Cancel Culture

AkaAkuma said:
I watch a broad selection of things, I try to understand peoples positions rather than judging based on what group they belong to.

Ive watched some Shapiro, he's clever (Im reluctant to say intelligent) but having watched his interview with Haidt I realise he's just an entrenched voice, he constantly asks Haidt if the left are more responsible for xyz. He's just chasing the money.
Click to expand...

Likewise, unfortunately for some people the fact that you even entertain the idea of clicking a Shapiro video to try and understand his points of views is cancellable...
I watch Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar, Vaush and a couple of other hard left content, but its funny, the same level of outrage is not displayed if admitting to watching them, even if they have some pretty extreme opinions. This very site is a fine example to see what is generally acceptable and what is not..
 
dumbo said:
Cancel culture is really really real. If you don't believe me answer me this: did this man's songs get worse after 1997?

0_JS195213234.jpg


No. Yet his career was destroyed. He is almost never played on radio anymore. He can't get a job gigging. He lost most of his royalty income. He faced endless hateful attacks and ridicule. He was hounded out of his job and then the country. He was Cancelled. He was Cancelled worse than anyone since Jesus.

He is a free man, he served his time and he has still lost everything to Cancel Culture.

This is your crusade. He is on your team. Stand up for him please.
Click to expand...

Why is this fecking dirty nonces face being posted here!:confused:
 
Berbasbullet said:
I think it’d be more helpful if ‘cancel culture’ was simply renamed ‘consequence culture’ to explain actually what is going on.
Click to expand...

fine, but the problem with consequence culture is that theres no self reflection.

starman said:
Likewise, unfortunately for some people the fact that you even entertain the idea of clicking a Shapiro video to try and understand his points of views is cancellable...
I watch Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar, Vaush and a couple of other hard left content, but its funny, the same level of outrage is not displayed if admitting to watching them, even if they have some pretty extreme opinions. This very site is a fine example to see what is generally acceptable and what is not..
Click to expand...

Thanks for the original post on Haidt, I watched his discussion with Peterson last night, was an interesting watch.
 
starman said:
Likewise, unfortunately for some people the fact that you even entertain the idea of clicking a Shapiro video to try and understand his points of views is cancellable...
I watch Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar, Vaush and a couple of other hard left content, but its funny, the same level of outrage is not displayed if admitting to watching them, even if they have some pretty extreme opinions. This very site is a fine example to see what is generally acceptable and what is not..
Click to expand...
What are Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar or Vaush's extreme opinions that are comparable to Ben Shapiro saying "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" or talking about the "militant homosexual agenda" to pick just two examples?
 
I love how so many people thought dumbo was being serious. It's dumbo FFS.
 
starman said:
I am sorry for expecting a coherent explanation, and not the ramblings of a madman, you weren't scouted by dumbo by any chance?
Click to expand...

Even if someone for some weird reason would find my funny joke unfunny it's still extremely easy to understand, so that failure is all on you. Your question is very interesting, though. Why would you be interested in the background of someone you've lost interest in? That is a conundrum.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
again, she didn’t say anything. She didn’t want to put up her pro nouns. They hounded her and hounded her. 6 months of death threats, rape threats and calling her boot lick racist. And no one said anything about it. She was right when she called them out. The fact you (and others all over the internet)are still repeating the misinformation a month after the fact about what she did speaks volumes about how cancel culture works.

6 months of death threats, rape threats, and general abuse. And people were fine with it. So she was right. They normalised abusing her because of politics just like the nazis normalised abusing Jews. That doesn’t mean she thinks shes like the Jews. It means that that people online are acting like nazis, and the people who say nothing have been convinced it’s fine that she should be treated that way.

I don’t agree with her politics. I don’t think she’s a very good actress. And I don’t think she’ll be missed from Star Wars. But to accept that it’s ok to abuse her like that for months is bullshit, in my opinion. And to then punish her further when she calls that treatment out is, well, pretty horrible.
Click to expand...
How is literally quoting someone's words 'misinformation'? You seem keen to defend what she said because you believe that your take on it is the only correct one.

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…. even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"

I'd say it's pretty obvious what the differences are, and you'd have to be pretty thick not to. Mainly: You aren't born with political views. People aren't" rounding up" people they disagree with politically, let alone exterminating them in their millions. Neither are they doing this to people simply because they are descended from people with certain political views. Saying you disagree with someone's politics isn't the same as hating someone.

All in all its a pretty stupid comparison, which is probably why she tried to back pedal on it later. She probably could have saved her job with Disney by thinking for a minute or two about the connotations of what she was about to broadcast to millions of people.

As for the people who attacked her: I'm fairly sure most people are actually with you on this one, and are relatively anti-rape and death threats. In fact there are laws against issuing rape and death threats. So it's not that nobody cares. I'm sure if the employers of those people tweeting the threats found out, they'd lose their jobs in a heartbeat and face a potential criminal record. So please don't try to make out this is so one-sided and unjust.
 
Barely read a post in here, but has the cafe concluded yet that this is a dumb term for something thats been around for like 200,000 years? Give or take a few hundred thousand years, dependant on when you think humans started walking the earth that is.
 
If Owen Jones is ‘hard left’ then the ‘hard left’ are tame as hell.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I love how so many people thought dumbo was being serious. It's dumbo FFS.
Click to expand...
It's hard to believe anyone ever takes me seriously. However the central argument I was making: that the "Cancelling" of Gary Glitter is not of a different variety of Cancelling than that which is being objected to in this thread and more widely in society (such as in the case of Rowling, Peterson, and the deplatforming of other racists, misogynists, anti-trans types).

No one has yet shown me where the error is in the argument. And "but he's a pedo" or "dumbo is a shit scout/poster/person and I hope he dies" do not refute the argument. Even if they are true and reasonable positions in and of themselves.

Gary Glitter was Cancelled and this is the hill guys. Build your fox hole around him.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
“but he’s a pedo” obviously refutes the argument. The whole deal with cancel culture is real life consensus for opinions that others dislike or disagree with. Not real life consensus for breaking the law (never mind having sex with children). Real life consequences for breaking the law (and/or committing actual atrocities) is a terrible example of someone being cancelled.

Next you’ll be saying Hitler was cancelled.
Click to expand...
I posted the definition up the page, take a look.

I'm not just going by my whatever is convenient definition.
 
starman said:
I can't believe you are actual staff here....the guy is a convicted pedo, a dangerous individual, and he is your example, ffs :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you’re questioning someone’s position based on an opinion they posted online. Tut tut. :D
 
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
What are Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar or Vaush's extreme opinions that are comparable to Ben Shapiro saying "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" or talking about the "militant homosexual agenda" to pick just two examples?
Click to expand...

I dont know any of the quotes you have just listed, so will just take your word for it. I am not a rabid viewer of any to be pulling out quotes other than Ash "iam basically a communist", but they all ramp up identity politics into every angle.
Vaush has the same rambling Shapiro style, didn't he out himself as a paedo apologist recently? And has some weird opinions on how extensive the holocaust actually was.
Owen Jones, recently had a guest on his youtube channel to discuss free speech, called Nesrine, and its just a mess, she basically says "we" (as in people in her same thought space) should define what free speech is and if you don't agree we will shut down your speech and he's just agreeing with it, no push back.

 
There is a real irresponsibility to the inconsistent, casual pick and choosers who sight "Cancel Culture" as a modern ill. Not to mention malicious ones.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
no she didn’t, she compared the actions of twitter users to nazis. Like I said in a previous post, context and nuance are ignored so as to paint some one in whatever light they like. Cancel culture is weaponised ostracism. People love to tear down their heroes. So it never takes much to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

That's really not any better if you think about it. Comparing some people being rude on Twitter to what happened during the holocaust is absurd and offensive. Those two things are nothing alike and you know she's doing it to try to paint liberals/the left as "nazis". She's a cnut of the highest order based on her twitter comments, the fact that some random people are being rude doesn't change the fact she was way out of line.

dumbo said:
Cancel culture is really really real. If you don't believe me answer me this: did this man's songs get worse after 1997?

0_JS195213234.jpg


No. Yet his career was destroyed. He is almost never played on radio anymore. He can't get a job gigging. He lost most of his royalty income. He faced endless hateful attacks and ridicule. He was hounded out of his job and then the country. He was Cancelled. He was Cancelled worse than anyone since Jesus.

He is a free man, he served his time and he has still lost everything to Cancel Culture.

This is your crusade. He is on your team. Stand up for him please.
Click to expand...

No idea who that is. Must be a Brit thing?
 
Of course boycotts have been around since before social media, but the thing that’s new about it as far as I can see is the bar for what merits one has been lowered, and secondly how in extreme cases people will weaponise it to suit an existing agenda.

I totally agree with taking your money elsewhere and voting with your feet when someone says or does something racist or homophobic etc. Someone mentioned Mel Gibson as an example of someone hit by it, but to me that’s not cancel culture - the guy is a known basket case who has said some awful, racist things. And even if he hadn’t, people have a right to vote with their feet and boycott anyone for any reason they see fit. It’s a free country. You shouldn’t even need a reason.

However where I think cancel culture can be quite toxic, is when someone has already decided they don’t like you, (e.g because they disagree with you politically say) and try to get you cancelled because of it. That’s where the mobs can get quite ugly, and they know it works because companies have caved in time and time again to appease them. I think companies should maintain some perspective and actually evaluate what the person has done, and not how many retweets a call for their firing has.
 
decorativeed said:
How is literally quoting someone's words 'misinformation'? You seem keen to defend what she said because you believe that your take on it is the only correct one.

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…. even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"

I'd say it's pretty obvious what the differences are, and you'd have to be pretty thick not to. Mainly: You aren't born with political views. People aren't" rounding up" people they disagree with politically, let alone exterminating them in their millions. Neither are they doing this to people simply because they are descended from people with certain political views. Saying you disagree with someone's politics isn't the same as hating someone.

All in all its a pretty stupid comparison, which is probably why she tried to back pedal on it later. She probably could have saved her job with Disney by thinking for a minute or two about the connotations of what she was about to broadcast to millions of people.

As for the people who attacked her: I'm fairly sure most people are actually with you on this one, and are relatively anti-rape and death threats. In fact there are laws against issuing rape and death threats. So it's not that nobody cares. I'm sure if the employers of those people tweeting the threats found out, they'd lose their jobs in a heartbeat and face a potential criminal record. So please don't try to make out this is so one-sided and unjust.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. "its fairly obvious what she meant.". Apparently its not. Since everyone has gone out of their way to ignore what she meant. And yes, I am keen to point it out because its a shitty culture that we are allowing to happen. "We know what you really meant" has been used for a long time to screw people over. And now people can point a finger at you, and youre just guilty. Thats it. How do you prove youre not a racist? You cant, anything you say just digs the hole deeper. How do you say youre not sexist? You cant, you just dig the hole deeper. Say nothing, youre guilty. Defend yourself, youre guilty. She clarified what she meant. It didnt matter, now she was a liar as well. Because you can never defend yourself once youve been accused in todays world. And that should scare the living shit out of us all.

If people agreed with me, then we wouldnt be here. 6 months of being constantly attacked. 6 months of no one saying anything. Thats the context of her post about the nazis, nazi neighbours and jews. And this where my other pet hate comes in of people ignore context, and the nuance of an argument. "How is that different from hating someone for their political views?". Its a good question, how is it that we can be fine with people hating like that for no other reason than religion or politics? Death threats and rape threats on line are horrible. Yet it seems that because shes right wing, its ok. Its ok to attack people like that because they are sub human? Isnt that what the nazis did? They convinced people that jews were sub human so it was to treat them like that? Isnt that what they slave owners in America did to black people? Isnt that why still today they word most used to dehumanise black people is still so offensive? 6 months of daily abuse, and no one cared. But as soon as she brings up nazis and jews everyone cant be more interested.

Like I said, Im not a fan of hers or her politics. But the treatment she got was bullshit in my opinion. She didnt want to do the pro nouns thing and that was it. They were going to get her one way of another. And they got her.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
No idea who that is. Must be a Brit thing?
Click to expand...

He was a celebrity that fell foul of the lefty, PC, woke, trans rights activist agenda, and was Cancelled due to Cancel Culture. He was also briefly a resident at Her Majesties Pleasure.

He is also disgusting so the heroic anti-woke lot refuse to own him or his cause.

When they packaged everything up into one reductive, irresponsible phrase, often used to target specific marginalized people they accidentally included him.

Basically he's an inconvenience.
 
Berbasbullet said:
I find it interesting that you’re questioning someone’s position based on an opinion they posted online. Tut tut. :D
Click to expand...

Don't understand your point, whats questioning got to do with the essence of this thread, questioning happens in every reply. You just made a post further up about "consequence culture", I am not asking for him to be cancelled, deplatformed or whatever buzzword, I thought it was a weird post, regardless of being used as a joke.
 
starman said:
Don't understand your point, whats questioning got to do with the essence of this thread. You just made a post further up about "consequence culture", I am not asking for him to be cancelled, I thought it was a weird post, regardless of being used as a joke.
Click to expand...
Relax buddy just making a joke.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
again, she didn’t say anything. She didn’t want to put up her pro nouns. They hounded her and hounded her. 6 months of death threats, rape threats and calling her boot lick racist. And no one said anything about it. She was right when she called them out. The fact you (and others all over the internet)are still repeating the misinformation a month after the fact about what she did speaks volumes about how cancel culture works.

6 months of death threats, rape threats, and general abuse. And people were fine with it. So she was right. They normalised abusing her because of politics just like the nazis normalised abusing Jews. That doesn’t mean she thinks shes like the Jews. It means that that people online are acting like nazis, and the people who say nothing have been convinced it’s fine that she should be treated that way.

I don’t agree with her politics. I don’t think she’s a very good actress. And I don’t think she’ll be missed from Star Wars. But to accept that it’s ok to abuse her like that for months is bullshit, in my opinion. And to then punish her further when she calls that treatment out is, well, pretty horrible.
Click to expand...
Why was her not putting her “pronouns” even brought up? Like what even started that?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's really not any better if you think about it. Comparing some people being rude on Twitter to what happened during the holocaust is absurd and offensive. Those two things are nothing alike and you know she's doing it to try to paint liberals/the left as "nazis". She's a cnut of the highest order based on her twitter comments, the fact that some random people are being rude doesn't change the fact she was way out of line.
Click to expand...

6 months of death threats and rape threats is a bit more than being rude. But are we really ready to start allowing this kind of abuse of people because of hyperbole?
 
Schmeichel's Cartwheel said:
Why was her not putting her “pronouns” even brought up? Like what even started that?
Click to expand...

I dont know the whole story. But it goes something like this. Twitter people started putting up pro nouns next to their tags. It was because of the whole people being non binary and trans. He/him, she/her, they/them. People on her twitter kept telling her to put her pro nouns up on her tag. She refused as she didnt get it. They kept on hassling her, and in the end she put up beep bop boop or something like that. That was when she pretty much fecked herself. And the twitter people decided that she was making fun of trans and non binary people. She says she wasnt, she just didnt get it. Her co star, Pedro Pascal is big supporter of the pro nouns and the LGBT community in general because his brother or sister is trans. I cant remember which way they transitioned. But they are trans in any case. So Pedro took Gina aside and explained the importance of pro nouns to Gina and she accept it. She went on twitter said sorry, she didnt get it but she does now and thanked Pedro. And at this point Im really hating myself for knowing all of this. Its such terrible soap opera drama.

Anyway, that should have been the end of it but it wasnt and they just kept going after her. And that was how we ended up with "that post". I think it started in June or July, ramped up over August and September with accusations of racism. It was a long time.
 
She also was publicly liking Tweets by people who were making fun of trans people who had pronouns in their profiles.

As well as tweets on other topics keeping the "spotlight" on her up until her Instagram post.
 
2 man midfield said:
Of course boycotts have been around since before social media, but the thing that’s new about it as far as I can see is the bar for what merits one has been lowered, and secondly how in extreme cases people will weaponise it to suit an existing agenda.

I totally agree with taking your money elsewhere and voting with your feet when someone says or does something racist or homophobic etc. Someone mentioned Mel Gibson as an example of someone hit by it, but to me that’s not cancel culture - the guy is a known basket case who has said some awful, racist things. And even if he hadn’t, people have a right to vote with their feet and boycott anyone for any reason they see fit. It’s a free country. You shouldn’t even need a reason.

However where I think cancel culture can be quite toxic, is when someone has already decided they don’t like you, (e.g because they disagree with you politically say) and try to get you cancelled because of it. That’s where the mobs can get quite ugly, and they know it works because companies have caved in time and time again to appease them. I think companies should maintain some perspective and actually evaluate what the person has done, and not how many retweets a call for their firing has.
Click to expand...

This is where the obligatatory Dixie Chicks mention comes in, or, failing that, L.A. Law, Star Trek. If we want to hit all the buttons, then Salt of the Earth.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
I dont know the whole story. But it goes something like this. Twitter people started putting up pro nouns next to their tags. It was because of the whole people being non binary and trans. He/him, she/her, they/them. People on her twitter kept telling her to put her pro nouns up on her tag. She refused as she didnt get it. They kept on hassling her, and in the end she put up beep bop boop or something like that. That was when she pretty much fecked herself. And the twitter people decided that she was making fun of trans and non binary people. She says she wasnt, she just didnt get it. Her co star, Pedro Pascal is big supporter of the pro nouns and the LGBT community in general because his brother or sister is trans. I cant remember which way they transitioned. But they are trans in any case. So Pedro took Gina aside and explained the importance of pro nouns to Gina and she accept it. She went on twitter said sorry, she didnt get it but she does now and thanked Pedro. And at this point Im really hating myself for knowing all of this. Its such terrible soap opera drama.

Anyway, that should have been the end of it but it wasnt and they just kept going after her. And that was how we ended up with "that post". I think it started in June or July, ramped up over August and September with accusations of racism. It was a long time.
Click to expand...

Now this is strange. If you don't know the story then presumably you'd check, right? I didn't, so I did. She talked to Pedro Pascal, who has a trans sister, and then she understood the request. Then, after understanding why people were allegedly asking for pronouns in her bio, she chose to purposefully make fun of them by putting in "beep/bop/boop".
 
hobbers said:
I like how rabid basement trolls throwing around rape and death threats at women on twitter has finally been put into context for what it always has been: It's just a bit of rudeness. Grow a backbone and deal with it.
Click to expand...

Kind of like The General in the early days.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Now this is strange. If you don't know the story then presumably you'd check, right? I didn't, so I did. She talked to Pedro Pascal, who has a trans sister, and then she understood the request. Then, after understanding why people were allegedly asking for pronouns in her bio, she chose to purposefully make fun of them by putting in "beep/bop/boop".
Click to expand...

I said I dont know the whole story. Is there some reason you just misrepresented what I said?

I dont know how the pro nouns going in the tag started. The beep/bop/boop came before the conversation with pedro. Thats why its not there anymore.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
I said I dont know the whole story. Is there some reason you just misrepresented what I said?

I dont know how the pro nouns going in the tag started. The beep/bop/boop came before the conversation with pedro. Thats why its not there anymore.
Click to expand...

I misrepresented you not knowing the main part of the story as you not knowing the story, yes, I take full responsibility for that.

Why do you believe that the beep/bop/boop came before the conversation?
 
NotThatSoph said:
I misrepresented you not knowing the main part of the story as you not knowing the story, yes, I take full responsibility for that.

Why do you believe that the beep/bop/boop came before the conversation?
Click to expand...

How is 'why did twitter users start put pro nouns in" the main part of the story?

Ehx-cWiVkAA_qOQ


39152390-9248331-image-a-54_1613024436952.jpg


Notice the dates?
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, I notice the date where beep/bop/boop comes after the conversation with Pascal. Why do you think she added it before?
Click to expand...

So its there, and shes telling people that she had the conversation. The next day its gone. But if you have something that says otherwise, by all means.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
So its there, and shes telling people that she had the conversation. The next day its gone. But if you have something that says otherwise, by all means.
Click to expand...

The fact that the first ever mention of beep/bop/boop came after the first ever tweet mentioning Pedro Pascal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.