Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Scotland]

So on that simplistic line, do we just cancel anything and everything because it may offend someone out there, or do we do the practical thing and just live and let live and let those who want to voice their disapproval do so and if they're in the minority they're in the minority?

~3:30 onward.

People just need a reality check. Offence is taken, not given. If something offends you, then a good old fashioned 'maybe I won't watch that' hasn't gone away as an option. I mean we have age classifications on media. So if you are putting on a DVD for the kids you put Romper Stomper to one side and chuck on The Lion King instead. But you don't take to social media demanding that a near 30 year old movie be somehow unmade because it isn't for kids.

 

[Carringbush2010]

~3:30 onward.

People just need a reality check. Offence is taken, not given. If something offends you, then a good old fashioned 'maybe I won't watch that' hasn't gone away as an option. I mean we have age classifications on media. So if you are putting on a DVD for the kids you put Romper Stomper to one side and chuck on The Lion King instead. But you don't take to social media demanding that a near 30 year old movie be somehow unmade because it isn't for kids.

Well there ya go, offence is taken not given. Never a truer statement made, the most abhorrent whatever will not offend some yet the most frivolous will offend others.

So what is frivolous and what is offensive? Well that depends on who you are, either way someone somewhere will take offence for whatever and others will turn a blind eye to what others would take offence to. Point is, it is not a one size fits all and that is glaringly missing from this debate. Exceptions to Sweet Jesus and others who seem to have a handle on the concept, yourself obviously.

So where do we draw the line? I'd argue somewhere in the practical medium, y'know what the majority would accept / not accept. But being 'it's 2020 and not 1980 anymore' practic has been thrown out the window. It's 'let's try and include everyone' when that is the entirely not achievable.

 

[Scotland]

I remember not that long ago conservative politicians were trying to stop Eminem and Snoop Dogg from coming into the country and the Helen Lovejoys of the world were trying to ban video games like Mortal Kombat. Is that cancel culture?

Kinda funny that the sort of fuddy duddies above whose idea of a good time is sitting down to watch Gone With The Wind have ended up on the same team as the modern day book burners who want to ban such films.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I remember not that long ago conservative politicians were trying to stop Eminem and Snoop Dogg from coming into the country and the Helen Lovejoys of the world were trying to ban video games like Mortal Kombat. Is that cancel culture?

Kinda funny that the sort of fuddy duddies above whose idea of a good time is sitting down to watch Gone With The Wind have ended up on the same team as the modern day book burners who want to ban such films.

Well yes it does come across as inconsistent, banning video games like Mortal Kombat brings a can of worms doesn't it. While they're not 'banned' it does not bode with 'inoffensive' depending on who you are.

If that is the case, if the sentiment is real I mean, then at what end do we 'ban'? Would that mean that we ban all action movies or horror movies with any content that might 'offend' someone somewhere as well? No more re runs of Friday the 13th or even more recently paranormal activity, where is the line drawn?

Answer is it is impossible to draw the line because there is too many opposing views to what is and what is not 'offensive'. Just about anyone and everyone has the capacity to be offended by something or someone. Just as much as anyone and everyone has the capacity to not to take offence.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Chief this is cancel culture in action. Disagreement isn't enough. Activists want the book removed from shelves because of "harmful rhetoric" - consider that absurd formulation. And Target has obliged.



This is the author discussing her work. Is this really "transphobic"? It is undoubtedly a fraught and controversial topic but surely people should be able to decide for themselves without Target removing books because of a Twitter campaign.

 

[Chief]

I don’t know anything about the book and I’m not really going to spend time listening to Joe Rogan talk to the author.

Has the book been withdrawn from sale entirely? Is it no longer possible to get it anywhere.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don’t know anything about the book and I’m not really going to spend time listening to Joe Rogan talk to the author.

Don't listen to Rogan. Listen to a journalist discuss their work and judge whether her views are in fact "transphobic". She's pretty balanced, not some crazed ideologue.

Has the book been withdrawn from sale entirely? Is it no longer possible to get it anywhere.

That's beside the point. The impulse to cancel is the issue, not whether or how far the activists succeeded. Disagreement or rebuttal doesn't cut it. The "harmful rhetoric" must be removed from shelves. That's cancel culture.

"Harmful rhetoric". FMD.

 

[Chief]

There always have been, and always will be, people who just want stuff gone.

Twitter is just the local newspaper letters to the editor gone wild.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There always have been, and always will be, people who just want stuff gone.

Twitter is just the local newspaper letters to the editor gone wild.

More than that - it is 24/7, unfiltered and immersive, on a platform that promotes the nuttiest and/or most committed voices while also allowing them to band together. It has been amplified, coagulated and propelled so powerfully that is can't adequately be described as "just a 21st-century version of an old, familiar tendency".

I mean, is an AK-47 just a newer version of a bow and arrow, which has been around for centuries?

But yes, social media aside, you're right, there have always been prescriptive forces within society. But it's unusual for them to be aligned with "liberal" or "progressive" politics. I thought it was the religious conservatives who want to suppress/ban books because the content upsets them? Yet here we are. This "illiberal left", mobilised by social media, is a newish phenomenon. The impulse to cancel may be old, but this particular expression of that impulse and its unusual political alignment is modern.

 

[Chief]

Pete Evans tweets Nazi imagery.

... waits for supermarket to stop selling his branded stuff...



...




Still waiting...

 

[Chief]

More than that - it is 24/7, unfiltered and immersive, on a platform that promotes the nuttiest and/or most committed voices while also allowing them to band together. It has been amplified, coagulated and propelled so powerfully that is can't adequately be described as "just a 21st-century version of an old, familiar tendency".

I mean, is an AK-47 just a newer version of a bow and arrow, which has been around for centuries?

But yes, social media aside, you're right, there have always been prescriptive forces within society. But it's unusual for them to be aligned with "liberal" or "progressive" politics. I thought it was the religious conservatives who want to suppress/ban books because the content upsets them? Yet here we are. This "illiberal left", mobilised by social media, is a newish phenomenon. The impulse to cancel may be old, but this particular expression of that impulse and its unusual political alignment is modern.

But there has not been the algorithm-driven YouTube fascist and conspiracy-theory indoctrination. People are saying "that's enough, now * off".

 

[Hoops]

Don't listen to Rogan. Listen to a journalist discuss their work and judge whether her views are in fact "transphobic". She's pretty balanced, not some crazed ideologue.

That's beside the point. The impulse to cancel is the issue, not whether or how far the activists succeeded. Disagreement or rebuttal doesn't cut it. The "harmful rhetoric" must be removed from shelves. That's cancel culture.

"Harmful rhetoric". FMD.

where does that leave bakers and gay cakes? Is it cancel culture to refuse to bake a gay cake? Is it the same refusing to sell certain books at a department store?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But there has not been the algorithm-driven YouTube fascist and conspiracy-theory indoctrination. People are saying "that's enough, now fu** off".

Sorry what?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

where does that leave bakers and gay cakes?

Where does what leave bakers and "gay cakes"? I'm not sure it leaves them anywhere.

Is it cancel culture to refuse to bake a gay cake?

What's being cancelled?

Is it the same refusing to sell certain books at a department store?

See above. I'm not sure your analogy bears scrutiny.

 

[quotemokc]

So they changed the name of Chico's but the product is still a black baby?

Allen's settles on new names for two of its famous lollies

Nestle settles on new names for two Allen's Lollies products out of respect for those who might feel marginalised by them.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ok I have questions in regard to the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians.

My guess is that the club employed the moniker 'redskins' in reverence to indigenous Americans? If so why is it so offensive that they now do not have a mascot / moniker? Who is offended by that? Are the majority of native Americans offended because a grid iron club has employed them as a moniker in reverence?

What about the Cleveland Indians? They're still recognised as the Cleveland Indians? If so why are they exempt from cancel culture? Is this not inconsistent?

Let's say the majority of native Americans are offended by red skins, would it not be consistent that white people are offended by the term 'whitey'. Why is there no noise around that term? Or is that not sexy enough even though that would be inconsistent?

 

[dumb]

Pete Evans twitter post could easily be read as a critique against MAGA's. Also possible it wasn't, considering he has been seen in a MAGA hat and would be the type to use supposedly esoteric imagery to parlay a message to his kooky followers. Half the blow-up is who it came from.

The problem with cancel culture is apparent in his post - the de-platformers fail to realize you need to depict something to make fun of it.

 

[Baird]

Ok I have questions in regard to the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians.

My guess is that the club employed the moniker 'redskins' in reverence to indigenous Americans? If so why is it so offensive that they now do not have a mascot / moniker? Who is offended by that? Are the majority of native Americans offended because a grid iron club has employed them as a moniker in reverence?

What about the Cleveland Indians? They're still recognised as the Cleveland Indians? If so why are they exempt from cancel culture? Is this not inconsistent?

Let's say the majority of native Americans are offended by red skins, would it not be consistent that white people are offended by the term 'whitey'. Why is there no noise around that term? Or is that not sexy enough even though that would be inconsistent?

Of course they did, but acknowledging racial differences is racist now

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course they did, but acknowledging racial differences is racist now

Ignoring those differences is also racist now. Solution? Cancel cancel cancel.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

Ive just been cancelled from ANOTHER thread here on the SRP board. The left really dont care about the slippery slope of censorship do they? Throw freedom of speech and democracy out the window so long as they win. The end justifies the means.

Who would have thought that “progressive” left would mean progressing towards communism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Ive just been cancelled from ANOTHER thread here on the SRP board. The left really dont care about the slippery slope of censorship do they? Throw freedom of speech and democracy out the window so long as they win. The end justifies the means.

Who would have thought that “progressive” left would mean progressing towards communism.

Communism because you got a thread ban?

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

Communism because you got a thread ban?

Its a slippery slope. China has no freedom of speech. Western country’s are currently being challenged by left-wing people in positions of power who are quick to silence, censor and cancel a conservation whose opinion they dont like.

When the Press Secretary of the White House (Kayleigh Mcenany) gets her tweet deleted after linking a news article from the New York Post, it’s obvious we have a problem with Democracy. Fox news also interrupted Mcenanys speech when she gave an update on the evidence being submitted to court. And the excuse for cutting off her Press Conference was the same reason twitter gave for deleting her tweet the week before: Her claims couldn’t being substantiated and was misinformation. Problem is, if the courts havent made a ruling on the evidence yet, or seen all of the evidence, then how can news network’s and social media moderators deem it misinformation??? Media arent the arbitrators of truth yet they have taken that road and are cancelling anyone they disagree with.

China says hello.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Its a slippery slope.

From you getting a thread ban to communism?

China has no freedom of speech. Western country’s are currently being challenged by left-wing people in positions of power who are quick to silence, censor and cancel a conservation whose opinion they dont like.

When the Press Secretary of the White House (Kayleigh Mcenany) gets her tweet deleted after linking a news article from the New York Post, it’s obvious we have a problem with Democracy. Fox news also interrupted Mcenanys speech when she gave an update on the evidence being submitted to court. And the excuse for cutting off her Press Conference was the same reason twitter gave for deleting her tweet the week before: Her claims couldn’t being substantiated and was misinformation. Problem is, if the courts havent made a ruling on the evidence yet, or seen all of the evidence, then how can news network’s and social media moderators deem it misinformation??? Media arent the arbitrators of truth yet they have taken that road and are cancelling anyone they disagree with.

China says hello.

I assume this is a joke.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Its a slippery slope. China has no freedom of speech. Western country’s are currently being challenged by left-wing people in positions of power who are quick to silence, censor and cancel a conservation whose opinion they dont like.

When the Press Secretary of the White House (Kayleigh Mcenany) gets her tweet deleted after linking a news article from the New York Post, it’s obvious we have a problem with Democracy. Fox news also interrupted Mcenanys speech when she gave an update on the evidence being submitted to court. And the excuse for cutting off her Press Conference was the same reason twitter gave for deleting her tweet the week before: Her claims couldn’t being substantiated and was misinformation. Problem is, if the courts havent made a ruling on the evidence yet, or seen all of the evidence, then how can news network’s and social media moderators deem it misinformation??? Media arent the arbitrators of truth yet they have taken that road and are cancelling anyone they disagree with.

China says hello.

Is that the same media that both Kayleigh and Trump have been attacking as fake news for 5 years?

But now they want the media to play along?

 

[Fadge]

Is that the same media that both Kayleigh and Trump have been attacking as fake news for 5 years?

But now they want the media to play along?

Um, suggest that is the point he is making.

Also refer to 'Hypocrisy of the Left'...