The Anti-Cancel Culture Crew is...Canceling

[Au165]

As we have discussed before, so many who like to rant about "cancel culture" are often some of the most egregious offenders of it. Here we have Carhartt sending out an email to employees letting them know that SCOTUS ruling or not they will still be requiring vaccination to work for them. This has led to many online calling for boycotting of their products and so on.

The funny thing is this is right on the heels of Trump calling for a boycott of AT&T the parent company of Direct TV for removing OANN from their channel selection. It's almost like they have been doing it all along but just pointing across at others and acting like they were ruining the country by doing the same thing.

[basballguy]

I don't think cancel culture is party specific. It's just magnified by the media. Nor is it anything new. We are all guilty of it. "That teacher mouthed off to my child, he/she should be fired!", "There was a hair in my food! The chef should lose his job!"

People just suck.

[Au165]

(01-18-2022, 02:04 PM)basballguy Wrote: I don't think cancel culture is party specific.  It's just magnified by the media.  Nor is it anything new.  We are all guilty of it.  "That teacher mouthed off to my child, he/she should be fired!", "There was a hair in my food!  The chef should lose his job!"

People just suck.

It's because "cancel culture" doesn't exist, it is simply wanting consequences to actions. Sometimes those consequences come and other times the don't. The point is it has been weaponized as a rallying cry for one side as some sort of attack on "merica".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2022, 02:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: It's because "cancel culture" doesn't exist, it is simply wanting consequences to actions. Sometimes those consequences come and other times the don't. The point is it has been weaponized as a rallying cry for one side as some sort of attack on "merica".

Your first sentence is demonstrably false.  While I certainly understand the "speech has consequences" argument, you have people getting in trouble for something they said ten, twenty or thirty years ago.  Certainly "both sides do it" but the type of cancel culture that is frequently commented on, and certainly exists despite your protestations otherwise, is very much largely the purview of the far left.  Examples include any time a conservative person speaks on a college campus and protestors seek to prevent the event from happening or prevent attendees from entering the auditorium.  That isn't "speech has consequences", that is "I don't want to hear what you have to say and I'm going to ensure that no one else can hear it either."

I agree that "cancel culture" has become another buzz word in the culture wars, and is frequently misused, but your assertion that it doesn't even exist is blatantly false.

[Au165]

(01-18-2022, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your first sentence is demonstrably false.  While I certainly understand the "speech has consequences" argument, you have people getting in trouble for something they said ten, twenty or thirty years ago.  Certainly "both sides do it" but the type of cancel culture that is frequently commented on, and certainly exists despite your protestations otherwise, is very much largely the purview of the far left.  Examples include any time a conservative person speaks on a college campus and protestors seek to prevent the event from happening or prevent attendees from entering the auditorium.  That isn't "speech has consequences", that is "I don't want to hear what you have to say and I'm going to ensure that no one else can hear it either."

I agree that "cancel culture" has become another buzz word in the culture wars, and is frequently misused, but your assertion that it doesn't even exist is blatantly false.

That is your opinion, but you just described consequences that simply took longer to occur. The whole “and no one else will” argument is simply complaining about the form of which the consequences come in. No one is legally censored by being “cancelled”, there for other people can still hear what they have to say, they just don’t get the platform they want prefer…because actions have consequences both for the person speaking and the platforms that host it. The platforms also make decisions based on the consequences of their actions or inactions.

Again, it’s all actions and consequences.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2022, 07:52 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is your opinion, but you just described consequences that simply took longer to occur. The whole “and no one else will” argument is simply complaining about the form of which the consequences come in. No one is legally censored by being “cancelled”, there for other people can still hear what they have to say,  they just don’t get the platform they want prefer…because actions have consequences both for the person speaking and the platforms that host it. The platforms also make decisions based on the consequences of their actions or inactions.

Again, it’s all actions and consequences.

If your argument is that cancel culture can only exist if it's being enacted by the government then I don't think you understand how the word is used.  You're essentially engaging in a semantic argument in which you alone get to set the definition.  In any event, I've made my position clear, as have you, so nothing more to really discuss.

[Au165]

(01-18-2022, 08:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If your argument is that cancel culture can only exist if it's being enacted by the government then I don't think you understand how the word is used.  You're essentially engaging in a semantic argument in which you alone get to set the definition.  In any event, I've made my position clear, as have you, so nothing more to really discuss.

No, what I’m saying is no one is “cancelled” they are simply faced with consequences to actions, because your belief was that they were going to stop people from saying things they didn’t like. Since no citizen is capable of doing such a thing, your description of what it was made no real sense. I could say the act of searching out past transgressions to hold people accountable for is similar to political opponents doing such things but no one calls that “cancelling”, they may call it dirty politics. When we vet appointees we dig up past issues and decide if they should face consequences, not being approved, but no one calls that cancelling.

The only difference between those instances and the idea of “cancel culture” is that the consequences are usually enacted by private institutions. No one is stopping those institutions from allowing those people to continue doing as they wish, but they chose based on their own consequences. Being mad about “cancel cultural” in a way is being mad at capitalism because in the end capitalism is the driving force behind the consequences of the institutions levying the consequences on those who have been “cancelled”.

This isn’t a semantics argument, this is drilling down to the fact it all is actions and consequences.

[Belsnickel]

(01-18-2022, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your first sentence is demonstrably false.  While I certainly understand the "speech has consequences" argument, you have people getting in trouble for something they said ten, twenty or thirty years ago.  Certainly "both sides do it" but the type of cancel culture that is frequently commented on, and certainly exists despite your protestations otherwise, is very much largely the purview of the far left.  Examples include any time a conservative person speaks on a college campus and protestors seek to prevent the event from happening or prevent attendees from entering the auditorium.  That isn't "speech has consequences", that is "I don't want to hear what you have to say and I'm going to ensure that no one else can hear it either."

I agree that "cancel culture" has become another buzz word in the culture wars, and is frequently misused, but your assertion that it doesn't even exist is blatantly false.

That isn't cancel culture, though. There is a significant difference between the idea of canceling someone and demonstrating at an event for someone like, say, Ben Shapiro. This also isn't a tool of only the left. I have seen plenty of demonstrations from right-wingers at events with left-leaning folks. We've had them, here, when scholars who are speaking on the idea of CRT have had lectures.

I don't disagree that there is an element of cancel culture that is ridiculous. But when you lump this sort of thing in with it then it makes your argument a bit ridiculous on its own.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-19-2022, 08:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That isn't cancel culture, though. There is a significant difference between the idea of canceling someone and demonstrating at an event for someone like, say, Ben Shapiro. This also isn't a tool of only the left. I have seen plenty of demonstrations from right-wingers at events with left-leaning folks. We've had them, here, when scholars who are speaking on the idea of CRT have had lectures.

I'm not talking about protesting, I'm talking about physically preventing people from attending or disrupting the event completely.

Quote:I don't disagree that there is an element of cancel culture that is ridiculous. But when you lump this sort of thing in with it then it makes your argument a bit ridiculous on its own.

I couldn't disagree more.  Here's a perfect example;

https://www.ktvu.com/news/uc-berkeley-professor-resigns-over-free-speech-battle

A scientist was disinvited to a science lecture because of their views on the George Floyd protests/riots.  Did he make racially offensive or disparaging remarks?  Nope.  He dared to "argued for the importance of treating each person as an individual worthy of dignity and respect" following 2020’s summer of riots and protests."


This is the very definition of cancel culture.  I know you weren't the one arguing that it doesn't exist, but what I described, and just provided an example of, is absolutely cancel culture.  There may be a ridiculous argument here but I don't think there is.  However, if one exists it damn sure isn't mine.

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2022, 02:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not talking about protesting, I'm talking about physically preventing people from attending or disrupting the event completely.


I couldn't disagree more.  Here's a perfect example;

https://www.ktvu.com/news/uc-berkeley-professor-resigns-over-free-speech-battle

A scientist was disinvited to a science lecture because of their views on the George Floyd protests/riots.  Did he make racially offensive or disparaging remarks?  Nope.  He dared to "argued for the importance of treating each person as an individual worthy of dignity and respect" following 2020’s summer of riots and protests."


This is the very definition of cancel culture.  I know you weren't the one arguing that it doesn't exist, but what I described, and just provided an example of, is absolutely cancel culture.  There may be a ridiculous argument here but I don't think there is.  However, if one exists it damn sure isn't mine.

That is a very interesting situation. I keep reading more and more on it. It's much more complex than the typical cancel culture situation. I am not sure how to feel about it quite yet (other than to say people are stupid, which is my general mindset on all things).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-19-2022, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is a very interesting situation. I keep reading more and more on it. It's much more complex than the typical cancel culture situation. I am not sure how to feel about it quite yet (other than to say people are stupid, which is my general mindset on all things).

Well, the first thing is that Berkeley, both the city and college, is full of pretentious, self righteous assholes who tolerate no dissention from their iron clad world view.  My sister lived there for years for work and I visited often.  You will not find a more intolerant part of the country.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2022, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, the first thing is that Berkeley, both the city and college, is full of pretentious, self righteous assholes who tolerate no dissention from their iron clad world view.  My sister lived there for years for work and I visited often.  You will not find a more intolerant part of the country.  

Yeah, but that situation isn't just a Berkley one. This is why that is an interesting case. The person that professor resigned over had been disinvited from MIT, as well, and faced some issues at his own school in Chicago.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-19-2022, 02:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, but that situation isn't just a Berkley one. This is why that is an interesting case. The person that professor resigned over had been disinvited from MIT, as well, and faced some issues at his own school in Chicago.

Very true, which just shows how far the rot goes.  When you look into this guy's comments they really boil down to his understanding that people are upset and why, but that rioting and harming others is not the answer.  Truly a verboten opinion in this enlightened, progressive, age.

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2022, 03:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true, which just shows how far the rot goes.  When you look into this guy's comments they really boil down to his understanding that people are upset and why, but that rioting and harming others is not the answer.  Truly a verboten opinion in this enlightened, progressive, age.

Eh, the hot water he landed in had more to do with his critiques of DEI efforts from what it seems. When you wade into those waters you have to be careful lest your words be misconstrued, which is what happened with him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-19-2022, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, the hot water he landed in had more to do with his critiques of DEI efforts from what it seems. When you wade into those waters you have to be careful lest your words be misconstrued, which is what happened with him.

You mean you have to be careful or you might get canceled? 

[Dill]

(01-18-2022, 07:52 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is your opinion, but you just described consequences that simply took longer to occur. The whole “and no one else will” argument is simply complaining about the form of which the consequences come in. No one is legally censored by being “cancelled”, there for other people can still hear what they have to say,  they just don’t get the platform they want prefer…because actions have consequences both for the person speaking and the platforms that host it. The platforms also make decisions based on the consequences of their actions or inactions.

Again, it’s all actions and consequences.

Which actions receive "consequences" also changes over time and geography.

E.g., when I was growing up, divorce had serious consequences for employment--and running for public office--as did sexual preference. College professors smoked in classrooms and segregation was still a thing. 

The current use of the term "cancel culture" reminds me of how the term "mugging" appeared in Great Britain in the late '60s to define ordinary street robberies as a new, American-style crime and on the rise, though street robberies were as old as London itself.

What was of interest to social researchers during the period was not whether there was really a "new" crime, or a rise in street robbery. There wasn't, at least of statistical significance. https://www.amazon.com/Policing-Crisis-Mugging-State-Order/dp/1137007192

Rather, they were concerned with why this new label for an old crime had evolved--Who was pushing it, and for what purpose? What new valencies of social power followed from it? Partial answer--it ginned up public backing for more police intervention in lower-class and immigrant communities and tougher jail sentences to fight this foreign threat.

In the current U.S., it seems definitions of "cancel culture" are generally concocted by right wingers (e.g., Tucker and Sean) and deployed, alongside terms like "wokeness," to define "leftists" and to shape public support for social conservatism. While "leftists" on some college campuses protest speakers, and on occasion successfully prevent them from speaking, the authors of cancel culture want state legislatures to take over universities and "cancel" both the teaching of "leftism" and "leftist" professors. Somes states have already passed laws to prevent the teaching of CRT in public schools--and "pornography" found in Black/gay literature.  That's where the real threat to free speech lies, not to mention academic freedom. A raucous crowd at Berkeley doesn't write legislation for 22 states. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/map-see-which-states-have-passed-critical-race-theory-bills-n1271215

And they support an ex-president who was fond of "canceling" employees and advisors and public officials who would not help him cancel democracy.

"Cancel culture" has been around since human groups first started ostracizing and exiling members who broke their rules. That why it appears that examples abound everywhere and on "both sides" of the aisle. All groups police themselves, including this message board. The label doesn't have the descriptive value that would make it useful as a sociological or political science term. But tracking the power struggles around it are definitely interesting, and offers some insight into how current divisions are generated and maintained.

[Millhouse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8aVT8WSHsc

language nsfw

Good clip of Quentin Tarantino on Bill Maher's show talkin about 'cancel culture'. Good stuff.

[GMDino]

Remember this isn’t cancel culture. If someone criticizes the mayor that’s cancel culture. https://t.co/rOOryu9Qkp

— LesserHat* (@Popehat) January 29, 2022

 

[CJD]

The Right has always been and will always be the kings of cancelling.

They are the religious portion of this country, after all. And if there's one thing religious people love doing, it's canceling things they don't like or think is "harmful."

I remember reading about the craze they created surrounding D&D in the 80s. They canceled anyone fighting for minority people's rights, women's rights, homosexuals' rights. They canceled pornography, masturbation, books that they felt were harmful to children (still are, honestly).

They cancelled the Dixie Chicks, Colin Kaepernick, Carhartt, Target, Keurig, Gillette, Nike, Goodyear, Megyn Kelly (back when she was with Fox, before she got herself cancelled for the blackface controversy she had). The list goes on forever.

They've boycotted countless companies for not sharing Christian values. now they're cancelling any company that dares have a vaccine mandate.

It's almost like "Cancel culture" isn't actually a thing and that it's just people criticizing things they don't like and the market adjusting accordingly.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2022, 11:06 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Right has always been and will always be the kings of cancelling.

They are the religious portion of this country, after all. And if there's one thing religious people love doing, it's canceling things they don't like or think is "harmful."

I remember reading about the craze they created surrounding D&D in the 80s. They canceled anyone fighting for minority people's rights, women's rights, homosexuals' rights. They canceled pornography, masturbation, books that they felt were harmful to children (still are, honestly).

They cancelled the Dixie Chicks, Colin Kaepernick, Carhartt, Target, Keurig, Gillette, Nike, Goodyear, Megyn Kelly (back when she was with Fox, before she got herself cancelled for the blackface controversy she had). The list goes on forever.

They've boycotted countless companies for not sharing Christian values. now they're cancelling any company that dares have a vaccine mandate.

It's almost like "Cancel culture" isn't actually a thing and that it's just people criticizing things they don't like and the market adjusting accordingly.

I'd agree and add that any large group whether it be a religion/cult/political party is capable of such group-think.