"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, action said:

damn, just as it became interesting.

thanks for giving me blues balls

Reminds me, the first version of the name to "Slash's Blues Ball" was "Slash's Blue Balls". You're welcome.

[Swampfox]

 

[Dazey]

22 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

 

Fuck me it’s Eddie Munster’s stunt double.  

Edited August 26, 2020 by Dazey

[soon]

Apparently being cancelled is when you get five minutes to say whatever you want on a major tv news network 

[DieselDaisy]

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

She's like the worst candidate for a riot ever?   I can't see her covering much ground running from the tear gas and the horsie cops with the big truncheons.

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And how is this relevant to cancel culture? Are you just posting images of people and concepts you dislike? 

[Dazey]

41 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

She's like the worst candidate for a riot ever?   I can't see her covering much ground running from the tear gas and the horsie cops with the big truncheons.

She’d cover plenty of ground. I’d say about 50 square feet lying down.  

[action]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

or what about, stay healthy, don't diet?

I weigh 11 stone, at 68 inches. Sometimes I indulge in food, most of the time I keep it moderate. I like to work in my garden and have natural muscle (none of that basic fit nonsense for me).

How about, just live a normal life, without riots and feminism? To those women I say: get back to fucking work, you sluggards!

Edited August 26, 2020 by action

[soon]

I once stopped for a sausage on a bun in the middle of a riot. Does that count? I remember being disappointed that the sauerkraut was clearly mass produced and had no live cultures, having been pasturized. What is this thread even about?

[RussTCB]

48 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And how is this relevant to cancel culture? Are you just posting images of people and concepts you dislike? 

I'm assuming it's the latter. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

And how is this relevant to cancel culture? Are you just posting images of people and concepts you dislike? 

Cancel culture is merely an appendage of woke ideology.

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Cancel culture is merely an appendage of woke ideology.

If so this thread is still about that very appendage. Why don't you start a thread about "wokery" where you can ramble on about all things 21st century? You could just post and post and post. And you could do it on twitter instead. 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If so this thread is still about that very appendage. Why don't you start a thread about "wokery" where you can ramble on about all things 21st century? You could just post and post and post. And you could do it on twitter instead. 

I have never had a problem with digression.

[RussTCB]

I saw a music artist complaining yesterday saying that they hate cancel culture. Then they went on to say that they think cancel culture is when you don't put out a new album every year and fans think you can't make a comeback. That's not at all what cancel culture is lol

[Dazey]

This you and your Brexit mates @DieselDaisy ? 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Dazey

[action]

adele is canceled because, as a white individual (very important to note: she's white. the same doesn't apply for people with brown tinted skin), she appropriates another culture. doing this, she encourages white colonialism. this is yet another example of the blatant racism that white people have to face, for innocently dressing up.

 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

adele is canceled because

She is cancelled? As in people actually having stopped buying her records or stopped listening to her music? Or more as in some people disliking his dress and hair-do and voicing that opinion on twitter while many others actually liked her and gave her the thumbs up?

[SoulMonster]

Personally, I have never really understood the issue with cultural appropriation. I mean it can be both a compliment and mockery - and used in arts and comedy. I do get that some forms are very offensive, but I would have preferred if the discussions were more nuanced and that not all forms of cultural appropriation were deemed wrong regardless of the whos, whys, wheres and whens. Still, it is not up to me to determine whether something is offensive to others...

[action]

44 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Personally, I have never really understood the issue with cultural appropriation. I mean it can be both a compliment and mockery - and used in arts and comedy. I do get that some forms are very offensive, but I would have preferred if the discussions were more nuanced and that not all forms of cultural appropriation were deemed wrong regardless of the whos, whys, wheres and whens. Still, it is not up to me to determine whether something is offensive to others...

the term is invented by deeply racist people, who just can not accept people of different skin color to wear their forms of clothes or hairstyle

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

the term is invented by deeply racist people, who just can not accept people of different skin color to wear their forms of clothes or hairstyle

It is a reaction to clearly mocking and denigrating examples of racism, like many examples of black face, but now it has become more sweeping and affect many more forms of cultural appropriation. You also have to understand the cultural context of this, that it comes out of USA where racial conflicts are so exaggerated and where modern form of cultural appropriation cannot be disconnected from the country's history. You have to step much more carefully in the USA since the racial wounds are so fresh and everything is interpreted in the context of its history and considered to be a response to things before. To us in Europe this doesn't make as much sense, but we tend to inherit culture and culture wars from USA without much reservations or modification. But all this doesn't mean that the opposition to cultural appropriation is a racist one, as you claim - its core, when it is against racist forms of cultural appropriation, is a sensible one, just that it has started to embrace forms that aren't as obviously negative and that it now also enters regions without the same historic backdrop as USA. 

It's the same with racism, where the underlying idea is sound but where fringe groups and individuals, armed with social media, will ride on the tails of the movement to try to make allowances and changes that aren't really racist but just benefits them. Calling out something as being "racist" is a very powerful weapon.

And people, either ignorant to what is happening of with their own more nefarious agenda, will use these fringe examples of "that's racist! booo!" and "that's cultural appropriation! booo!" to dismiss the fight against racism and bad forms of cultural appropriation flat out. Just like people will focus on vandalization to flat out reject the BLM movement and what its purpose was. Trying to paint a whole movement or idea based on its worse, tangential outcomes, is also a very powerful weapon.

[action]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is a reaction to clearly mocking and denigrating examples of racism, like many examples of black face, but now it has become more sweeping and affect many more forms of cultural appropriation. You also have to understand the cultural context of this, that it comes out of USA where racial conflicts are so exaggerated and where modern form of cultural appropriation cannot be disconnected from the country's history. You have to step much more carefully in the USA since the racial wounds are so fresh and everything is interpreted in the context of its history and considered to be a response to things before. To us in Europe this doesn't make as much sense, but we tend to inherit culture and culture wars from USA without much reservations or modification. But all this doesn't mean that the opposition to cultural appropriation is a racist one, as you claim - its core, when it is against racist forms of cultural appropriation, is a sensible one, just that it has started to embrace forms that aren't as obviously negative and that it now also enters regions without the same historic backdrop as USA. 

It's the same with racism, where the underlying idea is sound but where fringe groups and individuals, armed with social media, will ride on the tails of the movement to try to make allowances and changes that aren't really racist but just benefits them. Calling out something as being "racist" is a very powerful weapon.

And people, either ignorant to what is happening of with their own more nefarious agenda, will use these fringe examples of "that's racist! booo!" and "that's cultural appropriation! booo!" to dismiss the fight against racism and bad forms of cultural appropriation flat out. Just like people will focus on vandalization to flat out reject the BLM movement and what its purpose was. Trying to paint a whole movement or idea based on its worse, tangential outcomes, is also a very powerful weapon.

the past is the past. behaviour like that (meaning, calling dressing up like adele inappropriate) should be opposed as fiercely as possible, because the real problem of today is that our freedom of expressing is being directly, and continually attacked.

there is no room for understanding here. understanding the past is all well and good, but nowadays those people are attacking our freedom of expression.

we (meaning, people who still stand behind concepts like freedom) should all dress up as jamaicans as a reaction.

[Len Cnut]

The Notting Hill Carnival is attended by people of all races, the whole point of it is that it is a celebration of carribean culture in a western land, thats the beauty of it and its whole point and purpose, to present carribean culture away from home,  all are included, cultural appropriation doesn’t come into it.

[SoulMonster]

29 minutes ago, action said:

the past is the past. behaviour like that (meaning, calling dressing up like adele inappropriate) should be opposed as fiercely as possible, because the real problem of today is that our freedom of expressing is being directly, and continually attacked.

there is no room for understanding here. understanding the past is all well and good, but nowadays those people are attacking our freedom of expression.

we (meaning, people who still stand behind concepts like freedom) should all dress up as jamaicans as a reaction.

I was trying to explain why people, especially in the US, are so opposed to cultural appropriation. As you probably gathered from my posts, or probably not, I have a problem with rejecting all kinds of cultural appropriation as "racist" and think the debate should be much more nuanced. But who am I to say that people shouldn't be offended by something? I understand that reactions towards anything possibly racist will probably be a bit exaggerated for a while and it will take some generations to cool down to a point where it all becomes more rational. As I said, today all is interpreted in the context of what was before. It's just a fact. 

As to your general point regarding freedom of expression: Freedom of expression isn't total. There are limitations to our freedom of expression already. This includes hate speech and the like. I personally think that is fine. I have little problems with it. It becomes a compromise between granting people freedom of expression and granting people the right to not be abused and to be protected against hate speech and other stuff. And although I personally think we should be able to handle criticism better and that I fear that making something illegal could have an opposite effect than intended, who am I to say to people they shouldn't feel abused when met with hatred? So a compromise here is fine, in my humble opinion. And I think it works out fine in most societies, although there will always be discussions on the application of this compromise and specific cases.

But here's another thing: You argue that cancel culture limits your freedom of expression, that Adelle's freedom of expression is being attacked. But of course it doesn't and of course it isn't. Freedom of expression is a legal right that we have; you just have to accept that if you say something that provokes other people you can expect to be criticised for it. And criticising lawful expressions is not the same as your freedom of expression being taken away. I can call you an idiot when you say something stupid, but that doesn't mean I am against your right to say stupid things. It almost seems you argue against criticism. Similarly, the fact that people attack Adelle for her choice of attire doesn't mean they necessarily say she shouldn't be allowed to dress like that, just that they execute their freedom of expression to say they disapprove. You cannot immediately conclude that criticism is attacks on freedom of expression. That is in a way a method to try to stifle criticism, and you don't want that, do you, as a self-proclaimed fighter for freedom of expression?

So in summary: criticism isn't necessarily attempts at "cancelling" someone, and almost never attempt at taking away anyone's freedom of expression. Just, you know, get used to being criticised and not try to complain about cancellations and freedom of right being taken away? With social media the world has become smaller and you cannot possible expect to be an outspoken person, or a celebrity, in 2020 and not get heaps of criticism. It is just a function of everybody know having the ability to criticise people directly right at their fingertips. Before we had sto send snail mail and that was just a bother.

[action]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I was trying to explain why people, especially in the US, are so opposed to cultural appropriation. As you probably gathered from my posts, or probably not, I have a problem with rejecting all kinds of cultural appropriation as "racist" and think the debate should be much more nuanced. But who am I to say that people shouldn't be offended by something? I understand that reactions towards anything possibly racist will probably be a bit exaggerated for a while and it will take some generations to cool down to a point where it all becomes more rational. As I said, today all is interpreted in the context of what was before. It's just a fact. 

As to your general point regarding freedom of expression: Freedom of expression isn't total. There are limitations to our freedom of expression already. This includes hate speech and the like. I personally think that is fine. I have little problems with it. It becomes a compromise between granting people freedom of expression and granting people the right to not be abused and to be protected against hate speech and other stuff. And although I personally think we should be able to handle criticism better and that I fear that making something illegal could have an opposite effect than intended, who am I to say to people they shouldn't feel abused when met with hatred? So a compromise here is fine, in my humble opinion. And I think it works out fine in most societies, although there will always be discussions on the application of this compromise and specific cases.

But here's another thing: You argue that cancel culture limits your freedom of expression, that Adelle's freedom of expression is being attacked. But of course it doesn't and of course it isn't. Freedom of expression is a legal right that we have; you just have to accept that if you say something that provokes other people you can expect to be criticised for it. And criticising lawful expressions is not the same as your freedom of expression being taken away. I can call you an idiot when you say something stupid, but that doesn't mean I am against your right to say stupid things. It almost seems you argue against criticism. Similarly, the fact that people attack Adelle for her choice of attire doesn't mean they necessarily say she shouldn't be allowed to dress like that, just that they execute their freedom of expression to say they disapprove. You cannot immediately conclude that criticism is attacks on freedom of expression. That is in a way a method to try to stifle criticism, and you don't want that, do you, as a self-proclaimed fighter for freedom of expression?

So in summary: criticism isn't necessarily attempts at "cancelling" someone, and almost never attempt at taking away anyone's freedom of expression. Just, you know, get used to being criticised and not try to complain about cancellations and freedom of right being taken away? With social media the world has become smaller and you cannot possible expect to be an outspoken person, or a celebrity, in 2020 and not get heaps of criticism. It is just a function of everybody know having the ability to criticise people directly right at their fingertips. Before we had sto send snail mail and that was just a bother.

I agree that freedom of expression isn't total. for example you can't call someone stupid or dumb: that would be slander, and a penal offence. we have laws that rightfully forbid such behaviour. Or else, it would not be possible for people to co-exist peacefully in a social environment. If we are allowed to call each other dumb / stupid, then the end is not in sight for hate and intolerance.

back to the point, I was discussion adele's behaviour here, nothing more nothing less. the rest, is strawmen.

when adele is attacked for what she did, then the limitations to our freedom are indeed total and complete. If what adele did is criticised, then everything is criticised, then nothing is allowed anymore.

very worrying for people who, like me, are tolerant and in favour of individual liberties. expressions and opinions should be tolerated, even if we don't agree with them or if we think they are dumb. To attack expressions and opinions, as has been the case with adele, it unacceptable. No amount of historical consideration can change anything about that.