"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[downzy]

10 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I have no problems separating the art from the artist. I can still listen to Michael Jackson or look at a painting by Gauguin without letting any of the creepy stuff spoil it for me. 

Yeah, and this is where I think it's important to respect others in how they mange these sorts of issues.  There are some artists who I simply can't separate their art and their alleged (or confirmed) behaviours (MJ being one).  But there are many others that I can (GNR being an example of such).  Does that make me a hypocrite?  Maybe.  But I would be a hard pressed to find anyone who is completely consistent in this manner.  

This is why I think efforts to remove works of art that have potential comprised values or messages as a waste of time.  We should surely not necessarily celebrate certain works or make attempts to educate consumers how and why a piece of art has problems, but to ban or completely remove it does a disservice to those who can still find value one way or another.  Look, if you can still buy or borrow a copy of Mein Kampf then I think we can let the episode of Community where a joke about black face remain available.  

[downzy]

Btw, part 2 of The Daily podcast on this topic was released today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/podcasts/the-daily/cancel-culture.html

Listen to the first episode if you haven't had a chance before listening to the second part.

Really worth listening to if you find this topic interesting.  Each episode is about 25 minutes long.  

[Ace Nova]

2 hours 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.

 

8 minutes ago, downzy said:

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.  

 

Spot on.

To me, this is much different than the "cancel culture" that has infested social media.  We are having valid conversations, getting each other's opinions, fact checking, etc etc.  To me, this is the way a society should handle these types of issues....not because one "famous person" with 10 million followers  (who had an ax to grind) said so.  But because we are learning from each other and we are forming our opinions (and conclusions) through pragmatic thought processes.   

Our eventual "actions" (if we decide to take any) won't be done because of "mob mentality", it will be done because we have made our own, informed decisions.   And I assure you, that is not always the case with the current "cancel culture". 

So kudos, mygnr, well done!

 

[soon]

19 minutes ago, downzy said:

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.

I dont disagree with the notion that cancel culture is much like PC. And as far as I understand it, you and I agree about how vague a concept PC is. I even go as far as to say that in the social sphere, PC does not exist because its unenforceable (the inability to read minds for intent). 

But Im struggling to apply the same concrete analysis to cancel culture. I think its that the digital reality is (or feels) so different from actual reality. Feels like the psychology in digital is significantly different - but maybe Im wrong. But its like the Square Space adds say "a website makes it real" I think the power and psychology of internet reification is quite substantial and not very understood.

So like 'you're cancelled and a tweet makes is real' is kinda where Im landing currently. Certainly if it involves mass deplatforming its real.

So, which reality is more 'real?' I mean, online is where we go for truth. We ask Siri about more stuff than we ask real life mentors? 

Anyways, your posts have been helpful as an anchor as I drift in a digital sea. I also enjoyed that NYT pod you linked to. It skimmed over things Id be interested to hear more of, but its a great entry point in general! 

 

[Ace Nova]

11 minutes ago, downzy said:

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

 

 

I agree it's not always the case, just like I stated in my other response to you...but you beat me to the punch.  

 And yes, I think we are mostly in agreement.

 

 

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

Yeah, and this is where I think it's important to respect others in how they mange these sorts of issues.  There are some artists who I simply can't separate their art and their alleged (or confirmed) behaviours (MJ being one).  But there are many others that I can (GNR being an example of such).  Does that make me a hypocrite?  Maybe.  But I would be a hard pressed to find anyone who is completely consistent in this manner.  

I agree, I respect people not being able to listen to MJ anymore and I understand it, and who knows, maybe it's my shortcoming that I can ''tune'' that part out when I hear his music. I was thinking about this before, if Hitler had been a decent painter, would I have been able to enjoy his paintings knowing that it was made by one of the worst people in history? I don't know, maybe I would.

[action]

there's artists I couldn't enjoy anymore, for stuff they did in their private life. but I follow the consensus in this thread, that this is for everyone to decide. 

what "cancel culture" aims to achieve though, is that no one is able to enjoy the art anymore. the word "culture" in cancel culture suggests a social phenomenon. The social psychology of cancel culture makes that people will feel obliged to follow the rules, to "fit in". this leads to, and is almost identifable, as social censor, or censorship plain and simple. Michael jackson not being played on the radio anymore, getting weird looks by society if you admit still listening to MJ.... this is just censorship, or at least it yields the same results as censorship.

[downzy]

21 minutes ago, soon said:

But Im struggling to apply the same concrete analysis to cancel culture. I think its that the digital reality is (or feels) so different from actual reality. Feels like the psychology in digital is significantly different - but maybe Im wrong. But its like the Square Space adds say "a website makes it real" I think the power and psychology of internet reification is quite substantial and not very understood.

There is a lot of focus on the digital applications of cancel culture but like anything online, I believe it to be only a part (and so often with anything online, hyper-sensationalized on both ends) of the phenomenon.  

We see cancel culture with respect to how history is interacted and perceived in real time.  The discussions and efforts around historical landmarks isn't one limited to the digital stratosphere.  

I do think you're right in that the internet allows for deafening and thoughtless "speech" in a manner that has never been seen or experienced before.  It can be reinforcing and limiting if one chooses to wall oneself off from similar opinions and peoples.  But I don't think the internet is only that.  It has democratized and brought down the barriers of discussion and allowed many more voices to be heard.  The reality versus the perception of what the internet is, I think, is perhaps where the most misconception lies.  Some agendas, opinions, or messages might align, but the reasons for them likely come from different places and with various levels of education and knowledge.  I think that's okay.  

31 minutes ago, soon said:

So like 'you're cancelled and a tweet makes is real' is kinda where Im landing currently. Certainly if it involves mass deplatforming its real.

Saying to someone that their canceled is different than them actually being canceled.  If there is real merit to the ask and it doesn't translate into the utter destruction of the target (and by utter destruction I mean - save for criminal behaviour - in areas of personal liberty, absence of food and shelter), then perhaps there should be some element of canceling.  

With respect to de-platforming, I personally don't have a problem with that action when warranted.  We ban people here not all the time (well, not anymore) but often enough that we have to be conscious of when and why we do it.  We don't ban people for their opinions but we do when it comes to their behaviour.  Perhaps I'm wrong but someone like Alex Jones and white supremacists get de-platformed for similar reasons.  There's no inherent right as a human being to have access to Twitter, Facebook, or this forum.  The owners and staff get to set the rules that everyone has to abide by.  If one of those rules forbids hateful language towards others, willful promotion of false information, or advocating violence against one or a group of people, then that person should be any measure be "canceled" from that platform.  There is absolutely nothing to stop that person should they choose from starting their own platforms.  If someone feels as though their life has been canceled because they can no longer post on Twitter or this forum, they have far bigger problems.  

41 minutes ago, soon said:

Anyways, your posts have been helpful as an anchor as I drift in a digital sea. I also enjoyed that NYT pod you linked to. It skimmed over things Id be interested to hear more of, but its a great entry point in general! 

Thanks.  Yeah, it's an interesting conversation.  Much like the contributors to the podcast, I personally don't feel like i'm speaking any kind of authority on the topic or feel 100 percent confident with this topic.  It's really tricky and in some ways both an old and a new issue.  It's both incredibly broad but also very specific in how we think about it and how its applied.  I'm open to being wrong about any and all of this.  

[downzy]

59 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

To me, this is the way a society should handle these types of issues....not because one "famous person" with 10 million followers  (who had an ax to grind) said so.

And I think this is where we disagree. 

I have a twitter account (that has been dormant for years; only in the last six months have I really discovered what twitter was and how to consume it).  I see all sorts of people advocating different positions with respect to what should be accepted and what shouldn't.  Causes and collective actions aren't solely or always the product of efforts by one famous or well-followed individual.  The call for police reform has been an issue that has long been present and only received further attention and acceptance after visuals of George Floyd's murder.  We shouldn't undermine a movement with genuine support simply because mass consciousness and support was arrived around the same time.  Most, I would hope, didn't need to see what their friends were saying on Twitter to feel what happened to Floyd was wrong. 

That isn't to say that there aren't some exaggerated or performative and ephemeral contributions.  The entire black out movement where people posted black boxes on their instagram and facebook feeds was absolutely ludicrous and (to your point) an example of well-intentioned but misguided response that bordered on performative.  It drove me up the fucking wall to see many of my friends acting as though posting a black box on instagram actually did anything.  It reach levels of absurdity when several people I know began posting a black box every few hours to remind everyone how "woke" they were.  So I totally get that things can get out of hand and outlandish to the point of being a self-parody.  But I don't think misguided instances like that should define or represent what collective responses to moral considerations are, can, and have been.  

[soon]

19 minutes ago, downzy said:

Saying to someone that their canceled is different than them actually being canceled.  If there is real merit to the ask and it doesn't translate into the utter destruction of the target (and by utter destruction I mean - save for criminal behaviour - in areas of personal liberty, absence of food and shelter), then perhaps there should be some element of canceling.  

With respect to de-platforming, I personally don't have a problem with that action when warranted.  We ban people here not all the time (well, not anymore) but often enough that we have to be conscious of when and why we do it.  We don't ban people for their opinions but we do when it comes to their behaviour.  Perhaps I'm wrong but someone like Alex Jones and white supremacists get de-platformed for similar reasons.  There's no inherent right as a human being to have access to Twitter, Facebook, or this forum.  The owners and staff get to set the rules that everyone has to abide by.  If one of those rules forbids hateful language towards others, willful promotion of false information, or advocating violence against one or a group of people, then that person should be any measure be "canceled" from that platform.  There is absolutely nothing to stop that person should they choose from starting their own platforms.  If someone feels as though their life has been canceled because they can no longer post on Twitter or this forum, they have far bigger problems.  

Yeah, I wasnt speaking to if deplatforming is ever okay. In fact I remember a post to you in this thread where I specially said that deplatforming and boycotts have their place. I helped deplatfrom so many nazis in 2016. And deplatforming and boycotts are also an element of cancel culture that can be weighed in concrete terms (when they are used in an act of cancellation). And thats why Im trying to wrap my head around - why is cancellation "real" to people? 

(I should mention that sadly there is a right wing twitter designed for the cancelled IDW types. But I dont wanna name it and give it any clicks)

My point was about if one, and society at large, places more weight on digital reality or actually reality. And Im just trying to form the thought so I can understand if I wasnt clear. Im leaning towards digital is more real to most people and thats why cancel culture causes so much anxiety. 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by soon

[downzy]

52 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I was thinking about this before, if Hitler had been a decent painter, would I have been able to enjoy his paintings knowing that it was made by one of the worst people in history? I don't know, maybe I would.

Like with anything, I think context matters...

And maybe it's not enjoyment you find, but curiosity, interest, insight, or other feelings or sentiments that might be provoked by looking at Hitler's paintings.  Is there anything that helps us to understand how someone become such a monster?   Should Hitler's paintings be celebrated?  Absolutely not.  But there are things we could potentially learn from his output that helps to explain how and why things turned out like they did

This dynamic is present in the current debate over historical landmarks, particularly confederate statues.  "Cancel culture" is clear in their intent to take them down, to remove them from locations that allow them to be perceived to be celebrated.  There are some who seek not just their removal but their destruction.  But as I tried to make clear, it's important we do not ascribe a monolithic purpose or agenda to this particular matter since for all we know some might want them to be moved to a museum where, in their proper context, they could be used as a teaching tool on the history not just on the causes and players of the civil war, but also to their meaning for America post Civil War.  

[downzy]

53 minutes ago, soon said:

My point was about if one, and society at large, places more weight on digital reality or actually reality. And Im just trying to form the thought so I can understand if I wasnt clear. Im leaning towards digital is more real to most people and thats why cancel culture causes so much anxiety. 

That's a good question.  Who really knows.  As they mention in The Daily podcast I linked to, there is a connection between the pandemic and the greater importance placed on our digital lives. 

There is undoubtedly a difference between how most people act online and how they behave in real life (though most who have met me in real life would say I'm not much different in person than I am online). 

I'm currently reading a book called "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr on how the internet and social media is affecting our figurative and literal brains with respect to processing information and our capacity to focus and engage deeply.  I have no doubt that the internet is affecting how we process emotion, communicate, and relate in both specific situations and in general.

I do think the anxiety around cancel culture is similar to the anxiety around political correction.  Both are complex ideas and play out in very different ways, both good and bad, but requires some effort to sit down and wrestle with them. 

And with respect to the pandemic, since social existence for many is limited to their online experiences, being told what is and what isn't by some perceived abstract and overarching techno-culture ads an extra layer of anxiety to what we already feel.  

[soon]

26 minutes ago, downzy said:

That's a good question.  Who really knows.  As they mention in The Daily podcast I linked to, there is a connection between the pandemic and the greater importance placed on our digital lives. 

There is undoubtedly a difference between how most people act online and how they behave in real life (though most who have met me in real life would say I'm not much different in person than I am online). 

I'm currently reading a book called "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr on how the internet and social media is affecting our figurative and literal brands with respect processing information and our capacity to focus and engage deeply.  I have no doubt that the internet is affecting how we process emotion, communicate, and relate in both specific situations and in general.

I do think the anxiety around cancel culture is similar to the anxiety around political correction.  Both are complex ideas and play out in very different ways, both good and bad, but requires some effort to sit down and wrestle with them. 

And with respect to the pandemic, since social existence for many is limited to their online experiences, being told what is and what isn't by some perceived abstract and overarching techno-culture ads an extra layer of anxiety that ads to what we already feel.  

Lots of good points.

The pandemic must be an odd predicament for identity-based circles of affinity. Whether that be identity politics people on one side or identitarians on he right. Leaving digital as the only realm to assert identity and gather in identity-based groupings during the pandemic. And I believe those two groups to be the most engaged in cancel culture. So perhaps there is a flare up in cancel culture that Im not seeing because its happening in corners of the online world that I dont check out. Those groups that used to love to don helmets and scream at each other in parks or campuses wouldn't know what else to do with themselves. But for me, if Im honest, it seems like the cancelling thing already came and went. Public figures in my little corner of the internet who've been cancelled in the last two years mostly just responded with "No Im not" and carried on their successful careers. 

Im told the only difference irl with me is that I'm armed with a heavy cane 

Im really thankful that you mentioned that book. Im going to check it out. Y'know a few years back a buddy of mine was studying journalism and then he switched to new media. And at the time no matter how much he explained what he would even study about it, I couldnt wrap my head around it. I was like, "So you're gonna study cute cat videos and farting-in-the-library prank videos?" And now, all I want to do is consume critical new media analysis and tech philosophy. It all happened so fast! Thanks for mentioning the book!

[Ace Nova]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

And I think this is where we disagree. 

I have a twitter account (that has been dormant for years; only in the last six months have I really discovered what twitter was and how to consume it).  I see all sorts of people advocating different positions with respect to what should be accepted and what shouldn't.  Causes and collective actions aren't solely or always the product of efforts by one famous or well-followed individual.  The call for police reform has been an issue that has long been present and only received further attention and acceptance after visuals of George Floyd's murder.  We shouldn't undermine a movement with genuine support simply because mass consciousness and support was arrived around the same time.  Most, I would hope, didn't need to see what their friends were saying on Twitter to feel what happened to Floyd was wrong. 

That isn't to say that there aren't some exaggerated or performative and ephemeral contributions.  The entire black out movement where people posted black boxes on their instagram and facebook feeds was absolutely ludicrous and (to your point) an example of well-intentioned but misguided response that bordered on performative.  It drove me up the fucking wall to see many of my friends acting as though posting a black box on instagram actually did anything.  It reach levels of absurdity when several people I know began posting a black box every few hours to remind everyone how "woke" they were.  So I totally get that things can get out of hand and outlandish to the point of being a self-parody.  But I don't think misguided instances like that should define or represent what collective responses to moral considerations are, can, and have been.  

Right. 

The issues I was referring to that should be handled in a "pragmatic way" are the issues in your 2nd paragraph. 

I'm not sure if you missed it but I've stated that the major criminal justice cases, "monsters", etc where there already is an overwhelming amount of evidence...those aren't the problem with "cancel culture". 

The major issues get handled at a faster pace in 2020 with the help of technology but those major issues have always been handled by society.  

When it comes to criminal and social justice reform, those major issues still need to go through the judicial system and/or congress....regardless of any movement.  And even after it goes through the judicial system/congress, etc...society still needs to accept it as being a part of its new "culture".

For example; there have been a myriad of "social movements" in the history of the U.S.   A good portion of them would be considered "abominations" in 2020.  Many of them were created, followed but eventually evolved or lost momentum.   The most important ones helped form our current culture.  We can even go back further into world history, etc. 

But for now, we can look at the U.S. as an example....

 

9/11 Truth movement

Alternative movement

Animal rights movement

Animal Rebellion

Anti-Apartheid Movement

Anti-capitalism

Anti-consumerism

Anti-corporate activism

Anti-fascism

Anti-globalization movement

Anti-jock movement

Anti-liberalism

Anti-nuclear movement

Anti-psychiatry movement

Anti-war movement

Anti-vaccination movement

Asian American movement

Autism rights movement movement advocating for the right of people who are considered neurally divergent (anti-psychiatry)

Black Consciousness Movement

Black Lives Matter

Black Power movement

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Brights movement

Chicano Movement

Children's rights movement

Civil rights movement

Conservation movement

Counterculture movement

Cooperative movement

Cultural movement

Decolonization

Disability rights movement

Earth First!

Ecofeminism

Ecomasculinity

Economy for the Common Good

Effective altruism

Efficiency movement

Environmental justice movement

Environmental movement

Esperanto movement

Ethiopian movement

Extinction Rebellion

Fair trade movement

Farm-to-table movement

Farm Worker Movement

Feminist movement

Free culture movement

Free love

Free school movement

Free software movement

Gay rights movement

Gerakan Harapan Baru (New Hope Movement in Malaysia)

Global citizens movement

Global justice movement

Health at Every Size

Health freedom movement

Hippie movement

Hizmet movement

Human rights movement

Identitarian movement

Immigrant rights movement

India Against Corruption

Indigenous peoples movement

Indigenous movements in the Americas

2017 pro-jallikattu protests

Ku Klux Klan

Labor movement

Landless Peoples Movement (South Africa)

Landless Workers' Movement (MST), the landless workers' movement in Brasil

Lawyers' Movement in Pakistan

Lebensreform

LGBTQ social movements (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender social movements)

Mad Pride (psychiatric social movement)

March For Our Lives movement

Men's rights movement

Me Too movement

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Multiculturalism

Namantar Andolan (Change Movement among Dalits in India)

Narmada Bachao Andolan

National Cleanup Day

Non-cooperation movement

Nonviolence movement

Occupy movement

Occupy Wall Street

Organic movement

Plogging

Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca

Pro-choice movement

Pro-life movement

Psychiatric survivors movement

Rape crisis movement

Rastafari movement

Reform movements in the United States

Reproductive justice

Right to health

Right to life

Rural People's Movement

Scouting Movement

Salt March (Salt Satyagraha movement)

Skeptical movement

Sex-positive movement

Sex Workers' Rights Movement

Slow Food movement

Slow movement

Situationist International

Social democracy

South African Unemployed Peoples' Movement

Soviet Jewry Movement

Student movement

Sunrise Movement

Tea Party movement

Temperance movement

The Zeitgeist Movement

Time to Change

Time's Up (movement)

TrashTag Movement

Treatment Action Campaign - movement struggling for HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa

Umbrella Movement

Veganism

Via Campesina - international peasants movement representing 150 million people, advocating food sovereignty.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

White Wednesdays

Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign South African movement struggling against evictions

Wikimedia movement

Women Against War

Woman's Exchange Movement

Women's liberation movement

Women's suffrage movement

World Cleanup Day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements

 

As you can see, some of them are nothing more than conspiracy theories.  But the most important ones developed into cornerstones of our current culture.   

And every one of them happened well before "cancel culture"  (in its current form) was even a "thing".

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Ace Nova

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Anti-jock movement

Yes, movement is more likely if you don't wear a jock 

[Angelica]

10 hours 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" 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.

 

Thanks 🤣 
 

Trying to cancel or erase cinema (the most collaborative art form there is) because someone problematic worked on it is just fucking stupid. It’s book burning level stupid.

I respect the rights of anyone to *personally* vote with their wallet and not support projects based on the people involved but that should be the end of it. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Angelica

[downzy]

4 hours ago, soon said:

Lots of good points.

The pandemic must be an odd predicament for identity-based circles of affinity. Whether that be identity politics people on one side or identitarians on he right. Leaving digital as the only realm to assert identity and gather in identity-based groupings during the pandemic. And I believe those two groups to be the most engaged in cancel culture. So perhaps there is a flare up in cancel culture that Im not seeing because its happening in corners of the online world that I dont check out. Those groups that used to love to don helmets and scream at each other in parks or campuses wouldn't know what else to do with themselves. But for me, if Im honest, it seems like the cancelling thing already came and went. Public figures in my little corner of the internet who've been cancelled in the last two years mostly just responded with "No Im not" and carried on their successful careers. 

Im told the only difference irl with me is that I'm armed with a heavy cane 

Im really thankful that you mentioned that book. Im going to check it out. Y'know a few years back a buddy of mine was studying journalism and then he switched to new media. And at the time no matter how much he explained what he would even study about it, I couldnt wrap my head around it. I was like, "So you're gonna study cute cat videos and farting-in-the-library prank videos?" And now, all I want to do is consume critical new media analysis and tech philosophy. It all happened so fast! Thanks for mentioning the book!

Personally I would rather deal with cancel culture that, whether you agree with it or not, is for the most part genuine and making a concerted effort or point over troll culture.

When one's identity, through the anonymous nature of the internet, is based on active shitting on everything for the sole purpose of getting arise out of others is too much for me.  There are far worse things on the internet than cancel culture even in its worst forms.  

The Shallows is an old book, I think ten or eleven years old.  So it predates cancel culture and only touches upon social media as it was only in its infantile form in both its use and understanding.  It's essentially an attempt by Carr to include the internet into Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message" ethos.  I'm only 70 pages in and still in historical overview part of the book that examines how humanity's ability to conceptualize, process and understand information has been affected by the mediums at various stages of societal development.  It's quite interesting even if it doesn't dive right into social network's hotwiring of political discourse.  

[Angelica]

20 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

This is besides the point but I'd argue videogames are the most collaborative art form but other than that yeah I agree with you, as usual. I don't think I've ever not agreed with you actually...and you're an Aussie!?

Yep 🤣❤️

[-W.A.R-]

Skeptical movement

That one made me laugh

[action]

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Right. 

The issues I was referring to that should be handled in a "pragmatic way" are the issues in your 2nd paragraph. 

I'm not sure if you missed it but I've stated that the major criminal justice cases, "monsters", etc where there already is an overwhelming amount of evidence...those aren't the problem with "cancel culture". 

The major issues get handled at a faster pace in 2020 with the help of technology but those major issues have always been handled by society.  

When it comes to criminal and social justice reform, those major issues still need to go through the judicial system and/or congress....regardless of any movement.  And even after it goes through the judicial system/congress, etc...society still needs to accept it as being a part of its new "culture".

For example; there have been a myriad of "social movements" in the history of the U.S.   A good portion of them would be considered "abominations" in 2020.  Many of them were created, followed but eventually evolved or lost momentum.   The most important ones helped form our current culture.  We can even go back further into world history, etc. 

But for now, we can look at the U.S. as an example....

 

9/11 Truth movement

Alternative movement

Animal rights movement

Animal Rebellion

Anti-Apartheid Movement

Anti-capitalism

Anti-consumerism

Anti-corporate activism

Anti-fascism

Anti-globalization movement

Anti-jock movement

Anti-liberalism

Anti-nuclear movement

Anti-psychiatry movement

Anti-war movement

Anti-vaccination movement

Asian American movement

Autism rights movement movement advocating for the right of people who are considered neurally divergent (anti-psychiatry)

Black Consciousness Movement

Black Lives Matter

Black Power movement

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Brights movement

Chicano Movement

Children's rights movement

Civil rights movement

Conservation movement

Counterculture movement

Cooperative movement

Cultural movement

Decolonization

Disability rights movement

Earth First!

Ecofeminism

Ecomasculinity

Economy for the Common Good

Effective altruism

Efficiency movement

Environmental justice movement

Environmental movement

Esperanto movement

Ethiopian movement

Extinction Rebellion

Fair trade movement

Farm-to-table movement

Farm Worker Movement

Feminist movement

Free culture movement

Free love

Free school movement

Free software movement

Gay rights movement

Gerakan Harapan Baru (New Hope Movement in Malaysia)

Global citizens movement

Global justice movement

Health at Every Size

Health freedom movement

Hippie movement

Hizmet movement

Human rights movement

Identitarian movement

Immigrant rights movement

India Against Corruption

Indigenous peoples movement

Indigenous movements in the Americas

2017 pro-jallikattu protests

Ku Klux Klan

Labor movement

Landless Peoples Movement (South Africa)

Landless Workers' Movement (MST), the landless workers' movement in Brasil

Lawyers' Movement in Pakistan

Lebensreform

LGBTQ social movements (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender social movements)

Mad Pride (psychiatric social movement)

March For Our Lives movement

Men's rights movement

Me Too movement

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Multiculturalism

Namantar Andolan (Change Movement among Dalits in India)

Narmada Bachao Andolan

National Cleanup Day

Non-cooperation movement

Nonviolence movement

Occupy movement

Occupy Wall Street

Organic movement

Plogging

Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca

Pro-choice movement

Pro-life movement

Psychiatric survivors movement

Rape crisis movement

Rastafari movement

Reform movements in the United States

Reproductive justice

Right to health

Right to life

Rural People's Movement

Scouting Movement

Salt March (Salt Satyagraha movement)

Skeptical movement

Sex-positive movement

Sex Workers' Rights Movement

Slow Food movement

Slow movement

Situationist International

Social democracy

South African Unemployed Peoples' Movement

Soviet Jewry Movement

Student movement

Sunrise Movement

Tea Party movement

Temperance movement

The Zeitgeist Movement

Time to Change

Time's Up (movement)

TrashTag Movement

Treatment Action Campaign - movement struggling for HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa

Umbrella Movement

Veganism

Via Campesina - international peasants movement representing 150 million people, advocating food sovereignty.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

White Wednesdays

Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign South African movement struggling against evictions

Wikimedia movement

Women Against War

Woman's Exchange Movement

Women's liberation movement

Women's suffrage movement

World Cleanup Day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements

 

As you can see, some of them are nothing more than conspiracy theories.  But the most important ones developed into cornerstones of our current culture.   

And every one of them happened well before "cancel culture"  (in its current form) was even a "thing".

 

 

 

 

you forgot shark week

[Blackstar]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:23 PM, 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.

Nick Cave expressed similar thoughts recently:

https://www.theredhandfiles.com/what-is-mercy-for-you/

[soon]

17 hours ago, downzy said:

Personally I would rather deal with cancel culture that, whether you agree with it or not, is for the most part genuine and making a concerted effort or point over troll culture.

Theres merit to that position. However imo it is quickly complicated by the fact that the Idenitiarians I mentioned (rebranded white supremacists, alt right) trolled themselves into existence. And they are involved in cancel culture a lot - so it gets murky. Like in the twisted world of the alt right "Fake News" is at its core a troll. But a troll come to life so now its real to them ("meme magic"). I suppose one needs to understand the Kek phenomenon to see that there is no division between trolling and reality in some of those alt right spaces. (Kek is an alt right 'deity' that they act in service of)

Im also cynical that there are always good intentions even among liberals. I think thats where the "culture" part of the label has become so key in understanding it. Canceling has been spoken of for years. But it has now become the way that some people do socials. Its how they seek and form community. It is how they exist as a culture. Its centred on likes and attention just like all socials are designed to be. Id suspect its a natural outcropping of the way they design socials for addictive behaviours to form around them. And I still believe that Cancel Culture on the left-of-centre is a neoliberal stance which is not focused on justice so much as it is focused on desire. Often a desire to assert ones purer identity. To see their face projected in the the sky of Capital City... and get hella likes from it. We dont see any effort for restorative or transformative change & justice. Just things being torched. Thats no sort of moral high ground.

I've witnessed some complete nonsense that must have been part of some larger subterfuge and not related to allegations. The Justice Democrats scandal comes to mind, not sure if thats something you had followed? (Justice Democrats are the people who ran AOC)

17 hours ago, downzy said:

The Shallows is an old book, I think ten or eleven years old.  So it predates cancel culture and only touches upon social media as it was only in its infantile form in both its use and understanding.  It's essentially an attempt by Carr to include the internet into Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message" ethos.  I'm only 70 pages in and still in historical overview part of the book that examines how humanity's ability to conceptualize, process and understand information has been affected by the mediums at various stages of societal development.  It's quite interesting even if it doesn't dive right into social network's hotwiring of political discourse.  

Very cool, thanks for info. Looking froward to it. Seems like a very Canadian thing, speaking of McLuhan, to sit back and take on the role of trying to figure what the fuck everyone else is even talking about lol Like a Peace Keeping role.

The books theme remind me of The Sum of All Fears. Ive just watched it and was taken aback by how its essentially about the anxieties of a post cold war world (AKA "the end of history") with the emergence of global communications adding another layer of complexity and anxiety to the emergent world order. Peoples beepers and cell phones got a lot of screen time. Essentially its about having all these global communication tools to fight a now extinct empire and then trying to figure out 'who is the enemy and how do we disseminate them via these new communication technologies?' Seemed familiar to this issue of cancel culture. 

(Anyways, I respect that you are a busy person. So I wanted to mention that I appreciate your taking the time for your earlier responses. Always interested to hear more of course, and Id look forward to it, but did want to acknowledge you being generous with your time. Thanks!)

Edited August 12, 2020 by soon

[downzy]

On 2020-08-11 at 6:31 PM, Ace Nova said:

I'm not sure if you missed it but I've stated that the major criminal justice cases, "monsters", etc where there already is an overwhelming amount of evidence...those aren't the problem with "cancel culture". 

The major issues get handled at a faster pace in 2020 with the help of technology but those major issues have always been handled by society.  

When it comes to criminal and social justice reform, those major issues still need to go through the judicial system and/or congress....regardless of any movement.  And even after it goes through the judicial system/congress, etc...society still needs to accept it as being a part of its new "culture".

For example; there have been a myriad of "social movements" in the history of the U.S.   A good portion of them would be considered "abominations" in 2020.  Many of them were created, followed but eventually evolved or lost momentum.   The most important ones helped form our current culture.  We can even go back further into world history, etc. 

But for now, we can look at the U.S. as an example....

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't judge cancel culture with such broad strokes.  On both large and small issues, it can be a force for positive change but can also have its disadvantages and negatives.  It's not necessarily some monolithic and homogenous force even if it appears or feels that way, though performative and bandwaggoning are common characteristics that can take on a life of their own.  

[Len Cnut]

On 12/08/2020 at 3:58 AM, Oldest Goat said:

This is besides the point but I'd argue videogames are the most collaborative art form but other than that yeah I agree with you, as usual. I don't think I've ever not agreed with you actually...and you're an Aussie!?

Cinema is pretty fuckin’ collaborative.  Its the one job where its almost impossible for any party to benefit from another doing a less than stellar job, its all basically designed for the actor(s) to do well and the scene to come out correct..and for that to happen everyone needs to support everybody else.

And videogames ain’t an art form arseface  

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Len Cnut

[Ace Nova]

18 hours ago, downzy said:

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't judge cancel culture with such broad strokes.  On both large and small issues, it can be a force for positive change but can also have its disadvantages and negatives.  It's not necessarily some monolithic and homogenous force even if it appears or feels that way, though performative and bandwaggoning are common characteristics that can take on a life of their own.  

I'm not going to start a "movement" against it, if that's what you mean, lol.  But I think we should all "call out" cancel culture if/when we think something is "over the top", etc etc etc.

 

Would you consider what happened with the G N'R videos/music being taken down, all over the internet, etc a "product" of cancel culture? 

Although it wasn't supported by a "mob" of people, the end result "Canceled" our ability to post G N' R music, concert videos,etc on the longest running and largest GN'R fan forum in the world.  The "target " so to speak, wasn't "G N' R" but it was meant to "cancel" a huge part of this forum's culture.  The "pressure" was put on Youtube, Google, this forum, etc etc to "remove" the videos/music or (possibly) face legal action, etc.  

And I apologize if I may have forgotten details about what happened.  If we're not supposed to discuss it, let me know, I'll edit/erase this post. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Ace Nova