Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Preety_India

Cancel Culture. Umm Nope. It's Consequence Culture!

37 posts in this topic

Cancel Culture? Say again? 

We need to rename cancel Culture as Consequence Culture. 

I understand when cancel culture goes too far over insignificant things. I don't support that. 

But Republicans are using this term to make it sound like they are martyrs. 

This is not cancel culture. 

Republican Congressman Jim Jordan says that punishing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for her outrageous comments would be an example of "the cancel culture"

 

It's not cancel culture. It's being held
accountable for their actions, no one else's fault but their own. Children are held more accountable than the republicans.
 

 

 


 INTP loner... .shy girl..

Preety preety

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If cancel culture was real thing, then nobody would know about it. The cognitive dissonance of hearing the loudest voices, on the biggest platforms, yelling about how they are not allowed to say the things that are saying, as they are saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stomatopod said:

If cancel culture was real thing, then nobody would know about it. The cognitive dissonance of hearing the loudest voices, on the biggest platforms, yelling about how they are not allowed to say the things that are saying, as they are saying it.

Hahaha, I know right 

The irony of it all. 

 


 INTP loner... .shy girl..

Preety preety

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If today's Republicans were German Nazi's in WWII, they would be complaining that the Allies attacking Germany is Cancel Culture of the Holocaust.

"But why can't I just do my Holocaust in peace! Stop canceling me you intolerant Jews."

:D

"Hey! Why you canceling my slave plantations?! *surprised Pikachu face* I'm a simple cotton farmer who has to feed his kids!"


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If today's Republicans were German Nazi's in WWII, they would be complaining that the Allies attacking Germany is Cancel Culture of the Holocaust.

"But why can't I just do my Holocaust in peace! Stop canceling me you intolerant Jews."

:D

"Hey! Why you canceling my slave plantations?! *surprised Pikachu face* I'm a simple cotton farmer who has to feed his kids!"

The people that stopped the Holocaust and slavery were for the most part stage blue. What has that to do with a toxic green phenomenon where people are mercilessly demonized and sabotaged?

The absurdity of cancel culture is that it does nothing for stopping real out-in-the-world evils. 

Edited by Vrubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

What has that to do with a toxic green phenomenon where people are mercilessly demonized and sabotaged?

The absurdity of cancel culture is that it does nothing for stopping real out-in-the-world evils. 

It’s context-dependent. Notice how your framing is not one size fits all: Marjorie Taylor believes that school shootings are staged events by the anti-gun lobby. She aggressively harassed survivors of school shootings and parents that lost their children in school shootings by telling them the deaths weren’t real, that is was all staged. A woman that believes school massacres are staged events should not be on the committee for education. This is not “just another opinion”, just like Holocaust denial is not “just another opinion”. It is totally appropriate that she is taken off the education committee. She is not being mercilessly demonized and sabotaged. 

Blue has unhealthy and healthy aspects. Blue republicans were given the opportunity to act as responsible blue and take a deranged woman off the education committee. Many blue senators condemned her behavior. Yet too many blue congressmen wouldn’t take action and are now playing the victim. Healthy blue takes responsibility, they don’t blame others and play victim. 

There are consequences for deranged beliefs. If an airline pilot believes he is in a video game and gets five lives as he flies an airplane, he is unfit to be a pilot. He should be receiving therapy, not flying a plane. He is not being canceled for his opinion that he is a Mario character flying a plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Hitler and the Nazis did was take the prevalent anti-semitic Conspiracy Theories of the day, believed in by people such as Henry Ford, to its logical and horrific conclusion. Hitler was late stage Red, with a tinge of early Blue to give him some ideological cover for his actions.

At the end of the War he wanted to burn Germany to the ground to spite the German people for failing him. German soldiers swore an oath of service not to Germany but to Hitler personally.

Edited by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Forestluv Not tolerating mad conspiracies and blatantly racist public sentiment is not what cancel culture is about. Cancel culture does not focus in on holocaust deniers, KKK sympathizers, or people with some batshit crazy conspiracy theories. It's usually celebrities or public personas with (mildly) conservative outlooks. 

Let's say your dad shares an "insensitive" opinion on Twitter. The next day he is all over the news and social media as this "racist bigot" and forced to apologize. How would you feel and how would your dad feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

@Forestluv Not tolerating mad conspiracies and blatantly racist public sentiment is not what cancel culture is about. Cancel culture does not focus in on holocaust deniers, KKK sympathizers, or people with some batshit crazy conspiracy theories. It's usually celebrities or public personas with (mildly) conservative outlooks. 

Let's say your dad shares an "insensitive" opinion on Twitter. The next day he is all over the news and social media as this "racist bigot" and forced to apologize. How would you feel and how would your dad feel?

That's the point, it's context-dependent. Here, republicans are acting irresponsibly and playing the victim of "being canceled". Jim Jordan is claiming that taking a deranged woman off the education committee is "being canceled". I'm not the one claiming it's cancel culture - a leader of anti-cancel culture is calling it cancel culture. 

As per the analogy, it is like nazis claiming that they were being canceled by allied soldiers. Of course that is hyperbolic, yet sometimes hyperbolic analogies are needed to highlight nuances and break out of binary thinking. 

Are there instances in which people are overly sensitive and try to silence dissenting opinions? Of course. Yet this is not one of those situations. I can't see a valid argument for allowing a deranged conspiracy theory nut to be on the education committee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Forestluv I get your point. I define cancel culture as a toxic herd-mentality internet phenomenon that targets celebrities. (I believe that's how the term started). I can see how conservatives or just batshit crazy people will hijack this term to make them come across as "righteous" victims.  

Edited by Vrubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancel culture is not hated in itself, in a sense it has always been there. A CEO says something sovinistic? He gets cancelled and nobody bats an eye.

There is a reason why Keanu Reeves hovers his hand on females who want to take a co-photo instead of touching them. People who hate cancel culture are afraid that they can get cancelled on absurd things. They dont want to walk around on eggshells all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was really weird when people on Twitter wanted to cancel Contrapoints for the Buck Angel thing. It definitely can go too far, as pointed out by Jim Jordan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Here's an example of cancel culture and allegation of plagiarism:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hansu

1 hour ago, Hansu said:

Cancel culture is not hated in itself, in a sense it has always been there. A CEO says something sovinistic? He gets cancelled and nobody bats an eye.

There is a reason why Keanu Reeves hovers his hand on females who want to take a co-photo instead of touching them. People who hate cancel culture are afraid that they can get cancelled on absurd things. They dont want to walk around on eggshells all the time.

   Yes, cancel culture, determining if cancel culture is good or bad, does need more context and clarity about the following: the status of the group/person getting cancelled, the people doing the cancelling, the elements of the situation that led to cancelling, and if there's legitimate proof that negates or supports cancelling. For example, in the video below, it's not clear that the alleged plagiarism is actual plagiarism, and instead of resolving the situation legally, the one that felt plagiarized used social media mobs and publicly accuses the person of this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hansu said:

Cancel culture is not hated in itself, in a sense it has always been there. A CEO says something sovinistic? He gets cancelled and nobody bats an eye.

You are underestimating the power of CEOs. A CEO that merely says something chauvinistic is not going to be held accountable. They have too much power. They would need to say something really bad in public to have any consequence. CEOs can get away with years of chauvinistic behavior and harassment before they are held accountable. 

1 hour ago, Hansu said:

There is a reason why Keanu Reeves hovers his hand on females who want to take a co-photo instead of touching them. People who hate cancel culture are afraid that they can get cancelled on absurd things. They dont want to walk around on eggshells all the time.

  Of course there are times people over-react, yet in general it isn't that hard to stay within norms. You simply treat women with respect. When at work, you don't grab women's asses, comment on their tits, say racist / homophobic slurs, whisper lude things in their ear etc. It's not that hard. I've been able to do it easily in many different social and work environments.

Yet a guy still needs to be mindful and take precautions. For example, under no circumstance do I allow a female student in my office with the door closed. Occasionally, female students cry when telling me about their problems and there is zero chance of me allowing that with the door closed. At times, as they cry they ask to shut the door. Nope. Not going to happen. . . Yet these types of precautions are trivial relative to the crap women have to put up with from chauvinistic men.  

Some men want to intentionally be chauvinistic. Yet there are also some men that don't intuitively know what is appropriate or inappropriate. Therefore, clear rules are important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You are underestimating the power of CEOs. A CEO that merely says something chauvinistic is not going to be held accountable. They have too much power. They would need to say something really bad in public to have any consequence. CEOs can get away with years of chauvinistic behavior and harassment before they are held accountable. 

  Of course there are times people over-react, yet in general it isn't that hard to stay within norms. You simply treat women with respect. When at work, you don't grab women's asses, comment on their tits, don't say racist / homophobic terms, don't whisper lude things in their ear etc. It's not that hard. I've been able to easily do it in many different social and work environments. Yet a guy still needs to be mindful. For example, under no circumstance do I allow a female student in my office with the door closed. Occasionally, female students cry when telling me about their problems and there is zero chance of me allowing that with the door closed. At times, as they cry they ask to shut the door. Nope. Not going to happen. . . Yet these types of precautions are trivial relative to the crap women have to put up with from chauvinistic men.  

My bad, I was thinking about a guy who was not CEO but "only" the director of Audi sales in Finland who was cancelled for sovinism in 2009. He was simply called "boss" in the articles so I assumed he was the CEO. He basically compared women to cars and that didn't go well with people.

I agree that its not hard to stay with the norms, but sadly the over the top cases where a mountain is made out of a molehill are the ones getting all the focus in media and social media. This is what creates the eggshells. And what better way is there to make incels and MGTOW:s than demonizing working with women in media?

Personally, Im not sure if cancel culture is doing more harm or good. If you ask me, best would be to have the pros of cancel culture but done in silence, inside the companies or between lawyers. Not with pitchforks and fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hansu said:

And what better way is there to make incels and MGTOW:s than demonizing working with women in media?

In general, I see efforts to create more equal and respectful work environments, including media. Of course there will be some cases of excesses like a group of college kids demanding 127 new personal pronouns. Yet I think overall, the effort is toward more gender equality and respect. That is where the strongest backlash from incels and MGTOW is. They will misrepresent cases as excess as being representative. This masks there underlying repulsion toward women's equality and treating women respectfully. 

From my POV, the culture war is largely a distraction that impedes progress. For example, focusing on how a group of college kids are demanding 127 new personal pronouns distracts from the inequality and discrimination the LGBTQ community face.  . . . One's orientation is easy to see. If one is oriented toward maintaining conservative status quo (like Jordan Peterson), they will frame excesses as being representative, simply criticize the excess and then play victim. Someone with an orientation toward greater equality will see the bigger picture. They will criticize the excess, yet in the greater context. And they will pivot toward finding solutions. For example, if a group of college kids demand 127 new personal pronouns, rather than simply criticizing that - we can see the larger context. We can criticize the move by saying it is unreasonable and would create a backlash. Yet we don't stop there, because the larger context is to expand inclusion and equality. So we might suggest that we start off introducing 2 new personal pronouns and begin to normalize that for a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

This masks there underlying repulsion toward women's equality and treating women respectfully. 

Yeah, good point. Maybe its not that the articles that those people take and twist into their own worldview are turning them into incels and MGTOW's, but rather that they enable them to think that there is truth to their deeper beliefs. As in "having proof", no matter how false it might be when thought throughly.

Personally I agree with starting slow and slowly building up with normalizing personal pronouns. I dont have a problem with them, but if they help someone then I dont mind using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hansu said:

Yeah, good point. Maybe its not that the articles that those people take and twist into their own worldview are turning them into incels and MGTOW's, but rather that they enable them to think that there is truth to their deeper beliefs. As in "having proof", no matter how false it might be when thought throughly.

Personally I agree with starting slow and slowly building up with normalizing personal pronouns. I dont have a problem with them, but if they help someone then I dont mind using them.

I also think identity issues get tricky at the societal level. If we go too far into identity relativism, it becomes so fluid and unstructured that I don’t see how modern society could function. It seems like most current societies could absorb some more identities beyond, simply male, female and a handful of races. For example, the structure of society could accommodate for basic LGBTQ identities. Yet what if we push things further? What if every person changed identities everyday? Each day they can flip between being male, female, human, alien, a truck driver, teacher, child, adult, doctor etc. It would be so groundless that society wouldn’t be able to function. This is the argument that blue conservatives make - that if we allow LGBTQ, gender equality etc. the structure of society would collapse. I think we can currently expand more, yet they have a point. There comes a point in which relativity would be hyper fluid and too much for current societal structures to accommodate. We can evolve, yet the pace of evolution is restricted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

What if every person changed identities everyday? Each day they can flip between being male, female, human, alien, a truck driver, teacher, child, adult, doctor etc. It would be so groundless that society wouldn’t be able to function. This is the argument that blue conservatives make - that if we allow LGBTQ, gender equality etc. the structure of society would collapse. I think we can currently expand more, yet they have a point. There comes a point in which relativity would be hyper fluid and too much for current societal structures to accommodate. We can evolve, yet the pace of evolution is restricted. 

I feel like accepting gender fluidity isnt problematic for the general people, but for the gender fluid people themselves. If you identify as a different gender each day, you might start to become a nuisance to people around you. That might result in, for example, a really short career. (Although some conservative could start trolling news anchors live using gender fluidity. If laws back the conservative up, the anchor cant but nod and try to keep up with whatever gender the conservative thinks of next)

Sports is one field where I believe in strict divisions. I think its unfair towards biological females to allow male to female transitioned and/or males identifying as female to compete in same class. Same goes for prisons, for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0