Cancel Culture

[entropy]

we also have no idea what the email she sent looked like, she spent a day or two on twitter telling everybody how she was going to call out the professor and how she's fuming before sending the email.

IMO, it is a joke that someone teaching a course on marginalized groups can’t be bothered to include a single black author. Who does that in 2020?

 

[Nico87]

Twitter is currently trying to cancel Alex Turner From Arctic Monkeys because of some anonymous account has accused him of contacting her years ago on Tumblr and asked for her to send photos, the accuse Is not sure it was actually him as it could have apparently been Miles Kane ( or more likely some teenager in his mums basement). The source of the accusations has been lost and large amounts of people are crucifyIng him as a nonce and lashing out at the idea of asking for a shred of evidence as this is bullying the “victims”. Social media is horrific for things like this.

 

[AltiUn]

Twitter is currently trying to cancel Alex Turner From Arctic Monkeys because of some anonymous account has accused him of contacting her years ago on Tumblr and asked for her to send photos, the accuse Is not sure it was actually him as it could have apparently been Miles Kane ( or more likely some teenager in his mums basement). The source of the accusations has been lost and large amounts of people are crucifyIng him as a nonce and lashing out at the idea of asking for a shred of evidence as this is bullying the “victims”. Social media is horrific for things like this.

Certain viewpoints like this don't exactly help matters.

 

[fishfingers15]

I think it is fair to say, he knew what he meant when he sent that email. IMO, it is a dick move and unnecessary.

Not sure how you hold the professor to a standard of fairness and you are comfortable with the student being provocative on social media before even she reaches out to the teacher. There's something wrong with you

 

[Wumminator]

Twitter is currently trying to cancel Alex Turner From Arctic Monkeys because of some anonymous account has accused him of contacting her years ago on Tumblr and asked for her to send photos, the accuse Is not sure it was actually him as it could have apparently been Miles Kane ( or more likely some teenager in his mums basement). The source of the accusations has been lost and large amounts of people are crucifyIng him as a nonce and lashing out at the idea of asking for a shred of evidence as this is bullying the “victims”. Social media is horrific for things like this.

I’ve just searched Alex Turner’s name and the top thirty/forty tweets are about how silly this is. There’s no evidence of anyone “cancelling” him whatsoever.

 

[sebsheep]

I’ve just searched Alex Turner’s name and the top thirty/forty tweets are about how silly this is. There’s no evidence of anyone “cancelling” him whatsoever.

It depends when you catch these things, if youre late to the party then you tend to miss the initial outrage and instead catch the fight back.

 

[Synco]

It depends when you catch these things, if youre late to the party then you tend to miss the initial outrage and instead catch the fight back.

Is there any way to reconstruct these initial stages of alleged scandals? Some sort of documentation beyond a few selected tweets? A way to order comments chronologically would help, but it doesn't seem to exist on Twitter and Instagram. I had the same question about the Adele issue.

 

[Synco]

The reason I'm asking is this: there's a fundamental difference if we have a rather limited number of loonies, whose tweets then get amplified way beyond their actual proportion among the crowd, or if we have a real avelanche of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of users aggressively dominating the scene.

If it's the latter, we'd be talking about a mob scenario as it's usually claimed, granted. But if it's the former, we'd be talking more about the manufactured impression of a mob. The issue would then be how social media processes help creating mass hysteria (mostly among the opponents of the alleged mob) by unduly amplifying or promoting specific opinions that trigger responses. Or certain reaction patterns from users that determine which opinions get excessively retweeted and talked about, therefore overrepresented.

(All of this may exist in parallel of course, varying from incident to incident.)

For example, I'm sure that social media related "news" are often deliberately designed this way. Not as part of some masterminded campaign, but through the happy marriage of these sites' economic need for clicks and the ideological need for new scandals among the public.

 

[sebsheep]

Is there any way to reconstruct these initial stages of alleged scandals? Some sort of documentation beyond a few selected tweets? A way to order comments chronologically would help, but it doesn't seem to exist on Twitter and Instagram. I had the same question about the Adele issue.

I'm not sure, I don't mess around with Twitter or Instagram.

 

[Synco]

I'm not sure, I don't mess around with Twitter or Instagram.

Same here. Genuinely find it hard to relate to that universe and determine what's "real" (and in which ways), and what's not.

 

[Smores]

Same here. Genuinely find it hard to relate to that universe and determine what's "real" (and in which ways), and what's not.

Not via the app but the website version does let you do advanced searches which i guess you could use to pinpoint events back. Twitter is basically manufactured so things go viral easily so there's certainly an element of stoking embers.

 

[Synco]

Not via the app but the website version does let you do advanced searches which i guess you could use to pinpoint events back. Twitter is basically manufactured so things go viral easily so there's certainly an element of stoking embers.

Will try it out, thanks. Looks like I'll finally get myself an account, yay.

 

[Gehrman]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ion-air-talent-ahead-new-football-season.html

 

[jojojo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ion-air-talent-ahead-new-football-season.html

I never knew that about "cake walk" - it's not a phrase you often hear. I'm surprised by the derivation.

 

[Marcosdeto]

cancel culture

 

[Mogget]

You're no longer allowed to block people on twitter.

 

[2 man midfield]

I never knew that about "cake walk" - it's not a phrase you often hear. I'm surprised by the derivation.

Same, nitty Gritty as well - I had no idea where they came from. If they have genuine roots in slavery I can see the logic in avoiding them. The ‘whiter than white’ stuff seems a bit much though. It’s got no link to race at all as far as I know.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Same, nitty Gritty as well - I had no idea where they came from. If they have genuine roots in slavery I can see the logic in avoiding them. The ‘whiter than white’ stuff seems a bit much though. It’s got no link to race at all as far as I know.

Some people are trying to move away from using words and phrases pushing that whole white good black bad thing, e.g. some programmers are moving away from using the terms blacklist and whitelist. Not because it's explicitly linked to race or that it's a pressing issue, but just because why not? There are a lot of words and phrases to choose from, we're probably not in dire need of that particular image.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.

 

[jojojo]

Same, nitty Gritty as well - I had no idea where they came from. If they have genuine roots in slavery I can see the logic in avoiding them. The ‘whiter than white’ stuff seems a bit much though. It’s got no link to race at all as far as I know.

I think it's more that in general white words/phrases tend to have positive connotations, black prefixed words/phrases tend to be negative. So if you can get out of the habit of using phrases like, "a black mark against him," it's a good thing.

The other one is the pace and power business. It might be true of a player, but is it really the first thing you'd say about that player if he were white? Typically, it's not and it's reminding broadcasters how easy the stereotyping trap is when you've got ten seconds of air time to fill.

Interestingly, back in the old days of the more blatantly racist 70s/80s some of the first black players to break through were highly skilled wingers. But that just meant they were greeted with a different stereotype - "soft" or "lazy" or whatever, but described more like flashy dancers than the "tough, hardworking pros" in the rest of the team.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

You're no longer allowed to block people on twitter.

Her point about All Lives Matter is spot on as well. He's such a twat.

 

[Brophs]

For a bloke voluntarily right in the middle of it all, Laurence Fox really seems not to understand what 'being cancelled' is.

 

[Kentonio]

When close friends break contact with you over your new political direction, its probably worth taking some time to think about why instead of just leaking your private conversations on Twitter.

 

[Halftrack]

The reason I'm asking is this: there's a fundamental difference if we have a rather limited number of loonies, whose tweets then get amplified way beyond their actual proportion among the crowd, or if we have a real avelanche of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of users aggressively dominating the scene.

If it's the latter, we'd be talking about a mob scenario as it's usually claimed, granted. But if it's the former, we'd be talking more about the manufactured impression of a mob. The issue would then be how social media processes help creating mass hysteria (mostly among the opponents of the alleged mob) by unduly amplifying or promoting specific opinions that trigger responses. Or on certain reaction patterns from users that determine which opinions get excessively retweeted and talked about, therefore overrepresented.

(All of this may exist in parallel of course, varying from incident to incident.)

For example, I'm sure that social media related "news" are often deliberately designed this way. Not as part of some masterminded campaign, but through the happy marriage of these sites' economic need for clicks and the ideological need for new scandals among the public.

Chance often plays a big part. It's really down to whether it catches the eye of the right account, and by that I mean accounts that have enough followers that them interacting with it means thousands more will be exposed to it.

You're no longer allowed to block people on twitter.

Wait, how was anything she wrote racist?

 

[Marcosdeto]

all lives matter

 

[JPRouve]

You're no longer allowed to block people on twitter.

She was probably fed up of his constant whining. I don't know the guy, I have no idea about what he has done professionally and yet he seems to be all over british medias whining about the misery that his life is.

 

[sammsky1]

You're no longer allowed to block people on twitter.

Fox a passive aggressive racist cnut, frustrated cant verbalise his racist views overtly, and frustrated that he is getting canned because he cant admit to being a racist publicly.

Watching people like him become irrelevant publicly is a truly wonderful phenomena.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

Chance often plays a big part. It's really down to whether it catches the eye of the right account, and by that I mean accounts that have enough followers that them interacting with it means thousands more will be exposed to it.

Wait, how was anything she wrote racist?

I'm guessing he's calling Front's line about 'the least we can do is let them have a fecking slogan' racist, as if she's dismissing black people as 'them', worthy only of the BLM branding and nothing else. As far as I can see that's not what she's saying at all; she thinks that's the least black people deserve (you know, maybe they deserve not to be shot dead by police at x-times the rate of white people in the US as well) and is actually calling out the small-mindedness that leads people such as Fox to reframe BLM's MO from something like 'we're sick of being poor relations, it'd be good to have some equality and whatnot' to 'Black lives matter and everyone else's don't matter a fecking jot'. 'Just let them have a slogan' is a patronising and terrible thing to say but the point is it's many times less bad than what Fox and his ilk have decided to do.

 

[2 man midfield]

Some people are trying to move away from using words and phrases pushing that whole white good black bad thing, e.g. some programmers are moving away from using the terms blacklist and whitelist. Not because it's explicitly linked to race or that it's a pressing issue, but just because why not? There are a lot of words and phrases to choose from, we're probably not in dire need of that particular image.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.

I think it's more that in general white words/phrases tend to have positive connotations, black prefixed words/phrases tend to be negative. So if you can get out of the habit of using phrases like, "a black mark against him," it's a good thing.

The other one is the pace and power business. It might be true of a player, but is it really the first thing you'd say about that player if he were white? Typically, it's not and it's reminding broadcasters how easy the stereotyping trap is when you've got ten seconds of air time to fill.

Interestingly, back in the old days of the more blatantly racist 70s/80s some of the first black players to break through were highly skilled wingers. But that just meant they were greeted with a different stereotype - "soft" or "lazy" or whatever, but described more like flashy dancers than the "tough, hardworking pros" in the rest of the team.

I dunno I didn’t know anyone actually cared about it since those phrases refer literally to the colour black, rather than black people. But yeah if any black people are offended by it let’s change it, it doesn’t affect me.

 

[JPRouve]

I dunno I didn’t know anyone actually cared about it since those phrases refer literally to the colour black, rather than black people. But yeah if any black people are offended by it let’s change it, it doesn’t affect me.

As a kid you do wonder but later when I learned about Manichaeism I understood where the concept may come from, it's about darkness(Evil) and light(good). Manichaeism has been a very influential religion and you can see it everywhere.

 

[Halftrack]

I'm guessing he's calling Front's line about 'the least we can do is let them have a fecking slogan' racist, as if she's dismissing black people as 'them', worthy only of the BLM branding and nothing else. As far as I can see that's not what she's saying at all; she thinks that's the least black people deserve (you know, maybe they deserve not to be shot dead by police at x-times the rate of white people in the US as well) and is actually calling out the small-mindedness that leads people such as Fox to reframe BLM's MO from something like 'we're sick of being poor relations, it'd be good to have some equality and whatnot' to 'Black lives matter and everyone else's don't matter a fecking jot'. 'Just let them have a slogan' is a patronising and terrible thing to say but the point is it's many times less bad than what Fox and his ilk have decided to do.

Yeah, I read it as her trying to highlight just how fecking petty and spiteful people like him are.

In context, it requires a bad faith reading to construe it as racist. Which I guess comes naturally to someone who's liable to proclaim "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter."

 

[Marcosdeto]

Yeah, I read it as her trying to highlight just how fecking petty and spiteful people like him are.

In context, it requires a bad faith reading to construe it as racist. Which I guess comes naturally to someone who's liable to proclaim "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter."

 

[Marcosdeto]

"liable to proclaim "All Lives Matter" in response to ´Black Lives Matter.´" i dont understand why is that so bad, i mean, it´s stupidly obvious but is true

 

[sebsheep]

"liable to proclaim "All Lives Matter" in response to ´Black Lives Matter.´" i dont understand why is that so bad, i mean, it´s stupidly obvious but is true

Not entirely sure what you mean there, do you don't understand what's wrong with saying" all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" ?

 

[Marcosdeto]

Not entirely sure what you mean there, do you don't understand what's wrong with saying" all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" ?

yes. I think is stupid, because that´s not the point of the one saying "BLM", but from that to call the other saying ALM a racist, is a long shot

 

[sebsheep]

yes. I think is stupid, because that´s not the point of the one saying "BLM", but from that to call the other saying ALM a racist, is a long shot

It generally comes from where the "all lives matter" response actually same from (or at least where it gained a lot of popularity), coupled with a slight misunderstanding of what the term "black lives matter" is about. The "all lives matter" stuff started being thrown about by far/alt-right groups who were suggesting that the "black lives matter" saying was suggesting that white lives don't, it's why you sometimes see "white lives matter too" stuff being banded about.
The "black lives matter" message was that black lives matter too, exactly the same as all other lives. The problem is they're not always treated as if they do so that's why it's worded the way it is.

 

[Marcosdeto]

It generally comes from where the "all lives matter" response actually same from (or at least where it gained a lot of popularity), coupled with a slight misunderstanding of what the term "black lives matter" is about. The "all lives matter" stuff started being thrown about by far/alt-right groups who were suggesting that the "black lives matter" saying was suggesting that white lives don't, it's why you sometimes see "white lives matter too" stuff being banded about.
The "black lives matter" message was that black lives matter too, exactly the same as all other lives. The problem is they're not always treated as if they do so that's why it's worded the way it is.

thank you

 

[NotThatSoph]

thank you

There's a common analogy that I think is pretty helpful.

Say you and a group order pizza together and split the bill. The pizza gets sent around, but before it reaches you all the slices are taken. You're understandably annoyed, and hungry. The next time it happens again, and now you speak up. This is unfair, you're paying like everyone else and you should get to eat pizza. The response you get is that you all should get pizza.

This response is both unhelpful and stupid, and even more it's quite malicious. Of course everyone should get pizza, that's the point. You're a group, and you're all paying. But they all are getting their pizza while you're not. It's also a response that is anti you more than the general principle they pretend it to be, because they're only saying that everyone should get pizza because you're saying that you should get a slice, and they're not actually doing anything to solve your hunger.

 

[Marcosdeto]

very well put, thank you NotThatSoph

 

[Blodssvik]

Need to cancel this airbnb host.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

Need to cancel this airbnb host.

They will be appearing on a hidden camera show very soon. ArrrgghhBnB or some such.