appease their viewer/readership (see a.)

Or do you not remember the Clinton impeachment?


----------



## bostjan (Nov 22, 2021)

Clinton's impeachment was politically about Clinton committing perjury and, in the media, was about moral looseness. Plenty of presidents had affairs (this is by no means an endorsement of the act, only observing that none of them were impeached because of it).

It's maybe a little ironic that Clinton is such a highly revered figure for (many) younger democrats these days in spite of the (quite credible) allegations of harassment and sexual assault prior to and during his tenure as president. But, at the time, I don't think it ever really seemed like he was in any serious danger of legal troubles due to those allegations. It certainly doesn't seem like he faces much backlash about it now.


----------



## eaeolian (Nov 22, 2021)

jaxadam said:


> Bin Laden wasn’t from here, just as the Confederates were.



Worse, Bin Laden simply lived up to his sense of "honor". Every Confederate general of note had sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In reality, they all should have been hung as traitors.


----------



## eaeolian (Nov 22, 2021)

bostjan said:


> Clinton's impeachment was politically about Clinton committing perjury and, in the media, was about moral looseness. Plenty of presidents had affairs (this is by no means an endorsement of the act, only observing that none of them were impeached because of it).
> 
> It's maybe a little ironic that Clinton is such a highly revered figure for (many) younger democrats these days in spite of the (quite credible) allegations of harassment and sexual assault prior to and during his tenure as president. But, at the time, I don't think it ever really seemed like he was in any serious danger of legal troubles due to those allegations. It certainly doesn't seem like he faces much backlash about it now.



There's more than a little taint to even the more credible claims of sexual harassment, so I don't think we'll ever know, but a lot of what went on regularly in power situations in the '80s and '90s was most definitely sexual harassment by modern standards. Go back before that and it was even worse.

Perjury was the only "legal" thing Clinton could be threatened with, but the goal of the impeachment was most definitely to get the affair out in the open. Sadly, the chief executor of that strategy is now a Supreme Court justice, so in the end it worked.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 22, 2021)

eaeolian said:


> I won't say it doesn't happen, because it does. I will say that it's not anything new. You just hear more about it - it was just fine when conservatives were getting people fired for being "immoral" in the 60s and 70s. The difference now is that a.) the people who view themselves as being "the majority" are the ones subject to retribution and b.) the right wing media is once again amplifying garbage to appease their viewer/readership (see a.)
> 
> Or do you not remember the Clinton impeachment?



And before that they were getting people fired/black-balled and worse by accusing them of being communist.

Now they've moved onto cancelling members of their own party who... vote for popular legislation or otherwise occasionally refuse to lick Trump's boots. They also cancel school board members who aren't willing to burn books, and scientists who won't go along with the Fox News Cinematic Universe re vaccines, climate change, or any number of other topics. I agree that the liberal mob gets out of control on social media too often, but republican messaging, whether on social media or not, has been tuned to "out of control fascist mob" for a good while now.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

eaeolian said:


> Or do you not remember the Clinton impeachment?


I'm not American, and I was not much more than 10 at the time, if I'm getting that timeline right, so no I don't remember that.



eaeolian said:


> You just hear more about it


I don't disagree. People slap the word "culture" on the end of all kinds of things that aren't entirely new, I don't see why this case is any different.



bostjan said:


> So, question, who are the people primarily driving cancel culture?


I would have thought the answer to this was straightforward: activists. Loud progressive voices. Communities that take it upon themselves to be a force for change, for better or worse.

And don't get me wrong, despite the dumb things I say here, I do think activism generally leads to positive change a lot of the time. But I think it's naive to think it leads to positive change _all of the time_. I've no beef with activism in and of itself, I just can't get behind when that spills over into certain attitudes - of being infallible, of insisting there is only one correct way to frame a given topic, of insisting that there's no grey area between being 100% behind a cause vs. being "the problem".

Then combine that with the internet - the machine that amplifies extremes, levels playing fields, lowers barriers to entry, gives every idiot a platform.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> You might say, "but Ted, that's not what's happening", to which I'd say I've met people who spend their spare time searching for people to harass until they're deplatformed or fired etc. because they don't like said person's values. It happens. I won't claim to know how much of that contributes to "cancel culture", but it's a non-zero amount.


It absolutely happens. I've first-hand witnessed it more times than I can count. The folks who say that it doesn't happen are either buried in self-imposed denial or so far out of touch that they are unable to keep a finger on the pulse of what is really going on around them.

I find that a lot of these folks who outright deny the existence of these "online extremist headhunters" (who simply sit online looking for people to harass, deplatform, and get fired) tend to be of an older demographic age-wise. So, they probably don't spend enough time on social media or immersed in the popular media to witness the headhunting that is happening.



bostjan said:


> It's maybe a little ironic that Clinton is such a highly revered figure for (many) younger democrats these days in spite of the (quite credible) allegations of harassment and sexual assault prior to and during his tenure as president. But, at the time, I don't think it ever really seemed like he was in any serious danger of legal troubles due to those allegations. It certainly doesn't seem like he faces much backlash about it now.


> Liberals in 2021: "If you commit even the slightest trace of sexual harassment, then you are scum and will be cancelled! We will ensure that you lose everything! #METOO!"

> Also liberals in 2021: "Bless Bill Clinton! Praise him! One of the last great leaders of our nation!"



eaeolian said:


> Perjury was the only "legal" thing Clinton could be threatened with, but the goal of the impeachment was most definitely to get the affair out in the open. Sadly, the chief executor of that strategy is now a Supreme Court justice, so in the end it worked.


^ Nailed it.



profwoot said:


> And before that they were getting people fired/black-balled and worse by accusing them of being communist.


Seems like McCarthyism has always existed. The criteria for what a person gets accused of has just changed over time with each iteration of the extremist practice.

With that said, modern "cancel culture" = McCarthyism.



TedEH said:


> But I think it's naive to think it leads to positive change _all of the time_. I've no beef with activism in and of itself, I just can't get behind when that spills over into certain attitudes - of being infallible, of insisting there is only one correct way to frame a given topic, of insisting that there's no grey area between being 100% behind a cause vs. being "the problem".
> 
> Then combine that with the internet - the machine that amplifies extremes, levels playing fields, lowers barriers to entry, gives every idiot a platform.


^ Absolutely nailed it.


----------

