6 ms·

There is no one definition of cancel culture. Many people don't know what they even mean when they talk about it. If we break cancel culture up into roughly b

by bargl 6y ago

There is no one definition of cancel culture. Many people don't know what they even mean when they talk about it. If we break cancel culture up into roughly before the internet and after. Being canceled (I'd call a non-violent black-sheep status) was a local phenomenon, it was in your town, your church, or your local group. You could move away to reclaim anonymity. Today, you can't hide from it, but it's as you said, a quick burst. But I think you're forgetting that these ramifications aren't just about you being hated by the internet, they can follow you by alienating friends/family. They have made people lose jobs. They take a person's worst moment and give it permanence in a way that wasn't possible in the past. I'd probably say that cancel culture requires the internet to really be a thing, because now we can take anyone who's worst moment is caught on video and have it follow them around forever. Sure the internet as a whole might not hate you for more than a week or so, but the ramifications of unwanted massive celebrity must be profound. To be clear, I'd consider cancellations to be people who are not famous and don't want to be famous. Even that level of positive reception by half of a socially powerful group might be unwanted, especially if you don't really align with them. I'll finish with this, cancel culture is a minor problem compared to those of our ancestors. But it's still something we as a society can try to work on. As individuals when we see someone being canceled, don't dog pile on them, look for context and dig deeper. Sometimes it will make you more angry there are people you're not going to like out there. Side story: When I was a kid I had a bully for all of 1 year in elementary school, he'd trip me at recess every day. One day I lost it and punched him in the face. I remember this clearly, he waited a few weeks then tripped me one more time. For most of us that'd be the end of the story, but a few years later, a family friend of mine brought him by our house and I had to play with him for an afternoon. We got to talking and playing. Just two kids playing as if we didn't know each other. I found out he had dealt with some shit I never had to, and it showed me that his behavior wasn't all his own. I don't regret punching him, I don't begrudge him being a bully for a year, but I do thank that family friend for giving me an afternoon of seeing more context. It showed me that, I don't have to like everyone, and I don't have to let people walk on me, but I do have to do my best to understand people even when I don't like them. Sorry maybe that's not relevant, but I think about the kid that I was getting thrust onto the internet for punching someone, no context, no background and I'd probably not have learned from it. Edit: context around the link. Just a really good video I watched from a person I like on this topic. Sometimes I'll haunt my threads to reply to people but I don't really feel like it tonight, so have a good night everyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p26JJxvw4lM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p26JJxvw4lM

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I'd probably say that cancel culture requires the internet to really be a thing Blacklisting with more than local scope (and, while nonviolent in themselves, again, vastly more drastic practical impact than modern “cancel culture”—and particularly, often, a much more direct and total impact on employability, and often impacting people with less socioeconomic privilege and associated security than are at issue with “cancel culture” complaints) was a thing long before the internet, to the point that laws curtailing it in certain contexts were adopted (and fought against by blacklisters) before WWII. EDIT: The internet or something like it may help the less privileged coordinate against the more privileged, changing who is potentially exposed to something that the powerful have always had in their toolbox, though.
- bargl 6y ago
  OK I said I wasn't going to lurk, but I have a problem. Blacklisting isn't cancel culture, I don't understand how it equates at all. I think, we're talking past each-other a bit here just because cancel culture can be hard to define. It's defined by some as boycotting like "cancel Netflix". It'd defined by others as canceling an individual like "this person tweeted about XYZ when they were 17 fire them." It can also be, "Celebrity XYZ said something I disagree with cancel them (Kapernick comes to mind)." One is targeted against the less privileged and elevates those without a voice or a platform to celebrity. The other is just a re-branding of boycotting. The third targets celebrities who making a social stand. I'd define the cancel culture I'm concerned about as the form that is against an individual who was not previously famous, doesn't want to be famous and is thrust into the spotlight without the ability to control the narrative or provide context. They got caught on a bad day and just want to be left alone. This is a form of "witch hunt" that thrives on the mob mentality of twitter and other social networks out there that feed on our baser human instincts. I also think that canceling celebrities because you disagree with them is dumb, but that's privilege vs less privilege and I don't see it as big of an issue. Cancel culture that's really just boycotting is not something I'm concerned about. I'll re-iterate, the past had some awful and yet socially acceptable shit going on. I don't think there is a similar phenomenon where the mob went after other individuals in such a global manner. The level of cancel culture that I'm talking about wasn't a global phenomenon before. It wasn't more local, mobs stayed in towns and cities. But they also carried pitch forks and hurt people. So before we had, potential death in your city/town, and now we have humiliation and loss of job but globally. I dislike them both and if I had to pick I think the later is the obvious choice. OK really trying to close this down now, but this conversation is more fun than what I'd be doing othewise!

by bargl 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I'd probably say that cancel culture requires the internet to really be a thing Blacklisting with more than local scope (and, while nonviolent in themselves, again, vastly more drastic practical impact than modern “cancel culture”—and particularly, often, a much more direct and total impact on employability, and often impacting people with less socioeconomic privilege and associated security than are at issue with “cancel culture” complaints) was a thing long before the internet, to the point that laws curtailing it in certain contexts were adopted (and fought against by blacklisters) before WWII. EDIT: The internet or something like it may help the less privileged coordinate against the more privileged, changing who is potentially exposed to something that the powerful have always had in their toolbox, though.

bargl 6y ago
OK I said I wasn't going to lurk, but I have a problem. Blacklisting isn't cancel culture, I don't understand how it equates at all. I think, we're talking past each-other a bit here just because cancel culture can be hard to define. It's defined by some as boycotting like "cancel Netflix". It'd defined by others as canceling an individual like "this person tweeted about XYZ when they were 17 fire them." It can also be, "Celebrity XYZ said something I disagree with cancel them (Kapernick comes to mind)." One is targeted against the less privileged and elevates those without a voice or a platform to celebrity. The other is just a re-branding of boycotting. The third targets celebrities who making a social stand. I'd define the cancel culture I'm concerned about as the form that is against an individual who was not previously famous, doesn't want to be famous and is thrust into the spotlight without the ability to control the narrative or provide context. They got caught on a bad day and just want to be left alone. This is a form of "witch hunt" that thrives on the mob mentality of twitter and other social networks out there that feed on our baser human instincts. I also think that canceling celebrities because you disagree with them is dumb, but that's privilege vs less privilege and I don't see it as big of an issue. Cancel culture that's really just boycotting is not something I'm concerned about. I'll re-iterate, the past had some awful and yet socially acceptable shit going on. I don't think there is a similar phenomenon where the mob went after other individuals in such a global manner. The level of cancel culture that I'm talking about wasn't a global phenomenon before. It wasn't more local, mobs stayed in towns and cities. But they also carried pitch forks and hurt people. So before we had, potential death in your city/town, and now we have humiliation and loss of job but globally. I dislike them both and if I had to pick I think the later is the obvious choice. OK really trying to close this down now, but this conversation is more fun than what I'd be doing othewise!