4 ms·

Cancel culture was not 'dreamed up' it's upon you, it's an obvious fact. The Oscars were unable to obtain a host at the last minute, literally for this reason,

by jariel 6y ago

Cancel culture was not 'dreamed up' it's upon you, it's an obvious fact. The Oscars were unable to obtain a host at the last minute, literally for this reason, it's unprecedented. People are destroyed for opinions, or mere tweets.

httpsterio 6y ago
and why is that bad? If someone holds an opinion that is harmful to the society and humankind as a whole, why should that be tolerated?
- jariel 6y ago
  Please take a moment of self awareness and reflection and read your comment, because I think really is the foundation of Orwellian authoritarianism. Have you considered that: 1) It's quite difficult to assert what actually does hurt people and; 2) more likely that these powers are merely going to be used for arbitrary political vindictiveness. If someone is saying 'ban the KKK from Facebook', sure, that's fine. But banning speech such as 'trans women are like women, but still different' - is totalitarian. 'Deadnaming' a trans person is also not very nice, but it's also not 'hate speech'. It will technically get you banned from Twitter, which is ridiculous. Side Note: the oddest thing about the people who want to suppress speech, is that I find they tend not to be 'overt, assertive people'. This is not the alpha-style nationalist authoritarianism of the gilded class, oddly, it's the opposite - it's the authoritarianism of the ostensibly vengeful transgressed and hyper-sensitive. It has Jacobin kind of element to it: populism of a kind of underclass, with shades of angry revenge.
xref 6y ago
Are you referring to Kevin Hart who bailed on the Oscar hosting gig? I mean, he publicly said a ton of _rough_ homophobic stuff and eventually he was held to account for it. That said, the Oscars went on as scheduled, I saw Hart in Jumanji 2 earlier this year, and I see he’s got a new flick with Woody Harrelson coming out. So exactly who/what was cancelled?
- jariel 6y ago
  He was cancelled by the Oscars, they realized their mistake and invited him back, he told them to stuff it. This is a major snafu for 'major event' and is obviously a function of cancel culture. They could not get a replacement, partly because many are afraid of the added scrutiny. "So exactly who/what was cancelled?" ? JK Rowling is under blistering attack from New York magazine, just two days ago [1] for having a nuanced opinion about feminism and trans people. Gal Gadot is under fire for daring to portray Cleopatra (Egyptian Queen of Macedonian decent). [2] That's just in the last two days. The headlines are never ending, it's a clear and present issue. [1] https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.html https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.ht... [2] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/gal-gadot-cleopatra-casting-backlash-macedonian-actress-1234606356/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/gal-gadot-cleopatra-castin...
  - krapp 6y ago
    As far as I know, JK Rowling still has a career as an author, her books haven't been banned, and she hasn't been fired. And Gal Godot is still a working actor. Her films haven't been banned or boycotted, she hasn't been fired or replaced in any roles. Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income. The right's definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech.
    - xref 6y ago
      You’re possibly being downvoted because you lay it at the doorstep of “the right” when the problem is bigger than that. But thanks for more directly making my original point that, as the GP’s post shows, many people’s working definition seems to be “criticism == cancel culture”
    - jariel 6y ago
      "Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income" ??? Vindictive campaigns, which you've tacitly admit exist - are clear evidence of cancel culture - that said campaigns don't always work, is not evidence that they don't exist. These hate campaigns have a chilling effect on institutions. They tried to 'cancel' Stephen Pinker, hardcore Harvard secular humanist [1] - who will survive the ordeal but much erstwhile reasonable science won't get published. "The definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. " ... this is obviously false given the examples above. It's an easy lie: "Some people use the n-word, so cancel culture is acceptable in all cases" is the logic implied. But this: "Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech. " ... is the crux of the lie. It's fine that people disagree. That's probably a good thing actually. 'Cancel culture' is not about disagreement, it's about sanctioning people for having opinions. Nobody is 'up in arms' that people are 'disagreeing with JK Rowling - they are concerned because of attempts to stop her books from being published, to stop her films from being made, to stop her public opinions from being published. [2] And if she were any less powerful, the campaign would be more successful, in 2020 you need to be a billionaire to have an opinion. Couching the aggressive dismissal and deplatforming of people's who's opinions are different from yours merely as 'disagreement' is really a devious and wilful ignorance of the rhetorical goalposts. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pinker-will-be-just-fine/614323/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pin... [2] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/83771-mission-driven-indies-drop-j-k-rowling-s-books.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/b...

by jariel 6y ago

httpsterio 6y ago

and why is that bad? If someone holds an opinion that is harmful to the society and humankind as a whole, why should that be tolerated?

jariel 6y ago
Please take a moment of self awareness and reflection and read your comment, because I think really is the foundation of Orwellian authoritarianism. Have you considered that: 1) It's quite difficult to assert what actually does hurt people and; 2) more likely that these powers are merely going to be used for arbitrary political vindictiveness. If someone is saying 'ban the KKK from Facebook', sure, that's fine. But banning speech such as 'trans women are like women, but still different' - is totalitarian. 'Deadnaming' a trans person is also not very nice, but it's also not 'hate speech'. It will technically get you banned from Twitter, which is ridiculous. Side Note: the oddest thing about the people who want to suppress speech, is that I find they tend not to be 'overt, assertive people'. This is not the alpha-style nationalist authoritarianism of the gilded class, oddly, it's the opposite - it's the authoritarianism of the ostensibly vengeful transgressed and hyper-sensitive. It has Jacobin kind of element to it: populism of a kind of underclass, with shades of angry revenge.

xref 6y ago

Are you referring to Kevin Hart who bailed on the Oscar hosting gig? I mean, he publicly said a ton of _rough_ homophobic stuff and eventually he was held to account for it. That said, the Oscars went on as scheduled, I saw Hart in Jumanji 2 earlier this year, and I see he’s got a new flick with Woody Harrelson coming out. So exactly who/what was cancelled?

jariel 6y ago
He was cancelled by the Oscars, they realized their mistake and invited him back, he told them to stuff it. This is a major snafu for 'major event' and is obviously a function of cancel culture. They could not get a replacement, partly because many are afraid of the added scrutiny. "So exactly who/what was cancelled?" ? JK Rowling is under blistering attack from New York magazine, just two days ago [1] for having a nuanced opinion about feminism and trans people. Gal Gadot is under fire for daring to portray Cleopatra (Egyptian Queen of Macedonian decent). [2] That's just in the last two days. The headlines are never ending, it's a clear and present issue. [1] https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.html https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.ht... [2] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/gal-gadot-cleopatra-casting-backlash-macedonian-actress-1234606356/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/gal-gadot-cleopatra-castin...
- krapp 6y ago
  As far as I know, JK Rowling still has a career as an author, her books haven't been banned, and she hasn't been fired. And Gal Godot is still a working actor. Her films haven't been banned or boycotted, she hasn't been fired or replaced in any roles. Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income. The right's definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech.
  - xref 6y ago
    You’re possibly being downvoted because you lay it at the doorstep of “the right” when the problem is bigger than that. But thanks for more directly making my original point that, as the GP’s post shows, many people’s working definition seems to be “criticism == cancel culture”
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income" ??? Vindictive campaigns, which you've tacitly admit exist - are clear evidence of cancel culture - that said campaigns don't always work, is not evidence that they don't exist. These hate campaigns have a chilling effect on institutions. They tried to 'cancel' Stephen Pinker, hardcore Harvard secular humanist [1] - who will survive the ordeal but much erstwhile reasonable science won't get published. "The definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. " ... this is obviously false given the examples above. It's an easy lie: "Some people use the n-word, so cancel culture is acceptable in all cases" is the logic implied. But this: "Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech. " ... is the crux of the lie. It's fine that people disagree. That's probably a good thing actually. 'Cancel culture' is not about disagreement, it's about sanctioning people for having opinions. Nobody is 'up in arms' that people are 'disagreeing with JK Rowling - they are concerned because of attempts to stop her books from being published, to stop her films from being made, to stop her public opinions from being published. [2] And if she were any less powerful, the campaign would be more successful, in 2020 you need to be a billionaire to have an opinion. Couching the aggressive dismissal and deplatforming of people's who's opinions are different from yours merely as 'disagreement' is really a devious and wilful ignorance of the rhetorical goalposts. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pinker-will-be-just-fine/614323/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pin... [2] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/83771-mission-driven-indies-drop-j-k-rowling-s-books.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/b...