5 ms·

Is it the left that endlessly wines about cancel culture, and social media taking away their platform? I could have sworn it was a different group...

kcplate 5y ago
I’d say the left was pretty damn vocal about cancel culture between the mid-60s to the mid-aughts. Of course it wasn’t called “cancel culture” but it was very much the same thing, without a social media component.
- azemetre 5y ago
  What are you basing this off of? The "left" in the United States has never held any real political power. You can't just claim a political movement controlled the public zeitgeist for 50 years without some serious citations.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    You obviously misunderstood what I said. The left wasn’t doing the canceling, the “moral” and religious right was…and the left was vocal and griping about being the ones canceled. When I started my career in the ‘80s, I worked at a large metro daily newspaper. There were certainly gays and lesbians who worked there (probably a hundred or more), but you wouldn’t know it because not a single person that I recall out of nearly a thousand people was “out”. Why do you suppose that was? It was because people were afraid of ostracism and losing their jobs and livelihoods. If that wasn’t the equivalent of being cancelled…tell me what the hell was it? Also, fast forward 40 years—do you think you could find a news organization in the US today with no one out? Attitudes have changed and they have changed because the left was vocal and had political power enough to change culture. Perhaps you don’t believe that, or you wish it happened faster. But don’t denigrate the progress that liberals made over the last 50 years, while it may be slow progress it’s progress that will stick.
    - azemetre 5y ago
      Yeah I misunderstood then, thanks for clarifying.
jollybean 5y ago
The new host of Jeopardy was cancelled just today over nothing. A few weeks ago, the brilliant young lady Alexi Mcammond was cancelled as the new editor of Teen Vogue due to some arbitrary Tweets she made while she was 16 years old (She's now 27). Career ruined, age 16. A few months ago we saw Harry and Meghan make unspecific claims of behaviour that caused her to have 'suicidal thoughts' (while living possibly the most privileged life imaginable) - while at the same time her own staff and entourage had accused her of bullying, and a lot of information coming out didn't maker her look very good. The next day, a popular television presenter in the UK essentially disputed some of her claims in slightly terse, but nevertheless polite terms. The presenter lost is job immediately - which should be very distressing. If a person claims victimhood - the emotionality of the situation creates a hyper sensitivity such that their story must be in and of itself treated as absolute moral authority. Tears = Truth. Merely to disagree publicly with someone's claim is now 'cancel worthy' in polite culture, that's how far we've come. This is weaponized by individuals, and amplified by some sectors of the press for various reasons, some ideological, some commercial, and then of course the 'reaction' of the 'other side' is weaponized as well ... ad nauseaum. I feel sorry for Lizzo, the American entertainer, because almost everything ever written about her concerns highly defensive and aggressive posturing by generally leftist press, declaring her victimhood. I'm not cherry-picking here - this is the most recent article about here in The Guardian (i.e. left wing press) [1] " They made her into a global star – but also opened her up to extreme and often conflicting attacks beyond anything that Eilish or Lorde might experience owing to being a visible, confident, Black, fat woman: subject to racism as well as arguments that she panders to a white gaze; fat-shamed but also criticised for sharing her experiences of a juice cleanse." It's always about her victimhood and never about her music. It's predictably comedic, a little sad. Why does this happen? I think that some people believe there's too much at stake in the grander scheme i.e. 'racism and police aggression do exist' - ergo - 'this story must presented as evidence of this fact irrespective of the actual nuances and facts'. In an age where everything is politicized in an ugly way (i.e. climate change, vaccines), I believe that the emotionality of gender and racial issues elevates such things to the level of 'national urgency' and we end up in useless wars over it. Nobody is arguing over Epstein and Weinstein ... that's not the issue. But the issue is the perpetual fodder of these issues creeping into our media, culture and institutions without objective thought, dispassion etc. with which they should be approached. I always believe that 80% of people are quite willing to hear issues of legitimate grievance and 'things they can do to help' but that this goodwill is ruined pretty quickly by irresponsible claims and heavy-handed activism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/20/billie-eilish-lorde-lizzo-women-music-industry-fame https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/20/billie-eilish-...

kcplate 5y ago

I’d say the left was pretty damn vocal about cancel culture between the mid-60s to the mid-aughts. Of course it wasn’t called “cancel culture” but it was very much the same thing, without a social media component.

azemetre 5y ago
What are you basing this off of? The "left" in the United States has never held any real political power. You can't just claim a political movement controlled the public zeitgeist for 50 years without some serious citations.
- kcplate 5y ago
  You obviously misunderstood what I said. The left wasn’t doing the canceling, the “moral” and religious right was…and the left was vocal and griping about being the ones canceled. When I started my career in the ‘80s, I worked at a large metro daily newspaper. There were certainly gays and lesbians who worked there (probably a hundred or more), but you wouldn’t know it because not a single person that I recall out of nearly a thousand people was “out”. Why do you suppose that was? It was because people were afraid of ostracism and losing their jobs and livelihoods. If that wasn’t the equivalent of being cancelled…tell me what the hell was it? Also, fast forward 40 years—do you think you could find a news organization in the US today with no one out? Attitudes have changed and they have changed because the left was vocal and had political power enough to change culture. Perhaps you don’t believe that, or you wish it happened faster. But don’t denigrate the progress that liberals made over the last 50 years, while it may be slow progress it’s progress that will stick.
  - azemetre 5y ago
    Yeah I misunderstood then, thanks for clarifying.

jollybean 5y ago

The new host of Jeopardy was cancelled just today over nothing. A few weeks ago, the brilliant young lady Alexi Mcammond was cancelled as the new editor of Teen Vogue due to some arbitrary Tweets she made while she was 16 years old (She's now 27). Career ruined, age 16. A few months ago we saw Harry and Meghan make unspecific claims of behaviour that caused her to have 'suicidal thoughts' (while living possibly the most privileged life imaginable) - while at the same time her own staff and entourage had accused her of bullying, and a lot of information coming out didn't maker her look very good. The next day, a popular television presenter in the UK essentially disputed some of her claims in slightly terse, but nevertheless polite terms. The presenter lost is job immediately - which should be very distressing. If a person claims victimhood - the emotionality of the situation creates a hyper sensitivity such that their story must be in and of itself treated as absolute moral authority. Tears = Truth. Merely to disagree publicly with someone's claim is now 'cancel worthy' in polite culture, that's how far we've come. This is weaponized by individuals, and amplified by some sectors of the press for various reasons, some ideological, some commercial, and then of course the 'reaction' of the 'other side' is weaponized as well ... ad nauseaum. I feel sorry for Lizzo, the American entertainer, because almost everything ever written about her concerns highly defensive and aggressive posturing by generally leftist press, declaring her victimhood. I'm not cherry-picking here - this is the most recent article about here in The Guardian (i.e. left wing press) [1] " They made her into a global star – but also opened her up to extreme and often conflicting attacks beyond anything that Eilish or Lorde might experience owing to being a visible, confident, Black, fat woman: subject to racism as well as arguments that she panders to a white gaze; fat-shamed but also criticised for sharing her experiences of a juice cleanse." It's always about her victimhood and never about her music. It's predictably comedic, a little sad. Why does this happen? I think that some people believe there's too much at stake in the grander scheme i.e. 'racism and police aggression do exist' - ergo - 'this story must presented as evidence of this fact irrespective of the actual nuances and facts'. In an age where everything is politicized in an ugly way (i.e. climate change, vaccines), I believe that the emotionality of gender and racial issues elevates such things to the level of 'national urgency' and we end up in useless wars over it. Nobody is arguing over Epstein and Weinstein ... that's not the issue. But the issue is the perpetual fodder of these issues creeping into our media, culture and institutions without objective thought, dispassion etc. with which they should be approached. I always believe that 80% of people are quite willing to hear issues of legitimate grievance and 'things they can do to help' but that this goodwill is ruined pretty quickly by irresponsible claims and heavy-handed activism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/20/billie-eilish-lorde-lizzo-women-music-industry-fame https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/20/billie-eilish-...