Jump to content

"Cancel Culture" Opinions?


RussTCB

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, WhazUp said:

For example, there was an episode of Community where one of the characters while playing D&D was dressed in makeup dressed as a dark elf and the actual joke was how he was doing unintentional blackface.  There really was nothing offensive there, but they pulled the episode because they were too scared of people trying to "cancel" the episode yet there was literally not a single person concerned with that episode at all.  It wasn't even a thing until Netflix's actions made it so

a good example of taking it way too far for the purpose of not losing money. How can this be a reaction to something that is unsubstantial? I don't think "cancel culture" means that every shitty thing a celebrity says or does for example, will lead to them being cancelled simply cause people are not objective enough to cancel only those who deserve it.

the technology just makes people's sometimes toxic opinions matter much more and sometimes they don't even need to express a negative opinion for something to be cancelled or altered cause it's too costly to even give the consumer or public the chance to judge for themselves.

 

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, action said:

in the words of muhammad ali "when we are right, no one remembers. But when we are wrong, no one forgets"

Muhammad Ali also believed white people were cloned from black people by a mad scientist called Yakub, and that all the black people would fly on a big UFO when they die!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Muhammad Ali also believed white people were cloned from black people by a mad scientist called Yakub, and that all the black people would fly on a big UFO when they die!

Did you ever read about the guy they claimed started the NOI?  A fascinating character:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Fard_Muhammad

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Muhammad Ali also believed white people were cloned from black people by a mad scientist called Yakub, and that all the black people would fly on a big UFO when they die!

if you look for bad stuff ali said and did, you will find it.

out of respect for the GOAT, I won't specify this further.

this is just a great example how everyone of us, everyone, has skeletons in their closet. And god knows I have some of my own. But that's for no one else but me to bear, and to account for. I don't need no outraged mob to judge me. There is only one judge as far as I'm concerned, and he will judge me and every single one of you lot.

"he who is without sins, throw the first rock"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Muhammad Ali also believed white people were cloned from black people by a mad scientist called Yakub, and that all the black people would fly on a big UFO when they die!

It's amazing what you can be made to believe when you get punched in the head for a living. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

And he was once just a middle class black paddy called Cassius!

In his defence, if I were a black man in the 1960s with little education I could see myself getting behind an idea like ‘all white people are devils’.  

But who the fuck was that guy, how can a person be like...untraceable?  And then vanish off the face of the earth, especially someone that was being watched by the FBI.  I guess it was probably easier in the 30s.  
 

A fair deal of evidence points to his being an Indian muslim y’know.  Or an Afghan. Or from New Zealand.  

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to a podcast the other day that touched on the areas of social media, social justice and cancel culture. One of the points made, a good one that I hadn't really considered is that whilst social justice in itself isn't an inherently bad thing - who doesn't want a fairer society, the way it gets enacted is akin to a religious like fervour. Of course actual religious based societies have behaved similarly in the past but for the most part religion, or culture that springs from religious teaching has allowed for the concept of redemption - a person has an opportunity to repent, make amends and be welcomed back to the fold so to speak. This seems to be a concept largely lacking in cancel culture (to be clear I'm talking about things like causing offence, inappropriate behaviour etc...not mass serial killers or anything like that).

I'm not at all religious but I thought it was an interesting point in how we build an increasingly secular society and get it right.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alfierose said:

I listened to a podcast the other day that touched on the areas of social media, social justice and cancel culture. One of the points made, a good one that I hadn't really considered is that whilst social justice in itself isn't an inherently bad thing - who doesn't want a fairer society, the way it gets enacted is akin to a religious like fervour. Of course actual religious based societies have behaved similarly in the past but for the most part religion, or culture that springs from religious teaching has allowed for the concept of redemption - a person has an opportunity to repent, make amends and be welcomed back to the fold so to speak. This seems to be a concept largely lacking in cancel culture (to be clear I'm talking about things like causing offence, inappropriate behaviour etc...not mass serial killers or anything like that).

I'm not at all religious but I thought it was an interesting point in how we build an increasingly secular society and get it right.

I don't think you can cancel prejudice out of people.  Or lecture it out of them.  Or delete it from a culture because there is a consensus among a certain group to do so.  I think its a series of individual changes of heart that is a gradual process that will wash away incrementally over generations.  Important issues like police brutality and death rates in custody obviously require immediate action, don't take my comments here as saying 'nah, allow that, it'll sort itself out' fuck that, I just mean the general thing of prejudice and intolerance.  Its a by-product of education.  Because how do you bollock or marginalise a group of people out of a set of beliefs, has that ever worked, in human history, ever? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are radio stations still not playing Michael Jackson songs?

I'm also a little conflicted. I just started watching The Mist and noticed it was Executed Produced by Harvey Weinstein. Should I not watch it because of that? I don't want to seem like I'm supporting his projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Coma16 said:

Are radio stations still not playing Michael Jackson songs?

I'm also a little conflicted. I just started watching The Mist and noticed it was Executed Produced by Harvey Weinstein. Should I not watch it because of that? I don't want to seem like I'm supporting his projects.

Errr...I wouldn't sweat it.  From the looks of it, Weinstein won't be taking in a lot of money where he's headed.  

His projects though, support a myriad of other people - actors, directors, producers, crews and everyone else that worked on any project he is affiliated with. 

That's why "canceling Weinstein" doesn't make a lot of sense, imo.    He's already "canceled" himself; so all you might be doing is hurting the people that worked on his projects - some of which, are his victims.   

Yes, by "canceling" Weinstein, you could likely be doing more harm to his victims, than Weinstein himself. 

 

Just an educated guess.   @Angelica would be the person to talk to about this, imo.

Edited by Ace Nova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Errr...I wouldn't sweat it.  From the looks of it, Weinstein won't be taking in a lot of money where he's headed.  

His projects though, support a myriad of other people - actors, directors, producers, crews and everyone else that worked on any project he is affiliated with. 

That's why "canceling Weinstein" makes zero sense.   He's already "canceled" himself, so all you are doing is hurting the people that worked on his projects - some of which, are his victims.   

Yes, by "canceling" Weinstein, you would likely be doing more harm to his victims, than Weinstein himself. 

But where do you draw the line? Wasn't Cosby Show reruns taken off the air? I was watching Se7en the other day and decided to turn it off halfway through when I remembered that the villian was played by a pedophile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to cancel Weinstein then you are going to have to cancel the entire filmography of banana chin, as well as a multitude of other high profile films, Gangs of New York, Shakespeare in Love, Good Will Hunting, English Patient, Kevin Smith's stuff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Coma16 said:

But where do you draw the line? Wasn't Cosby Show reruns taken off the air? I was watching Se7en the other day and decided to turn it off halfway through when I remembered that the villian was played by a pedophile.

Apples & Oranges, imo.  Bill Cosby was the lead actor in the Cosby show.  So it's extremely difficult to separate what happened.  It would be a constant reminder every time anyone watches the show.  Not to mention, he plays a polar opposite "family man" role in the Cosby show.  (Compared to what he did).   You really can't have kids watching the show thinking he's an honorable family man, etc then asking "If he's a good man, why is he in jail?"  And that's not even getting into how the "victims" (or their families, friends, associates, etc)  would feel if they happened to come across the show while channel surfing. 

Really sad situation, tbh. 

My entire generation grew up on that show and it made an impact on how African Americans were beginning to be perceived by society.  It was one of the first shows that portrayed African Americans as being extremely well educated, successful, socially conservative and there were several underlying themes throughout the show that really brought a positive light to social relations at the time.  It was a far cry from shows like "Good Times", etc.  (In terms of how the families were portrayed).

(Not that there's anything wrong with "Good Times"  It also served a purpose when it was on the air (showed the plight of a working class African American family and despite their struggles, they were still able to find happiness, in a really fun and jovial environment). 

 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

A recent example of how "cancel culture" could be used for nefarious purposes would be the myriad of fake articles that circulated Facebook (among other social media platforms) prior to the 2016 elections.   Articles not based on reality but drummed up in order to affect the way some people felt about a certain candidate or political ideology.  The average person may have not "fact checked" the article, then clicked "share" and so forth.  That type of stuff is based on the same concept of "cancel culture". 

One could argue that the "cancel culture mentality" was used by the far right after Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" comment.  It spread like wildfire and whether or not it was what she meant, it lead to a portion of society "canceling" Clinton. 

I think you're using the term a little too broadly.  Canceling is not about misinformation or efforts to promote or gain a political majority.  The practice of modern day democratic politics is to create or promote a political coalition that is larger than your competitor. 

That has little to do with the concept of canceling an individual or thing.  

But your post highlights what is wrong with the phrase to begin with.  Much like the argument over political-correctness, it's this vague and arbitrary concept that can mean different things to different people.  It can be weaponized by political forces that take very complex issues and minimize them to these very base and dichotomous concept.  There are many instances when something should be "canceled" or people should pay a personal price for their actions.  Other times those efforts can be misguided and fail to give quarter to reflection, growth, and proportionality.  We saw this with the debate over political correctness, where mostly everyone would agree that the use of the n word should have no place in the language of most people (which was an effort of political correctness over many years/decades), but most people perceive the term as a pejorative.  Hence why people like Trump use it as a cudgel since it's viewed negatively despite most people agreeing with some aspects of it if you break things down to the granular level.  

Clinton uttering deplorables was a political misstep that was rightly used by her opponents for political gain.  It was made within the confines of a political campaign.  Outside of the truly fanatical and deranged Clinton haters, nothing was going to happen to Clinton personally because of the prospects of losing the election.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coma16 said:

But where do you draw the line?

Wherever you want.  It's a personal choice.

And this gets to the point of how little power "cancel culture" actually has (to some extent).  We're all free to make choices independent of whatever some on the internet say.  

Here we are on a GNR fan forum discussing the parameters of cancer culture.  Not sure if irony is the right word, but by almost any measure or perspective, GNR could or should be "canceled" if we evaluated the band and its members according to the perceived new morality of the twittersphere.  But clearly they haven't nor would any effort really have any real effect. 

Why?  Who knows.  

But I think it boils down to the arbitrary and personal manner in which we as individuals and as a society decide what is acceptable and what we do not.  It's not going to be the same answer for everyone.  But we should also acknowledge that there is potential for personal and societal improvement by allowing these conversations and efforts to take place.  There will be mistakes along the way.  It's going to be messy and judgements held one day might be perceived as wrong the next.  Tolerance for differing opinions but also efforts to downplay or discourage antiquated, dangerous, and harmful attitudes, ideas, and values is going to take time.  We often hear the phrase "we need to have a conversation about x, y, and z as a society if we're going to move forward."  Well this is what it sounds like.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

I think you're using the term a little too broadly.  Canceling is not about misinformation or efforts to promote or gain a political majority.  The practice of modern day democratic politics is to create or promote a political coalition that is larger than your competitor. 

That has little to do with the concept of canceling an individual or thing.  

But your post highlights what is wrong with the phrase to begin with.  Much like the argument over political-correctness, it's this vague and arbitrary concept that can mean different things to different people.  It can be weaponized by political forces that take very complex issues and minimize them to these very base and dichotomous concept.  There are many instances when something should be "canceled" or people should pay a personal price for their actions.  Other times those efforts can be misguided and fail to give quarter to reflection, growth, and proportionality.  We saw this with the debate over political correctness, where mostly everyone would agree that the use of the n word should have no place in the language of most people (which was an effort of political correctness over many years/decades), but most people perceive the term as a pejorative.  Hence why people like Trump use it as a cudgel since it's viewed negatively despite most people agreeing with some aspects of it if you break things down to the granular level.  

Clinton uttering deplorables was a political misstep that was rightly used by her opponents for political gain.  It was made within the confines of a political campaign.  Outside of the truly fanatical and deranged Clinton haters, nothing was going to happen to Clinton personally because of the prospects of losing the election.  

Again, I don't think you and I are in disagreement.  Almost all of my posts on the subject have been in reference to the psychology/mentality that drives it, which is rooted in the much broader concept of "mob mentality".

I'm not a fan of "mob mentality" for the exact reasons you stated.  Although it is often put in motion for "noble" purposes, it can easily evolve into something worse.  (And people may not realize the difference.). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

Again, I don't think you and I are in disagreement.  Almost all of my posts on the subject have been in reference to the psychology/mentality that drives it, which is rooted in the much broader concept of "mob mentality".

But I don't think we can define cancel culture as simply "mob mentality."

It's an effort to effectively cancel or remove someone or something.  This action, even before an aggregate of people sign on to support or oppose, can either be positive or negative.  "Mob mentality" assumes that those who are supporting an effort to remove something or someone from their current position had their opinions easily altered or made up by those around them.  That might certainly be true in some cases, but not in all. 

I also think that assessment does a disservice for anyone who might, to use one example, call for the resignation or removal of a political figure from their job because of valid reasons.  Take myself.  Not a huge secrete that I am strongly opposed to Donald Trump remaining president.  I would not disagree with the view that I wish to "cancel" Donald Trump.  Now would you agree that my opinion on this matter was easily altered and based solely on social influences?  Perhaps to a degree, but that assessment would ignore my own experiences, knowledge, education, and ability to analyze and assess for myself.  My belief that Trump should be canceled is not a product of a mob mentality.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...