Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

It's a brilliant move, really. Say you're removing 6 less popular book from sale and wait for OUTRAGED people to buy up all your other titles.

If we were all smarter and not so woke we'd be buying up the available copies faster than GameStop shares!

:gemstone::handsopen:
 
You can't even try to have a critical assessment of Churchill without people calling for you to be banned. These people are literally trying to cancel history
 
May 5, 2006
62,726
70,017
AFL Club
West Coast
What isn't cancel culture is not renewing an actress' contract because she tweets something stupid about jews that no company would want to be associated with

Are you referring to Gina Carano? Or some other actress who tweeted about Jews?

She was let go by Disney because her social media post "denigrated people based on their cultural and religious identities".

1616078075957.png


Meanwhile, her co-star posted this:

1616078141635.png


It's not anti-Semitic to simply refer to Nazi Germany or the holocaust.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
You can't even try to have a critical assessment of Churchill without people calling for you to be banned. These people are literally trying to cancel history
Don't expect to get much engagement. This sort of example is best left through to the keeper.

basil-akram_1_orig.jpg
 
Are you referring to Gina Carano? Or some other actress who tweeted about Jews?

She was let go by Disney because her social media post "denigrated people based on their cultural and religious identities".

View attachment 1080280

Meanwhile, her co-star posted this:

View attachment 1080281

It's not anti-Semitic to simply refer to Nazi Germany or the holocaust.

She is claiming that people disliking her for her conservative views and attitude is going to lead to her being treated like Jewish people in 1940 Germany.

Classic victim playing by a conservative to try and appear as though they are being suppressed when the actual reality is people are sick of their selfish and archaic personalities.
 

Fire

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 12, 2003
11,367
5,957
New York
AFL Club
North Melbourne
She is claiming that people disliking her for her conservative views and attitude is going to lead to her being treated like Jewish people in 1940 Germany.

Classic victim playing by a conservative to try and appear as though they are being suppressed when the actual reality is people are sick of their selfish and archaic personalities.

Don't bother, we are clearly no match for his big brain.

The plight of the modern conservative is indeed no different to how the Jewish were treated in Nazi Germany. And to point that out in no way minimizes the horrors the Jewish people faced, nor does it dog whistle for any denial of such events. And it's most certainly a viewpoint that big corporations should want to associate themselves with. It was all just cancel culture gone wild.

We're all wrong on this point so we should just let the big brain have the final word.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
You're not upset that they are marketing, you're upset about the message.

I'm not upset about anything Chief.

It's obvious that woke / PC / cancel culture is viewed as impractical - because it is.

As I've stated earlier, removing / cancelling content for everyone and not the very very few that whatever may offend is NOT required nor practical.

That's the broad view and reason why woke / PC / cancel culture is criticized - and rightly so.

So you and anyone else can call that me 'being upset' or whatever term you want to use.

Just remember that no one can argue practic, so I'm satisfied my conscience is clear in my view because it aligns with practic.

I'll leave that with you.
 
It's obvious that woke / PC / cancel culture is viewed as impractical - because it is.
Whatever made up name you have been encouraged to call "it" by the conservative press and politicians wanting your eyeballs and votes, this change seems very practical.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Whatever made up name you have been encouraged to call "it" by the conservative press and politicians wanting your eyeballs and votes, this change seems very practical.

Here's a clue as to what is practical and what is not, super simplified just so you comprehend:

If something may be offensive to someone somewhere:

Option 1: Cancel to ensure no one has a choice to consume. Not practical nor required

Option 2: Ensure warning labels are applied to content / product / whatever so that everyone has a choice to consume or not. Practical.

It's pretty simple stuff that's not up for debate, only the impractical minded would argue against practic.

I'll leave it there for you mate, if you can't accept practic then no one can help you.
 
Here's a clue as to what is practical and what is not, super simplified just so you comprehend:

If something may be offensive to someone somewhere:

Option 1: Cancel to ensure no one has a choice to consume. Not practical nor required

Option 2: Ensure warning labels are applied to content / product / whatever so that everyone has a choice to consume or not. Practical.

It's pretty simple stuff that's not up for debate, only the impractical minded would argue against practic.

I'll leave it there for you mate, if you can't accept practic then no one can help you.

Not practical but it seems those who are choosing to do what they want with the products they have are doing just fine...

And they've DONE warning labels. Conservatives went nutty because Disney put warnings in front of movies like Sound of Music saying it contained content that was considered acceptable at the time but isnt anymore. That apparently was cancel culture. That was apparently over the line.

Neither side is going to win this, you know that, right?
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Not practical but it seems those who are choosing to do what they want with the products they have are doing just fine...

And they've DONE warning labels. Conservatives went nutty because Disney put warnings in front of movies like Sound of Music saying it contained content that was considered acceptable at the time but isnt anymore. That apparently was cancel culture. That was apparently over the line.

Neither side is going to win this, you know that, right?

And how can one do what they choose with the product / content if it is withdrawn?

And warning labels should continue, otherwise NO ONE HAS CHOICE fk the few conserves that went apeshit over it. Are they the majority? No, so no need to cancel anything. No one should be bending over backwards for the few, because they are the few, the majority should come first. That is something that is not up for debate.

Let everyone choose what they wish to do with whatever, instead of no one has choice.

I find it amusing that after a gazillion pages and comments on choice for everyone, there's still a few who are defending the cancel for benefit of no one argument. All about inclusivity right? If so let everyone choose. It's not hard.

That's why this debate is NOT about 'sides' it's about what is practical for the MAJORITY (that would be the sensibly centred).

Forget about what the fringe wants, they're the minority. The world needs to get back to catering for the majority, not bend over at the slightest noise of discontent over what most would view as frivolous from fringe groups.
 
And how can one do what they choose with the product / content if it is withdrawn?

And warning labels should continue, otherwise NO ONE HAS CHOICE fk the few conserves that went apeshit over it. Are they the majority? No, so no need to cancel anything. No one should be bending over backwards for the few, because they are the few, the majority should come first. That is something that is not up for debate.

Let everyone choose what they wish to do with whatever, instead of no one has choice.

I find it amusing that after a gazillion pages and comments on choice for everyone, there's still a few who are defending the cancel for benefit of no one argument. All about inclusivity right? If so let everyone choose. It's not hard.

That's why this debate is NOT about 'sides' it's about what is practical for the MAJORITY (that would be the sensibly centred).

Forget about what the fringe wants, they're the minority. The world needs to get back to catering for the majority, not bend over at the slightest noise of discontent over what most would view as frivolous from fringe groups.

We still again, repeatedly, circle back to: THE OWNERS OF THE CONTENT CONTROL THE CONTENT. If they CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW IT they have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to do so. They OWN the content. Its THEIRS. They can restrict whatever the hell they want. They dont OWE it to anyone. Thats how capitalism works, content has value and sometimes the value is in withdrawing it or restricting it.

They dont owe you or me anything, they cant be forced to uncancel things because they didnt cancel them at all, they didnt call for a massive recall of Suess books, they didnt demand all copies of a certain movie destroyed. They simply used their given rights to determine what they want available and to who.

What you are really arguing for here is not "Dont cancel things just because they are now full of racist things!" its "Why can these companies decide what I get to watch?" and the answer is simple: THEY OWN THE CONTENT.
 
Option 2: Ensure warning labels are applied to content / product / whatever so that everyone has a choice to consume or not. Practical.
Warning: This product is now called "Potato Head".

Seems a bit redundant to me. Impractical, even.
 
Warning: This product is now called "Potato Head".

Seems a bit redundant to me. Impractical, even.

Got to prepare the children for when they learnt he hard way that Potatos dont actually have hair, moustaches, eye lashes, hair, penises or vaginas!
 
Got to prepare the children for when they learnt he hard way that Potatos dont actually have hair, moustaches, eye lashes, hair, penises or vaginas!
They have no genitalia so all they are doing is presenting as a particular gender and...

Wait. Carringbush2010 you've made a huge mistake.
 
They have no genitalia so all they are doing is presenting as a particular gender and...

Wait. Carringbush2010 you've made a huge mistake.

If I shave off my mustache to I become Mrs Potato head?

How will people know at a casual glance that I have a penis?
 
Sep 17, 2019
21,988
34,988
AFL Club
Richmond
And how can one do what they choose with the product / content if it is withdrawn?

And warning labels should continue, otherwise NO ONE HAS CHOICE fk the few conserves that went apeshit over it. Are they the majority? No, so no need to cancel anything. No one should be bending over backwards for the few, because they are the few, the majority should come first. That is something that is not up for debate.

Let everyone choose what they wish to do with whatever, instead of no one has choice.

I find it amusing that after a gazillion pages and comments on choice for everyone, there's still a few who are defending the cancel for benefit of no one argument. All about inclusivity right? If so let everyone choose. It's not hard.

That's why this debate is NOT about 'sides' it's about what is practical for the MAJORITY (that would be the sensibly centred).

Forget about what the fringe wants, they're the minority. The world needs to get back to catering for the majority, not bend over at the slightest noise of discontent over what most would view as frivolous from fringe groups.

Mashed Potato
 
Back