3 ms·

> Probably because we all know "cancel culture" was an invented, highly partisan and ultimately fake concept. No, we don't all know that. There's a whole Wikip

by buu700 11mo ago

> Probably because we all know "cancel culture" was an invented, highly partisan and ultimately fake concept. No, we don't all know that. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture. Denying its existence is just a lazy rhetorical tactic to deflect criticism of antisocial behavior and censorship. > stating a fact is not what "virtue signalling" means and I wish people would bother to learn what words meant before they repeated them Non sequitur. The factuality of cancel culture's non-existence is immaterial here. If a piece of writing includes a tangent that serves no other purpose than to signal to a subset of the audience that the author is "one of them", that's virtue signaling.

wredcoll 11mo ago
> No, we don't all know that. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture. Denying its existence is just a lazy rhetorical tactic to deflect criticism of antisocial behavior and censorship. There's a wikipedia article about the earth being flat and moon landing hoaxes and so on and so forth. People wanting something to be true does not make it so. You literally prove my point by saying censorship as if that was possibly related. The people who talked about "being cancelled" were wealthy celebrities who could spread their message as far as they wanted. Equating being disinvited from a conference with censorship is incredibly disengenous. So is referring to it as "antisocial behavior". There are, quite frankly, very things that are more deeply a part of human socializing than telling someone else that they're wrong and should shut up. Cancel culture being a thing is one of those memes that people spread, and much like the meme of republicans being good for the federal government, it causes real problems when people start to believe it via repetition.
- buu700 11mo ago
  This is an odd response. Wikipedia does not in any way claim that the moon landing was faked or that flat Earth theory is legitimate. The insinuation that I "want it to be true" is silly. Why would I want cancel culture to exist? I'd prefer that it not. I'd be thrilled if everyone were nice to each other, social media were a thriving hub of only productive good faith discourse, and reddit mods had no interest in censoring everyone and everything they personally disagree with. It sounds like you find cancel culture inconvenient to acknowledge, for whatever reason, and want to project that cognitive dissonance onto others.
  - wredcoll 11mo ago
    > The insinuation that I "want it to be true" is silly. Why would I want cancel culture to exist People want cancel culture to be real in the same way they want jews to be spreading the black plague. It lets you take reactionary measures based on false premises. Everytime people bring up "cancel culture" they're using it as a justification for silencing an opposing viewpoint. Thats why they want it to exist, so they can justify a reaction to it. What happens is that someone says something, then someone else criticizes them, and they try to shutdown that criticism by invoking the concept of cancel culture. That's the part I object to. Criticism is just as valid as the initial speech and we need to protect it, doubly so when so frequently the ideas people are trying to protect are so objectively abhorrent. I don't find the "cancel culture inconvenient to acknowledge"; I find talking about it as if it's real gives cover and justification for other antisocial and otherwise negative actions. I cannot stress enough that telling some asshole to get out of your house and stop saying racist slurs is a perfectly norma and good social interaction that's healthy for society.
    - buu700 11mo ago
      Social media is full of politically motivated bullying, harassment, and censorship. That should be readily apparent to anyone who's ever used the internet. That's what cancel culture is, not a dispute with rude houseguests. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on denying this that you'd compare Wikipedia — and everyone quoted on the subject therein, including presidents from both parties and the former pope — with antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Who are you implying I intend to silence? I'm commenting on it because I oppose cancel culture, which is the opposite of wanting to silence opposing viewpoints.
      - wredcoll 10mo ago
        People who use the term "cancel culture" are trying to silence their critics. If this isn't what you intend, you may wish to reexamine the words you use and how you use them. Because you keep bringing up wikipedia, lets actually quote from it: > n October 2017, sexual assault allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein led to the cancellation of his projects, his expulsion from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and legal consequences, including a conviction on charges of rape and sexual assault. Is this the cancel culture you're so vehemently against? People disassociating from Harvey Weinstein because of his history of sexual abuse? How about the next one: > In November 2017, comedian Louis C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct allegations and, as a result, his shows were canceled, distribution deals were terminated, and he was dropped by his agency and management. Is this more of that cancel culture you're trying to get rid of? I'll pick an example I like from that page: > According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".[3][42][43] There's some abstract talk about "mob justice" and "disproportionate response" but that is so far from reality that attempting to use it as a guideline for what's actually happening is laughable. In the actual, real world, cases, rich and powerful people with nearly infinite access to spreading their own speech are complaining about being disinvited from college speeches or even fired from their tv show. Here's a follow up: in your definition of the word and your understanding of reality, do you claim the jk rowling was cancelled or experienced cancelled culture and if so was this a bad thing?

by buu700 11mo ago

wredcoll 11mo ago

> No, we don't all know that. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture. Denying its existence is just a lazy rhetorical tactic to deflect criticism of antisocial behavior and censorship. There's a wikipedia article about the earth being flat and moon landing hoaxes and so on and so forth. People wanting something to be true does not make it so. You literally prove my point by saying censorship as if that was possibly related. The people who talked about "being cancelled" were wealthy celebrities who could spread their message as far as they wanted. Equating being disinvited from a conference with censorship is incredibly disengenous. So is referring to it as "antisocial behavior". There are, quite frankly, very things that are more deeply a part of human socializing than telling someone else that they're wrong and should shut up. Cancel culture being a thing is one of those memes that people spread, and much like the meme of republicans being good for the federal government, it causes real problems when people start to believe it via repetition.

buu700 11mo ago
This is an odd response. Wikipedia does not in any way claim that the moon landing was faked or that flat Earth theory is legitimate. The insinuation that I "want it to be true" is silly. Why would I want cancel culture to exist? I'd prefer that it not. I'd be thrilled if everyone were nice to each other, social media were a thriving hub of only productive good faith discourse, and reddit mods had no interest in censoring everyone and everything they personally disagree with. It sounds like you find cancel culture inconvenient to acknowledge, for whatever reason, and want to project that cognitive dissonance onto others.
- wredcoll 11mo ago
  > The insinuation that I "want it to be true" is silly. Why would I want cancel culture to exist People want cancel culture to be real in the same way they want jews to be spreading the black plague. It lets you take reactionary measures based on false premises. Everytime people bring up "cancel culture" they're using it as a justification for silencing an opposing viewpoint. Thats why they want it to exist, so they can justify a reaction to it. What happens is that someone says something, then someone else criticizes them, and they try to shutdown that criticism by invoking the concept of cancel culture. That's the part I object to. Criticism is just as valid as the initial speech and we need to protect it, doubly so when so frequently the ideas people are trying to protect are so objectively abhorrent. I don't find the "cancel culture inconvenient to acknowledge"; I find talking about it as if it's real gives cover and justification for other antisocial and otherwise negative actions. I cannot stress enough that telling some asshole to get out of your house and stop saying racist slurs is a perfectly norma and good social interaction that's healthy for society.
  - buu700 11mo ago
    Social media is full of politically motivated bullying, harassment, and censorship. That should be readily apparent to anyone who's ever used the internet. That's what cancel culture is, not a dispute with rude houseguests. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on denying this that you'd compare Wikipedia — and everyone quoted on the subject therein, including presidents from both parties and the former pope — with antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Who are you implying I intend to silence? I'm commenting on it because I oppose cancel culture, which is the opposite of wanting to silence opposing viewpoints.
    - wredcoll 10mo ago
      People who use the term "cancel culture" are trying to silence their critics. If this isn't what you intend, you may wish to reexamine the words you use and how you use them. Because you keep bringing up wikipedia, lets actually quote from it: > n October 2017, sexual assault allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein led to the cancellation of his projects, his expulsion from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and legal consequences, including a conviction on charges of rape and sexual assault. Is this the cancel culture you're so vehemently against? People disassociating from Harvey Weinstein because of his history of sexual abuse? How about the next one: > In November 2017, comedian Louis C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct allegations and, as a result, his shows were canceled, distribution deals were terminated, and he was dropped by his agency and management. Is this more of that cancel culture you're trying to get rid of? I'll pick an example I like from that page: > According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".[3][42][43] There's some abstract talk about "mob justice" and "disproportionate response" but that is so far from reality that attempting to use it as a guideline for what's actually happening is laughable. In the actual, real world, cases, rich and powerful people with nearly infinite access to spreading their own speech are complaining about being disinvited from college speeches or even fired from their tv show. Here's a follow up: in your definition of the word and your understanding of reality, do you claim the jk rowling was cancelled or experienced cancelled culture and if so was this a bad thing?