CANCEL CULTURE!

[MU82]

Just kidding!

[Not A Serious Person]

Why do we have cancel culture? Because the entitled, especially our superiors like journalists, know better and you’re not allowed to question them ... ever.

This is how you wind up with the truly bizarre situation we had this week.

An actual princess, living in an $18 million mansion in Santa Barbara, with a $100 million Netflix deal, is interviewed by a billionaire lamenting how she is the victim. And if so much as one person says “I don’t believe her” the are immediately fired (canceled).


https://greenwald.substack.com/p/criticizing-public-figures-including

But this is now a commonplace tactic among the society’s richest, most powerful and most influential public figures. The advent of the internet has empowered the riff-raff, the peasants, the unlicensed and the uncredentialed — those who in the past were blissfully silent and invisible — to be heard, often with irreverence and even contempt for those who wield the greatest societal privileges, such as a star New York Times reporter. By recasting themselves as oppressed, abused and powerless rather than what they are (powerful oppressors who sometimes abuse their power), elite political and media luminaries seek to completely reverse the dynamic.

One of the many ironies of these tawdry attempts to shield the world’s most powerful people from criticism is that they fundamentally rely upon the exact stereotypes which, in prior generations, had been deployed to deny women, racial minorities and LGBTs fair and equal opportunities to ascend to powerful positions. Those who purport to be supporters of Lorenz speak of her not as what she is — a successful and wealthy professional woman in her mid-30s who has amassed a large amount of influence and chose a career whose purpose is supposed to be confronting powerful people — but instead as a delicate, young flower, incapable of withstanding criticisms.

What I ultimately find most repellent and offensive about this incessant self-victimization from society’s most powerful and privileged actors is the conceit that they are somehow unique or special in the treatment they receive, as if it only happens to people like them. That is the exact opposite of reality: everyone with a public platform receives abuse and ugly attacks, and there are members of every faction who launch them.

[forgetful]

We have cancel culture because that is essentially human history.

Religion has dominated the field of Cancel Culture since its inception.

I would place historical cancel culture in two categories.

1. Those that are afraid of change, and try to cancel anything that challenges their system.

2. Those who embrace change, when they recognize instances of past wrongs we can grow from.

These two groups are historically at odds with each other. During key moments in history, group 1 has led to economic, cultural, and technological stagnation. Group 2 has led to economic, cultural, and technological growth.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

#1 piece of evidence that cancel culture really isn't a thing:  Heisey still has a log in.

[shoothoops]

Why do we have cancel culture? Because the entitled, especially our superiors like journalists, know better and you’re not allowed to question them ... ever.

This is how you wind up with the truly bizarre situation we had this week.

An actual princess, living in an $18 million mansion in Santa Barbara, with a $100 million Netflix deal, is interviewed by a billionaire lamenting how she is the victim. And if so much as one person says “I don’t believe her” the are immediately fired (canceled).


https://greenwald.substack.com/p/criticizing-public-figures-including

But this is now a commonplace tactic among the society’s richest, most powerful and most influential public figures. The advent of the internet has empowered the riff-raff, the peasants, the unlicensed and the uncredentialed — those who in the past were blissfully silent and invisible — to be heard, often with irreverence and even contempt for those who wield the greatest societal privileges, such as a star New York Times reporter. By recasting themselves as oppressed, abused and powerless rather than what they are (powerful oppressors who sometimes abuse their power), elite political and media luminaries seek to completely reverse the dynamic.

One of the many ironies of these tawdry attempts to shield the world’s most powerful people from criticism is that they fundamentally rely upon the exact stereotypes which, in prior generations, had been deployed to deny women, racial minorities and LGBTs fair and equal opportunities to ascend to powerful positions. Those who purport to be supporters of Lorenz speak of her not as what she is — a successful and wealthy professional woman in her mid-30s who has amassed a large amount of influence and chose a career whose purpose is supposed to be confronting powerful people — but instead as a delicate, young flower, incapable of withstanding criticisms.

What I ultimately find most repellent and offensive about this incessant self-victimization from society’s most powerful and privileged actors is the conceit that they are somehow unique or special in the treatment they receive, as if it only happens to people like them. That is the exact opposite of reality: everyone with a public platform receives abuse and ugly attacks, and there are members of every faction who launch them.

This is a lot of words to say there is zero tolerance for racism and racists.

[tower912]

Conservatives practically invented cancel culture by making liberal an epithet.   Cry me a river.  Don't want to feel cancelled?  Stop saying stupid crap.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Actually, we have cancel culture because we have capitalism.

Seller puts out a product.

Buyers don't like aspect of a product.

Buyers make their opinion known and withhold their dollars from the seller.

Seller either amends product to meet buyers' demands or business suffers.

If seller amends product, the buyers stop withholding their dollars from the seller

It's capitalism at its most beautiful

[Jockey]

Cancel culture is a "thing" for the same reason that Dr. Seuss and Potato Head are a "thing".

One side has policy. One side has only emotion.

[MuggsyB]

This is a lot of words to say there is zero tolerance for racism and racists.

What is your definition and punishment for"zero tolerance" with regards to racism ?  If you say or have said something racist, or can be interpreted as racist, what's the punishment?  If you owned slaves like many of our Founding Fathers. should all of their history be erased?   What about other ethnicities or races that have owned or sold slave?  That would basically include everyone btw.

Do you feel that specific government policies over the years and the anti-racist/white privilege movement have lead to fewer racists?  Personally I believe it has had the opposite effect which is terrible for our country. 

In the simplest terms there are racists and prejudicial people of all kinds in the USA and throughout the world.  Frankly, we are for the most part considerably more inclusive and race/ethnicity friendly than the rest of the world.  My contention is the more we obsess about completely eradicating racism, and insert it into every conversation, the more polarized we become.  Again,  these recent decisions or cancel culture will not lead to fewer racists and nor has academic ideologiy or government policies.   It has the opposite effect.

[shoothoops]

What is your definition and punishment for"zero tolerance" with regards to racism ?  If you say or have said something racist, or can be interpreted as racist, what's the punishment?  If you owned slaves like many of our Founding Fathers. should all of their history be erased?   What about other ethnicities or races that have owned or sold slave?  That would basically include everyone btw.

Do you feel that specific government policies over the years and the anti-racist/white privilege movement have lead to fewer racists?  Personally I believe it has had the opposite effect which is terrible for our country. 

In the simplest terms there are racists and prejudicial people of all kinds in the USA and throughout the world.  Frankly, we are for the most part considerably more inclusive and race/ethnicity friendly than the rest of the world.  My contention is the more we obsess about completely eradicating racism, and insert it into every conversation, the more polarized we become.  Again,  these recent decisions or cancel culture will not lead to fewer racists and nor has academic ideologiy or government policies.   It has the opposite effect.

It's okay to not be scared of accountability and opportunity.

[MuggsyB]

It's okay to not be scared of accountability and opportunity.

That's not an answer.

Should Joe Biden resign because of his history of racist comments?  Who is holding him accountable?  Are you?

[Pakuni]

That's not an answer.

Should Joe Biden resign because of his history of racist comments?  Who is holding him accountable?  Are you?

If you believe Joe Biden should resign because of past statements, launch a campaign seeking that. If enough people agree and join in, then Biden may be forced to resign. That's how this does (and always has) worked.

[MuggsyB]

If you believe Joe Biden should resign because of past statements, launch a campaign seeking that. If enough people agree and join in, then Biden may be forced to resign. That's how this does (and always has) worked.

I don't.  I'm just trying to figure out what punishment "no tolerance for racism" should be.  Obviously, this is a nuanced discussion.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I don't.  I'm just trying to figure out what punishment "no tolerance for racism" should be.  Obviously, this is a nuanced discussion.

You realize there are punishments other than resignation right? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

What is your definition and punishment for"zero tolerance" with regards to racism ?  If you say or have said something racist, or can be interpreted as racist, what's the punishment?  If you owned slaves like many of our Founding Fathers. should all of their history be erased?   What about other ethnicities or races that have owned or sold slave?  That would basically include everyone btw.

Do you feel that specific government policies over the years and the anti-racist/white privilege movement have lead to fewer racists?  Personally I believe it has had the opposite effect which is terrible for our country. 

In the simplest terms there are racists and prejudicial people of all kinds in the USA and throughout the world.  Frankly, we are for the most part considerably more inclusive and race/ethnicity friendly than the rest of the world.  My contention is the more we obsess about completely eradicating racism, and insert it into every conversation, the more polarized we become.  Again,  these recent decisions or cancel culture will not lead to fewer racists and nor has academic ideologiy or government policies.   It has the opposite effect.

I disagree with you completely on the last paragraph.  The reason this is a problem is because we haven't adequately addressed racism in the past.  We whitewash it and cover it over and fail to acknowledge the ways that race still plays a part in our society.

[shoothoops]

I don't.  I'm just trying to figure out what punishment "no tolerance for racism" should be.  Obviously, this is a nuanced discussion.

It's an answer. It might be one that you might not understand because your posts present as a tribalist.

Every specific individual situation requires individual specific examination. It isn't group think.

I responded to a post where someone insinuated that racism doesn't happen to people with money and power, and, or it doesn't matter if it does.

Your post(s) insinuate that we should ignore racism. I don't care as much about eradicating racists as much as I do holding them appropriately accountable for it when it occurs. I don't care as much about eradicating racists as I do providing more opportunities for those underserved in racial minorites. Doing those things don't scare me. While idealistically living in a racist free society is better and ideal, these things above are more of a priority for me since we don't live in that idealistic world.

[MU82]

Hey Smuggles, why don't you ask all the House Republicans who tried to cancel Liz Cheney about cancel culture?

Good rant, though! Somewhere, Ners and guru are smiling.

[Pakuni]

I disagree with you completely on the last paragraph.  The reason this is a problem is because we haven't adequately addressed racism in the past.  We whitewash it and cover it over and fail to acknowledge the ways that race still plays a part in our society.

Yeah, his position seems to be that acknowledging and addressing racism will turn people into racists. Which seems a shining example of white fragility.

[4everwarriors]

Duz Gov. Cuomo have ta give back his Emmy, hey?

[Jockey]

That's not an answer.

Should Joe Biden resign because of his history of racist comments?  Who is holding him accountable?  Are you?

Yes Joe Biden is definitely a racist. And the guy who encouraged the violent overthrow of our gov't by white supremicists is not.

Quite the wQrld you live in.

[MuggsyB]

It's an answer. It might be one that you might not understand because your posts present as a tribalist.

Every specific individual situation requires individual specific examination. It isn't group think.

I responded to a post where someone insinuated that racism doesn't happen to people with money and power, and, or it doesn't matter if it does.

Your post(s) insinuate that we should ignore racism. I don't care as much about eradicating racists as much as I do holding them appropriately accountable for it when it occurs. I don't care as much about eradicating racists as I do providing more opportunities for those underserved in racial minorites. Doing those things don't scare me. While idealistically living in a racist free society is better and ideal, these things above are more of a priority for me since we don't live in that idealistic world.

I certainly don't think "Racism should be iignored". I believe the word and the definition are fairly often used to create a particular narrative, and it's a harmful/very divisive narrative. 

If 99.9% of the American population acknowledged our racist past to everyone's satisfaction I'm not sure this accomplishes anything with regards to the goal of eradicating racism.  Where I think we disagree is that it appears that this "acknowledgement", whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, or other things is a non-starter towards moving the needle.  I simply disagree with this premise and believe many policies and narratives lead to further division.

So yes, Iiterally ignoring it in cases where one is looking to race-bait or propagate a narrative  would be a much preferable response in my view.  That does not mean I or the vast majority of people do not want true racist and prejudicial behaviors to be eliminated as much as possible.  The issue is whether or not we can have a nuanced discussion. and look at each supposed racist incident on a case by case basis.

For example , when  politicians and most of the media play identity politics in many situations, that has nothing to do with people "ignoring racism".  We can look at specific events of the summer or when Obama sent the Attorney General to Michael Brown's funeral in Ferguson.   This isn't  paying more attention to racism.  Nor are the narratives propagated by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.   

[rocky_warrior]

I don't know why MU82 created this thread on Mar 5, or why Heisey decided to reply 8 days later, but it's a thread we don't need.