Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Essendon Bombers
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1,154
Tom Tanuki on “cancel culture”.
Basically what I’ve been saying, but written in better wordy thingies:
truecrimenewsweekly.com
I think what people misconstrue as ‘cancel culture’ is in fact two facets of internet culture. One is the fact that now you must witness the crowd-voted popular testimony of anybody. Which might involve you. For example, your trans classmate can tell their friends online how your abuse hurt them at school; by the time you go online that evening, you discover that their peers elected to broadcast your abuse to the world. The black customer you eject for looking ‘suspicious’ tells everyone in your reviews; your small business’ rating plummets. The Muslim woman you terrified in the street has, you discover, an online following of millions and soon you are the terrified one. Your sexual assault victim accuses you publicly online and your life changes forever. That kind of thing.
Children are now lifelong Internet natives and they grew up knowing that social media promises them this potential. They learn from the start that their perspective counts, no matter who they are, because there’s always a chance it could be signal-boosted to the whole world – and the whole world is diverse, whether you like it or not.
The other facet is the sometimes Machiavellian practice of the Internet, developed by decades of conniving content creators, sock accounts, trolls, forums and imageboards. People can call you out. They might kickstart a process that ends your career and reputation. It might be for real reasons, or reasons that seem frivolous to some, or even for something they made up. You are exposed to this potential online whether you are famous or just another social media account.
That’s been the internet as it developed since the 1990s. Modern sociopolitical parlance might tell you you’re being ‘cancelled’, but none of that constitutes a ‘cancel culture’. It is a blend of these two facets of internet culture. Now that popular culture has well and truly been subsumed by internet culture, you can’t avoid it and there is no logging off.
...
So what exactly is ‘cancel culture’? Lauren’s career does a good job of demonstrating how it does sweet *-all. If it were real, if it worked, I’d never have heard of her again. But that’s not the world we live in. It’s not real at all. It just sounds good for shameless nationalist dogs to churn breathless opinion columns out about.
Basically what I’ve been saying, but written in better wordy thingies:
TRUE OPINION: Lauren Southern – now a new true blue Aussie – proves ‘cancel culture’ doesn’t exist
One of the darlings of North America’s racist and extremist ‘alt-right’ scene is now a dinky-di Aussie, proving yet again how ‘cancel culture’ is simply a battlefield …
truecrimenewsweekly.com
I think what people misconstrue as ‘cancel culture’ is in fact two facets of internet culture. One is the fact that now you must witness the crowd-voted popular testimony of anybody. Which might involve you. For example, your trans classmate can tell their friends online how your abuse hurt them at school; by the time you go online that evening, you discover that their peers elected to broadcast your abuse to the world. The black customer you eject for looking ‘suspicious’ tells everyone in your reviews; your small business’ rating plummets. The Muslim woman you terrified in the street has, you discover, an online following of millions and soon you are the terrified one. Your sexual assault victim accuses you publicly online and your life changes forever. That kind of thing.
Children are now lifelong Internet natives and they grew up knowing that social media promises them this potential. They learn from the start that their perspective counts, no matter who they are, because there’s always a chance it could be signal-boosted to the whole world – and the whole world is diverse, whether you like it or not.
The other facet is the sometimes Machiavellian practice of the Internet, developed by decades of conniving content creators, sock accounts, trolls, forums and imageboards. People can call you out. They might kickstart a process that ends your career and reputation. It might be for real reasons, or reasons that seem frivolous to some, or even for something they made up. You are exposed to this potential online whether you are famous or just another social media account.
That’s been the internet as it developed since the 1990s. Modern sociopolitical parlance might tell you you’re being ‘cancelled’, but none of that constitutes a ‘cancel culture’. It is a blend of these two facets of internet culture. Now that popular culture has well and truly been subsumed by internet culture, you can’t avoid it and there is no logging off.
...
So what exactly is ‘cancel culture’? Lauren’s career does a good job of demonstrating how it does sweet *-all. If it were real, if it worked, I’d never have heard of her again. But that’s not the world we live in. It’s not real at all. It just sounds good for shameless nationalist dogs to churn breathless opinion columns out about.
Cancel culture is employed by left wing organisations. Lauren never worked for left wingers in the first place so could never get cancelled. Its not hard.Tom Tanuki on “cancel culture”.
Basically what I’ve been saying, but written in better wordy thingies:
TRUE OPINION: Lauren Southern – now a new true blue Aussie – proves ‘cancel culture’ doesn’t exist
One of the darlings of North America’s racist and extremist ‘alt-right’ scene is now a dinky-di Aussie, proving yet again how ‘cancel culture’ is simply a battlefield …
I think what people misconstrue as ‘cancel culture’ is in fact two facets of internet culture. One is the fact that now you must witness the crowd-voted popular testimony of anybody. Which might involve you. For example, your trans classmate can tell their friends online how your abuse hurt them at school; by the time you go online that evening, you discover that their peers elected to broadcast your abuse to the world. The black customer you eject for looking ‘suspicious’ tells everyone in your reviews; your small business’ rating plummets. The Muslim woman you terrified in the street has, you discover, an online following of millions and soon you are the terrified one. Your sexual assault victim accuses you publicly online and your life changes forever. That kind of thing.
Children are now lifelong Internet natives and they grew up knowing that social media promises them this potential. They learn from the start that their perspective counts, no matter who they are, because there’s always a chance it could be signal-boosted to the whole world – and the whole world is diverse, whether you like it or not.
The other facet is the sometimes Machiavellian practice of the Internet, developed by decades of conniving content creators, sock accounts, trolls, forums and imageboards. People can call you out. They might kickstart a process that ends your career and reputation. It might be for real reasons, or reasons that seem frivolous to some, or even for something they made up. You are exposed to this potential online whether you are famous or just another social media account.
That’s been the internet as it developed since the 1990s. Modern sociopolitical parlance might tell you you’re being ‘cancelled’, but none of that constitutes a ‘cancel culture’. It is a blend of these two facets of internet culture. Now that popular culture has well and truly been subsumed by internet culture, you can’t avoid it and there is no logging off.
...
So what exactly is ‘cancel culture’? Lauren’s career does a good job of demonstrating how it does sweet fu**-all. If it were real, if it worked, I’d never have heard of her again. But that’s not the world we live in. It’s not real at all. It just sounds good for shameless nationalist dogs to churn breathless opinion columns out about.
Numerous nobodies have been sacked by their organisations because of things they said on social media was considered un pc. You think the oeft wouod defend these people from invasion of privacy by their employers but no.
Roseanne, ck louis, kevin spacey are just some names of celebrities whose careers have been ruined. Plenty of others have said their careers have been deeply impacted.
There are groups deliberately using cancel culture to try and get polticial foes banned by ringing up media advertisers. You can not be in denial of this.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1,156
HAHAHAHA! Nothing you say is true.
"Some years ago in Toronto, at a major gathering of Canadian evangelicals, a prominent member of the Palestinian Christian community was scheduled to lecture. A devout and experienced man, he always spoke of justice and peace. But the atmosphere at this event was strongly Christian Zionist, backed by misunderstood Biblical eschatology. Even though the speaker was dedicated to building bridges with Israelis, delegates pressurized the organizers, and he was cancelled. I was ashamed and asked some media colleagues for help in reversing this decision. Nobody was willing to do so. More than a decade later, some of those very colleagues are now active in denouncing what they loudly reject as cancel culture."
...
" On a personal level, I had a quite profound conversion of life almost seven years ago. The details aren’t important, but it led to me changing my stance on some, though far from all, controversial issues. I was, understandably, fired from certain conservative publications and broadcasters, but the campaign went much further than that. There was a clear attempt to silence me, even to destroy me. I remember one email in particular, because it arrived the week before Christmas: “It is felt that with the high public profile you have in media and social networking in relation to gay marriage it is felt that we have to part our ways as an organization.” "
I had a written list of the confirmed dates I was supposed to work for this broadcaster, had been involved with it for more than a decade, and had never even mentioned the issue of equal marriage on its television show. Yet I was still cancelled — dismissed by a conservative entity for having liberal views. And that has historically been the way.
It is only now, when those on the left challenge more traditional ideas about race, sexuality, and politics, that we see such a strong reaction from alleged defenders of free speech. This is about more than just inconsistency or even hypocrisy. It’s about an unwillingness to empathize.
People across the spectrum react to other people across the spectrum.
Last edited:
So this Tom Tanuki bloke proudly rocks up at wrongthinker speaking events with his mates and abuses everyone in attendance. Causes enough trouble to get the events themselves shut down. Writes an article arguing that cancel culture doesn't exist because Lauren Southern hasn't been "permanently cancelled" (he means executed), she's just been deplatformed, censored and otherwise bullied into silence. Then when asked to justify his belief that she (or others) are actually racist he responds with a level of arrogant nacissim that only the left seem capable - basically "they are racist because I said they are".
Mate, I’m sick and tired of running through the history of pathologically disingenuous, careerist nationalist clowns like Southern to an Australian audience of saps who think I’m carping on about nothing because I reckon everyone’s Hitler.
Mate, I’m sick and tired of running through the history of pathologically disingenuous, careerist nationalist clowns like Southern to an Australian audience of saps who think I’m carping on about nothing because I reckon everyone’s Hitler.
Last edited:
Chief only quotes intellectual giants such as an antifa activist/writer and that 'Alien Side Boob' blogger who died with a felafel in his hand.
I for one am convinced by his compelling arguments.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,160
These all assume that there was in fact wrongdoing and the reprisals are justified.
What if that's not the case? Where is the accountability? It's not like there aren't examples of this.
I am 100 per cent in favour of people being held accountable for racial vilification and sexual assault. I am not however in favour of bestowing that responsbility upon an anonymous online mob. Surely there's a reason we don't embrace "crowd-voted popular testimony" in the justice system.
Look at the assumption underpinning the above paragraph: only people who do bad things have something to worry about. It's the kind of logic used to justify mass surveillance i.e. if you don't do anything wrong, there's no cause for concern. More than that, you should welcome it! It assumes there is no possibility of abuse and therefore accountability isn't needed. It's illiberal.
Broadly, the impulse to erase or punish (as opposed to refute or disprove) views that depart from orthodoxy.
The Dixie Chicks were targets. So was Colin Kaepernick.
But more recently, we're seeing it manifest to reinforce emerging orthodoxies around racial justice, sexual politics regarding consent and more inclusive norms of gender identity. I'm sure there are other instances that fall outside those umbrella groups. Let me emphasise, I'm not against any of those things per se. I just don't think we should be burning heretics online. Because, quite frankly, I don't trust the people who want to do the burning to know who deserves it and who doesn't. Do you?
Take the most swivel-eyed LWs on this site. Or RWs for that matter. I'm sure they know what's what. I'm sure their judgement is unimpeachable. I'm sure they can assess the rights and wrongs of a given case and be trusted to act justly and proportionately with zero oversight or accountability. And if they're wrong, they'll admit it and seek to redress the situation. Anyone who doesn't sign up for that must have something to hide. Right?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,161
Sorry, I just saw this.
Defined broadly, offence is perceived insult, independent of any demonstrable material damage or overriding imperative relating to public health and safety.
And don't get me wrong - I accept the rationale for laws against incitement to violence or certain kinds of hate speech. I don't think we should be able to broadcast pr0n at 3pm in the afternoon. I don't think grown men should be able to walk around in public naked. But I think the arguments for those restrictions exceed the standard of mere offence or, as defined above, perceived insult.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,163
I've read all of your post.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1,164
But the type of people who get that sort of treatment aren’t even interested in debate that will result in refutation. They aren’t partaking in any sort of real discourse. Just selling bullshit.
Questions of white supremacy and fascism and the like have been asked and answered. People who want to try to sell tickets to a show celebrating these foul ideologies are rightly howled down. No tolerance for the intolerant.
Thos is nothing new. It’s a story they tell to appear wronged.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,166
I'm responding to your post. And I've never said cancel culture is exclusive to the left.
Although I do note this line early up in that piece: "Cancel culture is indeed a genuine and worrying phenomenon. In extreme cases, people are hounded for things they said or wrote much earlier in their life and no longer believe. Jobs have been lost and reputations smashed, and it’s not always the wealthy and powerful who are victims. Nor is forgiveness especially prominent in all this, because, sometimes, when the accused do show genuine remorse, it makes little difference. There can be a mob mentality and a self-regarding hysteria."
Presumably you agree?
That's simply not the case.
You think that it's only white supremacists and fascists encountering cancel culture online?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,167
Tom Tanuki on “cancel culture”.
Basically what I’ve been saying, but written in better wordy thingies:
TRUE OPINION: Lauren Southern – now a new true blue Aussie – proves ‘cancel culture’ doesn’t exist
One of the darlings of North America’s racist and extremist ‘alt-right’ scene is now a dinky-di Aussie, proving yet again how ‘cancel culture’ is simply a battlefield …
I think what people misconstrue as ‘cancel culture’ is in fact two facets of internet culture. One is the fact that now you must witness the crowd-voted popular testimony of anybody. Which might involve you. For example, your trans classmate can tell their friends online how your abuse hurt them at school; by the time you go online that evening, you discover that their peers elected to broadcast your abuse to the world. The black customer you eject for looking ‘suspicious’ tells everyone in your reviews; your small business’ rating plummets. The Muslim woman you terrified in the street has, you discover, an online following of millions and soon you are the terrified one. Your sexual assault victim accuses you publicly online and your life changes forever. That kind of thing.
Children are now lifelong Internet natives and they grew up knowing that social media promises them this potential. They learn from the start that their perspective counts, no matter who they are, because there’s always a chance it could be signal-boosted to the whole world – and the whole world is diverse, whether you like it or not.
The other facet is the sometimes Machiavellian practice of the Internet, developed by decades of conniving content creators, sock accounts, trolls, forums and imageboards. People can call you out. They might kickstart a process that ends your career and reputation. It might be for real reasons, or reasons that seem frivolous to some, or even for something they made up. You are exposed to this potential online whether you are famous or just another social media account.
That’s been the internet as it developed since the 1990s. Modern sociopolitical parlance might tell you you’re being ‘cancelled’, but none of that constitutes a ‘cancel culture’. It is a blend of these two facets of internet culture. Now that popular culture has well and truly been subsumed by internet culture, you can’t avoid it and there is no logging off.
...
So what exactly is ‘cancel culture’? Lauren’s career does a good job of demonstrating how it does sweet fu**-all. If it were real, if it worked, I’d never have heard of her again. But that’s not the world we live in. It’s not real at all. It just sounds good for shameless nationalist dogs to churn breathless opinion columns out about.
That would be Tom Tanuki ........ the satirist.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1,168
Sweet Jesus - Why did you ask when it was in the post I made?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,170
Ask what?
So we're only talking about cancel culture insofar as it affects white supremacists?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,173
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
The new part of it is the way it manifests online. Pre-internet, how would it have worked? How would you have so many like-minded people coalesce so quickly, while remaining anonymous if they want, their voices amplified and organised to mount a pressure campaign? That's what's new. The velocity, scale and impact of it.
I don't know why you put cancel culture in inverted commas. That's what people are calling it. You object to the term?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,174
I've merely sought to respond to your characterisations and answer your questions.
