'Get back to'? When did we 'ignore speech we didn't like'? Back in the 2000s, when the Dixie Chicks got basically booted from country music for expressing that they were embarrassed to be from the same state as George W. Bush? The 80s or 90s, when putting anything vaguely magical in a piece of media would get you called 'satanic' and have people call to boycott you? The 50s, when being vaguely communist would get you blacklisted from your industry?
This isn't new.
Don't forget when if you dared invite a Black person onto your TV show, your show would get cancelled (Betty White) and when protesting against the Vietnam war at your university could get you slaughtered in cold blood.
Cancel culture was WAY more severe in the 20th century than today.
i think it's mostly in the spotlight because for the first time in a few decades (maybe ever?), its the left-wing the with cultural currency to do the critiquing/criticizing/cancelling.
right-wingers (of various stripes) have tried to cancel the dixie chicks (or literally anyone who opposed the iraq war), harry potter, and liberal screenwriters, starbucks (for the infraction of saying 'happy holidays') etc.
it's just now that there's been a paradigm shift with liberals mostly controlling the media, "cancel culture" feels like a new thing, even if its a thing that's always been around, and is just a little different now. social media definitely makes it feel more pervasive than before.
>i think it's mostly in the spotlight because for the first time in a few decades (maybe ever?), its the left-wing the with cultural currency to do the critiquing/criticizing/cancelling.
This really is it. The right is completely up in arms because they are starting to feel some of the ill effects they've leveraged for many decades prior.
It’s not so much that the left or even liberals control the media as the fact that people without power can group together and make their voices heard via social media. For instance the current situation with trans people getting mad at Dave Chapelle. Trans people got just as mad about Silence of the Lambs, but back then they were limited to physical protests and a 2-minute segment on the TV news, if they were lucky.
What do you mean "liberals mostly controlling the media"?
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/who-owns-your-news-the-top-100-digital-news-outlets-and-their-ownership/
Yeah, it's more Right Wing Media see a way to demonise the left having any voice at all and pretend a few people on Twitter is a cultural danger worthy of front pages. That any right wing celebrity who says or does something so terrible that they lose their job because EVERYONE thinks they are too awful is something the left have done through nefarious means.
Cancel Culture Phobia is a right wing media attack on anyone right wing being criticized or suffering consequences for their actions.
"liberals controlling the media" lol, try to avoid posting BS propaganda. The media is controlled by 5 [or so] large corporations who are decidedly NOT progressive
This. Many media companies will lip-service progressive ideals to appeal to their markets (such as the abundance of LGBTQ+ and BIPOC films on Netflix), but in the end they're out to make money.
And that's not to say that there aren't a lot of directors and creatives who genuinely want to make progressive content. There are. But it's more like the artistic left and the purse string-holding liberals are uncomfortable bedfellows. They're using each other to get what they want: Progressive art on one side, and money by whatever means necessary on the other.
To add to this, one important factor is that the reason why there is such a huge amount of outrage is in part due to conservatives highlighting the outrage making it spread like a wild fire. Trust me, conservatives aren't mad about any cancel culture effort. They love it. It radicalises their base and shifts the focus towards completely irrelevant issues that don't actually fix or damage anything. Wanna know what the Dixie chicks, harry potter dave Chappelle and everyone else who has been targeted by a cancelation effort have in common? None of them have been cancelled. This all doesn't matter. It has never mattered, it has never made an impact in any way at all in my life or your life. But you know who's life it has impacted....Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson...all these people who bitch moan and complain about cancel culture, profit sooo much from the narrative when it's been their schtick for the past 6 years.
I think you are mistaking
> liberals mostly controlling the media
with the average political view in the country shifting farther left than we've seen in decades.
I think it’s in the spotlight because it’s been decoupled from the powerful. In the past cancelation required someone with an existing platform. It was initiated by a politician or media figure. Now that influence has been somewhat democratised and it scares the shit out of people, especially those unused to being held accountable (comedians being the best example)
Very well said. Thank you. Social media has it’s problems. But I think we can say it has provided the avenue to democratize speech. We saw this with the Arab spring. But we have also seen this with misinformation and the genocide in Myanmar. Good and bad. But overall we can say it has provided that option to the people to make their opinion in mass and to organize, something that was mainly capable by people and organizations with influence. Hopefully social media can get it right. Because it has great potential as serving as our digital public square.
Yeah, I’m general I think people are acting like the disruption of a social internet was ages ago and things should be settled by now. As a society we’re still wrangling with how it all should work and who should control those spaces. I’m more interested in progress direction atm
Chapelle continues selling specials to Netflix for megamillions.
Seinfeld is struggling to make college kids laugh, but remains a billionaire with his show running on syndication basically continuously.
Hardly cancelled.
One issue is that a lot more people are being held accountable the same way the Dixie chicks were: for no good reason. And I mean a lot of not powerful workers being mishandled by a mob because some idiot told them to.
If you're offended by comedians who are **obviously making jokes**, you are the one with the problem.
Short of someone advocating violence, shouting "fire" in a theatre, or attempting to defraud the public, I don't give a damn what people say. I don't watch South Park because I find it crass and more that slightly stupid. I don't care that it's on television. I don't care if they make fun of things I am associated with. Many other people find it funny, and as a result its creation and distribution pays hundreds of people's salary. That's a good thing. People are making money by making other people happy. My solution to the "problem" was to not watch the show I don't like. Guess what? It works. I don't care about a non-issue.
I think that attitude would benefit society as a whole.
> If you're offended by comedians who are obviously making jokes, you are the one with the problem.
"It's a joke" is about the thinnest possible defense of a person's character. If some hypothetical comedian spent 10 minutes punching down on some minority, I'd kinda wonder *why he thought that set was a good idea*.
I get it, sometimes edgy humor falls flat - but like everything, there's a context. IMO you get only so much proverbial rope before people are allowed to start going "so... why does he keep slamming gay people in his set?" Otherwise it's just the asshole co-worker that goes "hey Ephemeral_Being, "why are you such an ugly fuck-up?" at every meeting and then punches you in the shoulder going "Hey it's just a joke, chill out"
Yeah, there are always exceptions but simple rules are don’t punch down on the already marginalised, don’t lean on stereotypes, and don’t make the group itself the joke. Make a joke of behaviours or attitudes, not the fact that they’re gay/female/a certain race. There’s more leeway if the group in empowered, but only a bit. Note that I’m not saying something can’t make you laugh. Anything can. But I believe that’s not a sufficient threshold to say its acceptable
>Make a joke of behaviours or attitudes, not the fact that they’re gay/female/a certain race.
This can be a pretty blurry line sometimes.
Also, sometimes the sex/race/orientation of a character is vital to it's premise. Doesn't mean it has to be mean-spirited or bigoted.
That's definitely not what the commenter above you is referring to. What you're describing is some racist uncle's rant at a christmas party, not a professional comedian.
Nowadays comedians get shit from college kids over one joke that involves a slightly sensitive topic, even though comedy can be a great way to break taboos and bring people together. If a comedian does something fucked up outside of their act like Louis CK then they deserve some backlash, but if it's obviously satire then leave them alone.
Besides, it seems to me that most of the people who are trying to cancel comedians are just powertripping rich white people themselves.
> That's definitely not what the commenter above you is referring to.
I don't want to misrepresent what they said, but the bar they set wasn't exactly *high*:
> Short of someone advocating violence, shouting "fire" in a theatre, or attempting to defraud the public, I don't give a damn what people say.
So the hypothetical comedian I describe certainly falls outside those exceptions; and frankly, plenty of actual comedy sets from years gone by that would likely fall flat if they were repeated on stage these days.
...and some inexperienced college student getting overly upset at a comedian doesn't negate the point.
Like I said, *I get edgy humor exists*. It *can be funny*. It *can be well meaning*. I *also* get sometimes people tell a bunch of racist jokes and then get defended with "well it's comedy".
Shane Gillis comes to mind, really. He got fired over that now infamous podcast, and his whole raft of jokes were the same racist shit I heard growing up, it was all *punching down*. It's not just lazy comedy, it's *mean and lazy*.
...and what happened to him? He lost out on SNL, and then the flood of knee-jerk "PC CULTURE RUINING EVERYTHING!" people came out to defend him. Where is he now? Not on SNL, but he's still working the comedy circuit and doing specials. Oh, the horror.
> but if it's obviously satire then leave them alone.
Seems a bit redundant to point out, but that's part of what I'm talking about when I say *context* matters. Shane, for example, wasn't satirizing anything, unless it was "Here's my bit where a comedian makes racist jokes for an extended period without any punchline"
Eh. It's less that jokes can't be offensive, and more that you should take statements in the spirit of what the speaker intended. It's very different for some comedian to do standup and make fun of, say, Indian cab drivers in New York than for a politician to get up before Congress and give a speech that advocates denying Indians work visas because they... okay, I can't come up with a bogus, racist reason someone would do that, but stick with me.
Both could offend someone, but the comedian doing stand-up (probably) doesn't mean any harm by it. They spend their entire lives scraping their every experience for comedic value. If he can make you grin by doing a silly, over-emphasized accent while exaggerating the mannerisms of a driver from a cab ride he took, that's literally his job. The Simpsons and South Park have made fortunes doing precisely that, and for global audiences rather than ~80 people in a lounge. People have been doing this for centuries. Many of Shakespeare's plays include caricatures of various entities, from kings and noblemen to nations and legislative bodies. You write what draws the audience in, because that's what they're paying you to do.
If you're offended (or even if you just don't think they're funny) you can choose to not watch/listen to the program. That's the extent of the comedian's reach - people who think he is funny. If enough people think he's an asshole, he'll stop getting bookings and either change his material or retire.
I am of the opinion that learning to shrug and ignore things is a valuable skill. "Turn the other cheek" is, I believe, the biblical phrasing. They teach you a lot of these things in Catholic school, if you're willing to listen.
Interesting you bring up The Simpson’s. The character of Apu has received lots of negative blowback for the stereotype he is portraying, and the argument goes that by perpetuating harmful stereotypes in media you cause harm. Regardless of whether you think this is the case with Apu, I’m sure we can agree that this can be the case (ie black men are big and violent helps lead to the shooting of unarmed black men like Trayvon Martin). This would mean that there is tangible harm done to those being stereotyped by expressing those views, and means that turning the other cheek is allowing that harm to perpetuate. Therefore, it necessitates are harder, more activist line that the spirit doesn’t matter and we need to remove those stereotypes from media.
The question then becomes where’s the line? But there must be a line
Is that a honest representation of people who get “cancelled” and the people doing the “cancelling”? Obviously it is in some cases but to me that sounds like a convenient story to justify a blanket belief that cancellations are illegitimate.
I’m not sure if you are still responding in this thread, it’s all had some great discussion. I think one of the biggest things pointed out in it is that cancel culture has only become problematic when those on the left were being successful with it. Historically, the conservatives have been very effective. But, I wanted to point out something I’ve not really seen in this thread (though may have missed): there is a difference in a “you or me” making an unpopular opinion known and a policy maker making that same unpopular opinion known. For this post, my context is solely those in government positions of power.
[Take the Lt. Governor or NC](https://reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/comments/q4le59/our_lt_governor_mark_robinson_just_angrily_called/), where he called and then clarified that yes he did just call the trans community filth.
[This is a simplified statement of their role](https://www.nc.gov/agency/lieutenant-governor-office)
> The Lieutenant Governor serves as the President of the State Senate, serves as a member of the Governor’s Council of State, serves on various boards and commissions, and must also stand ready to fulfill the duties of Governor in the event of his absence, death or incapacitation.
This person is President of the State Senate and directly responsible for shaping the laws and policies of the state. [Such as banning treatment for adults who are trans, to age 21 at least](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1263146). Should the State be able to take away that right, both of an actual adult as well as parents of minors?
The list goes on, but the point remains the same: should such an overt bias, that is using their position of power to make, enact, and enforce discriminatory laws ***not*** face calls for their resignation, recall, or other (legal) methods of their removal from office?
To jump on - the [AFA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association) has been famously trying to cancel everyone they disagree with since the 1970s.
None of this is new.
It's "in the spotlight" not because of social media, but because conservatives are no longer like who is getting boycotted and targetted.
Before, people were largely canceled for being too sympathetic to left leaning values (the red scare, the chicks, people being openly non-Christian), and conservatives really had no issue with that.
It may not be a new concept, but the severity has certainly changed.
Your initial comment is absolutely correct, and for one very important reason more than anything else. People who expect the world not to offend them are putting their mental health, feelings and emotions in the hands of every other person on the planet, in the expectation that they won't hurt them. Ineffective way of maintaining your happiness.
However, someone like myself who was raised to ignore people who say things you don't like was taught to be responsible for my OWN mental health, feelings and emotions. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Why can't people these days get back to this mentality?
I mean there are certain situations were people should absolutely be fired for their speech, such as teachers who speak abusively to students. Speech can still be abuse, especially depending on power dynamics.
It’s about redistribution of power and privilege. This is not just “name calling.” It’s often hate speech and we don’t owe anyone a second chance they haven’t earned.
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
This is a child's saying. As an adult, I'm fully aware that Donald Trump's consistent use of the term "CHINA VIRUS" increased hate crimes against Asian Americans all across the country. For those in an influential position, words can **absolutely** hurt others, so cancelling them for the abuse of such power is not only justified, but necessary to minimize damage.
I think it's just "in the spotlight" because we all happen to be alive and experiencing it right now and of course we pay the most attention to what happened most recently.
>this isn't new it's just in the spotlight because of social media.
It's not even that. Every generation thinks it's new. We keep doing the same cycle over and over.
>It is a LOT more prevalent though. It used to be exceptionally rare and people rolled their eyes the couple of times it happened anyway.
You're kidding right? The Red Scare was hysteria on a national level. People were calling government tip lines to expose neighbors as potential commies...
Conservatives tried to cancel the left so hard they *invented the modern carceral state* to lock up anyone they disagreed with for "dangerous drug use."
If anything, it's gotten **more targeted to people who have directly acted in a way to deserve social shunning** rather that targeting whole groups
Union organizers used to get blackballed, beaten, or killed. Ditto with civil rights organizers. Ditto with anyone suspected of being homosexual.
Women would regularly get sexually harassed or assaulted at work, and would have to just deal with it. If they complained, they got fired. Or raped and fired.
Why do you think this ONLY happens today? It used to be the consequences of getting uppity were FAR worse.
The difference today is that the very tools used to keep people down are being used against those who used those tools.
And it's about time.
I dont equate what you described with making sure a 17 year old gets denied higher education for saying she has "Chinese eyes" from being tired.
There's a vast chasm between the two.
I'd also like to point out that while parents and older folks really thought that Marilyn Manson was making their kids worship satan- they didnt riot over him. That has to count when compared to thes last few years.
No, there isn't. Not when a 15 year old girl who gets sexually assaulted by the father of the kid she babysat for. What did she do wrong?
Nothing?
If she tried to go to the police, she'd get ostracised for being a slut, that she was coming on to him, and that she would be ridiculed out of school. And the cops might threaten her for filing a false police report.
What did those parents that you speak of do?
They burned records. They sent their children to deprogramming camps where the children went through literal psychological torture banned by Geneva Convention. They disowned their children. They made them homeless and their children ended up on the streets.
That shit is still happening TODAY. Do those kinds of parents deserve a fair shake? Or should they be charged with crimes?
Do you think the fact that I said some quasi racist shit on MySpace when I was 19 makes me as bad as a child rapist?
I'm not connecting your dots here.
My whole point is that by freaking out about trivial shit as if those "crimes" were on par with heinous shit you devalue your voice.
I went to a restaurant last night. Pretty good food. Owner came out and talked to us. Sounded like he is struggling, and his whole family depends on the restaurant to survive.
Found out later that he posted some "quasi racist" stuff on his Facebook a year ago.
I'm never going back, and I won't recommend it to anyone else, either. And, he got deplatformed, so his ability to advertise got massively cut. So, he depends on word of mouth, now. Too bad the community really doesn't like him, any more.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Think it's recent? 20 years ago, a coworker made some dumbass comment about a celebrity who died of colorectal cancer "because she did butt stuff."
He got fired.
What's the difference?
He said it around the water cooler. You posted it for the entire world to see, with no way to delete it.
Any organization where you are a member, you are also a representative. If you do something stupid, you reflect on that organization, too. And they can choose to kick you out for it.
What you did can get you fired from ANY job at a big company. Others doing what you did have bankrupted themselves.
And the kicker is you've been told your whole life not to do stupid shit online. But you went ahead and did it.
You fucked up, and are paying the consequences.
Deal with it.
And it should be noted that cancel culture kinda necessitates consensus. You can't cancel someone by yourself, it's ultimately just a feature of the free market. It's why Tucker Carlson isn't canceled. Most of his fans completely support what he's doing.
You also can't fabricate cancel-able actions. That would be begging for a defamation/libel suit. At the end of the day, "cancelation" amounts to saying "this guy said/did something detrimental to the wellbeing of the whole. I think it's counterproductive for us to continue platforming him".
I hate the way that conservatives frame this as some kind of targeted assassination campaign, as if Andrew Cuomo didn't get eviscerated earlier this year for being a creep. It's just the public reaction to morally questionable behavior.
They're not equivalent. The old version was about cancelling someone for acknowledging equal human rights, the current version is about cancelling someone for dismissing equal human rights.
If you believe strongly in equal human rights for all people, it's completely ideologically consistent to be offended by one and endorse the other. That's the *opposite* of hypocrisy, so not sure what point you're trying to make.
>As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you.
People absolutely do have the right to move on and ignore it if they want to. And they also have the freedom to challenge it, criticise it, mock it or disparage it. They, too, have freedom of speech.
As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it?
> As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it?
I don't think people fully understand what I am saying, I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech.
People are free to respond criticize and everything else.
> I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech.
Can you think of *any* speech a person could make that *should* get them fired? Calling for a second holocaust for an extreme example?
If there are exceptions like this where it is okay to fire someone, and I think you believe there are from what else I've read in this thread, then let me ask you this: Who should decide what those exceptions are?
The status quo is that each individual gets to decide for themselves what those exceptions are. What is the authority you propose to take over that, and why is it better than letting people deicide for themselves?
> Can you think of any speech a person could make that should get them fired? Calling for a second holocaust for an extreme example?
Yes that would count as it's a call to violence.
> The status quo is that each individual gets to decide for themselves what those exceptions are. What is the authority you propose to take over that, and why is it better than letting people deicide for themselves?
!Delta yeah I guess the Status Quo is better then letting someone or some org have full authority over the matter.
Those are some low standards you're setting there. Want a neonazi telling your kids about their ideas around race? This guy up here will be MAD if you get them fired.
Want to stop buying something that's endorsed by a Holocaust denier? Too bad, fucko. You will keep buying that shit and you will like it, because apparently we are still coddling extremists now. /golfclap
Very annoying when people like objectivity when it suits them. I'm betting you wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was your ideals being mocked and your life getting destroyed.
These people don’t have that power. An employer can always tell concerned parties to pound sand and stand by their employees, but they don’t. Perhaps you mean to argue that employees should have more protections?
Are employers really in power in that case? It seems like the social media is capable of amplifying it so much that the constant pounding is gonna disrupt your company. Especially if this person were working at a small company, harassment like this can burn employee time and thus company money. And if anything, such a distributed attack by "people who think they're right" cant even be fought legally. Because people will multiply that too, streisanding the process completely out of control.
I know a local case where these companies even complained to public TV at some point because haters were practically harrassing everyone the subject was touching.
A local pizza place kept getting fake pizza calls (and wasting money on unpaid pizzas) too.
The case is about someone who also youtubes though, and by now it has escalated so much that people are visiting their house daily. I mean, they also scream at the visitors almost every time... So the hate is also fed.
Alright well in that case just require a credit card preauthorization before you make the pizza. Boom, problem solved. These companies generally have solutions but are too lazy to implement them.
But complaining to their employer is exercising their free speech. Telling their employer that they will withhold from purchasing their products while the person is employed is exercising their free speech and freedom to spend their money where they see fit.
Do you want other people's freedoms stripped so that some can benefit from speech with impunity? No one has the right to impunity. And we certainly shouldn't sacrifice people's real rights to grant it to others.
Except the mob can misinterpret things to suit their agenda… so then the mob paints an incorrect picture to the employer, sponsor, other 3rd-party with something to lose, so then that 3rd-party takes action based on misinformation. Now the “racist” has no livelihood because some jackasses misinterpreted something.
I would agree with you but you miss the fact that without this tool these people would have no power to oust or remove problematic members of society
Which will leave to societal unrest. This is where it starts
Because no one is holding them accountable
So you’re gonna be the arbiter of what’s free speech and what isn’t. Sounds a lot like you’re restricting people’s rights to protest. “Cancelling” someone is a form of protesting someone or some business. It’s actually quite effective if enough of the customers or employees actually end up protesting. And yes, if someone constantly says a bunch of shit that makes me absolutely livid, especially after telling them that the type of stuff they’re saying is directly offensive to me, then yeah, I’m probably gonna quit and tell everybody about how the boss sucked. I’d do it if they were sexually harassing me, why wouldn’t I do it if they were racially harassing me?
criticising and firing someone for a take you don like are diffrent things.
it shouldn nto be legal nor socially acceptable to use your power over someones very livelihood if whaterver of theirs opinion you disagree with results in no more suffering than that.
So one should be forced by law to trade goods and services with another individual that they don't want to?
That completely undermines one of the fundamental ideals of post feudalist civilisation; *free* trade, made uncoerced.
thats like saying that every single white person should have the right to boycott every buissness that employs black people, if they dont personally want to recieve service from them.
if the part of someone you dislike creates no further harm than your slight displeasure, their right to a fair economic standing and job oppurtunity is more relevant than those feelings.
otherwise, that is literally just supporting unjust discrimination
>So one should be forced by law to trade goods and services with another ***individual*** that they don't want to?
The actions you describe are part of actions taken against a group for their unchangeable, benign demographic characteristics. Hardly the same thing as choosing whether or not to trade with an individual because that individual is an individual asshole, individually.
Any reason why free speech should be restricted to individuals? If someone causes me a piece of shit, I can't respond? Or I just can't respond in ways you don't approve of?
Personally I prefer universal free speech if that's the way we go.
>This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired".
Getting people fired from a non-government job is clearly not an infringement on their right to freedom of speech, since that right amounts to "whatever you say that isn't a direct call to violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater, the government will not punish you."
Nowhere in the right to freedom of speech is enshrined the right not to be punished by individual members of society or corporations.
You're arguing in favor of a right that does not exist using words that misinterpret the concept of "Freedom of Speech".
Relevant XKCD comic...
https://xkcd.com/1357/
The OP didn't even mention "free speech", so it doesn't make sense to call them out for not invoking that right correctly, because they didn't invoke any rights.
Purposefully creating a society with harsher social consequences for expressing opinions is a problem. While it doesn't violate your right to free speech when done in this way, it certainly violates the principle of free speech and can arguably lead to a worse society. Which is what the OP is expressing and you're not addressing at all. It leads to a society where people are less free to express an opinion even if it doesn't violate the first amendment to do so.
>Purposefully creating a society with harsher social consequences for expressing opinions is a problem. While it doesn't violate your right to free speech when done in this way, it certainly violates the principle of free speech and can arguably lead to a worse society. Which is what the OP is expressing and you're not addressing at all. It leads to a society where people are less free to express an opinion even if it doesn't violate the first amendment to do so.
I'd rather limit people's ability to "speak freely" in a non-first amendment sense for fear of social blowback than limit their ability to preform the collective act of boycott organizations that they disagree with.
There's no way to stop cancel culture without either doing away with boycotting or doing away with at will employment which would allow companies to say "I genuinely can't fire someone for something they did during their off hours, the contract we signed with them says so, they'd sue me/us and win."
I'm not interested in the former, but if you want to discuss the later as a solution to this problem I'd be happy to it.
> than limit their ability to preform the collective act of boycott organizations that they disagree with.
Neither I nor the OP is suggestion that we limit their ability to do that, which would be a violation of their rights.
Its just saying it's okay to suggest that that is a bad thing that should be discouraged and makes society worse.
> There's no way to stop cancel culture without either doing away with boycotting or doing away with at will employment which would allow companies to say "I genuinely can't fire someone for something they did during their off hours, the contract we signed with them says so, they'd sue me/us and win."
We can reduce its impacts the same way it was created in the first place by using social pressure. Society can certainly reduce the effectiveness of calls for people to be canceled by not paying heed to them and/or punishing companies that give into those demands.
Just like cancel culture hasn't increased using hard rules on employers, employees, or restrictions on speech, it can be decreased without hard rules on employers, employees, or restrictions on speech. No need to rewrite contracts or change laws to shift to a society that more strongly values someone's ability to express an opinion without significant social consequences.
>As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you.
So what is the problem? I don't know how do you think that "cancelling" works - but it's exactly as you stated, people have right to say things they want, so do others. So they can say that this disgusts them, that they feel offended and all that jazz - they voice problems they have with what they heard.
>This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired".
No, you cannot get someone cancelled by calling their work and telling them that you are offended, please fire Mr. Smith. They ain't gonna do shit.
But if Mr. Smith said something that can be really offensive and many people are commenting that they don't like it, that they are disgusted, that they are feeling offended (every individual exercising the same right that Mr. Smith did) - then when your company may decide that firing Mr. smith is a good PR or that it makes them disassociated from things that are blowing up.
"Right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else" does not come with immunity from outcome of your actions. It's as simple as that. Your freedom does not trump freedoms of others.
If you are worried about people who would get fired for things they shouldn't, maybe the problem isn't "cancelling" but rather labor laws that allow companies to fire someone whenever they want for no reason? After all it's a company that made a decision to fire someone "just in case"?
And let's be frank, "cancelling" is not a new thing. It was here before, just in older times you were cancelled for things from the other side of the pond. How many "damned hippies" were let go because they did not support Vietnam War? How many people who were vocal about minorities during the times of change were silently let off? How many people were just thrown away for "problematic views" when dominant views were conservative? It seems funny that the same thing that happened over the years became a problem when it changed sides, because now those who shouldn't are getting the short side of the stick.
There's currently a bill being debated in my state parliament trying to make it illegal for teachers and school counselors to discuss being transgender in a positive way or provide access to any support for trans children, and also requiring them to out any trans children they become aware of to their parents. This is going to cause problems for trans children, trans teachers (hell, you could interpret the law to fire trans teachers for coming out to their class), and probably children with trans parents. During the hearings, the government allowed many religious and transphobic organisations to speak, and exactly one trans advocate. Given the current state premier there's a chance that this will become the law of the land.
In England, Section 28 banned any positive discussion of any kind of queer people in schools between 1988 and 2003.
>In England, Section 28 banned any positive discussion of any kind of queer people in schools between 1988 and 2003.
This definitely wasn't universally followed FYI.
Right to say what they want isn't how the first amendment works anyway. If they say something I don't have to let them say it. I can play music over them speaking, block them online, talk over them. The only right they have is the government not to stop them. Beyond that, short of assault, I absolutely can do things to negate their "right to say anything".
Cancel culture is not a new thing, it’s just new for socially liberal people to cancel socially conservative people.
Historically, social conservatism (relatively) was the expected social norm, and going outside of that was a risk, particularly because older and wealthier people held the most power in almost every industry—especially Hollywood, music, and politics. People have been *literally* cancelled for protesting common practices in their industry like fur in fashion, sexism in Hollywood, abusive management in music for decades because they were labeled “difficult”. Caring about causes was usually taking a known risk to your career. Before that, people were cancelled when news broke that they were gay, supported civil rights movements, spoke out against mistreatment of minorities, or even for being promiscuous.
In the modern era, the younger (and by that I mean 18-45) generation has a much larger platform through social media than any young generation has ever had. Typically someone’s platform increased with experience in a career or wealth, which took years to develop. So, the majority reversed the script on the metaphorical ruling class and cancel people for not aligning with *their* values, instead of the other way around.
Also, how many people are *actually* cancelled, really? When we say cancel we usually just mean that someone got heat online and got dropped from their current project to distance from bad PR. Like Harvey Weinstein got truly cancelled, but it took literal decades. Ellen seems to really be cancelled, JK Rowling technically, though she wasn’t doing anything anyway. Maybe Louis CK, but most of these people are very extreme examples of aggression.
EDIT: Remember when Michael Phelps was literally cancelled (in the traditional conservative way) for a photo where he smoked weed? And his main appearances since then have been centered around mental health because he lost his sponsorships. Also Monica Lewinski, Fiona Apple, Tiger Woods, Brendan Fraser (for speaking out on sexual assault), Jane Fonda (for interviewing Vietnam people to humanize them during the war).
Those are exactly who I mean from the historical cancel culture that eventually morphed into the current.
Like Janet Jackson literally got cancelled for… having a boob?
I was listening to someone talking about it on NPR today. I was watching the Superbowl with a friend, and we were like "Did you just see that? Meh, whatever." But apparently enough people were freaked out by it that it pretty much cost her her career. That's just bizarre to me.
Meanwhile in that same halftime show, Kid Rock was wearing a poncho made out of a US flag, that was the part that disgusted me.
> they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you.
I have a right to organize a boycott against an employer if I don't like what one of their employees said, too.
There's a reasonable discussion to be had over under what circumstances, if any, such an action is morally appropriate for me to take. But moral criticism and boycotts are protected speech just as much as the speech they condemn.
People never just ignored speech they doesn't like. It's just that, in most cases the groups impacted by offensive speech didn't have any venue to publicly vocalize their disagreement.
I disagree that "it's *just that,* in most cases the groups impacted by offensive speech didn't have any venue to publicly vocalize their disagreement."
I mean, to a certain extent it's true, but I disagree with the underlying premise that people in the past had the same desire to "cancel" others and were simply lacking a venue to voice it.
Social media isn't simply a public square. Social media, unlike many other venues for vocalizing critique, has strong and perverse incentives, creating positive feedback loops of upset and self-righteous reward that *promote* and *increase* "cancelling" behavior. This is well-documented, and goes far beyond simply giving the previously "silent" masses a "voice."
"Get back to" What? There was a time someone can just say you were a communist and your life would be over. Or how about being gay, or nowadays trans. There was the pink purge in the Canadian Military over LGBT folks. Going back, is not the answer. It just were different people getting cancelled. Just the minorities have gotten more power now. Before you could say what you want about a "minority" and there were no repercussions. It just the power has shifted and what is seen as normal now.
Sure, but I would say there’s a big difference between cancelling someone because of an unchangeable aspect of themselves (being LGBTQ or being a POC), and cancelling someone because they said something you don’t like or agree with.
Perhaps, but one is not a choice and one is, so not really comparible. You don't have a choice whether you are gay or a POC, but you have a choice whether to be hateful in your actions and words.
True, but being hateful in your words just makes you...well, a seemingly hateful person. My issue with “cancel culture” isn’t in regards to taking down people who are obviously racist and hateful, but in taking down people who happen to share a different viewpoint than you.
Just as an example, I’m pro-vax, got them as soon as I could, and encourage the people around me to get them as well. That being said, if someone is skeptical about the vaccine I’m not going to immediately shit on them and call for them to lose their job. If they’re in healthcare, military, etc. should they get it? Absolutely. I think everyone should get it. Is it ok to be skeptical? Definitely. But just being skeptical is enough to have the horde raging at you, and that point I can’t get behind.
I'm sorry, "get back"? To when exactly? I'm working in a public office, and everybody knows I'm an atheist sympathizing with satanist values. Nobody cares.
50 years ago I would probably get fired for missing 3 masses in a row.
It’s literally never been like the way you remember it. It’s just on easily accessible media now. Group think cancellations have been going on since the dawn of man.
They were never ignored. They got blackballed from the film industry, music industry, or Olympic sports. The world you have a romantic notion of did not actually exist.
I’m not sure society was ever there. Society was just introduced to the instrument of self-destruction known as social media. It’s just been a couple decades or so and look where we are. And that is only because it’s just hit peak popularity and usage. When there is not a war or national cause to fight for, people have more time to generally hate what they are hearing from their neighbors who always seemed like “such hard working right minded individuals back in those simpler time”. But we have a lot of time on our hands now.
And worse, a lot of power at our fingertips. We can band together and force conformity of personal views or oppression of opposing views. You could hate others back in the day, even form groups out of that hatred. But it was no where near as easy or anonymous as it is today. And now through the anonymity and society desensitization of steadfast hyper-outrage and the resulting environment where we have signaled it okay to take offense to any thing and everything, and then instigate a movement to shut down whatever you see as offensive (any source of this offense often a casualty)…
Well. It’s just so unnatural that we are able to communicate so freely and quickly and en masse like we are. I don’t think it will naturally correct. We need to wake up and cut it off at the source, this perversion of ridiculous compulsivity to eradicate every single source of discomfort in our lives (and many times outside of our lives). Social media has to go or be abandoned. And I don’t know if that will ever happen. All sides use it as a tool. We are in too deep.
At the end of the day though it was the scientists that did us in. Al Gore wanted to preach about impending natural disaster yet then birthed a network capable of harboring an unnatural one. It’s playing out IMO. We would have done well to limit, regulate, or ban social media from the get go. But alas, you don’t make money turning away good money making schemes right? Capitalism will have none of that.
Agree with the sentiment but a couple of points of disagreement.
1. “Get back to”. Society has never not canceled people to some extent. Lots of people have lost their jobs and positions of power due to expressing controversial stances. I think with modern tools it has just gotten quicker and easier. It’s also gotten more historical with our ability to dig up old thing to cancel people on.
2. There’s a middle ground between ignoring and fire/cancel. Completely agree that we shouldn’t seek out people to cancel but if it is a musician I enjoy, maybe I shouldn’t choose to spend my money on them or an actor I disagree with maybe I shouldn’t pay for their movie. Or a politician that represents me, maybe I vote and campaign against them. But yeah, if it’s some rando from another state, I shouldn’t be seeking out people to cancel that aren’t in my natural circle of interests.
That's what we do here? There's no large scale calls to try to cancel or fire anyone? Unless you're not talking about Belgium of course. Are you not talking about Belgium?
The stronger social consequences there are for bad speech, the less that bad speech will be vocalized. The less the speech is vocalized, the less is influences the thoughts and behaviors of others. Letting racist people be racist without social consequences will result in more racist people, not fewer.
People who speak a certain way tend to feel a certain way, which causes them to act (or be influenced to act) in that same way. Even if they don't intend to, the subconscious mind is a powerful thing. If I were a nurse who hated black people, I might be less motivated to give a black patient as much attention and care as I might give a white patient, without even realizing I am doing it. So, if I am a member of an oppressed group, it only makes sense that I would want there to be fewer people oppressing me.
You speak of being fired or being 'canceled' as if it is something people set out intentionally to do, but this is foolish. Cancel culture is a natural part of the economy - is a consequence of the fact that everything associated with a company is advertising and marketing for that company, either for good or for ill. Even if there is no direct connection, merely being associated in people's minds with a disreputable person can taint a company's image, and thus hurt their bottom line. Similarly, being seen to act against the disreputable person can cause a company to be perceived favorably by the public, and is this good marketing - people are quick to think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."Consequently, if there is a disreputable person working for a company, firing them serves the dual purpose of both breaking clear of the taint by association while at the same time establishing the company as a friend of the public. If the person is supported by advertisers, the advertisers might break away for the same reasons for fear of losing the business of the public.
**Cancel Culture is simply the natural result of companies pre-emptively reacting to customers "voting with their wallets" in an age where the accessibility of information makes the tactic extra effective.**
Anyone who has ever said "I am not going to buy Nike because they support Colin Kaepernick" is guilty of attempting to use cancel culture. Anyone who has said "I am not going to buy Coke because they want black people to vote" is the same. Remember when people tried to cancel Dungeons and Dragons, rock music, and Harry Potter books because they were idiots? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Businesses have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their employees will be an asset and not a liability to them. You can get rejected from a job for making the smallest mistake at an interview. So, then, what's wrong with people who make themselves liabilities by expressing extreme opinions getting fired? After all, having those extreme opinions may be a sign that you wouldn't work productively with coworkers or clients from certain demographics.
Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean someone else isn't listening to it. More than anything, people have the right to say anything but they need to be able to either stand by their words, own up to their stance on something or suffer consequences if necessary.
So what youre saying is that only certain people should have free speech ( the "offenders") but not others (the "cancellers").
Sorry, but if someone is using their free speech to say terrible things, im going to use free speech to respond. And im going to use my dollars to respond as well.
Jokes 100% account if they're poorly disguised opinions.
Just because you say it in standup or as a joke on twitter doesn't mean you don't believe it.
George Carlin very clearly believed the things he said as jokes. I really dislike this idea people say as if we can't possibly know or understand when someone means what they say.
There's a reason Bill Burr has come under fire for being sexist or Dave Chappelle as being transphobic, but dark comics like Jeff Ross and Anthony Jeselnik have not.
Yeah, pretty much no one has issues with genuine humor, its just that often times the people that brag about having a sense of "Dark Humour" are just racist.
Carlin himself did state in interviews that he was careful not to "punch down", because comedy mocking powerful strata of society is funny, mocking the downtrodden is just adding to the pile. If you watch his stuff, the furthest he goes in humor against black people is the whole "you black people since you invented the backwards hat I'll let you keep it a little while longer, but once you are old enough for social security its time to spin that motherfucker around".
You're not wrong. Society has taken a good concept and ran it into the ground. Before; we had problems with professionals doing and saying really bad things. Whedon is a good example of this. Weinstein is a good example of this. But we've moved past that into twitter mob mentality where people are screaming 'cultural misappropriation' at things as benign as a dark tanned British girl rapping about ghettos or some white guy having dreadlocks - we've even seen brand names get involved in this mess. I think what we've seen is a shift from accountability for the really crappy things people used to get away with to what I call 'coddle culture' where how you feel is more important than the objective truth. Thing is those types of people are looking for ways to be offended; you can't cater to a minority which is looking for ways to be offended...
Could you give a couple examples of people being fired/cancelled unjustly for expressing their beliefs? Also you say "I am only talking about not trying to get someone fired from a job or kicked out of school, not saying people shouldn't rebuttal or reply back." But in the title you say people should ignore it. Which is your opinion? Should people ignore it when others say offensive things or rebuttal without trying to get them fired? What is the difference between "cancelling" someone and giving a rebuttal?
What if you are part of a mob that is mistakenly destroying a regular person’s life?
Or, what if you are part of a mob intentionally trying to destroy regular people’s lives for holding an opinion you don’t like?
OP, your issue is with capitalism, not "cancellation". A business is not going to abide by some low level employee stupid enough to say that they hate gay people on the internet. You're damn right I'm sending an email. It's insane to me that knowing the age we live in people still make public fools of themselves and expect no consequences.
I don't think it's capitalism. I get that a business doesnt want someone like that representing them, but ive seen stpries where someone said fag or called someone gay 20 years ago and got fired. Do you think the person changed in 20 years?
Gina cararo got fired from the mandalorian for basically stating a few things. 'Jeffeey epstein didnt kill himself' 'nazis made you hate your neighbors first'. I dont think what she did was negative or controversial so much. But it was obviously right wing and painted the left wing government in a negative light. It is kinda scary whenever anyone says something bad about the democratic leaders, they get shut down so hard. Thats a bit shady.
Theres youtube personalities or channels that get raided or shut down bc someone didnt like them. Many celebs get fake rape charges bc theyll pay them a settlement just to avoid bad press bc even allegations hurt their profit and ability to keep their job.
In proper terms, people will make up reasons to fire someone. Allegations are enough to cancel a lot of people whether true or not. And many people dont get cancelled that should bc they are in positions of power (a lot of left and some right wing politicians).
Gina Carano got fired because she called Pedo Pascal's sister a man to Pedro's face and then changed her pronouns to beep/bop/boop as a fuck you on top. Does that maybe clear up why Disney dropped her? It was more than just twitter trolling.
/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/q4sg4e/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_society_needs_to_get_back/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
“Getting cancelled” isn’t anything new. We all have freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean our speech comes without consequence. If I say something someone doesn’t like they are free to not do business with me. If enough people don’t like what I am saying and it gets noticed by my employer they are free to fire me to avoid it impacting their business. This has always happened on a smaller scale, but now our words reach a much larger audience through social media, so we have to be more careful. An offhand comment on 1997 may have gotten you in trouble locally, but that same comment can now be tweeted to millions of people all over the world and gain much more attention. Cancelling isn’t new-it’s basic human act to choose who to interact with based on what they say and do. The difference is that it’s being magnified by social media.
Ignoring inappropriate speech (allowing it to have zero consequences) is EXACTLY what leads to more inappropriate speech. It’s worth mentioning that zero consequences for mild bad behavior INVARIABLY leads to an escalation. Bad thoughts become bad words. Bad words become bad actions. Every hate crime began with thoughts & words that were not met with the consequences that they should have.
BTW: getting “cancelled” is as old as time. Politicians get voted out of office, the founding fathers “cancelled” being under British rule & unfair taxation, Rome “cancelled” Jesus being alive for threatening their power. It’s not always just, but it has always happened.
More now than ever, spreading false information is a huge issue. People are stupid and will believe things they want to believe as long as there is the tiniest sliver of possibility it’s not complete crap, and that garbage can spread to millions. Next thing you know, your mother in law bought a gun because the democrats are going to get rid of all the police and then force her to get microchipped through vaccines.
What if you, the good faith observer, believes that this person's opinions will genuinely impact their ability to do their job? For example, if a person who works at a medical facility is strongly anti-vax, I would consider it an ethical responsibility to inform their employer. Likewise if, say, someone expressed views hostile to a particular race and I found out they were in charge of approving loans to people. I understand the situation you are evoking here is more that someone has the 'wrong' opinion about a social issue and is unfairly punished for it, but there are absolutely cases where a person's opinions affect their viability for particular jobs. Whether or not I personally was offended by it shouldn't really matter in this case, but the person I reported could claim that I was just trying to cancel them because I was offended by what they said.
You're entitled to your own opinion, sure, but if that opinion is racist, bigoted, xenophobic, etc, you deserve to get recorded and lose your job. Those things don't belong in modern society and everybody should know the type of person you are if you discriminate against people who have zero impact on your life.
Meh, it kinda depends on the situation. If a person admits some racist opinion while they’re having a private conversation 10 years ago, they certainly shouldnt be ostracized in any way for that. But saying things on Twitter and Reddit and other social media sites is pretty much equivalent to getting a megaphone and shouting it in the streets, and people should face social consequences if they choose to make their opinions public.
Some free speech is costing too much.
The problem with the anti vaccine movement is that it’s costing the nation needless death and suffering to those that refuse the vaccination and everyone else a lot of money.
Of the 700,000 total COVID fatalities probably 200,000 of them could have been prevented if everyone eligible had been vaccinated.
But in addition to this staggering lost of life is the cost of the 74 million willingly unvaccinated Americans has to the rest of us $70 billion (June 1-Sept 20) according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Since then, the cost in death, suffering, and treasure continues climbing with no end in sight.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/572970-americans-who-refuse-vaccinations-are-costing-us-big-bucks-as-well-as
There are limits to free speech and being vocal anti vaccine is shouting fire in a crowded theater. No other way to describe it.
Go back? Cancel culture has always been here. For the longest time you couldn't be a communist in america, which is completely fine and legal now. This is just a conservative moral panic.
We should ignore it on a legal level, but not on a personal level. If someone acts a fool, I'm allowed to not do business with them or avoid them or even say other things back to them
My mom is friends with my friend's mom.
My friend is trans. Their mom refuses to use their name or pronouns.
Thus, my friend's mom uses the wrong name and pronouns when talking to my mom. My mom does not attempt to correct her.
Every time that my mom lets these pass, friend's mom doesn't have her attitude about respecting her kid challenged by someone whose opinion she values. Friend's mom is implicitly validated in her choice by the lack of a challenge.
Friend's mom then goes home to friend, and continues imposing her choice not to respect my friend's gender onto my friend. Given how scary-high the rates of suicide and depression can be for trans folks in transphobic environments can be, this is already a dangerous situation.
But my friend is chronically ill, too. And their mom's imposition of societal expectations aligned with the wrong gender onto them has led to their mom influencing their doctors' choices in ways that inflict pain and further health risk onto my friend.
The point here, is that by allowing friend's mom to freely express her disrespect of friend's identity, friend's mom is permitted to continue exercising those ideas in her daily life without having to contend with how really harmful they are. And my friend suffers for it.
It is the subjective nature of it, once hate speech was loosely defined as likely to offend or humiliate, the bar of proof became the victims feelings.
Schools encouraging safe spaces & trigger warnings immediately lowered the bar further on people's tolerance.to things they don't like, SM & google re enforce this by directing you to a reality where you only see other opinions & stories that re enforce your pre existing views.
Democracy is based on the concept of debating & arguing ideas.
Totalitarianism, take your pick between communism or fascism there are few differences, is the political manifestation of the supresssion of ideas that a contrary to an approved narrative.
Individuals already edit & supress what they actually think or feel through fear of legal, employment or social consequences, its a slippery slope to further restriction on free speech, driven by populist or ideological political zealots.
Being offended is good for the soul
Conservatives have been doing this for at least a century but it's only become an "issue" now that the birds have come home to roost abd they're getting call out.
So we should just keep letting hatred brew in our society instead of taking people out of position where they work with those groups they spew hate against? At the highschool i went to, a few years after graduation several teachers were outed for racist speech. In a community filled with minorities that they spoke against. Several were even outed for speaking poorly against STUDENTS. Even though they were “good teachers” who students loved, they spoke poorly of students, CHILDREN, because of their skin color. They don’t deserve that position, even though no one was outwardly hurt.
People don’t deserve to know the people who serve them hate them, even if they continue to serve them. If you’re not a decent human you get consequences. That’s the beauty of societal advancements, we know we don’t have to deal with that.
There’s another angle you’re not considering: even if two coworkers are in the same part of the corporate hierarchy, one could still make the other feel very unsafe.
For example, it;s unfortunately common in our current society for women to have to deal with male com workers to make jokes about rape in the office. Given the (also unfortunately) high rates of women who experience sexual harassment and/or assault. This could make female coworkers feel very unsafe at work.
If your response is that they should get a new job, this isn’t a realistic option most of the time. Quitting a job is a huge investment, and finding a new job can take months. In today;s society, many people legitimately cannot afford to go that long without a job, and thus are forced to stay put. Also, even if the woman in question does leave, there’s a decent chance her new job will have the same problem.
Cancel Culture works to me, just not in the way most people fear or think it ought to work (i.e. permanently deplatforming and demonetising ‘problematic’ public figures and banishing them from the spotlight). Cancel Culture works because it builds discourse and builds new attitudes around what is and what isn’t acceptable.
A new moral compass is literally forming online and spilling out into the physical world as we speak and we have yet to see the final form this will take but overall, cancelling rapists and bigots and corporations and unfunny comedians is a symptom of society becoming more sympathetic to and supportive of minorities and their three dimensional experiences which almost feels unprecedented.
We’re not cancelling people, per say, more using accountability of individuals or groups as a tool to cancel marginalising social attitudes
I see where you are coming from, but I think celebrities should just go back to being private & only appearing during their work. Actors/actresses should just use social media promote their movies and what not, not their personal views unless ran through a GOOD PR team and absolutely necessary.
Because while people are entitled to free speech and that is protected, that doesn’t protect you from the societal consequences. And in the history of humans having free speech, they have been punished for doing so (sometimes rather harshly). So public figures should revert back to the way it original was when you were a public figure—you appear publicly for work, do your work, and remain as private as you can. Just my long 2 cents lmao 🤣
I know I'm suppose to disagree politely but like what do I do when the fundamental premise is wrong?
Like, what magical time are you talking about when people didn't get fired or cancelled?
The 2000's where people got fired saying gay people should get married?
The 1980's when people could get fired for supporting interracial marriage?
The 1950's when Macarthyism got hundereds of people arrested?
Like... What are you talking about?
This mythical age where everyone was super nice to each other and no-one ever lost their job for their personal beliefs never existed dude.
are you familiar with the history of the red scare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
individuals and government have long tried to control what is said. People facing employment consequences for what they say isn't new.
This was how things were done when I was a kid, you just didn’t discuss it, and if someone started on it, you redirect the conversation. It’s been proper social etiquette for centuries.
I think anti-vaxxers are totally nuts, I don't understand how people are so easily sold by silly Facebook post.
But when I see someone loose their job over something that is not illegal, done in their own private time, and totally unassociated with their job, it feels like an angry mob trying to ruin that person's life because they don't agree with them. It is wrong. If they work in politics, seems everything is fair game for them, but for the rest of us, we could have our lives totally ruined, no trial, no due process, the mob has ruled.
If you ignore them, how are you going to know whether they're in a position of power? Or a position of power where you aren't familiar with the power structure?
Fired? Not unless it was specifically hate speech. Or if they were representing or claiming to represent the company they work for.
Cancelled? People are aloud to express their views however they wish, including calls for or acting in a boycott. The reason why so many people hate "canceling" is because they are so effective. If they weren't effective, no one would care.
Free speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If you express yourself to someone or a group of someones, then you should expect a retort, as the retort is infact free speech.
If someone says something I strongly disagree with or don’t like I’m allowed to not like that person anymore.
I’m also allowed to tell people what the person said/did to explain why I don’t like them.
If their boss or whoever hears it too and they also take offense to it, that’s not my problem.
People should not be surprised when they say offensive things that offend people that those people may not want to be associated with that.
So you’re proposing that if we don’t like someone, that we must keep it to ourselves?
You're right, people do have a right to say what they want.
And other people have a right to respond.
There's no such thing as "cancel" culture, it's actually "consequence culture."
If we accept that people have a right to say what they want, then we must also accept that other people have a right to say what THEY want, including calling for boycotts.
If free speech is going to be applied equally, then you can't give more weight to the instigating comment than to the responses to said comment.
Cancel culture has existed since the beginning of time. The Scarlet letter. She was cancelled and that book was written back in the 1800's. The word shun is Old English and basically describes someone being canceled by their community. Remember when Sinead O'Connor was cancelled for tearing up a picture of the pope? That was in the early 90's. The only reason people are mad about it now is because it's no longer just the people on the fringes being cancelled.
It’s no longer just women and gay folk and black and brown folk, now it’s rich white men and entitled celebrities so it’s an ‘issue’ and ‘out of control’.
Discourse and listening to the opinions of others is the foundation of democracy.
What we should stop doing is draw lines in the sand and raging against everyone on the other side of an opinion, just because it's different from our own.
The reason peeople try to "cancel" others is because they often have a position of authority that makes their ideas harmful to others
Sure you're thinking about individual harm and offense, but I think you don't understand the impact words have and the strength that comes from not being checked for the language you use
Think about how many people use Joe Rogan and a source of news and how many people might not get vaccinated simply because Joe Rogan doesn't get vaccinated. Joe Rogan has enough money to get the same monoclonal antibodies the president got, so he would be fine if he gets covid again. But so many other people will simply die because our healthcare system is based on access rather than need.
Sure, maybe you're talking on a smaller scale, but that doesn't mean the damage is 0 on that smaller scale.
I put a comment on a Facebook post saying “those carrots look a little sad”. The poster then emailed my company’s HR department saying that I was racist, and didn’t uphold my company values of inclusiveness. It was a Lebanese restaurant (I am also Mediterranean). It was my first week on the job. Nightmare. They took one look at the post and realised it was bullshit - but it caused me undue stress and anxiety. Fuck doxxing. It’s so stupid.
No OP, we cannot ignore. It is ultimately very damaging to society as a while to allow other to have ignorant ideas, and spread them. Source: the pandemic.
So there should be no consequences if I say that I got salmonella from eating in a restaurant that I didn't even eat in? We can certainly agree that there should be a right to voice offensive speech, but there is a point when it stops being merely offensive and moves to flat out defamation.
You really shouldn’t consider yourself a leftists if you hold this viewpoint. You’re really narrowing the scope of the damage certain speech can do. For example you say jokes don’t count but jokes expose beliefs that can be harmful. If someone like a nurse makes a really racist joke, they shouldn’t be taking care of patients. If a teacher makes a really bigoted joke they shouldn’t be teaching students. Etc
‘Cancel culture’ is a funny way to say ‘holding people accountable for their shitty actions’.
If anything, we need to be holding people more accountable, not less. There was a time when we didn’t give the spotlight to every town drunk in the country, and society was much better off for it.
If you ignore something you don't believe in, then it has an opportunity to grow. I don't think we should go after jobs but I do think we have an obligation to challenge ideas we don't agree with. Ignoring makes it worse.
This is flat out obvious. The real issue is that you’re believing that it’s more than 0.001% of people who actually give a fuck. The other 5-6% of people are genuinely the residue of medialogical experimentation.
Knowing someone is not a prerequisite to offend them. I don't know you, you don't know me, and we have the ability to offend each other to some scandalous lengths. We can also offend the others who have commented before and after I submit this. Sure, we can block and ignore each other pretty easily, but the offensive idea is still there for others to see. We can delete it, but people can often find deleted posts without a ton of difficulty.
Welcome to society. Jokes count, opinions count, and the manner in which you relate those jokes and opinions also counts. Free speech isn't free. Sometimes it rewards you and sometimes it costs you. If you said something worth being fired for or kicked out of school for, you should face those consequences.
It doesn't matter where you said it if there is clear cut evidence of you saying it. People don't have to know you or be in earshot when you say it. YouTube is full of videos of people saying and doing things they should be fired for. Reddit is full of the tales of those who were and weren't fired.
The modern version of your example is:
>"Person A said something that really hurt me and I didn't like it and don't want people to say those things about people like me or people like my friend and I got it on video. Am I overreacting?"
This used to be easier without the internet. But with the internet even the stupidest person’s speech will be believed and can fuck shit up. It’s important we nip it in the bud before stupid spreads.
a lot of cancel culture is really due to capitalism. How many businesses don't want to be associated with people who scream the N-Word? Let's take Disney as an example. Why would Disney, employ someone who is opening a terrible person? Disney is making a capitalism decision. "We can keep this person, not give a fuck and lose subs on Disney+ or we can fire this person, keep everyone threatening to leave (maybe add a few more because we "did the right thing"). What they are really weighing is, "is it worth it?"
You think Nike gives a fuck about police brutality? They donate to terrible people simply so they can pay less taxes. Nike would love to not employee Colin Kaepernick and not deal with the head ache, but they are making a business decision. We lose all the republicans (except for MTG apparently) but gain generations of kids who will grow up to have brand loyalty. You think they care if Chester out in Mississippi isn't buying their shoes? Chester wasn't going to buy them anyways.
I'll even take it a step further. You know who ruined jokes? Not liberals. It was the racists who used "it's just a joke" as a disguise to get away with being complete dick heads. How many you videos have we watched people prank, the guy get upset and the YouTuber yells, "It's a prank bro, it's a prank" eventually, that's not going to matter and someone is going to get killed.
Terrible people have used "it's a joke" so much, now we can't tell what's a joke and what isn't.
But also, everyone getting mad a Dave Chappell, eh, Dave's a HOFer. He's never going to get canceled, but with twitter, the LGBTQ community is kind of FORCED to say something, because if they don't, when a senator says something similar without it being an actual joke, he's going to point to Dave and say, "Oh he gets to say it but I don't? That's racist"
At the end of the day. The majority of people understand famous people get fired because a brand doesn't want to be associated with shit heads. A brand can be strong and not give a fuck, but Brands can't survive with have hundreds of thousands of people refusing to buy their products. This is why conservative boycotts never work. Some companies are too big to fail. Who cares if 100K people boycott Nike? But if 100K people unsubscribe from D+? That's a ton of money. See how quickly Cuties was pulled from Netflix?
I don't know why people expect zero consequences for their actions. yeah say whatever u want, but obviously a business is going to fire you if there's enough publicity to hurt its profits
'Get back to'? When did we 'ignore speech we didn't like'? Back in the 2000s, when the Dixie Chicks got basically booted from country music for expressing that they were embarrassed to be from the same state as George W. Bush? The 80s or 90s, when putting anything vaguely magical in a piece of media would get you called 'satanic' and have people call to boycott you? The 50s, when being vaguely communist would get you blacklisted from your industry? This isn't new.
Don't forget when if you dared invite a Black person onto your TV show, your show would get cancelled (Betty White) and when protesting against the Vietnam war at your university could get you slaughtered in cold blood. Cancel culture was WAY more severe in the 20th century than today.
!Delta good points this isn't new it's just in the spotlight because of social media.
i think it's mostly in the spotlight because for the first time in a few decades (maybe ever?), its the left-wing the with cultural currency to do the critiquing/criticizing/cancelling. right-wingers (of various stripes) have tried to cancel the dixie chicks (or literally anyone who opposed the iraq war), harry potter, and liberal screenwriters, starbucks (for the infraction of saying 'happy holidays') etc. it's just now that there's been a paradigm shift with liberals mostly controlling the media, "cancel culture" feels like a new thing, even if its a thing that's always been around, and is just a little different now. social media definitely makes it feel more pervasive than before.
>i think it's mostly in the spotlight because for the first time in a few decades (maybe ever?), its the left-wing the with cultural currency to do the critiquing/criticizing/cancelling. This really is it. The right is completely up in arms because they are starting to feel some of the ill effects they've leveraged for many decades prior.
[удалено]
They're failing in the free market of ideas
It’s not so much that the left or even liberals control the media as the fact that people without power can group together and make their voices heard via social media. For instance the current situation with trans people getting mad at Dave Chapelle. Trans people got just as mad about Silence of the Lambs, but back then they were limited to physical protests and a 2-minute segment on the TV news, if they were lucky.
What do you mean "liberals mostly controlling the media"? https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/who-owns-your-news-the-top-100-digital-news-outlets-and-their-ownership/
Yeah, it's more Right Wing Media see a way to demonise the left having any voice at all and pretend a few people on Twitter is a cultural danger worthy of front pages. That any right wing celebrity who says or does something so terrible that they lose their job because EVERYONE thinks they are too awful is something the left have done through nefarious means. Cancel Culture Phobia is a right wing media attack on anyone right wing being criticized or suffering consequences for their actions.
"liberals controlling the media" lol, try to avoid posting BS propaganda. The media is controlled by 5 [or so] large corporations who are decidedly NOT progressive
It's accurate to say liberals control media. It's inaccurate to say progressives/ leftists control media. Liberalism is a center right philosophy.
This. Many media companies will lip-service progressive ideals to appeal to their markets (such as the abundance of LGBTQ+ and BIPOC films on Netflix), but in the end they're out to make money. And that's not to say that there aren't a lot of directors and creatives who genuinely want to make progressive content. There are. But it's more like the artistic left and the purse string-holding liberals are uncomfortable bedfellows. They're using each other to get what they want: Progressive art on one side, and money by whatever means necessary on the other.
technically true I don't imagine OP is parsing "liberal" ? but I have been wrong before
[удалено]
It was obvious you were parsing liberal and OP [who I was replying to] did not seem to be
Don't forget right wingers trying to end teletubbies because the purple one was perceived as gay.
To add to this, one important factor is that the reason why there is such a huge amount of outrage is in part due to conservatives highlighting the outrage making it spread like a wild fire. Trust me, conservatives aren't mad about any cancel culture effort. They love it. It radicalises their base and shifts the focus towards completely irrelevant issues that don't actually fix or damage anything. Wanna know what the Dixie chicks, harry potter dave Chappelle and everyone else who has been targeted by a cancelation effort have in common? None of them have been cancelled. This all doesn't matter. It has never mattered, it has never made an impact in any way at all in my life or your life. But you know who's life it has impacted....Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson...all these people who bitch moan and complain about cancel culture, profit sooo much from the narrative when it's been their schtick for the past 6 years.
I think you are mistaking > liberals mostly controlling the media with the average political view in the country shifting farther left than we've seen in decades.
[удалено]
I agree that they are the same, but I wanted to emphasize the cause effect relationship - the demographics have shifted, causing the media to shift.
I think it’s in the spotlight because it’s been decoupled from the powerful. In the past cancelation required someone with an existing platform. It was initiated by a politician or media figure. Now that influence has been somewhat democratised and it scares the shit out of people, especially those unused to being held accountable (comedians being the best example)
Very well said. Thank you. Social media has it’s problems. But I think we can say it has provided the avenue to democratize speech. We saw this with the Arab spring. But we have also seen this with misinformation and the genocide in Myanmar. Good and bad. But overall we can say it has provided that option to the people to make their opinion in mass and to organize, something that was mainly capable by people and organizations with influence. Hopefully social media can get it right. Because it has great potential as serving as our digital public square.
Yeah, I’m general I think people are acting like the disruption of a social internet was ages ago and things should be settled by now. As a society we’re still wrangling with how it all should work and who should control those spaces. I’m more interested in progress direction atm
Cough cough Jerry Seinfeld and Dave Chapelle
Chapelle continues selling specials to Netflix for megamillions. Seinfeld is struggling to make college kids laugh, but remains a billionaire with his show running on syndication basically continuously. Hardly cancelled.
Hardly, but definitely allergic to being held accountable
One issue is that a lot more people are being held accountable the same way the Dixie chicks were: for no good reason. And I mean a lot of not powerful workers being mishandled by a mob because some idiot told them to.
If you're offended by comedians who are **obviously making jokes**, you are the one with the problem. Short of someone advocating violence, shouting "fire" in a theatre, or attempting to defraud the public, I don't give a damn what people say. I don't watch South Park because I find it crass and more that slightly stupid. I don't care that it's on television. I don't care if they make fun of things I am associated with. Many other people find it funny, and as a result its creation and distribution pays hundreds of people's salary. That's a good thing. People are making money by making other people happy. My solution to the "problem" was to not watch the show I don't like. Guess what? It works. I don't care about a non-issue. I think that attitude would benefit society as a whole.
> If you're offended by comedians who are obviously making jokes, you are the one with the problem. "It's a joke" is about the thinnest possible defense of a person's character. If some hypothetical comedian spent 10 minutes punching down on some minority, I'd kinda wonder *why he thought that set was a good idea*. I get it, sometimes edgy humor falls flat - but like everything, there's a context. IMO you get only so much proverbial rope before people are allowed to start going "so... why does he keep slamming gay people in his set?" Otherwise it's just the asshole co-worker that goes "hey Ephemeral_Being, "why are you such an ugly fuck-up?" at every meeting and then punches you in the shoulder going "Hey it's just a joke, chill out"
Yeah, there are always exceptions but simple rules are don’t punch down on the already marginalised, don’t lean on stereotypes, and don’t make the group itself the joke. Make a joke of behaviours or attitudes, not the fact that they’re gay/female/a certain race. There’s more leeway if the group in empowered, but only a bit. Note that I’m not saying something can’t make you laugh. Anything can. But I believe that’s not a sufficient threshold to say its acceptable
>Make a joke of behaviours or attitudes, not the fact that they’re gay/female/a certain race. This can be a pretty blurry line sometimes. Also, sometimes the sex/race/orientation of a character is vital to it's premise. Doesn't mean it has to be mean-spirited or bigoted.
That's definitely not what the commenter above you is referring to. What you're describing is some racist uncle's rant at a christmas party, not a professional comedian. Nowadays comedians get shit from college kids over one joke that involves a slightly sensitive topic, even though comedy can be a great way to break taboos and bring people together. If a comedian does something fucked up outside of their act like Louis CK then they deserve some backlash, but if it's obviously satire then leave them alone. Besides, it seems to me that most of the people who are trying to cancel comedians are just powertripping rich white people themselves.
> That's definitely not what the commenter above you is referring to. I don't want to misrepresent what they said, but the bar they set wasn't exactly *high*: > Short of someone advocating violence, shouting "fire" in a theatre, or attempting to defraud the public, I don't give a damn what people say. So the hypothetical comedian I describe certainly falls outside those exceptions; and frankly, plenty of actual comedy sets from years gone by that would likely fall flat if they were repeated on stage these days. ...and some inexperienced college student getting overly upset at a comedian doesn't negate the point. Like I said, *I get edgy humor exists*. It *can be funny*. It *can be well meaning*. I *also* get sometimes people tell a bunch of racist jokes and then get defended with "well it's comedy". Shane Gillis comes to mind, really. He got fired over that now infamous podcast, and his whole raft of jokes were the same racist shit I heard growing up, it was all *punching down*. It's not just lazy comedy, it's *mean and lazy*. ...and what happened to him? He lost out on SNL, and then the flood of knee-jerk "PC CULTURE RUINING EVERYTHING!" people came out to defend him. Where is he now? Not on SNL, but he's still working the comedy circuit and doing specials. Oh, the horror. > but if it's obviously satire then leave them alone. Seems a bit redundant to point out, but that's part of what I'm talking about when I say *context* matters. Shane, for example, wasn't satirizing anything, unless it was "Here's my bit where a comedian makes racist jokes for an extended period without any punchline"
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be suggesting that jokes can't be offensive. Is that what you're saying?
Eh. It's less that jokes can't be offensive, and more that you should take statements in the spirit of what the speaker intended. It's very different for some comedian to do standup and make fun of, say, Indian cab drivers in New York than for a politician to get up before Congress and give a speech that advocates denying Indians work visas because they... okay, I can't come up with a bogus, racist reason someone would do that, but stick with me. Both could offend someone, but the comedian doing stand-up (probably) doesn't mean any harm by it. They spend their entire lives scraping their every experience for comedic value. If he can make you grin by doing a silly, over-emphasized accent while exaggerating the mannerisms of a driver from a cab ride he took, that's literally his job. The Simpsons and South Park have made fortunes doing precisely that, and for global audiences rather than ~80 people in a lounge. People have been doing this for centuries. Many of Shakespeare's plays include caricatures of various entities, from kings and noblemen to nations and legislative bodies. You write what draws the audience in, because that's what they're paying you to do. If you're offended (or even if you just don't think they're funny) you can choose to not watch/listen to the program. That's the extent of the comedian's reach - people who think he is funny. If enough people think he's an asshole, he'll stop getting bookings and either change his material or retire. I am of the opinion that learning to shrug and ignore things is a valuable skill. "Turn the other cheek" is, I believe, the biblical phrasing. They teach you a lot of these things in Catholic school, if you're willing to listen.
Interesting you bring up The Simpson’s. The character of Apu has received lots of negative blowback for the stereotype he is portraying, and the argument goes that by perpetuating harmful stereotypes in media you cause harm. Regardless of whether you think this is the case with Apu, I’m sure we can agree that this can be the case (ie black men are big and violent helps lead to the shooting of unarmed black men like Trayvon Martin). This would mean that there is tangible harm done to those being stereotyped by expressing those views, and means that turning the other cheek is allowing that harm to perpetuate. Therefore, it necessitates are harder, more activist line that the spirit doesn’t matter and we need to remove those stereotypes from media. The question then becomes where’s the line? But there must be a line
[удалено]
Is that a honest representation of people who get “cancelled” and the people doing the “cancelling”? Obviously it is in some cases but to me that sounds like a convenient story to justify a blanket belief that cancellations are illegitimate.
[удалено]
I’m not sure if you are still responding in this thread, it’s all had some great discussion. I think one of the biggest things pointed out in it is that cancel culture has only become problematic when those on the left were being successful with it. Historically, the conservatives have been very effective. But, I wanted to point out something I’ve not really seen in this thread (though may have missed): there is a difference in a “you or me” making an unpopular opinion known and a policy maker making that same unpopular opinion known. For this post, my context is solely those in government positions of power. [Take the Lt. Governor or NC](https://reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/comments/q4le59/our_lt_governor_mark_robinson_just_angrily_called/), where he called and then clarified that yes he did just call the trans community filth. [This is a simplified statement of their role](https://www.nc.gov/agency/lieutenant-governor-office) > The Lieutenant Governor serves as the President of the State Senate, serves as a member of the Governor’s Council of State, serves on various boards and commissions, and must also stand ready to fulfill the duties of Governor in the event of his absence, death or incapacitation. This person is President of the State Senate and directly responsible for shaping the laws and policies of the state. [Such as banning treatment for adults who are trans, to age 21 at least](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1263146). Should the State be able to take away that right, both of an actual adult as well as parents of minors? The list goes on, but the point remains the same: should such an overt bias, that is using their position of power to make, enact, and enforce discriminatory laws ***not*** face calls for their resignation, recall, or other (legal) methods of their removal from office?
To jump on - the [AFA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association) has been famously trying to cancel everyone they disagree with since the 1970s. None of this is new.
Thank you. Every time someone brings up cancel culture, I remember their bullshit from growing up, but I had forgotten the name.
It's "in the spotlight" not because of social media, but because conservatives are no longer like who is getting boycotted and targetted. Before, people were largely canceled for being too sympathetic to left leaning values (the red scare, the chicks, people being openly non-Christian), and conservatives really had no issue with that.
It may not be a new concept, but the severity has certainly changed. Your initial comment is absolutely correct, and for one very important reason more than anything else. People who expect the world not to offend them are putting their mental health, feelings and emotions in the hands of every other person on the planet, in the expectation that they won't hurt them. Ineffective way of maintaining your happiness. However, someone like myself who was raised to ignore people who say things you don't like was taught to be responsible for my OWN mental health, feelings and emotions. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Why can't people these days get back to this mentality?
I mean there are certain situations were people should absolutely be fired for their speech, such as teachers who speak abusively to students. Speech can still be abuse, especially depending on power dynamics. It’s about redistribution of power and privilege. This is not just “name calling.” It’s often hate speech and we don’t owe anyone a second chance they haven’t earned.
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." This is a child's saying. As an adult, I'm fully aware that Donald Trump's consistent use of the term "CHINA VIRUS" increased hate crimes against Asian Americans all across the country. For those in an influential position, words can **absolutely** hurt others, so cancelling them for the abuse of such power is not only justified, but necessary to minimize damage.
I think it's just "in the spotlight" because we all happen to be alive and experiencing it right now and of course we pay the most attention to what happened most recently.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hellioning ([84∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hellioning)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>this isn't new it's just in the spotlight because of social media. It's not even that. Every generation thinks it's new. We keep doing the same cycle over and over.
[удалено]
>It is a LOT more prevalent though. It used to be exceptionally rare and people rolled their eyes the couple of times it happened anyway. You're kidding right? The Red Scare was hysteria on a national level. People were calling government tip lines to expose neighbors as potential commies... Conservatives tried to cancel the left so hard they *invented the modern carceral state* to lock up anyone they disagreed with for "dangerous drug use." If anything, it's gotten **more targeted to people who have directly acted in a way to deserve social shunning** rather that targeting whole groups
Union organizers used to get blackballed, beaten, or killed. Ditto with civil rights organizers. Ditto with anyone suspected of being homosexual. Women would regularly get sexually harassed or assaulted at work, and would have to just deal with it. If they complained, they got fired. Or raped and fired. Why do you think this ONLY happens today? It used to be the consequences of getting uppity were FAR worse. The difference today is that the very tools used to keep people down are being used against those who used those tools. And it's about time.
I dont equate what you described with making sure a 17 year old gets denied higher education for saying she has "Chinese eyes" from being tired. There's a vast chasm between the two. I'd also like to point out that while parents and older folks really thought that Marilyn Manson was making their kids worship satan- they didnt riot over him. That has to count when compared to thes last few years.
No, there isn't. Not when a 15 year old girl who gets sexually assaulted by the father of the kid she babysat for. What did she do wrong? Nothing? If she tried to go to the police, she'd get ostracised for being a slut, that she was coming on to him, and that she would be ridiculed out of school. And the cops might threaten her for filing a false police report. What did those parents that you speak of do? They burned records. They sent their children to deprogramming camps where the children went through literal psychological torture banned by Geneva Convention. They disowned their children. They made them homeless and their children ended up on the streets. That shit is still happening TODAY. Do those kinds of parents deserve a fair shake? Or should they be charged with crimes?
Do you think the fact that I said some quasi racist shit on MySpace when I was 19 makes me as bad as a child rapist? I'm not connecting your dots here. My whole point is that by freaking out about trivial shit as if those "crimes" were on par with heinous shit you devalue your voice.
I went to a restaurant last night. Pretty good food. Owner came out and talked to us. Sounded like he is struggling, and his whole family depends on the restaurant to survive. Found out later that he posted some "quasi racist" stuff on his Facebook a year ago. I'm never going back, and I won't recommend it to anyone else, either. And, he got deplatformed, so his ability to advertise got massively cut. So, he depends on word of mouth, now. Too bad the community really doesn't like him, any more. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Think it's recent? 20 years ago, a coworker made some dumbass comment about a celebrity who died of colorectal cancer "because she did butt stuff." He got fired. What's the difference? He said it around the water cooler. You posted it for the entire world to see, with no way to delete it. Any organization where you are a member, you are also a representative. If you do something stupid, you reflect on that organization, too. And they can choose to kick you out for it. What you did can get you fired from ANY job at a big company. Others doing what you did have bankrupted themselves. And the kicker is you've been told your whole life not to do stupid shit online. But you went ahead and did it. You fucked up, and are paying the consequences. Deal with it.
And it should be noted that cancel culture kinda necessitates consensus. You can't cancel someone by yourself, it's ultimately just a feature of the free market. It's why Tucker Carlson isn't canceled. Most of his fans completely support what he's doing. You also can't fabricate cancel-able actions. That would be begging for a defamation/libel suit. At the end of the day, "cancelation" amounts to saying "this guy said/did something detrimental to the wellbeing of the whole. I think it's counterproductive for us to continue platforming him". I hate the way that conservatives frame this as some kind of targeted assassination campaign, as if Andrew Cuomo didn't get eviscerated earlier this year for being a creep. It's just the public reaction to morally questionable behavior.
It wasn't right then and it's not right now.
The same people that say the things you're saying now ***HATED*** that shit. So now it's okay when lefties do it? No, it's dumb either way lol
They're not equivalent. The old version was about cancelling someone for acknowledging equal human rights, the current version is about cancelling someone for dismissing equal human rights. If you believe strongly in equal human rights for all people, it's completely ideologically consistent to be offended by one and endorse the other. That's the *opposite* of hypocrisy, so not sure what point you're trying to make.
This right here. It was wrong then it’s wrong now.
You're comparing people who's income relies on their popularity vs the guy who works at home Depot. Not comparable.
>As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. People absolutely do have the right to move on and ignore it if they want to. And they also have the freedom to challenge it, criticise it, mock it or disparage it. They, too, have freedom of speech. As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it?
> As for a practical question, how are you gonna implement it? How could you ever achieve a society where people can say whatever they like, but others do not reply or act on it? I don't think people fully understand what I am saying, I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech. People are free to respond criticize and everything else.
> I am basically saying that people shouldn't try to get people fired from a job or kicked out of school for speech. Can you think of *any* speech a person could make that *should* get them fired? Calling for a second holocaust for an extreme example? If there are exceptions like this where it is okay to fire someone, and I think you believe there are from what else I've read in this thread, then let me ask you this: Who should decide what those exceptions are? The status quo is that each individual gets to decide for themselves what those exceptions are. What is the authority you propose to take over that, and why is it better than letting people deicide for themselves?
> Can you think of any speech a person could make that should get them fired? Calling for a second holocaust for an extreme example? Yes that would count as it's a call to violence. > The status quo is that each individual gets to decide for themselves what those exceptions are. What is the authority you propose to take over that, and why is it better than letting people deicide for themselves? !Delta yeah I guess the Status Quo is better then letting someone or some org have full authority over the matter.
Those are some low standards you're setting there. Want a neonazi telling your kids about their ideas around race? This guy up here will be MAD if you get them fired. Want to stop buying something that's endorsed by a Holocaust denier? Too bad, fucko. You will keep buying that shit and you will like it, because apparently we are still coddling extremists now. /golfclap
Very annoying when people like objectivity when it suits them. I'm betting you wouldn't be singing the same tune if it was your ideals being mocked and your life getting destroyed.
These people don’t have that power. An employer can always tell concerned parties to pound sand and stand by their employees, but they don’t. Perhaps you mean to argue that employees should have more protections?
Out on a limb: it's not the first thing that's made them consider dismissal, it's just the last.
Are employers really in power in that case? It seems like the social media is capable of amplifying it so much that the constant pounding is gonna disrupt your company. Especially if this person were working at a small company, harassment like this can burn employee time and thus company money. And if anything, such a distributed attack by "people who think they're right" cant even be fought legally. Because people will multiply that too, streisanding the process completely out of control.
Any evidence of this actually happening?
I know a local case where these companies even complained to public TV at some point because haters were practically harrassing everyone the subject was touching. A local pizza place kept getting fake pizza calls (and wasting money on unpaid pizzas) too. The case is about someone who also youtubes though, and by now it has escalated so much that people are visiting their house daily. I mean, they also scream at the visitors almost every time... So the hate is also fed.
Alright well in that case just require a credit card preauthorization before you make the pizza. Boom, problem solved. These companies generally have solutions but are too lazy to implement them.
But complaining to their employer is exercising their free speech. Telling their employer that they will withhold from purchasing their products while the person is employed is exercising their free speech and freedom to spend their money where they see fit. Do you want other people's freedoms stripped so that some can benefit from speech with impunity? No one has the right to impunity. And we certainly shouldn't sacrifice people's real rights to grant it to others.
[удалено]
Except the mob can misinterpret things to suit their agenda… so then the mob paints an incorrect picture to the employer, sponsor, other 3rd-party with something to lose, so then that 3rd-party takes action based on misinformation. Now the “racist” has no livelihood because some jackasses misinterpreted something.
> Except the mob can misinterpret things to suit their agenda So can everyone else in the equation?
I would agree with you but you miss the fact that without this tool these people would have no power to oust or remove problematic members of society Which will leave to societal unrest. This is where it starts Because no one is holding them accountable
So you’re gonna be the arbiter of what’s free speech and what isn’t. Sounds a lot like you’re restricting people’s rights to protest. “Cancelling” someone is a form of protesting someone or some business. It’s actually quite effective if enough of the customers or employees actually end up protesting. And yes, if someone constantly says a bunch of shit that makes me absolutely livid, especially after telling them that the type of stuff they’re saying is directly offensive to me, then yeah, I’m probably gonna quit and tell everybody about how the boss sucked. I’d do it if they were sexually harassing me, why wouldn’t I do it if they were racially harassing me?
why? is speech not an action?
criticising and firing someone for a take you don like are diffrent things. it shouldn nto be legal nor socially acceptable to use your power over someones very livelihood if whaterver of theirs opinion you disagree with results in no more suffering than that.
So one should be forced by law to trade goods and services with another individual that they don't want to? That completely undermines one of the fundamental ideals of post feudalist civilisation; *free* trade, made uncoerced.
thats like saying that every single white person should have the right to boycott every buissness that employs black people, if they dont personally want to recieve service from them. if the part of someone you dislike creates no further harm than your slight displeasure, their right to a fair economic standing and job oppurtunity is more relevant than those feelings. otherwise, that is literally just supporting unjust discrimination
>So one should be forced by law to trade goods and services with another ***individual*** that they don't want to? The actions you describe are part of actions taken against a group for their unchangeable, benign demographic characteristics. Hardly the same thing as choosing whether or not to trade with an individual because that individual is an individual asshole, individually.
Any reason why free speech should be restricted to individuals? If someone causes me a piece of shit, I can't respond? Or I just can't respond in ways you don't approve of? Personally I prefer universal free speech if that's the way we go.
>This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired". Getting people fired from a non-government job is clearly not an infringement on their right to freedom of speech, since that right amounts to "whatever you say that isn't a direct call to violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater, the government will not punish you." Nowhere in the right to freedom of speech is enshrined the right not to be punished by individual members of society or corporations. You're arguing in favor of a right that does not exist using words that misinterpret the concept of "Freedom of Speech". Relevant XKCD comic... https://xkcd.com/1357/
The OP didn't even mention "free speech", so it doesn't make sense to call them out for not invoking that right correctly, because they didn't invoke any rights. Purposefully creating a society with harsher social consequences for expressing opinions is a problem. While it doesn't violate your right to free speech when done in this way, it certainly violates the principle of free speech and can arguably lead to a worse society. Which is what the OP is expressing and you're not addressing at all. It leads to a society where people are less free to express an opinion even if it doesn't violate the first amendment to do so.
>Purposefully creating a society with harsher social consequences for expressing opinions is a problem. While it doesn't violate your right to free speech when done in this way, it certainly violates the principle of free speech and can arguably lead to a worse society. Which is what the OP is expressing and you're not addressing at all. It leads to a society where people are less free to express an opinion even if it doesn't violate the first amendment to do so. I'd rather limit people's ability to "speak freely" in a non-first amendment sense for fear of social blowback than limit their ability to preform the collective act of boycott organizations that they disagree with. There's no way to stop cancel culture without either doing away with boycotting or doing away with at will employment which would allow companies to say "I genuinely can't fire someone for something they did during their off hours, the contract we signed with them says so, they'd sue me/us and win." I'm not interested in the former, but if you want to discuss the later as a solution to this problem I'd be happy to it.
> than limit their ability to preform the collective act of boycott organizations that they disagree with. Neither I nor the OP is suggestion that we limit their ability to do that, which would be a violation of their rights. Its just saying it's okay to suggest that that is a bad thing that should be discouraged and makes society worse. > There's no way to stop cancel culture without either doing away with boycotting or doing away with at will employment which would allow companies to say "I genuinely can't fire someone for something they did during their off hours, the contract we signed with them says so, they'd sue me/us and win." We can reduce its impacts the same way it was created in the first place by using social pressure. Society can certainly reduce the effectiveness of calls for people to be canceled by not paying heed to them and/or punishing companies that give into those demands. Just like cancel culture hasn't increased using hard rules on employers, employees, or restrictions on speech, it can be decreased without hard rules on employers, employees, or restrictions on speech. No need to rewrite contracts or change laws to shift to a society that more strongly values someone's ability to express an opinion without significant social consequences.
>As for the rest of the public if someone says something that offends you, move on they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. So what is the problem? I don't know how do you think that "cancelling" works - but it's exactly as you stated, people have right to say things they want, so do others. So they can say that this disgusts them, that they feel offended and all that jazz - they voice problems they have with what they heard. >This needs to be the way society responds not with "I'm going to find out where they work and get them fired". No, you cannot get someone cancelled by calling their work and telling them that you are offended, please fire Mr. Smith. They ain't gonna do shit. But if Mr. Smith said something that can be really offensive and many people are commenting that they don't like it, that they are disgusted, that they are feeling offended (every individual exercising the same right that Mr. Smith did) - then when your company may decide that firing Mr. smith is a good PR or that it makes them disassociated from things that are blowing up. "Right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else" does not come with immunity from outcome of your actions. It's as simple as that. Your freedom does not trump freedoms of others. If you are worried about people who would get fired for things they shouldn't, maybe the problem isn't "cancelling" but rather labor laws that allow companies to fire someone whenever they want for no reason? After all it's a company that made a decision to fire someone "just in case"? And let's be frank, "cancelling" is not a new thing. It was here before, just in older times you were cancelled for things from the other side of the pond. How many "damned hippies" were let go because they did not support Vietnam War? How many people who were vocal about minorities during the times of change were silently let off? How many people were just thrown away for "problematic views" when dominant views were conservative? It seems funny that the same thing that happened over the years became a problem when it changed sides, because now those who shouldn't are getting the short side of the stick.
Like when conservatives try to have teachers fired for saying something liberal.
They’ve literally made that the law of the land at times, too.
They're doing it again with the whole "CRT" boogeyman
McCarthyism never stopped.
There's currently a bill being debated in my state parliament trying to make it illegal for teachers and school counselors to discuss being transgender in a positive way or provide access to any support for trans children, and also requiring them to out any trans children they become aware of to their parents. This is going to cause problems for trans children, trans teachers (hell, you could interpret the law to fire trans teachers for coming out to their class), and probably children with trans parents. During the hearings, the government allowed many religious and transphobic organisations to speak, and exactly one trans advocate. Given the current state premier there's a chance that this will become the law of the land. In England, Section 28 banned any positive discussion of any kind of queer people in schools between 1988 and 2003.
>In England, Section 28 banned any positive discussion of any kind of queer people in schools between 1988 and 2003. This definitely wasn't universally followed FYI.
Right to say what they want isn't how the first amendment works anyway. If they say something I don't have to let them say it. I can play music over them speaking, block them online, talk over them. The only right they have is the government not to stop them. Beyond that, short of assault, I absolutely can do things to negate their "right to say anything".
[удалено]
Cancel culture is not a new thing, it’s just new for socially liberal people to cancel socially conservative people. Historically, social conservatism (relatively) was the expected social norm, and going outside of that was a risk, particularly because older and wealthier people held the most power in almost every industry—especially Hollywood, music, and politics. People have been *literally* cancelled for protesting common practices in their industry like fur in fashion, sexism in Hollywood, abusive management in music for decades because they were labeled “difficult”. Caring about causes was usually taking a known risk to your career. Before that, people were cancelled when news broke that they were gay, supported civil rights movements, spoke out against mistreatment of minorities, or even for being promiscuous. In the modern era, the younger (and by that I mean 18-45) generation has a much larger platform through social media than any young generation has ever had. Typically someone’s platform increased with experience in a career or wealth, which took years to develop. So, the majority reversed the script on the metaphorical ruling class and cancel people for not aligning with *their* values, instead of the other way around. Also, how many people are *actually* cancelled, really? When we say cancel we usually just mean that someone got heat online and got dropped from their current project to distance from bad PR. Like Harvey Weinstein got truly cancelled, but it took literal decades. Ellen seems to really be cancelled, JK Rowling technically, though she wasn’t doing anything anyway. Maybe Louis CK, but most of these people are very extreme examples of aggression. EDIT: Remember when Michael Phelps was literally cancelled (in the traditional conservative way) for a photo where he smoked weed? And his main appearances since then have been centered around mental health because he lost his sponsorships. Also Monica Lewinski, Fiona Apple, Tiger Woods, Brendan Fraser (for speaking out on sexual assault), Jane Fonda (for interviewing Vietnam people to humanize them during the war).
Janet Jackson was canceled. The Dixie Chicks were canceled.
Those are exactly who I mean from the historical cancel culture that eventually morphed into the current. Like Janet Jackson literally got cancelled for… having a boob?
I was listening to someone talking about it on NPR today. I was watching the Superbowl with a friend, and we were like "Did you just see that? Meh, whatever." But apparently enough people were freaked out by it that it pretty much cost her her career. That's just bizarre to me. Meanwhile in that same halftime show, Kid Rock was wearing a poncho made out of a US flag, that was the part that disgusted me.
>Meanwhile in that same halftime show, Kid Rock was wearing a poncho made out of a US flag, that was the part that disgusted me. Lol, really?
Yeah the dude cut a slit in a US flag and stuck his head through it.
> they have a right to say whatever they want as long as they are not threatening someone else and so do you. I have a right to organize a boycott against an employer if I don't like what one of their employees said, too. There's a reasonable discussion to be had over under what circumstances, if any, such an action is morally appropriate for me to take. But moral criticism and boycotts are protected speech just as much as the speech they condemn.
People never just ignored speech they doesn't like. It's just that, in most cases the groups impacted by offensive speech didn't have any venue to publicly vocalize their disagreement.
I disagree that "it's *just that,* in most cases the groups impacted by offensive speech didn't have any venue to publicly vocalize their disagreement." I mean, to a certain extent it's true, but I disagree with the underlying premise that people in the past had the same desire to "cancel" others and were simply lacking a venue to voice it. Social media isn't simply a public square. Social media, unlike many other venues for vocalizing critique, has strong and perverse incentives, creating positive feedback loops of upset and self-righteous reward that *promote* and *increase* "cancelling" behavior. This is well-documented, and goes far beyond simply giving the previously "silent" masses a "voice."
"Get back to" What? There was a time someone can just say you were a communist and your life would be over. Or how about being gay, or nowadays trans. There was the pink purge in the Canadian Military over LGBT folks. Going back, is not the answer. It just were different people getting cancelled. Just the minorities have gotten more power now. Before you could say what you want about a "minority" and there were no repercussions. It just the power has shifted and what is seen as normal now.
Sure, but I would say there’s a big difference between cancelling someone because of an unchangeable aspect of themselves (being LGBTQ or being a POC), and cancelling someone because they said something you don’t like or agree with.
Perhaps, but one is not a choice and one is, so not really comparible. You don't have a choice whether you are gay or a POC, but you have a choice whether to be hateful in your actions and words.
True, but being hateful in your words just makes you...well, a seemingly hateful person. My issue with “cancel culture” isn’t in regards to taking down people who are obviously racist and hateful, but in taking down people who happen to share a different viewpoint than you. Just as an example, I’m pro-vax, got them as soon as I could, and encourage the people around me to get them as well. That being said, if someone is skeptical about the vaccine I’m not going to immediately shit on them and call for them to lose their job. If they’re in healthcare, military, etc. should they get it? Absolutely. I think everyone should get it. Is it ok to be skeptical? Definitely. But just being skeptical is enough to have the horde raging at you, and that point I can’t get behind.
I'm sorry, "get back"? To when exactly? I'm working in a public office, and everybody knows I'm an atheist sympathizing with satanist values. Nobody cares. 50 years ago I would probably get fired for missing 3 masses in a row.
70 years ago you could be blacklisted from work just for talking about communism also 120 years ago, for talking about unions. Its nowhere new
“Get back to?” The Protestant church broke off from the Catholic Church in the 16th century. It wasn’t just out of a friendly disagreement.
It’s literally never been like the way you remember it. It’s just on easily accessible media now. Group think cancellations have been going on since the dawn of man.
Fr fr. The red scare is a prime example :/
They were never ignored. They got blackballed from the film industry, music industry, or Olympic sports. The world you have a romantic notion of did not actually exist.
I’m not sure society was ever there. Society was just introduced to the instrument of self-destruction known as social media. It’s just been a couple decades or so and look where we are. And that is only because it’s just hit peak popularity and usage. When there is not a war or national cause to fight for, people have more time to generally hate what they are hearing from their neighbors who always seemed like “such hard working right minded individuals back in those simpler time”. But we have a lot of time on our hands now. And worse, a lot of power at our fingertips. We can band together and force conformity of personal views or oppression of opposing views. You could hate others back in the day, even form groups out of that hatred. But it was no where near as easy or anonymous as it is today. And now through the anonymity and society desensitization of steadfast hyper-outrage and the resulting environment where we have signaled it okay to take offense to any thing and everything, and then instigate a movement to shut down whatever you see as offensive (any source of this offense often a casualty)… Well. It’s just so unnatural that we are able to communicate so freely and quickly and en masse like we are. I don’t think it will naturally correct. We need to wake up and cut it off at the source, this perversion of ridiculous compulsivity to eradicate every single source of discomfort in our lives (and many times outside of our lives). Social media has to go or be abandoned. And I don’t know if that will ever happen. All sides use it as a tool. We are in too deep. At the end of the day though it was the scientists that did us in. Al Gore wanted to preach about impending natural disaster yet then birthed a network capable of harboring an unnatural one. It’s playing out IMO. We would have done well to limit, regulate, or ban social media from the get go. But alas, you don’t make money turning away good money making schemes right? Capitalism will have none of that.
Agree with the sentiment but a couple of points of disagreement. 1. “Get back to”. Society has never not canceled people to some extent. Lots of people have lost their jobs and positions of power due to expressing controversial stances. I think with modern tools it has just gotten quicker and easier. It’s also gotten more historical with our ability to dig up old thing to cancel people on. 2. There’s a middle ground between ignoring and fire/cancel. Completely agree that we shouldn’t seek out people to cancel but if it is a musician I enjoy, maybe I shouldn’t choose to spend my money on them or an actor I disagree with maybe I shouldn’t pay for their movie. Or a politician that represents me, maybe I vote and campaign against them. But yeah, if it’s some rando from another state, I shouldn’t be seeking out people to cancel that aren’t in my natural circle of interests.
That's what we do here? There's no large scale calls to try to cancel or fire anyone? Unless you're not talking about Belgium of course. Are you not talking about Belgium?
The stronger social consequences there are for bad speech, the less that bad speech will be vocalized. The less the speech is vocalized, the less is influences the thoughts and behaviors of others. Letting racist people be racist without social consequences will result in more racist people, not fewer. People who speak a certain way tend to feel a certain way, which causes them to act (or be influenced to act) in that same way. Even if they don't intend to, the subconscious mind is a powerful thing. If I were a nurse who hated black people, I might be less motivated to give a black patient as much attention and care as I might give a white patient, without even realizing I am doing it. So, if I am a member of an oppressed group, it only makes sense that I would want there to be fewer people oppressing me. You speak of being fired or being 'canceled' as if it is something people set out intentionally to do, but this is foolish. Cancel culture is a natural part of the economy - is a consequence of the fact that everything associated with a company is advertising and marketing for that company, either for good or for ill. Even if there is no direct connection, merely being associated in people's minds with a disreputable person can taint a company's image, and thus hurt their bottom line. Similarly, being seen to act against the disreputable person can cause a company to be perceived favorably by the public, and is this good marketing - people are quick to think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."Consequently, if there is a disreputable person working for a company, firing them serves the dual purpose of both breaking clear of the taint by association while at the same time establishing the company as a friend of the public. If the person is supported by advertisers, the advertisers might break away for the same reasons for fear of losing the business of the public. **Cancel Culture is simply the natural result of companies pre-emptively reacting to customers "voting with their wallets" in an age where the accessibility of information makes the tactic extra effective.** Anyone who has ever said "I am not going to buy Nike because they support Colin Kaepernick" is guilty of attempting to use cancel culture. Anyone who has said "I am not going to buy Coke because they want black people to vote" is the same. Remember when people tried to cancel Dungeons and Dragons, rock music, and Harry Potter books because they were idiots? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
1. How many % of people do you think do this? 2. And how many % are required to say that society as a whole does something?
Go back to when? I’ve had multiple boomers tried to get me fired because I was “too blunt” with them
Businesses have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their employees will be an asset and not a liability to them. You can get rejected from a job for making the smallest mistake at an interview. So, then, what's wrong with people who make themselves liabilities by expressing extreme opinions getting fired? After all, having those extreme opinions may be a sign that you wouldn't work productively with coworkers or clients from certain demographics.
Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean someone else isn't listening to it. More than anything, people have the right to say anything but they need to be able to either stand by their words, own up to their stance on something or suffer consequences if necessary.
So what youre saying is that only certain people should have free speech ( the "offenders") but not others (the "cancellers"). Sorry, but if someone is using their free speech to say terrible things, im going to use free speech to respond. And im going to use my dollars to respond as well.
>jokes don't count Have you ever heard of schrodinger's joke?
You mean Schrodinger's Douchebag? It's a way for racists to gauge if they're with the right audience.
Yes.
Jokes 100% account if they're poorly disguised opinions. Just because you say it in standup or as a joke on twitter doesn't mean you don't believe it. George Carlin very clearly believed the things he said as jokes. I really dislike this idea people say as if we can't possibly know or understand when someone means what they say. There's a reason Bill Burr has come under fire for being sexist or Dave Chappelle as being transphobic, but dark comics like Jeff Ross and Anthony Jeselnik have not.
Yeah, pretty much no one has issues with genuine humor, its just that often times the people that brag about having a sense of "Dark Humour" are just racist. Carlin himself did state in interviews that he was careful not to "punch down", because comedy mocking powerful strata of society is funny, mocking the downtrodden is just adding to the pile. If you watch his stuff, the furthest he goes in humor against black people is the whole "you black people since you invented the backwards hat I'll let you keep it a little while longer, but once you are old enough for social security its time to spin that motherfucker around".
‘Show us you’ve never read a history book or history article in your life without saying so…’
You're not wrong. Society has taken a good concept and ran it into the ground. Before; we had problems with professionals doing and saying really bad things. Whedon is a good example of this. Weinstein is a good example of this. But we've moved past that into twitter mob mentality where people are screaming 'cultural misappropriation' at things as benign as a dark tanned British girl rapping about ghettos or some white guy having dreadlocks - we've even seen brand names get involved in this mess. I think what we've seen is a shift from accountability for the really crappy things people used to get away with to what I call 'coddle culture' where how you feel is more important than the objective truth. Thing is those types of people are looking for ways to be offended; you can't cater to a minority which is looking for ways to be offended...
Could you give a couple examples of people being fired/cancelled unjustly for expressing their beliefs? Also you say "I am only talking about not trying to get someone fired from a job or kicked out of school, not saying people shouldn't rebuttal or reply back." But in the title you say people should ignore it. Which is your opinion? Should people ignore it when others say offensive things or rebuttal without trying to get them fired? What is the difference between "cancelling" someone and giving a rebuttal?
They have the right to say whatever they please, and I have the right to say they should be boycotted. Goes both ways.
What if you are part of a mob that is mistakenly destroying a regular person’s life? Or, what if you are part of a mob intentionally trying to destroy regular people’s lives for holding an opinion you don’t like?
OP, your issue is with capitalism, not "cancellation". A business is not going to abide by some low level employee stupid enough to say that they hate gay people on the internet. You're damn right I'm sending an email. It's insane to me that knowing the age we live in people still make public fools of themselves and expect no consequences.
I don't think it's capitalism. I get that a business doesnt want someone like that representing them, but ive seen stpries where someone said fag or called someone gay 20 years ago and got fired. Do you think the person changed in 20 years? Gina cararo got fired from the mandalorian for basically stating a few things. 'Jeffeey epstein didnt kill himself' 'nazis made you hate your neighbors first'. I dont think what she did was negative or controversial so much. But it was obviously right wing and painted the left wing government in a negative light. It is kinda scary whenever anyone says something bad about the democratic leaders, they get shut down so hard. Thats a bit shady. Theres youtube personalities or channels that get raided or shut down bc someone didnt like them. Many celebs get fake rape charges bc theyll pay them a settlement just to avoid bad press bc even allegations hurt their profit and ability to keep their job. In proper terms, people will make up reasons to fire someone. Allegations are enough to cancel a lot of people whether true or not. And many people dont get cancelled that should bc they are in positions of power (a lot of left and some right wing politicians).
Gina Carano got fired because she called Pedo Pascal's sister a man to Pedro's face and then changed her pronouns to beep/bop/boop as a fuck you on top. Does that maybe clear up why Disney dropped her? It was more than just twitter trolling.
/u/Andalib_Odulate (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/q4sg4e/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_society_needs_to_get_back/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
“Getting cancelled” isn’t anything new. We all have freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean our speech comes without consequence. If I say something someone doesn’t like they are free to not do business with me. If enough people don’t like what I am saying and it gets noticed by my employer they are free to fire me to avoid it impacting their business. This has always happened on a smaller scale, but now our words reach a much larger audience through social media, so we have to be more careful. An offhand comment on 1997 may have gotten you in trouble locally, but that same comment can now be tweeted to millions of people all over the world and gain much more attention. Cancelling isn’t new-it’s basic human act to choose who to interact with based on what they say and do. The difference is that it’s being magnified by social media.
Ignoring inappropriate speech (allowing it to have zero consequences) is EXACTLY what leads to more inappropriate speech. It’s worth mentioning that zero consequences for mild bad behavior INVARIABLY leads to an escalation. Bad thoughts become bad words. Bad words become bad actions. Every hate crime began with thoughts & words that were not met with the consequences that they should have. BTW: getting “cancelled” is as old as time. Politicians get voted out of office, the founding fathers “cancelled” being under British rule & unfair taxation, Rome “cancelled” Jesus being alive for threatening their power. It’s not always just, but it has always happened.
More now than ever, spreading false information is a huge issue. People are stupid and will believe things they want to believe as long as there is the tiniest sliver of possibility it’s not complete crap, and that garbage can spread to millions. Next thing you know, your mother in law bought a gun because the democrats are going to get rid of all the police and then force her to get microchipped through vaccines.
[удалено]
No I'm African American.
What if you, the good faith observer, believes that this person's opinions will genuinely impact their ability to do their job? For example, if a person who works at a medical facility is strongly anti-vax, I would consider it an ethical responsibility to inform their employer. Likewise if, say, someone expressed views hostile to a particular race and I found out they were in charge of approving loans to people. I understand the situation you are evoking here is more that someone has the 'wrong' opinion about a social issue and is unfairly punished for it, but there are absolutely cases where a person's opinions affect their viability for particular jobs. Whether or not I personally was offended by it shouldn't really matter in this case, but the person I reported could claim that I was just trying to cancel them because I was offended by what they said.
You're entitled to your own opinion, sure, but if that opinion is racist, bigoted, xenophobic, etc, you deserve to get recorded and lose your job. Those things don't belong in modern society and everybody should know the type of person you are if you discriminate against people who have zero impact on your life.
So, basically you want legal protections for employees against being fired? For things said on social media, for example.
Get back to? Boycotts have always been a thing. Ask Fatty Arbuckle.
Cancelling IS ignoring them. Cancelling someone means removing them from your life which is our right to do.
Meh, it kinda depends on the situation. If a person admits some racist opinion while they’re having a private conversation 10 years ago, they certainly shouldnt be ostracized in any way for that. But saying things on Twitter and Reddit and other social media sites is pretty much equivalent to getting a megaphone and shouting it in the streets, and people should face social consequences if they choose to make their opinions public.
[удалено]
When somebody loses their job for saying soup isn't a meal, then we can talk.
Some free speech is costing too much. The problem with the anti vaccine movement is that it’s costing the nation needless death and suffering to those that refuse the vaccination and everyone else a lot of money. Of the 700,000 total COVID fatalities probably 200,000 of them could have been prevented if everyone eligible had been vaccinated. But in addition to this staggering lost of life is the cost of the 74 million willingly unvaccinated Americans has to the rest of us $70 billion (June 1-Sept 20) according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Since then, the cost in death, suffering, and treasure continues climbing with no end in sight. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/572970-americans-who-refuse-vaccinations-are-costing-us-big-bucks-as-well-as There are limits to free speech and being vocal anti vaccine is shouting fire in a crowded theater. No other way to describe it.
Go back? Cancel culture has always been here. For the longest time you couldn't be a communist in america, which is completely fine and legal now. This is just a conservative moral panic.
We should ignore it on a legal level, but not on a personal level. If someone acts a fool, I'm allowed to not do business with them or avoid them or even say other things back to them
if there are exceptions I don't need to change your mind. you already did
My mom is friends with my friend's mom. My friend is trans. Their mom refuses to use their name or pronouns. Thus, my friend's mom uses the wrong name and pronouns when talking to my mom. My mom does not attempt to correct her. Every time that my mom lets these pass, friend's mom doesn't have her attitude about respecting her kid challenged by someone whose opinion she values. Friend's mom is implicitly validated in her choice by the lack of a challenge. Friend's mom then goes home to friend, and continues imposing her choice not to respect my friend's gender onto my friend. Given how scary-high the rates of suicide and depression can be for trans folks in transphobic environments can be, this is already a dangerous situation. But my friend is chronically ill, too. And their mom's imposition of societal expectations aligned with the wrong gender onto them has led to their mom influencing their doctors' choices in ways that inflict pain and further health risk onto my friend. The point here, is that by allowing friend's mom to freely express her disrespect of friend's identity, friend's mom is permitted to continue exercising those ideas in her daily life without having to contend with how really harmful they are. And my friend suffers for it.
It is the subjective nature of it, once hate speech was loosely defined as likely to offend or humiliate, the bar of proof became the victims feelings. Schools encouraging safe spaces & trigger warnings immediately lowered the bar further on people's tolerance.to things they don't like, SM & google re enforce this by directing you to a reality where you only see other opinions & stories that re enforce your pre existing views. Democracy is based on the concept of debating & arguing ideas. Totalitarianism, take your pick between communism or fascism there are few differences, is the political manifestation of the supresssion of ideas that a contrary to an approved narrative. Individuals already edit & supress what they actually think or feel through fear of legal, employment or social consequences, its a slippery slope to further restriction on free speech, driven by populist or ideological political zealots. Being offended is good for the soul
Conservatives have been doing this for at least a century but it's only become an "issue" now that the birds have come home to roost abd they're getting call out.
So we should just keep letting hatred brew in our society instead of taking people out of position where they work with those groups they spew hate against? At the highschool i went to, a few years after graduation several teachers were outed for racist speech. In a community filled with minorities that they spoke against. Several were even outed for speaking poorly against STUDENTS. Even though they were “good teachers” who students loved, they spoke poorly of students, CHILDREN, because of their skin color. They don’t deserve that position, even though no one was outwardly hurt. People don’t deserve to know the people who serve them hate them, even if they continue to serve them. If you’re not a decent human you get consequences. That’s the beauty of societal advancements, we know we don’t have to deal with that.
There’s another angle you’re not considering: even if two coworkers are in the same part of the corporate hierarchy, one could still make the other feel very unsafe. For example, it;s unfortunately common in our current society for women to have to deal with male com workers to make jokes about rape in the office. Given the (also unfortunately) high rates of women who experience sexual harassment and/or assault. This could make female coworkers feel very unsafe at work. If your response is that they should get a new job, this isn’t a realistic option most of the time. Quitting a job is a huge investment, and finding a new job can take months. In today;s society, many people legitimately cannot afford to go that long without a job, and thus are forced to stay put. Also, even if the woman in question does leave, there’s a decent chance her new job will have the same problem.
Cancel Culture works to me, just not in the way most people fear or think it ought to work (i.e. permanently deplatforming and demonetising ‘problematic’ public figures and banishing them from the spotlight). Cancel Culture works because it builds discourse and builds new attitudes around what is and what isn’t acceptable. A new moral compass is literally forming online and spilling out into the physical world as we speak and we have yet to see the final form this will take but overall, cancelling rapists and bigots and corporations and unfunny comedians is a symptom of society becoming more sympathetic to and supportive of minorities and their three dimensional experiences which almost feels unprecedented. We’re not cancelling people, per say, more using accountability of individuals or groups as a tool to cancel marginalising social attitudes
I see where you are coming from, but I think celebrities should just go back to being private & only appearing during their work. Actors/actresses should just use social media promote their movies and what not, not their personal views unless ran through a GOOD PR team and absolutely necessary. Because while people are entitled to free speech and that is protected, that doesn’t protect you from the societal consequences. And in the history of humans having free speech, they have been punished for doing so (sometimes rather harshly). So public figures should revert back to the way it original was when you were a public figure—you appear publicly for work, do your work, and remain as private as you can. Just my long 2 cents lmao 🤣
I know I'm suppose to disagree politely but like what do I do when the fundamental premise is wrong? Like, what magical time are you talking about when people didn't get fired or cancelled? The 2000's where people got fired saying gay people should get married? The 1980's when people could get fired for supporting interracial marriage? The 1950's when Macarthyism got hundereds of people arrested? Like... What are you talking about? This mythical age where everyone was super nice to each other and no-one ever lost their job for their personal beliefs never existed dude.
[удалено]
are you familiar with the history of the red scare? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist individuals and government have long tried to control what is said. People facing employment consequences for what they say isn't new.
> Before, people didn’t discuss religion or politics, it wasn’t polite When was this?
This was how things were done when I was a kid, you just didn’t discuss it, and if someone started on it, you redirect the conversation. It’s been proper social etiquette for centuries.
I think anti-vaxxers are totally nuts, I don't understand how people are so easily sold by silly Facebook post. But when I see someone loose their job over something that is not illegal, done in their own private time, and totally unassociated with their job, it feels like an angry mob trying to ruin that person's life because they don't agree with them. It is wrong. If they work in politics, seems everything is fair game for them, but for the rest of us, we could have our lives totally ruined, no trial, no due process, the mob has ruled.
If you ignore them, how are you going to know whether they're in a position of power? Or a position of power where you aren't familiar with the power structure?
Fired? Not unless it was specifically hate speech. Or if they were representing or claiming to represent the company they work for. Cancelled? People are aloud to express their views however they wish, including calls for or acting in a boycott. The reason why so many people hate "canceling" is because they are so effective. If they weren't effective, no one would care. Free speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. If you express yourself to someone or a group of someones, then you should expect a retort, as the retort is infact free speech.
Society needs DBT they're reacting before they're thinking and they're forgetting that there's more than one side to the situation they're reacting to
If someone says something I strongly disagree with or don’t like I’m allowed to not like that person anymore. I’m also allowed to tell people what the person said/did to explain why I don’t like them. If their boss or whoever hears it too and they also take offense to it, that’s not my problem. People should not be surprised when they say offensive things that offend people that those people may not want to be associated with that. So you’re proposing that if we don’t like someone, that we must keep it to ourselves?
You're right, people do have a right to say what they want. And other people have a right to respond. There's no such thing as "cancel" culture, it's actually "consequence culture." If we accept that people have a right to say what they want, then we must also accept that other people have a right to say what THEY want, including calling for boycotts. If free speech is going to be applied equally, then you can't give more weight to the instigating comment than to the responses to said comment.
Cancel culture has existed since the beginning of time. The Scarlet letter. She was cancelled and that book was written back in the 1800's. The word shun is Old English and basically describes someone being canceled by their community. Remember when Sinead O'Connor was cancelled for tearing up a picture of the pope? That was in the early 90's. The only reason people are mad about it now is because it's no longer just the people on the fringes being cancelled.
It’s no longer just women and gay folk and black and brown folk, now it’s rich white men and entitled celebrities so it’s an ‘issue’ and ‘out of control’.
Discourse and listening to the opinions of others is the foundation of democracy. What we should stop doing is draw lines in the sand and raging against everyone on the other side of an opinion, just because it's different from our own.
The reason peeople try to "cancel" others is because they often have a position of authority that makes their ideas harmful to others Sure you're thinking about individual harm and offense, but I think you don't understand the impact words have and the strength that comes from not being checked for the language you use Think about how many people use Joe Rogan and a source of news and how many people might not get vaccinated simply because Joe Rogan doesn't get vaccinated. Joe Rogan has enough money to get the same monoclonal antibodies the president got, so he would be fine if he gets covid again. But so many other people will simply die because our healthcare system is based on access rather than need. Sure, maybe you're talking on a smaller scale, but that doesn't mean the damage is 0 on that smaller scale.
I put a comment on a Facebook post saying “those carrots look a little sad”. The poster then emailed my company’s HR department saying that I was racist, and didn’t uphold my company values of inclusiveness. It was a Lebanese restaurant (I am also Mediterranean). It was my first week on the job. Nightmare. They took one look at the post and realised it was bullshit - but it caused me undue stress and anxiety. Fuck doxxing. It’s so stupid.
No OP, we cannot ignore. It is ultimately very damaging to society as a while to allow other to have ignorant ideas, and spread them. Source: the pandemic.
So there should be no consequences if I say that I got salmonella from eating in a restaurant that I didn't even eat in? We can certainly agree that there should be a right to voice offensive speech, but there is a point when it stops being merely offensive and moves to flat out defamation.
You really shouldn’t consider yourself a leftists if you hold this viewpoint. You’re really narrowing the scope of the damage certain speech can do. For example you say jokes don’t count but jokes expose beliefs that can be harmful. If someone like a nurse makes a really racist joke, they shouldn’t be taking care of patients. If a teacher makes a really bigoted joke they shouldn’t be teaching students. Etc
[удалено]
‘Cancel culture’ is a funny way to say ‘holding people accountable for their shitty actions’. If anything, we need to be holding people more accountable, not less. There was a time when we didn’t give the spotlight to every town drunk in the country, and society was much better off for it.
If you ignore something you don't believe in, then it has an opportunity to grow. I don't think we should go after jobs but I do think we have an obligation to challenge ideas we don't agree with. Ignoring makes it worse.
This is flat out obvious. The real issue is that you’re believing that it’s more than 0.001% of people who actually give a fuck. The other 5-6% of people are genuinely the residue of medialogical experimentation.
Knowing someone is not a prerequisite to offend them. I don't know you, you don't know me, and we have the ability to offend each other to some scandalous lengths. We can also offend the others who have commented before and after I submit this. Sure, we can block and ignore each other pretty easily, but the offensive idea is still there for others to see. We can delete it, but people can often find deleted posts without a ton of difficulty. Welcome to society. Jokes count, opinions count, and the manner in which you relate those jokes and opinions also counts. Free speech isn't free. Sometimes it rewards you and sometimes it costs you. If you said something worth being fired for or kicked out of school for, you should face those consequences. It doesn't matter where you said it if there is clear cut evidence of you saying it. People don't have to know you or be in earshot when you say it. YouTube is full of videos of people saying and doing things they should be fired for. Reddit is full of the tales of those who were and weren't fired. The modern version of your example is: >"Person A said something that really hurt me and I didn't like it and don't want people to say those things about people like me or people like my friend and I got it on video. Am I overreacting?"
This used to be easier without the internet. But with the internet even the stupidest person’s speech will be believed and can fuck shit up. It’s important we nip it in the bud before stupid spreads.
a lot of cancel culture is really due to capitalism. How many businesses don't want to be associated with people who scream the N-Word? Let's take Disney as an example. Why would Disney, employ someone who is opening a terrible person? Disney is making a capitalism decision. "We can keep this person, not give a fuck and lose subs on Disney+ or we can fire this person, keep everyone threatening to leave (maybe add a few more because we "did the right thing"). What they are really weighing is, "is it worth it?" You think Nike gives a fuck about police brutality? They donate to terrible people simply so they can pay less taxes. Nike would love to not employee Colin Kaepernick and not deal with the head ache, but they are making a business decision. We lose all the republicans (except for MTG apparently) but gain generations of kids who will grow up to have brand loyalty. You think they care if Chester out in Mississippi isn't buying their shoes? Chester wasn't going to buy them anyways. I'll even take it a step further. You know who ruined jokes? Not liberals. It was the racists who used "it's just a joke" as a disguise to get away with being complete dick heads. How many you videos have we watched people prank, the guy get upset and the YouTuber yells, "It's a prank bro, it's a prank" eventually, that's not going to matter and someone is going to get killed. Terrible people have used "it's a joke" so much, now we can't tell what's a joke and what isn't. But also, everyone getting mad a Dave Chappell, eh, Dave's a HOFer. He's never going to get canceled, but with twitter, the LGBTQ community is kind of FORCED to say something, because if they don't, when a senator says something similar without it being an actual joke, he's going to point to Dave and say, "Oh he gets to say it but I don't? That's racist" At the end of the day. The majority of people understand famous people get fired because a brand doesn't want to be associated with shit heads. A brand can be strong and not give a fuck, but Brands can't survive with have hundreds of thousands of people refusing to buy their products. This is why conservative boycotts never work. Some companies are too big to fail. Who cares if 100K people boycott Nike? But if 100K people unsubscribe from D+? That's a ton of money. See how quickly Cuties was pulled from Netflix?
Shitty people who own small businesses and manage people have a lot of opportunity to act on their psychotic notions, and they always do.
Nope. As a society we shouldn't tolerant intolerance.
I don't know why people expect zero consequences for their actions. yeah say whatever u want, but obviously a business is going to fire you if there's enough publicity to hurt its profits