"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[ZoSoRose]

I had some pretty ignorant views just a few years ago, so I do think people shouldn't be canceled over things said in the past (totally depends on the context, though). I also think consequences are valid, too. It just depends on each individual situation imo

[RussTCB]

26 minutes ago, downzy said:

I don't think both are fair assessments. 

But I also think too much of this is painted with too broad of a brush.

My issue with the criticisms of cancel culture are that they are often overly broad and often serve a political agenda.  Conservatives like to paint all instances of cancel culture of the "woke" mob out to ruin anyone who disagrees with them.  But as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, they have a long history of trying to cancel people and groups of people they disagree with.  Right now the number three Republican in the House of Representatives is about to lose her leadership position because she continually refutes the party line on Trump's election loss.  

I also disagree that all calls to "cancel" someone for their words is misplaced or wrong.  There are actions and words that should face consequences, sometimes serious consequences.  Blaming "cancel culture" in some cases is a cop-out. 

One example is when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo blamed cancel culture on people demanding his resignation for the numerous women coming forward with claims of harassment or abuse.  It's an inane response that attempts to excuse his behaviour by latching on to a trendy pejorative concept that loses its meaning when employed in such a fashion.

But like anything, there are instances where calls for social or economic consequences go too far.  People can grow and evolve and statements said in people's past should not be used as ammunition to banish them from society.  The movement of moving to a fairer and more understanding society needs to also allow for apologies and ownership of past problems.  

Ultimately I think each instance needs to be considered on its own and not part of some overarching effort.  

 

23 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

I had some pretty ignorant views just a few years ago, so I do think people shouldn't be canceled over things said in the past (totally depends on the context, though). I also think consequences are valid, too. It just depends on each individual situation imo

That's the thing though: cancel culture doesn't take nuance or context into consideration. 

Also "they did it too!" isn't a valid argument. I couldn't care less whether the right or the left are the ones calling for the canceling, which is why I didn't mention either political party in my post. 

At the end of the day, there needs to be a lot more attempts to understand where others are coming from as opposed to saying "you don't agree with me, therefore you should be cancelled" 

[downzy]

59 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

That's the thing though: cancel culture doesn't take nuance or context into consideration. 

 

True.  But the same argument can be made about the criticisms of cancel culture.

I do agree that too often people lose sight of what's important and forget the human element in all of this.  Calling for someone to lose their jobs or be banned from various platforms rather than seeking to engage isn't going to help anything.  

That said, there are instances and times when removal is the only or best option. 

We here have been criticized for years for banning people that cannot or will not follow the rules or engage with others in a polite and sincere way.   My problem with criticisms of cancel culture is that too often they make the same mistakes that those who blindly support it.  There are times when people need to chill out and other times people need to be gone. 

Failure to reach agreement is definitely not an area where discourse should then be shut down.  But far too often one party isn't acting in good faith and has no sincere interest in genuine discussion.  Or their actions have caused real harm and consequences might be necessary.  The severity of those consequences can be open for debate.  We're seeing that play out live with Facebook's handling of Trump.  I don't think it's something where there's always going to be a right answer.  Or better yet, the answer to a certain situation isn't going to work for everyone.  

[RussTCB]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

True.  But the same argument can be made about the criticisms of cancel culture.

I do agree that too often people lose sight of what's important and forget the human element in all of this.  Calling for someone to lose their jobs or be banned from various platforms rather than seeking to engage isn't going to help anything.  

That said, there are instances and times when removal is the only or best option. 

We here have been criticized for years for banning people that cannot or will not follow the rules or engage with others in a polite and sincere way.   My problem with criticisms of cancel culture is that too often they make the same mistakes that those who blindly support it.  There are times when people need to chill out and other times people need to be gone. 

Failure to reach agreement is definitely not an area where discourse should then be shut down.  But far too often one party isn't acting in good faith and has no sincere interest in genuine discussion.  Or their actions have caused real harm and consequences might be necessary.  The severity of those consequences can be open for debate.  We're seeing that play out live with Facebook's handling of Trump.  I don't think it's something where there's always going to be a right answer.  Or better yet, the answer to a certain situation isn't going to work for everyone.  

My main point is: cancelling people isn't the answer. Seeking to understand and improve everyone on both sides of an argument is. 

[ZoSoRose]

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Just out of curiosity, what were your ignorant views? Tell me or I'll cancel you!

Nothing too nuts, I just could have been more open minded to issues pertaining to prejudice, social issues, and sexism. I always acknowledged them and cared about them, but didn't fully understand how bad so many issues still are for so many

[downzy]

5 hours ago, RussTCB said:

My main point is: cancelling people isn't the answer. Seeking to understand and improve everyone on both sides of an argument is. 

Do you think that's always possible?

Are there not people who are too far gone, too insincere, or committed too great offence that deserve some form of reprimand or removal from their present position of authority or power?  Particularly if that person shows no interest or capability of remorse or reflection? 

I guess my issue here is that too often the criticisms of cancel culture are without context.  It's become such a pejorative concept that any invocation of it against any target helps to produce some sort of backlash against what is sometimes a worthy effort to right an individual or societal harm or wrong. 

Undoubtedly, there are certainly areas and instances where canceling people, actions or speech are beyond necessity or even acceptable. 

But too often cancel culture has been invoked to criticize those who wish to see a serial sexual harasser removed from their position, or defend the indefensible symbols of hate (i.e. confederate statutes and monuments).  I'm not suggesting that you find these areas defensible.  My only concern is that we don't allow any effort address social problems to be undermined or undone because someone conveniently labels such efforts as "cancel culture," with all the negative associations that has been installed in the concept.  

All of this to me feels similar to the PC backlash.  Some PC efforts go too far, but the overall effort is to get people to think outsides of themselves and understand how words and actions have costs that are not paid by those saying or doing the offence.  

[RussTCB]

12 minutes ago, downzy said:

Do you think that's always possible?

Are there not people who are too far gone, too insincere, or committed too great offence that deserve some form of reprimand or removal from their present position of authority or power?  Particularly if that person shows no interest or capability of remorse or reflection? 

I guess my issue here is that too often the criticisms of cancel culture are without context.  It's become such a pejorative concept that any invocation of it against any target helps to produce some sort of backlash against what is sometimes a worthy effort to right an individual or societal harm or wrong. 

Undoubtedly, there are certainly areas and instances where canceling people, actions or speech are beyond necessity or even acceptable. 

But too often cancel culture has been invoked to criticize those who wish to see a serial sexual harasser removed from their position, or defend the indefensible symbols of hate (i.e. confederate statutes and monuments).  I'm not suggesting that you find these areas defensible.  My only concern is that we don't allow any effort address social problems to be undermined or undone because someone conveniently labels such efforts as "cancel culture," with all the negative associations that has been installed in the concept.  

All of this to me feels similar to the PC backlash.  Some PC efforts go too far, but the overall effort is to get people to think outsides of themselves and understand how words and actions have costs that are not paid by those saying or doing the offence.  

Of course it's not always possible but that doesn't mean a far bigger effort to try reason first shouldn't be put forward. 

And again the argument being used is: "but what about racists and other awful people?" and my point stands that not everyone is a racist or an awful person if they happen to think differently than others or the majority. 

Perhaps at their core, they are but it might be worth trying to reason first and find out why they believe what they believe in an attempt to find common ground. 

Again, I know that's not always going to be possible but we'd be better off if the effort was there in many cases. 

In the end, a bunch of people sitting on social media (which is the only place cancel culture has any real power) agreeing with each other doesn't accomplish anything on either side. 

It would just be nice to see people more open to how others think or what made them the way they are as opposed to just saying "if you don't think exactly the way I think, you're cancelled". 

[arnold layne]

Pepe Le Pew was great. 

Fuck those people who sent him to the shadow realm. 

[Stay.Of.Execution]

People confuse cancel culture with consequence culture. Dont be a racist, homophobic, sexist or other kind of asshole, and you're fine. If you are, then you're done and rightfully so.

[RussTCB]

On 5/5/2021 at 1:22 PM, RussTCB said:

I keep seeing this idea that cancel culture should be called "consequences culture". I've also heard the idea that if you disagree with cancel culture, you must be a racist, a misogynst or just plain stupid. 

I could not disagree more with both of the ideas above. I'm none of those things and I completely disagree with the current state of cancel culture. 

I think we have to get back to a point where it's OK for people to make mistakes and learn. I also think the world as a whole could benefit a whole lot from trying to see where others are coming from. 

Someone said or did something you don't like? OK, well how about trying to get the root of why they said or did it? It seems like we could get a lot further with that instead of just sending scores of faceless anonymous mobs after people with hashtags. 

Are there genuinely bad, hateful people out there that can't be reached? Sure. But I like to believe that the greater majority of people are good overall. 

I really believe that if we spent more time understanding and trying to build each other up, we'd have a lot less problems in the world. 

 

3 hours ago, StayofExecution2020 said:

People confuse cancel culture with consequence culture. Dont be a racist, homophobic, sexist or other kind of asshole, and you're fine. If you are, then you're done and rightfully so.

It's just not as simple as that. See above. 

[Sweersa]

It's crazy to me to think we live in a world where "male" or "female" are not options for sex. 

The US federal government has "non-binary" as an option now for firearms related background checks.

To me, adding "other" or "uni-sex" seems like it would be sufficient. The issue here is sex/gender for 99% of people is descriptive. Much like ethnicity, eye or hair color, etc. The government likes details for official documents. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Sweersa

[-W.A.R-]

9 hours ago, Sweersa said:

It's crazy to me to think we live in a world where "male" or "female" are not options for sex.

They aren't? But seriously does having non-binary as an option really bother you that much? i mean cmon.

[Sweersa]

1 hour ago, -W.A.R- said:

They aren't? But seriously does having non-binary as an option really bother you that much? i mean cmon.

The non-binary option could be a trick by the US government to single out those who check it, and count them as mentally unstable, and thus a prohibited person from obtaining firearms when they fill out the paperwork associated with the background check.

[downzy]

Right-wing media piling on and trying to cancel Billie Eilish because of something she did when she was 13 or 14.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-medias-attempt-to-cancel-billie-eilish?ref=home

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

 something she did when she was 13 or 14.

Was it Matt Gaetz?  

[RussTCB]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Right-wing media piling on and trying to cancel Billie Eilish because of something she did when she was 13 or 14.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-medias-attempt-to-cancel-billie-eilish?ref=home

The left already tried to cancel her last week, claiming that she was queer baiting with her latest video. 

Not sure why the right is trying now after the left already failed another cancelation attempt. 

[downzy]

5 hours ago, RussTCB said:

The left already tried to cancel her last week, claiming that she was queer baiting with her latest video. 

Not sure why the right is trying now after the left already failed another cancelation attempt. 

When you say the left, who are you referring to?  Were there left or progressive news outlets that were calling for her to be canceled or people on twitter?

[RussTCB]

6 hours ago, downzy said:

When you say the left, who are you referring to?  Were there left or progressive news outlets that were calling for her to be canceled or people on twitter?

From what I've seen, Twitter is where the left does most of its business lol. 

(I'm not being a smart ass, that's literally what I see) 

[downzy]

59 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

From what I've seen, Twitter is where the left does most of its business lol. 

(I'm not being a smart ass, that's literally what I see) 

Yeah, I was just curious what is considered "the left" or "the right" in these contexts.

I'm less inclined to attribute a movement towards whatever noise there is on twitter since it doesn't take that many people (in the grand scheme of things) to get something to trend.  I'm not really sure what the required threshold to apply a collective call to action against one partisan tribe.  Maybe twitter is enough.  But for me, that feels a little less organized and real than when large media companies and media personalities use their platforms to engage in this kind of rhetoric. 

Regardless of how one feels about cancel culture, I think it's a bit strange seeing people who make money belittling cancel culture can easily be culprits when criticizing someone from the other side of the partisan divide.  

[downzy]

Texan Republicans cancel book event held at museum because they disagree with the book (which looked at the Alamo’s connection to slavery):

https://www.kwtx.com/2021/07/02/book-event-examining-slaverys-role-battle-alamo-canceled-after-texas-gop-leaders-complained-authors-say/
 

I keep posting these stupid incidents to remind everyone that cancel culture is not something only practiced by the left. Anytime you hear Republican/conservative officials or talking heads rail against “cancel culture,” remember they’re only against it when they’re not doing it themselves. 

[Padme]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Texan Republicans cancel book event held at museum because they disagree with the book (which looked at the Alamo’s connection to slavery):

https://www.kwtx.com/2021/07/02/book-event-examining-slaverys-role-battle-alamo-canceled-after-texas-gop-leaders-complained-authors-say/
 

I keep posting these stupid incidents to remind everyone that cancel culture is not something only practiced by the left. Anytime you hear Republican/conservative officials or talking heads rail against “cancel culture,” remember they’re only against it when they’re not doing it themselves. 

In all honesty I don't understand. This so called cancel culture is nothing new! I mean we had a huge controversy in the late 80s with OIAM. And this is just one example.  What it used to be called politically correct. Now it is called cancel culture. It is the same shit with the same smell.  Why all of a sudden people are pulling their hair out?

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Pretty soon everything from the past will be forgotten or cancelled. I think it's so stupid. 

Shit happened in the world's past that sucks, but hopefully we can move on and realize the mistakes that were made and there have been many, and maybe learn from them. but to cancel them or forgot them is not right.

I don't see how cancelling is changing anything. it's like hiding your head in the sand. we can't change the past and since the world is still fucked up we haven't changed for the better either. Hence covid!

[Sosso]

It's funny how the conservatives totally forgot their own "Cancel Culture" from the 60s and 70s. 

[RussTCB]

11 minutes ago, Sosso said:

It's funny how the conservatives totally forgot their own "Cancel Culture" from the 60s and 70s. 

To be fair, it seems the right and left have very much switched sides on a lot of things over the past 30 years 

[Padme]

25 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

To be fair, it seems the right and left have very much switched sides on a lot of things over the past 30 years 

More than 30 years, the change started with Vietnam war and Civil Rights movement. Then the Reagan era was the begining of the Republican party we have today.