It’s why the right wing invented ‘cancel culture’, to try to demonize people banding together to change things. This kind of public pressure is a form of people-power. There’s a nasty side to it all, but this is an existential battle for the writers and a mild inconvenience to Drew and Bill. I know what side I’m on.
The worst thing about that is when people stopped buying it because they immediately did a 180 on it. And the media said it was all because of rightwingers even after the company did what they wanted.
Well there were the Dixie Chicks getting canceled by conservatives for opposing the war. Probably not an example the fella you’re replying to wants to admit to, tho.
You could call it cancel culture or your could just call it pissing off your fanbase. This has always existed and will always exist. I don’t agree with the old dixie chicks fanbase but if they thought they could be antiwar and keep playing on country radio they were very misled.
Jenna Marbles? Kentaro Kobayashi? Pretty much anyone who got “cancelled” for stuff they said or did 10 years before?
People should be held accountable for what they’re currently doing, ruining a career for something that happened ages ago which no one at the time found wrong is just stupid.
It’s not a matter of “not supporting”. Marbles was harassed into closing her channel and Kobayashi lost probably the most important job of his life. Those have nothing to do with the “free market”.
Who are these people? They sound like virtual nobodies. I doubt they were ‘cancelled’ by anyone. They probably said something very stupid and got kicked off some social media app or other. Or, worse, *gasp* demonetized! Better get selling more Soylent.
Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?
“Cancel culture” is a bit of a loaded term and so the replies to you have been somewhat charged. Most people view the situations public figures find them in as just the necessary consequences of their actions. And like you, I agree that each situation should warrant a measured response from individuals based on the severity of the issue. It’s okay to not want to support people you don’t agree with, especially when the reason is agregious or harmful to others. The issue then is that everyone uses the same cudgel in the same manner for every crime regardless of severity.
But sure, if you don’t want to support someone for even the smallest of infractions, that’s your right. No one can take that from you. I may not agree but I support your right to do so. My only wish is that we at least give pause to think about the high bar for acceptable behavior we’re putting on public figures. I am as much for accountability as the next person, but I also think we’re humans capable of mistakes and capable of change. And right now, I don’t think a culture of grace is necessarily present online. We don’t have to tolerate hate or harm, but we can leave room for redemption. Maybe I’m being naive, I don’t know. But that’s my take.
Again, as I said in other comments, I’m not talking about boycotting. You obviously shouldn’t support people you don’t like. But you also shouldn’t create online campaigns against them, unless they’re currently doing something bad and you want it to stop, which is not the case most of the time.
“Boycotts” are large scale campaign. Nobody cares if a few odd people don’t buy a product; it’s en-mass or it’s just belly aching. You’re making a distinction that does not exist.
So for example Harvey Weinstein gets a pass on all his shitty rapey behavior? How long in the past does it need to be? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ on shitty activities?
The Marbles woman did some shitty stuff. She agreed what she did was shit but issued the standard non-apology apology that she didn’t intend to hurt anyone with her shitty awful shit. Also she just quit. Apparently she made so much money it didn’t matter.
I have no idea who kobayashi is other than a guy who quit the hot dog eating competition.
If this is all you’ve got, it’s pretty thin sauce.
Weinstein did slightly worse than a blackface on youtube. The stuff he did would’ve been clearly seen as wrong even when he did them, it’s just that people didn’t know.
No one cared about a random youtuber painting their face for a satirical video in 2011. But suddenly when it got dug up 10 years later she was the most horrible person on earth. That’s just hypocrisy.
Kobayashi is a Japanese comedian that was chosen to direct the Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony. Suddenly a guy online posts one sketch from 20 years earlier where he mentioned the holocaust and poof, job gone. Because you wanted to be a little edgy on a comedy sketch about “stuff you can’t say on tv” on Japanese TV in 1998. Is that okay to you?
I think you are getting confused about the definition of cancel culture.
Definition one: Not supporting celebrities when their problematic actions come to light. This is the one that was made to prevent people from banding against or facing consequences for their actions.
Definition two: A harassment campaign where people bring up actions from years ago even when they changed, taking things wildly out of context, and calling out in bad faith to bully small-scale content creators.
The commentor is talking about definition one here, and it seems that you are talking about definition two.
Exactly. But there’s not really a distinction in the term.
I said it’s terrible as a whole, because actions taken in case one rarely have any considerable effect, while I can list a few for case two. If they were two separate terms I would’ve obviously been against the second definition only, but they’re all under the same umbrella.
Not to mention people can make bad faith arguments for both (“yeah we just found out that guy raped 27 girls last year, but after that we don’t know anything so he’s changed!” / “ok, the only racist remarks that person did were 40 years ago, but have they really changed or are they just hiding it?”) so the line gets blurry.
Overall, the number of “campaigns” that actually worked at “cancelling” a bad person is way too small to justify the harassment to all the other people. That’s why I think it’s not worth it, just support who you want, let people live their life and only harass them if they’re currently doing something bad (or if the bad thing they did in the past was straight-up illegal like the aforementioned Weinstein).
And what I said was “Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.” I’m not trying to frame this specific case as a bad thing, I absolutely don’t think it was.
There are other examples though. Lots of them. I agree with your premise, but the evidence is that the threat of cancellation does trigger action in many celebrities and public figures.
So if someone ever said something barely racist in a satirical context or whatnot and then went on to have a successful career by joking about less offensive stuff they should live in fear of that one thing getting dug up and their whole life crumbling in front of them.
Cool, I guess you’ve never changed your views on anything during your life, good for you. I mean, what’s the point of becoming a better person if the one mistake you did is forever etched in history.
That’s not what “cancel culture” is outside of the right-wing media network. I’m very staunchly progressive, all my friends and most of my family are left leaning, and we literally NEVER engage with “cancel culture” the way your media says we do. In fact, I don’t know a single person that has ever talked about canceling anyone, ever, as far as I’m aware. This, along with all the attempts to make it seem like the left supports perverts and killing literal infants is all part of a very, VERY obvious attempt to paint MILLIONS of people as some sort of boogeyman. People on the left react to you the way they do because you believe in and spread nonsense that only exists to demonize them, all from atop some kind of high horse made up of default human values, as if you’re proud of being a basic human (protecting children/property/public wellbeing). The right literally fabricates stories, then tells you millions of regular Americans support pure evil, and you guys eat that shit up every single time, not because it has any basis in reality, but because you’re addicted to feeling reviled by, and better than others.
I believe that every human has the ability to be rational and do good in the world, and I also believe that every human can be misled and manipulated into living a terrible fear-ridden life of baseless hate and paranoia towards others. Which kind of human do you want to be?
“Your media”? “You guys”? My guy I’m not right-leaning. I’m not even American, and if I was I would’ve wanted Bernie in charge. But I’ve seen a lot of times people facing backlash for stuff like that. Those news get on mainstream media as well (talking mainly about Kobayashi, Oyamada fits the definiton too but that’s way less excusable). Not to mention, if you follow content creators online you get to know about the backlash firsthand (like with the dumb #Jojisoverparty that luckily didn’t gain traction).
For someone who isn’t right leaning, you’re pretty good at sharing text book right wing talking points. If the American propaganda machine were a boat, the online content you consume would be in it’s wake. Further, it doesn’t matter if you don’t watch the propaganda directly if you’re watching “content creator’s” who watch it and then relay the information to you in an easy-to-digest “here’s how you should think about this” 20 min video.
It’s not about not supporting, it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
I’m all for not supporting people who don’t deserve it, I regularly do it too. But one thing is ignoring and another is actively harassing people for stuff they probably already forgot about.
Most of the times I see the term in regards to people, not products/brands/companies, so I think the boycotting part is way less prevalent and rightfully called just “boycotting”.
I’ll admit I haven’t researched the origin of the term (and it’s probably on the same level as “woke” in number of different definitions), but to me it’s mostly about people saying or doing something “controversial” and getting harassed/ostracized for that.
And I say it’s terrible because when it affects fragile people, or generally people with a conscience, it works and ruins careers. When it’s towards ones like J.K. Rowling or Kanye West they just don’t care and keep working, making money like crazy while still being openly transphobic/racist.
I don’t think anyone sane found jokes about Trans Rights funny 10 years ago, but yes, kind of like the ‘f’ word.
And what’s the point of “growing up” if mistakes of the past keep being brought up to you? No point in becoming a better person and supporting minorities if the one thing you said 10 years ago will still ruin your life sooner or later, right?
“Cancel culture” is a catch-all slur. You can tell it’s effective because of how you phrased your post instead of considering who is being “canceled” and the reason for it. Bad guys are trying to catch a free pass by highlighting less serious offenses and calling it the same thing.
I don’t really see it like that, unless it’s something mainly done on right-wing circles.
If people don’t want to stay on Twitter or Facebook because of all the stuff their owners are doing, that’s not Cancel Culture, that’s just having a brain. To me, a response to serious offenses is definitely not cancel culture, you can’t “cancel” billionaires.
If not “cancel culture” though, what would you call what happens to those “less serious” offenders? Just “large-scale harassment”?
It’s why the right wing invented ‘cancel culture’, to try to demonize people banding together to change things. This kind of public pressure is a form of people-power. There’s a nasty side to it all, but this is an existential battle for the writers and a mild inconvenience to Drew and Bill. I know what side I’m on.
It’s only ok to ‘cancel’ if a trans woman promotes a shitty beer. Otherwise it’s a problem.
Bud light wasn’t canceled, it was boycotted.
deleted by creator
The worst thing about that is when people stopped buying it because they immediately did a 180 on it. And the media said it was all because of rightwingers even after the company did what they wanted.
Cancel culture is fucking terrible in most cases. Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.
Do you have any specific examples? I assume you must, since according to you, most of the cases are fucking terrible.
Well there were the Dixie Chicks getting canceled by conservatives for opposing the war. Probably not an example the fella you’re replying to wants to admit to, tho.
You could call it cancel culture or your could just call it pissing off your fanbase. This has always existed and will always exist. I don’t agree with the old dixie chicks fanbase but if they thought they could be antiwar and keep playing on country radio they were very misled.
Thanks for the assumption, saying that getting people to support a strike is a good thing is something most right-wing people do I guess.
Wanna add Sinead O’Connor to people harmed by right-wing cancel culture, for example? The list doesn’t even stop there.
Jenna Marbles? Kentaro Kobayashi? Pretty much anyone who got “cancelled” for stuff they said or did 10 years before?
People should be held accountable for what they’re currently doing, ruining a career for something that happened ages ago which no one at the time found wrong is just stupid.
Sounds like you’re complaining about the free market. People don’t like something that was unearthed about someone, so they don’t support them.
It’s not a matter of “not supporting”. Marbles was harassed into closing her channel and Kobayashi lost probably the most important job of his life. Those have nothing to do with the “free market”.
Who are these people? They sound like virtual nobodies. I doubt they were ‘cancelled’ by anyone. They probably said something very stupid and got kicked off some social media app or other. Or, worse, *gasp* demonetized! Better get selling more Soylent.
“I don’t know them so they must be nobodies”, ok.
Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?
I really don’t care.
“Cancel culture” is a bit of a loaded term and so the replies to you have been somewhat charged. Most people view the situations public figures find them in as just the necessary consequences of their actions. And like you, I agree that each situation should warrant a measured response from individuals based on the severity of the issue. It’s okay to not want to support people you don’t agree with, especially when the reason is agregious or harmful to others. The issue then is that everyone uses the same cudgel in the same manner for every crime regardless of severity.
But sure, if you don’t want to support someone for even the smallest of infractions, that’s your right. No one can take that from you. I may not agree but I support your right to do so. My only wish is that we at least give pause to think about the high bar for acceptable behavior we’re putting on public figures. I am as much for accountability as the next person, but I also think we’re humans capable of mistakes and capable of change. And right now, I don’t think a culture of grace is necessarily present online. We don’t have to tolerate hate or harm, but we can leave room for redemption. Maybe I’m being naive, I don’t know. But that’s my take.
Why do I have to support shitty people?
Again, as I said in other comments, I’m not talking about boycotting. You obviously shouldn’t support people you don’t like. But you also shouldn’t create online campaigns against them, unless they’re currently doing something bad and you want it to stop, which is not the case most of the time.
“Boycotts” are large scale campaign. Nobody cares if a few odd people don’t buy a product; it’s en-mass or it’s just belly aching. You’re making a distinction that does not exist.
That’s the difference.
You want to stop buying Nestlé products because they are currently exploiting child labor? Nothing wrong with that, I’m on board. They need to stop.
You want to “cancel” a musician because of comedy videos on a Youtube he already stopped posting 3 years earlier? That’s just stupid.
So for example Harvey Weinstein gets a pass on all his shitty rapey behavior? How long in the past does it need to be? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ on shitty activities?
The Marbles woman did some shitty stuff. She agreed what she did was shit but issued the standard non-apology apology that she didn’t intend to hurt anyone with her shitty awful shit. Also she just quit. Apparently she made so much money it didn’t matter.
I have no idea who kobayashi is other than a guy who quit the hot dog eating competition.
If this is all you’ve got, it’s pretty thin sauce.
Weinstein did slightly worse than a blackface on youtube. The stuff he did would’ve been clearly seen as wrong even when he did them, it’s just that people didn’t know.
No one cared about a random youtuber painting their face for a satirical video in 2011. But suddenly when it got dug up 10 years later she was the most horrible person on earth. That’s just hypocrisy.
Kobayashi is a Japanese comedian that was chosen to direct the Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony. Suddenly a guy online posts one sketch from 20 years earlier where he mentioned the holocaust and poof, job gone. Because you wanted to be a little edgy on a comedy sketch about “stuff you can’t say on tv” on Japanese TV in 1998. Is that okay to you?
I think you are getting confused about the definition of cancel culture.
Definition one: Not supporting celebrities when their problematic actions come to light. This is the one that was made to prevent people from banding against or facing consequences for their actions.
Definition two: A harassment campaign where people bring up actions from years ago even when they changed, taking things wildly out of context, and calling out in bad faith to bully small-scale content creators.
The commentor is talking about definition one here, and it seems that you are talking about definition two.
Exactly. But there’s not really a distinction in the term.
I said it’s terrible as a whole, because actions taken in case one rarely have any considerable effect, while I can list a few for case two. If they were two separate terms I would’ve obviously been against the second definition only, but they’re all under the same umbrella.
Not to mention people can make bad faith arguments for both (“yeah we just found out that guy raped 27 girls last year, but after that we don’t know anything so he’s changed!” / “ok, the only racist remarks that person did were 40 years ago, but have they really changed or are they just hiding it?”) so the line gets blurry.
Overall, the number of “campaigns” that actually worked at “cancelling” a bad person is way too small to justify the harassment to all the other people. That’s why I think it’s not worth it, just support who you want, let people live their life and only harass them if they’re currently doing something bad (or if the bad thing they did in the past was straight-up illegal like the aforementioned Weinstein).
The article is literally about a case in which it has worked, which doesn’t fit your definition of it being bad.
And what I said was “Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.” I’m not trying to frame this specific case as a bad thing, I absolutely don’t think it was.
deleted by creator
There are other examples though. Lots of them. I agree with your premise, but the evidence is that the threat of cancellation does trigger action in many celebrities and public figures.
Ahh, this is his issue. He thinks that people should get a pass because they’ve gotten away with doing bad things in the past.
Essentially, if you don’t catch them in the act, then you shouldn’t get to criticize them or hold them accountable.
What a shitty take, probably from a shitty person who wants to be held to the same shitty standard so they can get away with similar shitty behavior.
I feel bad for those close to you that have to put up with that.
So if someone ever said something barely racist in a satirical context or whatnot and then went on to have a successful career by joking about less offensive stuff they should live in fear of that one thing getting dug up and their whole life crumbling in front of them.
Cool, I guess you’ve never changed your views on anything during your life, good for you. I mean, what’s the point of becoming a better person if the one mistake you did is forever etched in history.
That’s not what “cancel culture” is outside of the right-wing media network. I’m very staunchly progressive, all my friends and most of my family are left leaning, and we literally NEVER engage with “cancel culture” the way your media says we do. In fact, I don’t know a single person that has ever talked about canceling anyone, ever, as far as I’m aware. This, along with all the attempts to make it seem like the left supports perverts and killing literal infants is all part of a very, VERY obvious attempt to paint MILLIONS of people as some sort of boogeyman. People on the left react to you the way they do because you believe in and spread nonsense that only exists to demonize them, all from atop some kind of high horse made up of default human values, as if you’re proud of being a basic human (protecting children/property/public wellbeing). The right literally fabricates stories, then tells you millions of regular Americans support pure evil, and you guys eat that shit up every single time, not because it has any basis in reality, but because you’re addicted to feeling reviled by, and better than others.
I believe that every human has the ability to be rational and do good in the world, and I also believe that every human can be misled and manipulated into living a terrible fear-ridden life of baseless hate and paranoia towards others. Which kind of human do you want to be?
“Your media”? “You guys”? My guy I’m not right-leaning. I’m not even American, and if I was I would’ve wanted Bernie in charge. But I’ve seen a lot of times people facing backlash for stuff like that. Those news get on mainstream media as well (talking mainly about Kobayashi, Oyamada fits the definiton too but that’s way less excusable). Not to mention, if you follow content creators online you get to know about the backlash firsthand (like with the dumb #Jojisoverparty that luckily didn’t gain traction).
For someone who isn’t right leaning, you’re pretty good at sharing text book right wing talking points. If the American propaganda machine were a boat, the online content you consume would be in it’s wake. Further, it doesn’t matter if you don’t watch the propaganda directly if you’re watching “content creator’s” who watch it and then relay the information to you in an easy-to-digest “here’s how you should think about this” 20 min video.
I never understood this view. What’s so terrible about not supporting people or things you don’t agree with? That’s what people should be doing.
It’s not about not supporting, it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
I’m all for not supporting people who don’t deserve it, I regularly do it too. But one thing is ignoring and another is actively harassing people for stuff they probably already forgot about.
Boycotting and harassing are two very different things, and “cancel culture” is a right-wing buzzword that conflates them.
Cancel culture is just a boycott that’s so effective, it’s disastrous to not at least compromise.
If you structure your life so you can be heavily impacted by cancel culture, you’re either a shitty person or surround yourself with shitty people.
Either way, it’s a win-win for everyone involved. They clearly don’t want to be together.
Most of the times I see the term in regards to people, not products/brands/companies, so I think the boycotting part is way less prevalent and rightfully called just “boycotting”.
I’ll admit I haven’t researched the origin of the term (and it’s probably on the same level as “woke” in number of different definitions), but to me it’s mostly about people saying or doing something “controversial” and getting harassed/ostracized for that.
And I say it’s terrible because when it affects fragile people, or generally people with a conscience, it works and ruins careers. When it’s towards ones like J.K. Rowling or Kanye West they just don’t care and keep working, making money like crazy while still being openly transphobic/racist.
Oh you mean like Critical Race Theory, Drag Shows, and getting vaccinated?
Kind of like the ‘f’ word? What about trans rights? Yeah, I remember when ‘nobody cared about that’ until, you know, they did.
We’re growing up as a species. You can choose to join us or get left behind.
You already have some catching up to do.
I don’t think anyone sane found jokes about Trans Rights funny 10 years ago, but yes, kind of like the ‘f’ word.
And what’s the point of “growing up” if mistakes of the past keep being brought up to you? No point in becoming a better person and supporting minorities if the one thing you said 10 years ago will still ruin your life sooner or later, right?
CANCELLED!
deleted by creator
“Cancel culture” is a catch-all slur. You can tell it’s effective because of how you phrased your post instead of considering who is being “canceled” and the reason for it. Bad guys are trying to catch a free pass by highlighting less serious offenses and calling it the same thing.
I don’t really see it like that, unless it’s something mainly done on right-wing circles.
If people don’t want to stay on Twitter or Facebook because of all the stuff their owners are doing, that’s not Cancel Culture, that’s just having a brain. To me, a response to serious offenses is definitely not cancel culture, you can’t “cancel” billionaires.
If not “cancel culture” though, what would you call what happens to those “less serious” offenders? Just “large-scale harassment”?