Cancel Culture… can we talk about it (isn’t it just boycotts)?

[Week]

I'm gladdened to see the 'cancel culture' thread has devolved into whinging about outrage among the twitterati. That's a more appropriate level of seriousness and levity for the current state. At least for as far as 'cancel culture' concern trolls are concerned. Any thoughts about the Green M&M? Too sexy? Not sexy enough?

There's far more to be concerned about with the anti-CRT laws, book banning, book burning, etc.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

You know my favorite example of "cancel culture" comes from the making of the live action version of Mulan, of all things. There's a song in the original animated film, called "I'm going to make a man out of you", which makes sense, given the premise of the movie, is a woman disguising herself as a man to fight in the military. For some daft reason, the creators of the live action version of this movie viewed this song as "sexist" and had it removed, which in turn came back to bite them in the ass, when they suddenly got accused by the twitter mob of being transphopic. I know part of it has to do with the fact that they remove Shang's attraction to Mulan's male alter ego, Ping, which was a pretty stupid thing to remove in and of itself. Just feels like we live in a overly hyper sensitive world, where no matter what you do, you're viewed as a monster. I mean I personally thought the changes were stupid, but nothing compares to the idiotic idea of removing Mushu the dragon from the film.

 

Not sure I see the problem here. Groups of people complaining about something is far from new. There was a huge campaign against Dungeons and Dragons decades ago, long before Twitter. And the game is still going strong I'm happy to report.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Not sure I see the problem here. Groups of people complaining about something is far from new. There was a huge campaign against Dungeons and Dragons decades ago, long before Twitter. And the game is still going strong I'm happy to report.

Was it just how horrible that film was, because it's up there with one of the worst ever made. Don't get me wrong, it's the greatest performance Jeremy Irons has ever given in a film, but it's up there with the Mario Brothers and Tank Girl, when it comes to the worst adaptations ever made. Naturally they're so horrible, that me and my friends love them, so at least there's that.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Week said:

I'm gladdened to see the 'cancel culture' thread has devolved into whinging about outrage among the twitterati. That's a more appropriate level of seriousness and levity for the current state. At least for as far as 'cancel culture' concern trolls are concerned. Any thoughts about the Green M&M? Too sexy? Not sexy enough?

There's far more to be concerned about with the anti-CRT laws, book banning, book burning, etc.

I’m sure we can all agree that all book burning is bad right?

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

Yet, twitter still found a way to hate it and tried to boycott it, for pretty stupid reasons, most of which don't make sense. This is the world we live in thanks to social media. By trying to be kind to one group of people by making something, you somehow, someway, find away to hurt another groups feelings. It honestly must feel like walking on eggshells whenever you make a movie or tv show these days.

For those of us who never use Twitter, can you be more clear about what you mean in the above? Did the Twitter company actually boycott this, or is it just that some people who post on Twitter advocated a boycott? 

If it's the latter, I wonder if in some sense people are being too sensitive about the fact that there will always be someone who criticizes whatever someone does. With the millions of users on Twitter, there will always be those criticizing others for trivial reasons. They should just be ignored. Why is what people say on Twitter that important?

[sifth]

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

For those of us who never use Twitter, can you be more clear about what you mean in the above? Did the Twitter company actually boycott this, or is it just that some people who post on Twitter advocated a boycott? 

If it's the latter, I wonder if in some sense people are being too sensitive about the fact that there will always be someone who criticizes whatever someone does. With the millions of users on Twitter, there will always be those criticizing others for trivial reasons. They should just be ignored. Why is what people say on Twitter that important?

I meant the twitter mobs, that try to find petty and stupid reasons to hate almost everything. Not to mention websites that think it's worth their time and ours to post articles about twitter mobs being angry over these stupid and petty things, to further generate this artificially generated hate. Same with youtube videos, that make a big deal about these tweets, that only exist to further generate this hate over pointless things. It's a stupid cycle that only exists, because of social media.

[Durckad]

11 minutes ago, sifth said:

Was it just how horrible that film was, because it's up there with one of the worst ever made. Don't get me wrong, it's the greatest performance Jeremy Irons has ever given in a film, but it's up there with the Mario Brothers and Tank Girl, when it comes to the worst adaptations ever made. Naturally they're so horrible, that me and my friends love them, so at least there's that.

Not the movie, the tabletop game itself.

The campaign against D&D was fundamentally baked into the "satanic panic" of the '80's. The whole "movement" spawned a couple of things; the infamous Chick Tract Dark Dungeons and Mazes & Monsters a horrible Tom Hanks movie from the 80's, and was, I guess, tangentially related to the PMRC's crusade against "immoral" music. Look up BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) if you're more interested in the topic. Behind The Bastards also did a pair of episodes on The Satanic Panic. Ironically, a lot of the "claims" made by those involved in the satanic panic have "evolved" into Qanon which just goes to show how fecund a lot of these beliefs can be.

As for "cancel culture" as a broad topic, I'm pretty torn on it as a general issue.

I think that it is a good thing that we as consumers have the power to hold the rich and the powerful (who invariably have greater public platforms than any of us) somewhat accountable for the often very bad things they do and say. Whether this is down to boycotting or public shaming, I don't really see a downside to this.

I do think that, in general, the Terminally Online Twitterati take this good thing to an utterly stupid extreme, either by focusing on inane bullshit topics or engaging in circle jerk purity tests. This can also be hijacked by bad actors to try to take down their supposed "enemies." See James Gunn, the various controversies surrounding Contra Points and Lindsey Ellis. This, I think, is less a problem with "cancel culture" as whole and more problem of social media, Twitter specifically. The anonymous ubiquity of social media has made venomous and bad-faith criticism so much easier to propagate and get into the general sphere of public discourse. At this point, I'm 110% a-okay with just nuking Twitter and Facebook from orbit. It's the only way to be sure at this point.

But even without social media, I think history shows we will still have Cancel Culture. Whether its the Dixie Chicks or Bill Maher getting cancelled by the "free speech-loving right" for their unAmerican transgressions against the Pro-Bush and anti-Muslim right-think of the time, or the Moral Majority attempting to blame society's ills on D&D, drugs, and rock and roll, the many Red Scares over the past century and a half, or, on the smaller, more local scale, the various types of social stigmatization and bullying encountered in small towns and/or schools (ie slut shaming or whatever other act that the local community views as "morally bad"), these will always exist. Social media just makes it worse and turns it less into a "hold the rich and powerful to account" and more into a type of public performance art.

[IFR]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Ok but I'm not aware of any examples of "cancel culture" where professors are being fired from universities for anything like "teaching Jewish science."  Unless you can provide and explain such instances, this comparison is meritless and needlessly provocative (not to mention at least somewhat offensive).

I was specifically alluding to Lenard v Einstein, and the later expulsion of professors in 1933. My memory had it that it initially was through public coercion (at the time, hundreds of scientists had written in opposition to Jewish science), but the firings were indeed due to a law instated at the time.

Here is a really good article on it.

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Moreover, you're still suggesting it by maintaining that "cancel culture" is a tool of "social engineering" and that the extreme end of such social engineering is genocide.  I think that's a bullshit association and it clearly is what you're saying, repeatedly.

The Nazi policy was that of eugenics, which was the intent to engineer humans into a superior state. Genocide requires social approval. If the Nazi policies had no support, there would be no power. The Nazis would never have come into power, or have maintained power. Controlling information and how it is propagated (eg propaganda) is an important aspect of ensuring sufficient support for given policies.

Legal persecution because of a belief or beliefs is a state tool. Propaganda is usually a tool of the state, too, but it can be employed commercially too.

Cancel culture is a public tool. 

The purpose of all of these tools, however, is to control the access of information to reduce the weight of a given idea, or to lend weight to opposing ideas. I call this social engineering. I have said, repeatedly, that they have that in common: eliminate free speech and engineer society to a given ideological direction.

When I first posted in this thread, it was prompted by my recollection of the events regarding Lenard. I also recalled events involving Stalin and the Bolsheviks attempting to publicly pressure the removal Nobel oil in Azerbaijan for the purpose of lending more dominance to communism; and the Iranian Cultural Revolution. I recalled reading of preliminary cases where businesses were shut down and people silenced due to public and financial pressures.

I didn't reread my sources or do an in-depth bit of research because I wasn't trying to get into a huge debate about this issue; I simply thought it would be fun to contribute a few random thoughts to a comment I enjoyed.

When prompted on my comment, I provided such an example. It was, in fact, based on an incorrect memory (and in fact all of those cases were pressures due not to financial or public coercion, but military threat) but I did offer it in good faith.

At any rate, while I certainly am re-evaluating the idea that public and commercial pressure has historically preceeded government action in the special case of genocidical movements, I still am of the opinion that engaging in social movements to deplatform the expression of ideas is not a good thing. I disapprove of it, regardless of what ideology motivates the movement (the many organized attempts by right wing religious groups to cancel music or movies for their content, or the attempts by liberal groups to "cancel" individuals like Rogan or Chapelle because they said something that the groups view as offensive, etc).

Clearly the prevailing sentiment on this thread is that your peers are idiots and they need to be protected from ideas that you view as harmful (I'm not even being sarcastic or hyperbolic here: this has actually been stated a few times in this thread).

In short, I disagree, and think that's an audacious position. And I haven't found any point in this thread that has been particularly persuasive in arguing for that position.

15 hours ago, DMC said:

I'd also like to point out that this is a topic about "cancel culture," which has nothing to do with state action.  Efforts by the public to "deplatform" other individuals or groups is in fact exercising freedom of expression in and of itself.

I've never suggested otherwise.

16 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

genocides - actual real ones - have a pretty decent history of exploiting democratic viewpoints like free speech and assembly in order to forward highly illiberal and bigoted views.

Sure. It is a risk when allowing free expression: that which you like is allowed, and that which you do not is also allowed.

Furthermore, in the domain of unrestricted free expression there is an element restrict free expression. And so another risk of allowing free expression is that it allows the idea of restricting free expression to also take hold and gain momentum.

But it's important to also point out that genocides flourish where free expression is heavily suppressed. 

@Varysblackfyre321

Since I politely requested you drop your logical fallacy (which I noted could be considered offensive), you not only rebuffed my request, you gleefully doubled down. You have been unpleasant and insulting for no better reason than you disagree with one of my opinions, which is that free speech should be permitted (I have never expressed endorsement for the objectionable viewpoints that would be protected). I understand you are being governed by your emotions, and so I do not feel offended, but this behavior of yours certainly eliminates any interest I might have in engaging you with further discourse. Speak with courtesy and I will respond in turn (with courtesy, as always).

 

[Zorral]

Nobody's mentioning what may have been the ur-cancel event of our times, the cancelation literally of the Dixie Chicks, not least of which involved the country radio stations halting the playing of their music.  And unlike the 'professor of Jewish Science' that was cited as someone never canceled by a university, the Dixie Chicks weren't even canceled because of their music by the music profession, but because of what they thought, and for speaking their minds.

Edited to add -- oops somebody did mention the Dixie Chicks above!

[HoodedCrow]

I was so incensed by the Dixie Chicks that I bought their music after that event. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, IFR said:

It is a risk when allowing free expression: that which you like is allowed, and that which you do not is also allowed.

What then is the remedy for when what you like is not allowed?  Such as criticism of anti-semitic and other overtly toxic racist thinking that includes the removal of these critics not only from the polity but literally execution?  Just as they express overtly that correct thinking is to execute all of the people the anti-semitic and toxic racism wishes to execute?

What I've seen throughout all of history, is that it is only the people about whom it is expressed they do not belong to whatever polity -- the Cathars by the Roman Church, Jews in Austria, African Americans in the US -- and those who advocate for them and tolerance -- are literally silenced with everything from wrecking printing presses to outright murder.  Not the people who express belief in and support for destruction and murder.  Nor are those who destroy and murder punished.

[sologdin]

 twitter still found a way to hate it 

one thing that's troublesome about these discussions is this particular usage, which compels a hyperbolic inference.  twitter has 400M users, or so.  if ten or a hundred or a thousand or even hundred thousand users complain about something, that's all statistically de minimis and not really indicative of a weight of opinion that might cause concern--unlike the more sweeping inference.

[sifth]

21 minutes ago, sologdin said:

 twitter still found a way to hate it 

one thing that's troublesome about these discussions is this particular usage, which compels a hyperbolic inference.  twitter has 400M users, or so.  if ten or a hundred or a thousand or even hundred thousand users complain about something, that's all statistically de minimis and not really indicative of a weight of opinion that might cause concern--unlike the more sweeping inference.

It was enough hate to get dozens if not hundreds of articles and youtube vids, all over a non issue. Mostly to generate artificial hate and forcing people to apologize over something they clear as day didn't do. If it's only ten people hating on something on twitter and that's it, I have no issue with it.

[IFR]

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What then is the remedy for when what you like is not allowed?

I don't think there is a solution. I think human nature is a fairly static thing. There really is nothing new under the sun when it comes to the philosophy of a utopia. The only thing that has changed is technology, which amplifies the extent in which these philosophies and their components can be expressed.

I think people are drawn to destruction. I think as technology improves, so will that capacity for destruction. Social engineering will play a part of this. As our understanding of neuroscience and human behavior improves, our understanding of how to control people will increase and be abused.

Further, I think the significant geopolitical shifts we'll likely see due to the effects of climate change will continue to push societies down a despotic path. The massive arm of corporations and their control of public communication will grow and become more integral to how we interact with each other and the world. Corporations and governments have always had a quasi-incestuous relationship with each other, and I do think that will continue. Surety in information will continue to decrease. I can see cancel culture being manipulated into this formula.

Humans like to group other humans into categories, and persecute those in the group they dislike. Governments have and will continue to capitalize on this.

I think that this is an outcome that will be virtually impossible to avoid. I don't know if regulation or deregulation of information will fast track this.

My belief is that humans are fundamentally creatures of annihilation. And that's what we will continue to see.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, sifth said:

22 minutes ago, sologdin said:

It was enough hate to get dozens if not hundreds of articles and youtube vids, all over a non issue

Dozens and hundreds at of what? Billions of others?

From some quick googling I found hundreds of hour worth of content are uploaded on YouTube a day.

And yeah some people will write about the “outrage” caused on social media in regards to anything.

[Kalbear]

51 minutes ago, IFR said:

My belief is that humans are fundamentally creatures of annihilation. And that's what we will continue to see.

This is a very weird belief to hold when also espousing that humans should be able to say whatever they want without government or nongovernmental reprisal. It is in fact distinctly more misanthropic than claiming most people are stupid in that it effectively states all humans are bad AND they cannot particularly change.

So if you hold that humans are tribal, destructive, and violent - why would you want to make it easier for them to encourage harm to others?

[Larry of the Lawn]

As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be a better way.  

[sologdin]

realized there had to be a better way

to the monsters we're the monsters.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, IFR said:

I was specifically alluding to Lenard v Einstein, and the later expulsion of professors in 1933. My memory had it that it initially was through public coercion (at the time, hundreds of scientists had written in opposition to Jewish science), but the firings were indeed due to a law instated at the time.

I know what you were referring to, my point is you have still not provided any reasoning for why you are employing such a loaded comparison of this to "cancel culture."  What, precisely, is the example in current "cancel culture" that you think is comparable to this?

3 hours ago, IFR said:

At any rate, while I certainly am re-evaluating the idea that public and commercial pressure has historically preceeded government action in the special case of genocidical movements, I still am of the opinion that engaging in social movements to deplatform the expression of ideas is not a good thing. I disapprove of it, regardless of what ideology motivates the movement (the many organized attempts by right wing religious groups to cancel music or movies for their content, or the attempts by liberal groups to "cancel" individuals like Rogan or Chapelle because they said something that the groups view as offensive, etc).

Clearly the prevailing sentiment on this thread is that your peers are idiots and they need to be protected from ideas that you view as harmful (I'm not even being sarcastic or hyperbolic here: this has actually been stated a few times in this thread).

You would not have gotten the pushback you received - at least definitely not from me and I suspect from most others - if you just said this instead of raising (then defending) the "genocide" aspect.  I think that's clearly fallacious from a logical standpoint, and obviously any attempt to associate (however remote) "cancel culture" with genocide is going to be perceived as a hyperbolic attack on the former that many will find inappropriate.

As for "needing to protect" people from harmful ideas because they're idiots, no I don't agree with that depiction either of course.  Attempting to "deplatform" hate speech is based on the fact it is not in any way useful public discourse and the spread of such beliefs can quite obviously cause real harm.  This is also the case in spreading disinformation, but as I said above I personally think that's a more difficult consideration.  You're perhaps right that other posters in this thread have suggested it's because people are idiots, but that's not the point.

[DMC]

49 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

This is a very weird belief to hold when also espousing that humans should be able to say whatever they want without government or nongovernmental reprisal. It is in fact distinctly more misanthropic than claiming most people are stupid in that it effectively states all humans are bad AND they cannot particularly change.

So if you hold that humans are tribal, destructive, and violent - why would you want to make it easier for them to encourage harm to others?

Indeed, it sounds like a Hobbesian perspective -- and an extreme one at that.  Accordingly, the logical theoretical construct would at least be Hobbes' Leviathan in terms of necessary state control.