"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[Swampfox]

45 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Glad to see so many opinions on this! I'm gonna take some time later to read through everything and respond. 

This was a very good idea.  Cancel culture is here to stay unfortunately.  Plenty to discuss.  To me the worst of all cancel culture is when they find something from decades ago that's been fine all this time but now it's offensive.  Examples are "Baby it's cold outside", Dukes of Hazard, and most recently the bs surrounding Gone with the Wind.  We told my daughter they were changing Splash Mountain in Disney and she was pretty pissed.  Where does it stop?

1 minute ago, soon said:

That sure flew over your head 

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[soon]

3 hours ago, Swampfox said:

We told my daughter they were changing Splash Mountain in Disney and she was pretty pissed.  Where does it stop?

I think we should centre this^^ point in the conversation about the ills of cancel culture  

Edited August 9, 2020 by soon

[downzy]

So I'm going to push back on some of the criticisms of cancel-culture (I know, shocking).

I think we need to be careful about what exactly we're talking about when we throw around terms like "cancel culture."

What exactly do people think is cancel culture?  How effective do people think it is?  

I've read through the posts and I can't find any examples that really validate the criticism of what is being discussed. 

Louis CK is still making far more money than anyone who has posted in this thread (he continually sells out theatres wherever he goes).

Goya Beans are still being manufactured and the company isn't going out of business.

Baby It's Cold Outside still gets played during the holidays.

Dukes of Hazard can still be rented or bought on DVD or through digital platforms like iTunes.

Gone with The Wind can still be purchased and viewed in its original form.

Only Disney's Songs of the South can arguably be considered canceled.  But is anyone really going to put up a defence of that abomination?  Moreover, the film was "canceled" by Disney long before the so-called cancel culture became whatever its perceived today.  

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of something that has truly been "canceled."

The reality is that these calls for boycotts almost always never work.  They are neither the actions exclusive to one political ideology.  For every Mel Gibson there is the Dixie Chicks; for every Rosanne Barr there is the Muppets (yes, religious conservative organizations once called for a boycott of the relaunched Muppets show in the mid 2010s because it included more adult-oriented topics). 

The comedy channels on SiriusXM still play Louis CK.  I still listen to the clips because they're funny.  But I still think he's an asshole who failed in his response to the accusations (no apology to his victims, covered himself legally by claiming he always asked, indirectly blames the victims, etc.) and then comes back with truly terrible material, almost reinventing himself to play to an alt-right market.  But none of that still prevents CK from making a living and having his material played on national radio.   

Justin Trudeau is Canada's Prime Minister despite a history of wearing black face on numerous occasions.  Donald Trump is the President of the United States despite being absolutely terrible and doing illegal shit.  

That's not to say that there aren't instances of people asking for too much or failing to put things into reasonable context.  There are. 

But I think those instances are so rare, or rarely ineffective, that we should be careful so as to not ignore the other side of the coin.  Terrible people, companies, and governments are causing a lot of harm and action and voice should be used to counter such harm.  Technology has allowed for bad actors to reach a far greater audience than they could have ten or twenty years ago.  It's not surprising that a counter-veiling force comes along with those bad actors.  

So what exactly do we have to fear from groups of people demanding for removal of something or someone?  

For me the concept of cancel culture is over-simplified.  It's such a meaningless concept and employed usually by those who wish to avoid responsibility for their actions.  

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, soon said:

You must be quite the JK Rowling fan? This is like the 100th time you've posted about this.  

Hairy Potter - You're learning magic spells to regrow hair?? I nailed it! 

My only connection/knowledge of Harry Potter is, having watched the first two films solely for the purpose of not disgracing myself in quiz questions. 

Edited August 9, 2020 by DieselDaisy
Double post

[soon]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My only connection/knowledge of Harry Potter is, having watched the first two films solely for the purpose of not disgracing myself in quiz questions. 

Hairy Potter quizzes on Buzzfeed?? I knew it! You mad hipster, you.

I've not read page one nor seen a singe clip of film. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, soon said:

Hairy Potter quizzes on Buzzfeed?? I knew it! You mad hipster, you.

I've not read page one nor seen a singe clip of film. 

'General knowledge quizzes which happen to (occasionally) contain Harry Potter questions''. 

I don't know what Buzzfeed is.

[albowhead]

For me the wide-sweeping and self proclaimed 'cancel culture' is a call for people or companies that appear to put on a false face (claiming to be standing for something they're not) to be leveled off their pedestals.  It seems as though people are looking for authenticity in what they are shown matching what the reality is.  But this really has no end, as we all have a persona, and it gets scary when the standard person feels they can be the jury when they are not held up to the same standards by the masses as celebrities are. 

I'm certain there is an addictive quality to it and it serves as a power trip for many people. 

The purest plea could be that it is forcing those that have been called out to regain our trust and earn the perspective and influence they have.

Edited August 9, 2020 by albowhead

[Ace Nova]

30 minutes ago, downzy said:

So I'm going to push back on some of the criticisms of cancel-culture (I know, shocking).

I think we need to be careful about what exactly we're talking about when we throw around terms like "cancel culture."

What exactly do people think is cancel culture?  How effective do people think it is?  

I've read through the posts and I can't find any examples that really validate the criticism of what is being discussed. 

Louis CK is still making far more money than anyone who has posted in this thread (he continually sells out theatres wherever he goes).

Goya Beans are still being manufactured and the company isn't going out of business.

Baby It's Cold Outside still gets played during the holidays.

Dukes of Hazard can still be rented or bought on DVD or through digital platforms like iTunes.

Gone with The Wind can still be purchased and viewed in its original form.

Only Disney's Songs of the South can arguably be considered canceled.  But is anyone really going to put up a defence of that abomination?  Moreover, the film was "canceled" by Disney long before the so-called cancel culture became whatever its perceived today.  

I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of something that has truly been "canceled."

The reality is that these calls for boycotts almost always never work.  They are neither the actions exclusive to one political ideology.  For every Mel Gibson there is the Dixie Chicks; for every Rosanne Barr there is the Muppets (yes, religious conservative organizations once called for a boycott of the relaunched Muppets show in the mid 2010s because it included more adult-oriented topics). 

The comedy channels on SiriusXM still play Louis CK.  I still listen to the clips because they're funny.  But I still think he's an asshole who failed in his response to the accusations (no apology to his victims, covered himself legally by claiming he always asked, indirectly blames the victims, etc.) and then comes back with truly terrible material, almost reinventing himself to play to an alt-right market.  But none of that still prevents CK from making a living and having his material played on national radio.   

Justin Trudeau is Canada's Prime Minister despite a history of wearing black face on numerous occasions.  Donald Trump is the President of the United States despite being absolutely terrible and doing illegal shit.  

That's not to say that there aren't instances of people asking for too much or failing to put things into reasonable context.  There are. 

But I think those instances are so rare, or rarely ineffective, that we should be careful so as to not ignore the other side of the coin.  Terrible people, companies, and governments are causing a lot of harm and action and voice should be used to counter such harm.  Technology has allowed for bad actors to reach a far greater audience than they could have ten or twenty years ago.  It's not surprising that a counter-veiling force comes along with those bad actors.  

So what exactly do we have to fear from groups of people demanding for removal of something or someone?  

For me the concept of cancel culture is over-simplified.  It's such a meaningless concept and employed usually by those who wish to avoid responsibility for their actions.  

Right.  So what’s the point of emphasizing some sort of “movement” around it? Why act as if it’s some sort of “entity”? I still don’t comprehend how it’s even a “thing”?  
 

People have been boycotting people, things, companies, etc etc since the beginning of time.    They don’t need to be told (by a select few) what to like, dislike, etc....and they certainly don’t need a “Cancel Culture” movement fo do it. 
 

[downzy]

Just now, Ace Nova said:

Right.  So what’s the point of emphasizing some sort of “movement” around it? Why act as if it’s some sort of “entity”? I still don’t comprehend how it’s even a “thing”?  
 

People have been boycotting people, things, companies, etc etc since the beginning of time.    They don’t need to be told (by a select few) what to like, dislike, etc....and they certainly don’t need a “Cancel Culture” movement fo do it. 
 

Who are the select few you’re talking about?  

[soon]

37 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

'General knowledge quizzes which happen to (occasionally) contain Harry Potter questions''. 

Party animal. 

[Ace Nova]

21 minutes ago, downzy said:

Who are the select few you’re talking about?  

Typically, it would be people that use social media platforms, hash tagging #cancel (insert name here) for basically anything they don’t like and/or disagree with.  If that said person has “social media stature” or is a “social media influencer” celebrity, etc it can easily gain momentum...and most of the momentum it gains is due to the fact that they have a million followers; not because the people “canceling” said entity have a genuine reason for doing it.  
 

Even  “if” there could be a real reason, it could likely not be “proven” to the degree that it should be proven; before attempting to destroy or hurt the entity. (It could be based off of a simple accusation, a dislike, political ideology, a rumor, an urban legend, etc etc)  and it was started by someone or a select few because of their social media stature.   

 

 Like I said earlier, “cancel culture” likens itself to being “judge, jury and executioner”, many times for the wrong reasons.   It’s by definition “Mob mentality/group think.”
 

The vast majority of real issues are dealt with by society regardless; so obviously you don’t need a “cancel culture” movement to force its will on society.  The backlash from “making it cool” or “the in thing” can lead to it having the opposite effect; especially if it were to become politicized. 
 

As I said earlier, cancel culture is like taking too much antibiotic medicine.  It’s supposed to make you better by killing the bad bacteria.  But when you take too much, it kills both the bad and the good bacteria.....and after a while, it no longer works. 

[downzy]

9 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Like I said earlier, “cancel culture” likens itself to being “judge, jury and executioner”, many times for the wrong reasons.   It’s by definition “Mob mentality/group think.”

It's a group of people expressing an opinion.  No different than any other association or group of people who express a judgement.  Everyone else is free to disregard their message.

The only real difference is that this group is harnessing new communication platforms to broadcast that message. 

But again, it has yet to be demonstrated that this louder broadcast has any real effect on what gets truly "canceled." 

Do you have an example of "cancel culture" forcing its will on society?

My argument here is that I don't think it actually exists in the way that many here have argued.  

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Party animal. 

I make no apologies for loving quizzes. 

[downzy]

For a little perspective, Chris Brown - the guy who beat the shit out of Rhianna - grossed over $30 million during his 2019 NA Tour.

If a guy like that isn't "canceled," is there really a cancel culture?  

[DieselDaisy]

Didn't you defend the Ghostbusters remake?

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I make no apologies for loving quizzes. 

And nor should you! 

I cant even remember nor track if we are being sarcastic and irreverent anymore? 

 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, soon said:

And nor should you! 

I cant even remember nor track if we are being sarcastic and irreverent anymore? 

 

I don't know but, waking up this morning, I see your trans friends are enraged with William Shatner, fellow Canadian, on twitter over certain comments, e.g., repudiation of this gormless term cis-. They have picked a fight with Captain Kirk basically!

[soon]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't know but, waking up this morning, I see your trans friends are enraged with William Shatner, fellow Canadian

You don't have any trans friends? I hope you can find more friends.

I'm just glad that you are monitoring the situation with Captain kirk and the trans people. Thats important stuff. 

[lame ass security]

9 minutes ago, soon said:

You don't have any trans friends? I hope you can find more friends.

I'm just glad that you are monitoring the situation with Captain kirk and the trans people. Thats important stuff. 

I just popped in and read this while watching an episode of TJ Hooker.😄 Kinda weird.

[DieselDaisy]

14 minutes ago, soon said:

You don't have any trans friends? I hope you can find more friends.

I'm just glad that you are monitoring the situation with Captain kirk and the trans people. Thats important stuff. 

All my friends are crickety-boozy friends. I don't think these are the type of circles the LGSHDHDHDK+ community like to mingle with. 

[downzy]

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Didn't you defend the Ghostbusters remake?

I defended the right for Feig and others to make a female-driven Ghostbusters film.  I never defended the quality of the film.  

Not sure your point.  

[soon]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

All my friends are crickety-boozy friends. I don't think these are the type of circles the LGSHDHDHDK+ community like to mingle with. 

Cricket attire is attractive to many sorts of queer men. What with all the fanciness, pom-poms and ironed creases. 

A field full of men showing off their sock game. Are you kidding me?!?! 

[action]

it's all about jealousy and money. destroying people's careers or blackmailing them.

it's a new phenomenon that was born the same day as social media.

when people can use means to make other people look bad, they will.

it already was important not to make enemies on your way at the top, but today this is a prerequisite. 

[Dazey]

So this is causing quite a bit of controversy over here. TV news report about a racially motivated attack is drawing criticism and support from all quarters it seems.

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

I defended the right for Feig and others to make a female-driven Ghostbusters film.  I never defended the quality of the film.  

Not sure your point.  

The point is, you defended the Ghostbusters remake.