|
Post by mark687 on Jul 1, 2021 9:49:03 GMT
So if the loss of work opportunities, public criticism, for people that may have made comments and actions that some sections society find unacceptable (but they'er not found to be illegal} isn't Cancel Culture what is it.
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 10:05:53 GMT
The trouble with cancel culture is it all depends on who is cancelling who. Sometimes one thinks it is deserved, but then it may be someone you support and think it unwarranted, yet there is nothing you can do to stem the tide of the online tribunal. I have a theory that as a modern cultural phenomenon, it has its roots in reality shows such as Big Brother and other 'vote em out' variants. People got quite worked up over 'Nasty Nick' in the UK Big Brother 20 odd years ago and it was the start of a tabloid news phenomenon on the backs of a few hysterical viewers/voters getting worked up online.
People have found satisfaction in the power to have removed those they disagree with or take a dislike to. As a consumer it is now their right and their business to have a say in the continuation of other peoples professional lives, should their actions or opinions become part of the public sphere. That makes a lot of sense, actually. The thing about those sorts of reality shows, though, was that it had structure. Everything was formalised. Once the programme was over, that was largely the end of it. In these circumstances, after the initial revelations, it's not so straightforward. There's an assumption of control to these things which fundamentally doesn't exist. Too often, it transforms into a mob mentality and there is nothing so impossible to control than a mob. It's naive to think otherwise. Especially for an anonymous mob and especially one that isn't really interested in honouring the victims, but prosecuting/persecuting the perpetrators. It's common enough to see these things get co-opted, ironically enough, by showmen. It becomes a performance piece on the part of those doing the cancelling. A way to curry favour and boost their own visibility that they themselves wouldn't have gained otherwise. They gain prominence by becominig the new voice. And that's the risk with these things. I always try to judge them by whether innocent people getting caught in the way is an active consideration or not. The "tribunal" isn't being done by police officers, court judges and lawyers. It's being done in the virtual street on phones and laptops. If someone -- seen, circumstantially, as guilty by association -- is harmed, found innocent of the accusation, and that error is met with a shrug or ignored... Something has gone badly wrong along the way. It should never be pursued to such an extent that the saviours create just as much carnage as the perpetrators, but... There is no timeslot, no end of season, nothing. There is no real control. I'm sure it feels like there is when things are going with the flow, but when the current shifts (or, like a lot of these things, those doing the cancelling one day end up staring down the barrel of their own colleagues' guns)... I don't envy anyone caught up in it.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 1, 2021 10:50:26 GMT
So if the lose of work opportunities, public criticism, for people that may have made comments and actions that some sections society find unacceptable (but they'er not found to be illegal} isn't Cancel Culture what is it. Regards mark687 I would see it as consequences. Maybe there are examples where people are suffering work losses etc for comments they may have made but I haven't seen that, only for things they have said. I don't know if actions have to be illegal for people to lose work. As for some sections of society finding things unacceptable, this may be a grey area. Morals & what is or isn't acceptable can change. But when it comes to the topic of this thread I haven't seen anything like that. Maybe there are examples I'm unaware of which is a possibility.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 1, 2021 10:52:53 GMT
The trouble with cancel culture is it all depends on who is cancelling who. Sometimes one thinks it is deserved, but then it may be someone you support and think it unwarranted, yet there is nothing you can do to stem the tide of the online tribunal. I have a theory that as a modern cultural phenomenon, it has its roots in reality shows such as Big Brother and other 'vote em out' variants. People got quite worked up over 'Nasty Nick' in the UK Big Brother 20 odd years ago and it was the start of a tabloid news phenomenon on the backs of a few hysterical viewers/voters getting worked up online. People have found satisfaction in the power to have removed those they disagree with or take a dislike to. As a consumer it is now their right and their business to have a say in the continuation of other peoples professional lives, should their actions or opinions become part of the public sphere. I think cancel culture is part of a sea change in social attitudes that is happening very fast. The only thing I can compare it to is something like the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Both happened in the context of a communications revolution - the printing press, Bible in people's own language etc in the sixteenth century, and the internet & social media today. In countries where Protestant teaching was allowed it spread like wildfire and it was also a form of identity politics - breaking with Rome was about asserting national identity. In a very short space of time Roman Catholic practices and doctrines that had been accepted and taken for granted for years and years suddenly became a big no-no, just like a lot of social attitudes that have been around for years and a lot of people have simply taken for granted are now a big no-no. Just as the Protestant Reformation led to a reaction as Roman Catholicism fought back with the Counter-Reformation etc., so we are getting Trump, the alt right, etc. We are basically living in a time of religious warfare - although there is no actual military conflict as such - instead it manifests as culture wars, identity politics, etc. [Interestingly enough, in terms of statues, which can be controversial today, the practice of iconoclasm sprung up in the 16th century whereby Protestants destroyed Roman Catholic statues which they deemed to be idolatrous graven images in contravention of the 2nd commandment.]
Normally social attitudes change quite slowly and gradually with much less conflict and militancy, but I think right now we are living through a time of very rapid change. One set of attitudes/values is very rapidly giving way to another set and the result is a lot of friction and conflict. Thankfully, heretics are no longer burnt at the stake, but otherwise it is pretty similar. People who dissent from the new orthodoxy are penalised and the only way back for them is to publicly recant. One difference between then and now is that in the 16th century it tended to be the state that did a lot the coercion, with a bit of help from the mob on occasion, in the 21st the coercion tends to be done by the mob with a little help from the state. What we call cancel culture or consequences culture is really just a euphemism for punishing anyone who is either brave enough or foolish enough to dissent from the dominant ideology.
When things finally settled down in the 17th century, in the UK there was a status quo whereby those who subscribed in full to the dominant ideology (i.e. the established Church in the relevant part of the UK) were first class citizens and those who did not (Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters, Jews, etc) were second class citizens. This was not dismantled until the 19th century. I personally think that is where we are ultimately heading - anyone who is not woke or who publicly says or does something un-woke will be penalised and will, in effect, become a 2nd class citizen insofar as certain doors will be closed to them. It may be society rather than the state that closes the doors, at least initially [and that's what we see with cancel/consequences culture]. We're not there yet, but that is where I think we are headed.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 1, 2021 11:24:34 GMT
The trouble with cancel culture is it all depends on who is cancelling who. Sometimes one thinks it is deserved, but then it may be someone you support and think it unwarranted, yet there is nothing you can do to stem the tide of the online tribunal. I have a theory that as a modern cultural phenomenon, it has its roots in reality shows such as Big Brother and other 'vote em out' variants. People got quite worked up over 'Nasty Nick' in the UK Big Brother 20 odd years ago and it was the start of a tabloid news phenomenon on the backs of a few hysterical viewers/voters getting worked up online. People have found satisfaction in the power to have removed those they disagree with or take a dislike to. As a consumer it is now their right and their business to have a say in the continuation of other peoples professional lives, should their actions or opinions become part of the public sphere. I think cancel culture is part of a sea change in social attitudes that is happening very fast. The only thing I can compare it to is something like the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Both happened in the context of a communications revolution - the printing press, Bible in people's own language etc in the sixteenth century, and the internet & social media today. In countries where Protestant teaching was allowed it spread like wildfire and it was also a form of identity politics - breaking with Rome was about asserting national identity. In a very short space of time Roman Catholic practices and doctrines that had been accepted and taken for granted for years and years suddenly became a big no-no, just like a lot of social attitudes that have been around for years and a lot of people have simply taken for granted are now a big no-no. Just as the Protestant Reformation led to a reaction as Roman Catholicism fought back with the Counter-Reformation etc., so we are getting Trump, the alt right, etc. We are basically living in a time of religious warfare - although there is no actual military conflict as such - instead it manifests as culture wars, identity politics, etc. [Interestingly enough, in terms of statues, which can be controversial today, the practice of iconoclasm sprung up in the 16th century whereby Protestants destroyed Roman Catholic statues which they deemed to be idolatrous graven images in contravention of the 2nd commandment.]
Normally social attitudes change quite slowly and gradually with much less conflict and militancy, but I think right now we are living through a time of very rapid change. One set of attitudes/values is very rapidly giving way to another set and the result is a lot of friction and conflict. Thankfully, heretics are no longer burnt at the stake, but otherwise it is pretty similar. People who dissent from the new orthodoxy are penalised and the only way back for them is to publicly recant. One difference between then and now is that in the 16th century it tended to be the state that did a lot the coercion, with a bit of help from the mob on occasion, in the 21st the coercion tends to be done by the mob with a little help from the state. What we call cancel culture or consequences culture is really just a euphemism for punishing anyone who is either brave enough or foolish enough to dissent from the dominant ideology.
When things finally settled down in the 17th century, in the UK there was a status quo whereby those who subscribed in full to the dominant ideology (i.e. the established Church in the relevant part of the UK) were first class citizens and those who did not (Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters, Jews, etc) were second class citizens. This was not dismantled until the 19th century. I personally think that is where we are ultimately heading - anyone who is not woke or who publicly says or does something un-woke will be penalised and will, in effect, become a 2nd class citizen insofar as certain doors will be closed to them. It may be society rather than the state that closes the doors, at least initially [and that's what we see with cancel/consequences culture]. We're not there yet, but that is where I think we are headed.
Ironically I'd argue the current Social reform on opinions and attitudes is having Zero impact in terms of politics its shouting in the dark. Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 1, 2021 11:28:10 GMT
The trouble with cancel culture is it all depends on who is cancelling who. Sometimes one thinks it is deserved, but then it may be someone you support and think it unwarranted, yet there is nothing you can do to stem the tide of the online tribunal. I have a theory that as a modern cultural phenomenon, it has its roots in reality shows such as Big Brother and other 'vote em out' variants. People got quite worked up over 'Nasty Nick' in the UK Big Brother 20 odd years ago and it was the start of a tabloid news phenomenon on the backs of a few hysterical viewers/voters getting worked up online. People have found satisfaction in the power to have removed those they disagree with or take a dislike to. As a consumer it is now their right and their business to have a say in the continuation of other peoples professional lives, should their actions or opinions become part of the public sphere. I think cancel culture is part of a sea change in social attitudes that is happening very fast. The only thing I can compare it to is something like the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Both happened in the context of a communications revolution - the printing press, Bible in people's own language etc in the sixteenth century, and the internet & social media today. In countries where Protestant teaching was allowed it spread like wildfire and it was also a form of identity politics - breaking with Rome was about asserting national identity. In a very short space of time Roman Catholic practices and doctrines that had been accepted and taken for granted for years and years suddenly became a big no-no, just like a lot of social attitudes that have been around for years and a lot of people have simply taken for granted are now a big no-no. Just as the Protestant Reformation led to a reaction as Roman Catholicism fought back with the Counter-Reformation etc., so we are getting Trump, the alt right, etc. We are basically living in a time of religious warfare - although there is no actual military conflict as such - instead it manifests as culture wars, identity politics, etc. [Interestingly enough, in terms of statues, which can be controversial today, the practice of iconoclasm sprung up in the 16th century whereby Protestants destroyed Roman Catholic statues which they deemed to be idolatrous graven images in contravention of the 2nd commandment.]
Normally social attitudes change quite slowly and gradually with much less conflict and militancy, but I think right now we are living through a time of very rapid change. One set of attitudes/values is very rapidly giving way to another set and the result is a lot of friction and conflict. Thankfully, heretics are no longer burnt at the stake, but otherwise it is pretty similar. People who dissent from the new orthodoxy are penalised and the only way back for them is to publicly recant. One difference between then and now is that in the 16th century it tended to be the state that did a lot the coercion, with a bit of help from the mob on occasion, in the 21st the coercion tends to be done by the mob with a little help from the state. What we call cancel culture or consequences culture is really just a euphemism for punishing anyone who is either brave enough or foolish enough to dissent from the dominant ideology.
When things finally settled down in the 17th century, in the UK there was a status quo whereby those who subscribed in full to the dominant ideology (i.e. the established Church in the relevant part of the UK) were first class citizens and those who did not (Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters, Jews, etc) were second class citizens. This was not dismantled until the 19th century. I personally think that is where we are ultimately heading - anyone who is not woke or who publicly says or does something un-woke will be penalised and will, in effect, become a 2nd class citizen insofar as certain doors will be closed to them. It may be society rather than the state that closes the doors, at least initially [and that's what we see with cancel/consequences culture]. We're not there yet, but that is where I think we are headed.
Interesting analysis here & I don't disagree with all of it. But I certainly don't think being transphobic or constantly indecently exposing yourself at work is particularly brave or even foolish. I guess we'll see what happens in respect of this thread title, if any other people linked to BF get 'cancelled'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 17:15:38 GMT
I might add to the discussion the use of language by those seeking to incite severe consequences for others of whom they disagree with. I exercised moderation in my own words previously, such as 'tribunal' as it is very easy to compare their actions to that of a 'lynch mob' or 'the inquisition. Given the behaviour or many, being disparate and perhaps characterised by their vocal nature, in contrast to the silent majority, bolstered by the occasional high visibility commentator in journalism or the likes, their success is based on ensuring they cannot be ignored. When you shout loudest, your side of the opinion will always dominate over those who keep their own views low profile, or private.
There is certainly an element of hysteria and increasingly emotive language deployed in the gaining of attention in such cases. Descriptive terms that suggest personal hurt by the mere existence of words or opinions expressed by others. Furthermore, as vocal spokespeople of the 'mob' fight against those who grow weary of their crusade (for it is without end; there is always more) they require the use of ever more hysterical words.
Opinions that challenge their status quo become 'hate speech'. Statements asserting a different view become an alleged 'incitement to violence'. The meek majority seeking to stay out of it are informed that 'silence is violence' and that there are only two camps, supportive and legitimising of either one side or the other.
We are told that people with a challenging view are 'hateful', 'phobic' and 'literally killing' those of whom they disagree. The escalation of language ratchets further in its shrillness and absurdity.
Organisations are pressured into action, such as in the severance of ties with individuals falling victim to wrong-think or wrong-speech. We have a new channel, GB News, which is neither right-wing nor biased, nor controversial in its content, experiencing an advertisers boycott, as these organisations are targeted by a very vocal online group of campaigners who decided from the outset that they would not agree with its editorial views and so resorted to an escalation of language to try and hasten its closure. To deny others of the chance to agree with and appreciate its news coverage will be a victory for them.
We all know how readily some on the left are ready to describe anyone to the right of them as being 'Nazis' or 'just like Hitler' and even as of last week, a qualified and prominent NHS Doctor stating online that the governments attempts to celebrate Britain (with a song written by kids) as being like 1930s Nazi Germany. That she was losing sleep and terrified for her children's future.
I suppose the point I am making here, is that it is a slippery slope whereby there is no closure. The mob does not feel satiated, but moves on to the next issue, or cause. The desire to control, to dictate to others, strengthens each time.
And at the other side there are the lives and livelihoods lost, as they once would have been by an invasive tabloid sting for private misdemeanours. This time it is third party commentators acting as judge and jury and dictating to employers whether they can retain someone in their employments, irrespective of what rules may have been broken (if any). Often just for voicing an opinion, in their own time, online. With people who do not accept being disagreed with.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 1, 2021 17:44:00 GMT
People challenging the status quo? You make it sound so benign. What we are talking about here are people being transphobic, racist & bigoted. & people like Barrowman being a pervert at work. & those people being held to account for those views & actions. Yes some may feel like they are being piled on on social media,but maybe see how it is for minority groups on social media, or female MPs who get constant rape & death threats. Or so-called football fans who make vile comments about a young german girl upset at her team losing. & let's not forget we live in a country that is more slanted to the right, caring more about protecting statues than women. There is no 'mob', as we all know social media is still a platform used by a comparatively small number of the population. People can bang on about woke snowflakes but it seems those on the right are more like snowflakes, they are suddenly attempting to become the saviours of free speech but at the same time don't like it when others exercise their free speech by challenging their views. As for GBNews not being biased, hilarious. Almost as hilarious as their incompetence as a professional broadcaster.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 3, 2021 10:36:05 GMT
We are told that people with a challenging view are 'hateful', 'phobic' and 'literally killing' those of whom they disagree. The escalation of language ratchets further in its shrillness and absurdity. Organisations are pressured into action, such as in the severance of ties with individuals falling victim to wrong-think or wrong-speech. We have a new channel, GB News, which is neither right-wing nor biased, nor controversial in its content, experiencing an advertisers boycott, as these organisations are targeted by a very vocal online group of campaigners who decided from the outset that they would not agree with its editorial views and so resorted to an escalation of language to try and hasten its closure. To deny others of the chance to agree with and appreciate its news coverage will be a victory for them. We all know how readily some on the left are ready to describe anyone to the right of them as being 'Nazis' or 'just like Hitler' and even as of last week, a qualified and prominent NHS Doctor stating online that the governments attempts to celebrate Britain (with a song written by kids) as being like 1930s Nazi Germany. That she was losing sleep and terrified for her children's future. The issue is I think you're letting your gripes with segments of the UK left colour your perspective: to say GB News is not biased or right-wing doesn't hold up to even the smallest level of scrutiny, regardless of political perspective. They've been selling themselves on nothing but 'fighting back wokeness and elite metropolitan culture', which by the very nature of how language works, is both biased and coming from a specific POV. Never mind that they had no qualms inviting the likes of Farage or Lady Colin Campbell (whose only qualification seems to be yelling at Meghan on Youtube like some bizarro version of a Jane Austen or Wilde character) on who carry with them very specific connotations and audiences. Same with the song issue: do we not make fun of other nations whose make their kids sing nationalist songs, and yet, what is the difference here? Plus, they aren't exactly singing 'ring-a-ring-a-rosies', it's called 'Strong britain Great nation', which if we swapped Britain with 'North Korea' or 'Assad's Syria'... not suddenly as cute as you're portraying it. If we claim we want kids to be kids and that topics such as religion and politics have no place within school walls, well, how do you justify jingoism?
(Indeed, in the interests of critical thinking, I think the song absolutely invites interrogation: for being written by Bradford schoolchildren, why is it so stiff and formal? Where's the fun? The passion? The imagination you'd expect a group of kids to conjure up? Even the title sounds inorganic coming from a 10 year old.)
As for the broader topic, I will likely have a follow up post as I think there are some nuances missing in the discussion thus far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2021 14:28:55 GMT
We are told that people with a challenging view are 'hateful', 'phobic' and 'literally killing' those of whom they disagree. The escalation of language ratchets further in its shrillness and absurdity. Organisations are pressured into action, such as in the severance of ties with individuals falling victim to wrong-think or wrong-speech. We have a new channel, GB News, which is neither right-wing nor biased, nor controversial in its content, experiencing an advertisers boycott, as these organisations are targeted by a very vocal online group of campaigners who decided from the outset that they would not agree with its editorial views and so resorted to an escalation of language to try and hasten its closure. To deny others of the chance to agree with and appreciate its news coverage will be a victory for them. We all know how readily some on the left are ready to describe anyone to the right of them as being 'Nazis' or 'just like Hitler' and even as of last week, a qualified and prominent NHS Doctor stating online that the governments attempts to celebrate Britain (with a song written by kids) as being like 1930s Nazi Germany. That she was losing sleep and terrified for her children's future. The issue is I think you're letting your gripes with segments of the UK left colour your perspective: to say GB News is not biased or right-wing doesn't hold up to even the smallest level of scrutiny, regardless of political perspective. They've been selling themselves on nothing but 'fighting back wokeness and elite metropolitan culture', which by the very nature of how language works, is both biased and coming from a specific POV. Never mind that they had no qualms inviting the likes of Farage or Lady Colin Campbell (whose only qualification seems to be yelling at Meghan on Youtube like some bizarro version of a Jane Austen or Wilde character) on who carry with them very specific connotations and audiences. Same with the song issue: do we not make fun of other nations whose make their kids sing nationalist songs, and yet, what is the difference here? Plus, they aren't exactly singing 'ring-a-ring-a-rosies', it's called 'Strong britain Great nation', which if we swapped Britain with 'North Korea' or 'Assad's Syria'... not suddenly as cute as you're portraying it. If we claim we want kids to be kids and that topics such as religion and politics have no place within school walls, well, how do you justify jingoism?
(Indeed, in the interests of critical thinking, I think the song absolutely invites interrogation: for being written by Bradford schoolchildren, why is it so stiff and formal? Where's the fun? The passion? The imagination you'd expect a group of kids to conjure up? Even the title sounds inorganic coming from a 10 year old.)
As for the broader topic, I will likely have a follow up post as I think there are some nuances missing in the discussion thus far.
My attitude is that one does not have to like what someone says, but to defend their right to say it. It allows for debate that we would not have if people are compelled to keep silent. As far as GB News is concerned, it has been noted that they have hosted discussions on a range of matters, inviting participants of all sides and have been praised for their calm, balanced and informative nature. Indeed, A Neil was keen to point out of Dan Wooton, that he disagreed with his anti-lockdown views, but that that was the point. To allow others to have a different view to the editorial line. One should not have to be on the same side, left or right, to begrudge others having a platform. My concern was that others were proactively seeking to have it shut down. As for the Strong Britain, Great Britain guff, that was rightly cringed at by all sides as being pretty naff and about as likely to catch on as it is to win Eurovision. But the reaction of some, that it signifies our post-Brexit slide into Fascism is rather fantastical and hysterical. It will die its own natural death without the need for counter protest. I used to say of Nick Griffin and the BNP, that allowing them a platform in the mainstream was the worst thing that could of happened to them. It allowed people to see them for what they are. Keeping them as a silenced fringe changed no ones views, but aided their popularity. Tommy Robinson is another who becomes more of a joke the more people see and hear of him. The simple point is, defending the right to someone having a platform is not indicative of support. And the existence of trite campaigns to encourage people to feel good about this country is not a slippery slope towards a dictatorship. Look at the level of patriotism and jingoism during Victorian Britain. Yet it was a Laissez-faire economic system, not tight governmental control that was behind its success. This is all very broad and selective I am sure, so picking gaps in another posters points is all to easy and never ending. And remember - I am neither left wing nor right wing. Just open to views that I disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 3, 2021 14:53:10 GMT
My attitude is that one does not have to like what someone says, but to defend their right to say it. It allows for debate that we would not have if people are compelled to keep silent. As far as GB News is concerned, it has been noted that they have hosted discussions on a range of matters, inviting participants of all sides and have been praised for their calm, balanced and informative nature. Indeed, A Neil was keen to point out of Dan Wooton, that he disagreed with his anti-lockdown views, but that that was the point. To allow others to have a different view to the editorial line. One should not have to be on the same side, left or right, to begrudge others having a platform. My concern was that others were proactively seeking to have it shut down. As for the Strong Britain, Great Britain guff, that was rightly cringed at by all sides as being pretty naff and about as likely to catch on as it is to win Eurovision. But the reaction of some, that it signifies our post-Brexit slide into Fascism is rather fantastical and hysterical. It will die its own natural death without the need for counter protest. I used to say of Nick Griffin and the BNP, that allowing them a platform in the mainstream was the worst thing that could of happened to them. It allowed people to see them for what they are. Keeping them as a silenced fringe changed no ones views, but aided their popularity. Tommy Robinson is another who becomes more of a joke the more people see and hear of him. The simple point is, defending the right to someone having a platform is not indicative of support. And the existence of trite campaigns to encourage people to feel good about this country is not a slippery slope towards a dictatorship. Look at the level of patriotism and jingoism during Victorian Britain. Yet it was a Laissez-faire economic system, not tight governmental control that was behind its success. This is all very broad and selective I am sure, so picking gaps in another posters points is all to easy and never ending. And remember - I am neither left wing nor right wing. Just open to views that I disagree with. In the broad strokes, we are agreed - I think respect should be awarded to all opinions (context important, of course) and listening is important. Indeed, it's an underappreciated quality. Where we diverge, and I suppose I'm bringing my own frame of experience which isn't universal, is that I've seen that goodwill abused multiple times over recent years by people who aren't letting that 'marketplace of ideas/let's debate things' concept work the way it ought to. Without some minimum in place, it all goes down t'pit. To bring an example from the Government Watch thread I used a few weeks back to illustrate:
The issue is that bad ideas, harmful ones, are kept on constant life support or forced back onto the market, even when it's been resoundingly rejected, by said bad faith actors. Know who Tucker Carlson is? He's another of Fox News' eternal blowhards who, aside from peddling dangerous guff about vaccines, masks and various minorities, is not drawing ratings for the network; scared off all his advertisers and is actively losing Fox/Murdoch money. Panned by publications and mocked by layman. And yet he still has his show, year after year. Why? Because he can galvanise one specific niche of rightwing American voters (don't think I need to spell out who), even when the rest of Fox's audience, never mind America, doesn't want him. Meaningful metrics show he's not supported, in fact he's losing them gobs in advertising green, exactly how the marketplace of ideas is meant to work, and yet, because he serves a specific agenda for someone else, he is allowed to stay on, to the detriment of everyone. A similar thing, to bring it home, can be said of antivaxxers (are they worthy of consideration when they break into hospitals or attack medical staff or people during protests?) or Farage: have his ideas not been pubically challenged and discredited multiple times, and yet, he's arguably one of the most influential politicians of the last decade - if open air and light were enough, why is he still here and why was he such a big figure during Brexit and the 2019 election, even though he wasn't part of the main parties or held any actual office? That I think warrants dissecting if we're asking about a blanket attitude towards speech.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2021 16:47:05 GMT
My attitude is that one does not have to like what someone says, but to defend their right to say it. It allows for debate that we would not have if people are compelled to keep silent. As far as GB News is concerned, it has been noted that they have hosted discussions on a range of matters, inviting participants of all sides and have been praised for their calm, balanced and informative nature. Indeed, A Neil was keen to point out of Dan Wooton, that he disagreed with his anti-lockdown views, but that that was the point. To allow others to have a different view to the editorial line. One should not have to be on the same side, left or right, to begrudge others having a platform. My concern was that others were proactively seeking to have it shut down. As for the Strong Britain, Great Britain guff, that was rightly cringed at by all sides as being pretty naff and about as likely to catch on as it is to win Eurovision. But the reaction of some, that it signifies our post-Brexit slide into Fascism is rather fantastical and hysterical. It will die its own natural death without the need for counter protest. I used to say of Nick Griffin and the BNP, that allowing them a platform in the mainstream was the worst thing that could of happened to them. It allowed people to see them for what they are. Keeping them as a silenced fringe changed no ones views, but aided their popularity. Tommy Robinson is another who becomes more of a joke the more people see and hear of him. The simple point is, defending the right to someone having a platform is not indicative of support. And the existence of trite campaigns to encourage people to feel good about this country is not a slippery slope towards a dictatorship. Look at the level of patriotism and jingoism during Victorian Britain. Yet it was a Laissez-faire economic system, not tight governmental control that was behind its success. This is all very broad and selective I am sure, so picking gaps in another posters points is all to easy and never ending. And remember - I am neither left wing nor right wing. Just open to views that I disagree with. In the broad strokes, we are agreed - I think respect should be awarded to all opinions (context important, of course) and listening is important. Indeed, it's an underappreciated quality. Where we diverge, and I suppose I'm bringing my own frame of experience which isn't universal, is that I've seen that goodwill abused multiple times over recent years by people who aren't letting that 'marketplace of ideas/let's debate things' concept work the way it ought to. Without some minimum in place, it all goes down t'pit. To bring an example from the Government Watch thread I used a few weeks back to illustrate:
The issue is that bad ideas, harmful ones, are kept on constant life support or forced back onto the market, even when it's been resoundingly rejected, by said bad faith actors. Know who Tucker Carlson is? He's another of Fox News' eternal blowhards who, aside from peddling dangerous guff about vaccines, masks and various minorities, is not drawing ratings for the network; scared off all his advertisers and is actively losing Fox/Murdoch money. Panned by publications and mocked by layman. And yet he still has his show, year after year. Why? Because he can galvanise one specific niche of rightwing American voters (don't think I need to spell out who), even when the rest of Fox's audience, never mind America, doesn't want him. Meaningful metrics show he's not supported, in fact he's losing them gobs in advertising green, exactly how the marketplace of ideas is meant to work, and yet, because he serves a specific agenda for someone else, he is allowed to stay on, to the detriment of everyone. A similar thing, to bring it home, can be said of antivaxxers (are they worthy of consideration when they break into hospitals or attack medical staff or people during protests?) or Farage: have his ideas not been pubically challenged and discredited multiple times, and yet, he's arguably one of the most influential politicians of the last decade - if open air and light were enough, why is he still here and why was he such a big figure during Brexit and the 2019 election, even though he wasn't part of the main parties or held any actual office? That I think warrants dissecting if we're asking about a blanket attitude towards speech.
A valid and well reasoned example there, thanks. Without wishing to come across as a cheerleader and devils advocate here, the Fox News/GB News comparison is a notable comparison that has been made. Andrew Neil however observed from watching the recent US Election coverage that the model over there seems to be that each channel each has its own skewed and biased version of the truth. Something he was emphatic that he wished to avoid. Stephen Daisley, writing in the Spectator, felt free to ask valid questions as to the role and purpose in our own news landscape and boldly acknowledged its broom cupboard aesthetic: www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-question-hanging-over-gb-newsI suppose that the more you hear from someone the less you may agree with them. Tucker Carson will do doubt have gained prominence through being agreeable to many on some points of issue (populism) but his downfall is perhaps owing to the fact that even his supporters may take exception to his wider coverage and biases. The challenge from Andrew Neil, is that the BBC is currently lacking in the impartiality it has traditionally held. That is debatable, I know, and I still trust them more than I would GB News, but whilst they are truthful, there is presently an element of their coverage that betrays their own news priorities and a tendency to editorialise, exposing their correspondents and news readers personal views. I get that GB News has plenty of that too, and would be more interested if they had a news bulletin, or some rolling news coverage, to see where they can differentiate as opposed to providing discussion and commentary on issues of note that they choose. My gripe is that there are far greater in number and often import, of issues going on both nationally and internationally, whilst the main news channels give an inordinate amount of coverage to just a few of these at any one time. Jan Leeming, the former BBC newsreader, commented recently that she gets her main news bulletin from Classic FM and that the BBC gives too much time to the opinions of its commentators. It is where C4 news was always noteworthy in that regard. That to me is the gap that I would like to see from GB News. As for the likes of the Anti-Vaxers and Farage, et al, I am mindful as always of the saying 'hoisted by their own petard' . Or in plain English - 'give am enough rope'. Thanks for discussing this so far.
|
|
|
Post by axelotl38 on Jul 4, 2021 3:52:51 GMT
This is a fun thread.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 4, 2021 10:38:46 GMT
The trouble with cancel culture is it all depends on who is cancelling who. Sometimes one thinks it is deserved, but then it may be someone you support and think it unwarranted, yet there is nothing you can do to stem the tide of the online tribunal. I have a theory that as a modern cultural phenomenon, it has its roots in reality shows such as Big Brother and other 'vote em out' variants. People got quite worked up over 'Nasty Nick' in the UK Big Brother 20 odd years ago and it was the start of a tabloid news phenomenon on the backs of a few hysterical viewers/voters getting worked up online.
People have found satisfaction in the power to have removed those they disagree with or take a dislike to. As a consumer it is now their right and their business to have a say in the continuation of other peoples professional lives, should their actions or opinions become part of the public sphere. That makes a lot of sense, actually. The thing about those sorts of reality shows, though, was that it had structure. Everything was formalised. Once the programme was over, that was largely the end of it. In these circumstances, after the initial revelations, it's not so straightforward. There's an assumption of control to these things which fundamentally doesn't exist. Too often, it transforms into a mob mentality and there is nothing so impossible to control than a mob. It's naive to think otherwise. Especially for an anonymous mob and especially one that isn't really interested in honouring the victims, but prosecuting/persecuting the perpetrators. It's common enough to see these things get co-opted, ironically enough, by showmen. It becomes a performance piece on the part of those doing the cancelling. A way to curry favour and boost their own visibility that they themselves wouldn't have gained otherwise. They gain prominence by becominig the new voice. And that's the risk with these things. I always try to judge them by whether innocent people getting caught in the way is an active consideration or not. The "tribunal" isn't being done by police officers, court judges and lawyers. It's being done in the virtual street on phones and laptops. If someone -- seen, circumstantially, as guilty by association -- is harmed, found innocent of the accusation, and that error is met with a shrug or ignored... Something has gone badly wrong along the way. It should never be pursued to such an extent that the saviours create just as much carnage as the perpetrators, but... There is no timeslot, no end of season, nothing. There is no real control. I'm sure it feels like there is when things are going with the flow, but when the current shifts (or, like a lot of these things, those doing the cancelling one day end up staring down the barrel of their own colleagues' guns)... I don't envy anyone caught up in it. So as I promised to daver, I'd come in with my own additional thoughts, and to be clear, I get what you're talking about Wolfie. Anything ad populum always carries with it a lot of risks and it's so easy for it to be perverted for ulterior motives (look at what happened to Noelle Stevenson, the She-Ra showrunner: fans got duped into thinking she said something something racist, when she hadn't, during a livestream). Where I differ on this matter from some here is
1) How effective has cancelling actually been? JK Rowling's still more than gainfully employed; Louis C.K.'s touring without a hint of remorse, and then of course what happened recently with Cosby. Even, to use a more relative example, Vic Mignogna: he's no longer doing voices in anime, but he still has a fanbase that supports him no matter what and peddles nonsense about him 'winning' trials when he doesn't. Frances Barber in a brand new series with Eccleston, no less - is she really hurt by her online behaviours?
2) I think there's a little more nuance that gets lost in the cancel question: timeline, wider context and repentance. I agree something from 10 years ago shouldn't be that big a deal, but the question becomes - do they still practice that behaviour, and if they have, are they willing to actually change and learn? Dreyfuss, Roberts, Barber and Oberman have all said nasty things about trans people - no attempt to even try to hear the community out, and still continuing like nothing happened. Barrowman may have said sorry before, but if it was known he continued to behave in that manner, and given his recent attitude, how sincere were those apologies? Were they actually repentant, or obligatory to save his skin? What's more, do their attitude feed into or mirror major issues: transpeople's rights all over the world are under attack - look at Hungary, or all the bills being passed in the southern US states that demonize and punish LGBTQ kids. Dreyfuss or Barber may not be senators, but how are they contributing to a culture that makes this okay to do? Do they contribute, in a small but harmful way, to a wider discourse and normalizing these ideas to a wider audience?
And 3) Passes because of who the person is. This, I think, is a big one: are we more willing to defend or excuse misbehaviour because the person made stuff we like? Would we be so lenient if it was someone we didn't like? I made this point elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here: if, for example, Gina Carano wasn't on The Mandalorian (if she was instead on some show nobody cared about like The Enemy Within, or a whipping boy like Batwoman), would the defenders have stood up for her as aggressively as they did? If this was Ruby Rose or Amy Schumer or Will Wheaton or someone else, for example, would anyone be playing the cards (free speech, time) like they have? Would fans be giving Barrowman a pass or excusing him if he wasn't on Who? Same with Roberts - if he didn't write Well Mannered War or Unicorn and the Wasp, and instead it was something like Fear Her or Journey to the Center of the Tardis, would so many write off his dismissal of transpeople's rights as just 'an opinion'? Is nostalgia doing all our thinking here? Would Jodie or Mandip get the same 'fair shake', the 'day in court' if they were caught doing a no-no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2021 11:59:47 GMT
That makes a lot of sense, actually. The thing about those sorts of reality shows, though, was that it had structure. Everything was formalised. Once the programme was over, that was largely the end of it. In these circumstances, after the initial revelations, it's not so straightforward. There's an assumption of control to these things which fundamentally doesn't exist. Too often, it transforms into a mob mentality and there is nothing so impossible to control than a mob. It's naive to think otherwise. Especially for an anonymous mob and especially one that isn't really interested in honouring the victims, but prosecuting/persecuting the perpetrators. It's common enough to see these things get co-opted, ironically enough, by showmen. It becomes a performance piece on the part of those doing the cancelling. A way to curry favour and boost their own visibility that they themselves wouldn't have gained otherwise. They gain prominence by becominig the new voice. And that's the risk with these things. I always try to judge them by whether innocent people getting caught in the way is an active consideration or not. The "tribunal" isn't being done by police officers, court judges and lawyers. It's being done in the virtual street on phones and laptops. If someone -- seen, circumstantially, as guilty by association -- is harmed, found innocent of the accusation, and that error is met with a shrug or ignored... Something has gone badly wrong along the way. It should never be pursued to such an extent that the saviours create just as much carnage as the perpetrators, but... There is no timeslot, no end of season, nothing. There is no real control. I'm sure it feels like there is when things are going with the flow, but when the current shifts (or, like a lot of these things, those doing the cancelling one day end up staring down the barrel of their own colleagues' guns)... I don't envy anyone caught up in it. So as I promised to daver, I'd come in with my own additional thoughts, and to be clear, I get what you're talking about Wolfie. Anything ad populum always carries with it a lot of risks and it's so easy for it to be perverted for ulterior motives (look at what happened to Noelle Stevenson, the She-Ra showrunner: fans got duped into thinking she said something something racist, when she hadn't, during a livestream). Where I differ on this matter from some here is
1) How effective has cancelling actually been? JK Rowling's still more than gainfully employed; Louis C.K.'s touring without a hint of remorse, and then of course what happened recently with Cosby. Even, to use a more relative example, Vic Mignogna: he's no longer doing voices in anime, but he still has a fanbase that supports him no matter what and peddles nonsense about him 'winning' trials when he doesn't. Frances Barber in a brand new series with Eccleston, no less - is she really hurt by her online behaviours?
2) I think there's a little more nuance that gets lost in the cancel question: timeline, wider context and repentance. I agree something from 10 years ago shouldn't be that big a deal, but the question becomes - do they still practice that behaviour, and if they have, are they willing to actually change and learn? Dreyfuss, Roberts, Barber and Oberman have all said nasty things about trans people - no attempt to even try to hear the community out, and still continuing like nothing happened. Barrowman may have said sorry before, but if it was known he continued to behave in that manner, and given his recent attitude, how sincere were those apologies? Were they actually repentant, or obligatory to save his skin? What's more, do their attitude feed into or mirror major issues: transpeople's rights all over the world are under attack - look at Hungary, or all the bills being passed in the southern US states that demonize and punish LGBTQ kids. Dreyfuss or Barber may not be senators, but how are they contributing to a culture that makes this okay to do? Do they contribute, in a small but harmful way, to a wider discourse and normalizing these ideas to a wider audience?
And 3) Passes because of who the person is. This, I think, is a big one: are we more willing to defend or excuse misbehaviour because the person made stuff we like? Would we be so lenient if it was someone we didn't like? I made this point elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here: if, for example, Gina Carano wasn't on The Mandalorian (if she was instead on some show nobody cared about like The Enemy Within, or a whipping boy like Batwoman), would the defenders have stood up for her as aggressively as they did? If this was Ruby Rose or Amy Schumer or Will Wheaton or someone else, for example, would anyone be playing the cards (free speech, time) like they have? Would fans be giving Barrowman a pass or excusing him if he wasn't on Who? Same with Roberts - if he didn't write Well Mannered War or Unicorn and the Wasp, and instead it was something like Fear Her or Journey to the Center of the Tardis, would so many write off his dismissal of transpeople's rights as just 'an opinion'? Is nostalgia doing all our thinking here? Would Jodie or Mandip get the same 'fair shake', the 'day in court' if they were caught doing a no-no?
Good questions to ask. There's a lot to unpack there from efficacy, nuance and personal biases to responsibility vs. accountability. Give me a little time to digest them and I'll come back with something a bit more well thought out than what I can manage heading into the late evening. It's worth a well-considered set of answers. Got to say, though, in Noelle Stevenson's case, their reaction as a content creator to that incident was inspired. Very much one of "I'm using this as an opportunity to grow." They've taken the whole thing as a prompt to further promote lesser known voices and perspectives as they discover them (which I think they were doing anyway, but now even more so). Turning a potential crisis into a chance to learn.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 4, 2021 12:46:51 GMT
It's not meant to be fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2021 8:00:28 GMT
That makes a lot of sense, actually. The thing about those sorts of reality shows, though, was that it had structure. Everything was formalised. Once the programme was over, that was largely the end of it. In these circumstances, after the initial revelations, it's not so straightforward. There's an assumption of control to these things which fundamentally doesn't exist. Too often, it transforms into a mob mentality and there is nothing so impossible to control than a mob. It's naive to think otherwise. Especially for an anonymous mob and especially one that isn't really interested in honouring the victims, but prosecuting/persecuting the perpetrators. It's common enough to see these things get co-opted, ironically enough, by showmen. It becomes a performance piece on the part of those doing the cancelling. A way to curry favour and boost their own visibility that they themselves wouldn't have gained otherwise. They gain prominence by becominig the new voice. And that's the risk with these things. I always try to judge them by whether innocent people getting caught in the way is an active consideration or not. The "tribunal" isn't being done by police officers, court judges and lawyers. It's being done in the virtual street on phones and laptops. If someone -- seen, circumstantially, as guilty by association -- is harmed, found innocent of the accusation, and that error is met with a shrug or ignored... Something has gone badly wrong along the way. It should never be pursued to such an extent that the saviours create just as much carnage as the perpetrators, but... There is no timeslot, no end of season, nothing. There is no real control. I'm sure it feels like there is when things are going with the flow, but when the current shifts (or, like a lot of these things, those doing the cancelling one day end up staring down the barrel of their own colleagues' guns)... I don't envy anyone caught up in it. So as I promised to daver, I'd come in with my own additional thoughts, and to be clear, I get what you're talking about Wolfie. Anything ad populum always carries with it a lot of risks and it's so easy for it to be perverted for ulterior motives (look at what happened to Noelle Stevenson, the She-Ra showrunner: fans got duped into thinking she said something something racist, when she hadn't, during a livestream). Where I differ on this matter from some here is
1) How effective has cancelling actually been? JK Rowling's still more than gainfully employed; Louis C.K.'s touring without a hint of remorse, and then of course what happened recently with Cosby. Even, to use a more relative example, Vic Mignogna: he's no longer doing voices in anime, but he still has a fanbase that supports him no matter what and peddles nonsense about him 'winning' trials when he doesn't. Frances Barber in a brand new series with Eccleston, no less - is she really hurt by her online behaviours?
2) I think there's a little more nuance that gets lost in the cancel question: timeline, wider context and repentance. I agree something from 10 years ago shouldn't be that big a deal, but the question becomes - do they still practice that behaviour, and if they have, are they willing to actually change and learn? Dreyfuss, Roberts, Barber and Oberman have all said nasty things about trans people - no attempt to even try to hear the community out, and still continuing like nothing happened. Barrowman may have said sorry before, but if it was known he continued to behave in that manner, and given his recent attitude, how sincere were those apologies? Were they actually repentant, or obligatory to save his skin? What's more, do their attitude feed into or mirror major issues: transpeople's rights all over the world are under attack - look at Hungary, or all the bills being passed in the southern US states that demonize and punish LGBTQ kids. Dreyfuss or Barber may not be senators, but how are they contributing to a culture that makes this okay to do? Do they contribute, in a small but harmful way, to a wider discourse and normalizing these ideas to a wider audience?
And 3) Passes because of who the person is. This, I think, is a big one: are we more willing to defend or excuse misbehaviour because the person made stuff we like? Would we be so lenient if it was someone we didn't like? I made this point elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating here: if, for example, Gina Carano wasn't on The Mandalorian (if she was instead on some show nobody cared about like The Enemy Within, or a whipping boy like Batwoman), would the defenders have stood up for her as aggressively as they did? If this was Ruby Rose or Amy Schumer or Will Wheaton or someone else, for example, would anyone be playing the cards (free speech, time) like they have? Would fans be giving Barrowman a pass or excusing him if he wasn't on Who? Same with Roberts - if he didn't write Well Mannered War or Unicorn and the Wasp, and instead it was something like Fear Her or Journey to the Center of the Tardis, would so many write off his dismissal of transpeople's rights as just 'an opinion'? Is nostalgia doing all our thinking here? Would Jodie or Mandip get the same 'fair shake', the 'day in court' if they were caught doing a no-no?
*phew* Okay, in full below (with a little overlap in the concepts between all three): 1) Let's disassemble this concept down into its core components. Human beings tend to respond most strongly to external stimuli through the lens of individuality. We find greater identification in a single face or voice, than we do a crowd. We are capable of being swayed by things like peer pressure. Culture, in general, operates on sociological pressures that form certain trends and considerations (what you eat/wear). However, we tend to form a positive or negative regard of those values based on who we know. More specifically, those we respect. Beginning life, that's parents and/or guardians. Continuing, that's friends, partners and/or your own children. The views of those who aren't looking out for our best interests, we tend to disregard as background noise (which can include parents, guardians, friends, partners, your own children, etc.). Is cancel culture effective in promoting change? Depends on definitions of the word "change". For Stevenson and their situation, it amplified what was already present. The change has simply been a greater public showing of preexisting (and, happily, quite positive) behaviours. A faceless, shapeless mass of voices isn't going to change the fundamental nature of a human being. We're taught to ignore such things. In the case of performers, that resistance is part of the training and lived experience. It goes back to that concept of parasocial relationships. The audience member sees one figure, the celebrity. The celebrity sees only a shapeless morass, the audience. The psychological pressure of the thing acts to emphasise, but if it's to fundamentally change the nature of the individual who is resistant -- it doesn't work. People aren't changed by a stranger shouting at them in the street. 2) It's a profoundly nuanced topic, yeah. Made all the more difficult by issues covering both a celebrity's private and public life. Assuming a legitimately penitent figure (otherwise this topic is just too broad to discuss) -- Are we allowed to want these figures of influence to change their behaviour towards more inclusive practices? Yes, absolutely. There's nothing wrong in wanting. Can we demand such changes? Realistically speaking, we can make the demand, but there's no guarantee it will be accepted or even necessarily heard. Part of the complexity is that air gap between the audience and the public sphere. It goes back to the first question, people will hear what they want to hear. See what they want to see. If they are receptive to forgiving a celebrity, they will. If they aren't, they won't. People have livelihoods and expectations of the day to fulfil. That energy is rationed, typically, for the real world. You'll see this with a lot of charity touts on the phone or elsewhere. It's may be an excellent cause, but everything is finite. Those who are interested in forgiveness will remain, but because of the "fast food" -- I suppose we could call it -- nature of the internet, it's difficult to see the progression in the celebrity unless you're invested. Seeking it out. Even then, there's a strong reliance on social media (which the celebrity may be reluctant to use) and journalistic news outlets (with their own biases on reporting). Little to no information is gathered and shared firsthand. It's up to the people who do care about promoting change to... well, promote that change, which essentially turns them into marketers for the celebrity's image. An exhausting process in its own right. Further garbled up by parties who will not forgive past transgressions (reiterating past misdemeanours) and parties who think there is nothing to apologise for (which further confounds any dialogue between celebrity and audience). There's no snap of the fingers to make everyone believe the same way. So, it's up to the majority, in whatever shape it takes, to determine the verdict. To combat toxic ideologies, I think it's important to promote the voices that do bring inclusivity, tolerance and a sense of fairness to their public discourse, rather than focusing on the negativity. Otherwise, you run into the Streisand Effect, where the very thing the canceller is trying to remove a platform for... has been given a platform. By them. 3) Yes to that question, there are absolutely individuals who get a more favourable (or discourteous) view for being emblematic of a favourite (or unliked) piece of media. It points to another factor of the debate. Policing and being policed. Much of cancel culture operates in this gooey-stretchy sort of space where those trying to protect others are also likely trying to be ethical, which means fighting misinformation. If someone's to be called out, it's expected to be for the right reasons, not for something someone made up (if that isn't a consideration, red flag). That presents itself in many ways. Part of it can be stamping down on what are perceived to be hostile or detrimental behaviours. The problem, of course, being that when something is closed off... People aren't typically given somewhere else to go, something else to invest in. The house is set alight around them and they're asked to walk into the cold street. That's where I think cancel culture gets it wrong. Give people somewhere to go. Show them inclusivity, tolerance, diversity. That all these concepts do have a place and can work. Show the connectivity, the life that comes from those ideas. What can be created from them. Take that voice, your voice, and give it to those people who support kindness and empathy. When you can't give it to them, give it to the ideas that you wanted to follow them for in the first place, from those characters. Their resilience, their intelligence, their compassion. Because if you don't grow that, if you don't nurture those concepts, they will die. And there'll be nothing to fight back for.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 5, 2021 8:17:53 GMT
1) How effective has cancelling actually been? JK Rowling's still more than gainfully employed; Louis C.K.'s touring without a hint of remorse, and then of course what happened recently with Cosby. Even, to use a more relative example, Vic Mignogna: he's no longer doing voices in anime, but he still has a fanbase that supports him no matter what and peddles nonsense about him 'winning' trials when he doesn't. Frances Barber in a brand new series with Eccleston, no less - is she really hurt by her online behaviours?
A point that proves Cancel Culture is a myth. No one has been cancelled.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 5, 2021 11:28:36 GMT
So as I promised to daver, I'd come in with my own additional thoughts, and to be clear, I get what you're talking about Wolfie. Anything ad populum always carries with it a lot of risks and it's so easy for it to be perverted for ulterior motives
*phew* Okay, in full below (with a little overlap in the concepts between all three): 1) Let's disassemble this concept down into its core components. Human beings tend to respond most strongly to external stimuli through the lens of individuality. We find greater identification in a single face or voice, than we do a crowd. We are capable of being swayed by things like peer pressure. Culture, in general, operates on sociological pressures that form certain trends and considerations (what you eat/wear). However, we tend to form a positive or negative regard of those values based on who we know. More specifically, those we respect. Beginning life, that's parents and/or guardians. Continuing, that's friends, partners and/or your own children. The views of those who aren't looking out for our best interests, we tend to disregard as background noise (which can include parents, guardians, friends, partners, your own children, etc.). Is cancel culture effective in promoting change? Depends on definitions of the word "change". For Stevenson and their situation, it amplified what was already present. The change has simply been a greater public showing of preexisting (and, happily, quite positive) behaviours. A faceless, shapeless mass of voices isn't going to change the fundamental nature of a human being. We're taught to ignore such things. In the case of performers, that resistance is part of the training and lived experience. It goes back to that concept of parasocial relationships. The audience member sees one figure, the celebrity. The celebrity sees only a shapeless morass, the audience. The psychological pressure of the thing acts to emphasise, but if it's to fundamentally change the nature of the individual who is resistant -- it doesn't work. People aren't changed by a stranger shouting at them in the street. 2) It's a profoundly nuanced topic, yeah. Made all the more difficult by issues covering both a celebrity's private and public life. Assuming a legitimately penitent figure (otherwise this topic is just too broad to discuss) -- Are we allowed to want these figures of influence to change their behaviour towards more inclusive practices? Yes, absolutely. There's nothing wrong in wanting. Can we demand such changes? Realistically speaking, we can make the demand, but there's no guarantee it will be accepted or even necessarily heard. Part of the complexity is that air gap between the audience and the public sphere. It goes back to the first question, people will hear what they want to hear. See what they want to see. If they are receptive to forgiving a celebrity, they will. If they aren't, they won't. People have livelihoods and expectations of the day to fulfil. That energy is rationed, typically, for the real world. You'll see this with a lot of charity touts on the phone or elsewhere. It's may be an excellent cause, but everything is finite. Those who are interested in forgiveness will remain, but because of the "fast food" -- I suppose we could call it -- nature of the internet, it's difficult to see the progression in the celebrity unless you're invested. Seeking it out. Even then, there's a strong reliance on social media (which the celebrity may be reluctant to use) and journalistic news outlets (with their own biases on reporting). Little to no information is gathered and shared firsthand. It's up to the people who do care about promoting change to... well, promote that change, which essentially turns them into marketers for the celebrity's image. An exhausting process in its own right. Further garbled up by parties who will not forgive past transgressions (reiterating past misdemeanours) and parties who think there is nothing to apologise for (which further confounds any dialogue between celebrity and audience). There's no snap of the fingers to make everyone believe the same way. So, it's up to the majority, in whatever shape it takes, to determine the verdict. To combat toxic ideologies, I think it's important to promote the voices that do bring inclusivity, tolerance and a sense of fairness to their public discourse, rather than focusing on the negativity. Otherwise, you run into the Streisand Effect, where the very thing the canceller is trying to remove a platform for... has been given a platform. By them. 3) Yes to that question, there are absolutely individuals who get a more favourable (or discourteous) view for being emblematic of a favourite (or unliked) piece of media. It points to another factor of the debate. Policing and being policed. Much of cancel culture operates in this gooey-stretchy sort of space where those trying to protect others are also likely trying to be ethical, which means fighting misinformation. If someone's to be called out, it's expected to be for the right reasons, not for something someone made up (if that isn't a consideration, red flag). That presents itself in many ways. Part of it can be stamping down on what are perceived to be hostile or detrimental behaviours. The problem, of course, being that when something is closed off... People aren't typically given somewhere else to go, something else to invest in. The house is set alight around them and they're asked to walk into the cold street. That's where I think cancel culture gets it wrong. Give people somewhere to go. Show them inclusivity, tolerance, diversity. That all these concepts do have a place and can work. Show the connectivity, the life that comes from those ideas. What can be created from them. Take that voice, your voice, and give it to those people who support kindness and empathy. When you can't give it to them, give it to the ideas that you wanted to follow them for in the first place, from those characters. Their resilience, their intelligence, their compassion. Because if you don't grow that, if you don't nurture those concepts, they will die. And there'll be nothing to fight back for. These are three thoughtful, well detailed responses, but I do think we are running into the 'tolerance of intolerance' paradox a bit here: how many times can we extend olive branches, only for them to be smacked away, broken or burnt by people who, even approach with tact, can't or won't change? If after all this time, Dreyfuss or Oberman still want to say transpeople are a danger to women, even when presented with response after response, study after study, plea after plea showing to the contrary, well, what can you do? What happens when you hit an immovable object? We can raise more inclusive voices, which is good and important, but this is the internet, and negativity will draw a lot of attention - a cute photo of Jodie meeting kid fans will get outperformed by a video of a beardo saying that she wants to fire all white men from the BBC or something.
Yes, some will never forgive for some minor slight and that's a shame, but what about on the other side of that coin, when figures will not listen at all when they cause harm? When they will not go somewhere new and better? What's left then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2021 23:51:11 GMT
*phew* Okay, in full below (with a little overlap in the concepts between all three): 1) Let's disassemble this concept down into its core components. Human beings tend to respond most strongly to external stimuli through the lens of individuality. We find greater identification in a single face or voice, than we do a crowd. We are capable of being swayed by things like peer pressure. Culture, in general, operates on sociological pressures that form certain trends and considerations (what you eat/wear). However, we tend to form a positive or negative regard of those values based on who we know. More specifically, those we respect. Beginning life, that's parents and/or guardians. Continuing, that's friends, partners and/or your own children. The views of those who aren't looking out for our best interests, we tend to disregard as background noise (which can include parents, guardians, friends, partners, your own children, etc.). Is cancel culture effective in promoting change? Depends on definitions of the word "change". For Stevenson and their situation, it amplified what was already present. The change has simply been a greater public showing of preexisting (and, happily, quite positive) behaviours. A faceless, shapeless mass of voices isn't going to change the fundamental nature of a human being. We're taught to ignore such things. In the case of performers, that resistance is part of the training and lived experience. It goes back to that concept of parasocial relationships. The audience member sees one figure, the celebrity. The celebrity sees only a shapeless morass, the audience. The psychological pressure of the thing acts to emphasise, but if it's to fundamentally change the nature of the individual who is resistant -- it doesn't work. People aren't changed by a stranger shouting at them in the street. 2) It's a profoundly nuanced topic, yeah. Made all the more difficult by issues covering both a celebrity's private and public life. Assuming a legitimately penitent figure (otherwise this topic is just too broad to discuss) -- Are we allowed to want these figures of influence to change their behaviour towards more inclusive practices? Yes, absolutely. There's nothing wrong in wanting. Can we demand such changes? Realistically speaking, we can make the demand, but there's no guarantee it will be accepted or even necessarily heard. Part of the complexity is that air gap between the audience and the public sphere. It goes back to the first question, people will hear what they want to hear. See what they want to see. If they are receptive to forgiving a celebrity, they will. If they aren't, they won't. People have livelihoods and expectations of the day to fulfil. That energy is rationed, typically, for the real world. You'll see this with a lot of charity touts on the phone or elsewhere. It's may be an excellent cause, but everything is finite. Those who are interested in forgiveness will remain, but because of the "fast food" -- I suppose we could call it -- nature of the internet, it's difficult to see the progression in the celebrity unless you're invested. Seeking it out. Even then, there's a strong reliance on social media (which the celebrity may be reluctant to use) and journalistic news outlets (with their own biases on reporting). Little to no information is gathered and shared firsthand. It's up to the people who do care about promoting change to... well, promote that change, which essentially turns them into marketers for the celebrity's image. An exhausting process in its own right. Further garbled up by parties who will not forgive past transgressions (reiterating past misdemeanours) and parties who think there is nothing to apologise for (which further confounds any dialogue between celebrity and audience). There's no snap of the fingers to make everyone believe the same way. So, it's up to the majority, in whatever shape it takes, to determine the verdict. To combat toxic ideologies, I think it's important to promote the voices that do bring inclusivity, tolerance and a sense of fairness to their public discourse, rather than focusing on the negativity. Otherwise, you run into the Streisand Effect, where the very thing the canceller is trying to remove a platform for... has been given a platform. By them. 3) Yes to that question, there are absolutely individuals who get a more favourable (or discourteous) view for being emblematic of a favourite (or unliked) piece of media. It points to another factor of the debate. Policing and being policed. Much of cancel culture operates in this gooey-stretchy sort of space where those trying to protect others are also likely trying to be ethical, which means fighting misinformation. If someone's to be called out, it's expected to be for the right reasons, not for something someone made up (if that isn't a consideration, red flag). That presents itself in many ways. Part of it can be stamping down on what are perceived to be hostile or detrimental behaviours. The problem, of course, being that when something is closed off... People aren't typically given somewhere else to go, something else to invest in. The house is set alight around them and they're asked to walk into the cold street. That's where I think cancel culture gets it wrong. Give people somewhere to go. Show them inclusivity, tolerance, diversity. That all these concepts do have a place and can work. Show the connectivity, the life that comes from those ideas. What can be created from them. Take that voice, your voice, and give it to those people who support kindness and empathy. When you can't give it to them, give it to the ideas that you wanted to follow them for in the first place, from those characters. Their resilience, their intelligence, their compassion. Because if you don't grow that, if you don't nurture those concepts, they will die. And there'll be nothing to fight back for. These are three thoughtful, well detailed responses, but I do think we are running into the 'tolerance of intolerance' paradox a bit here: how many times can we extend olive branches, only for them to be smacked away, broken or burnt by people who, even approach with tact, can't or won't change? If after all this time, Dreyfuss or Oberman still want to say transpeople are a danger to women, even when presented with response after response, study after study, plea after plea showing to the contrary, well, what can you do? What happens when you hit an immovable object? We can raise more inclusive voices, which is good and important, but this is the internet, and negativity will draw a lot of attention - a cute photo of Jodie meeting kid fans will get outperformed by a video of a beardo saying that she wants to fire all white men from the BBC or something.
Yes, some will never forgive for some minor slight and that's a shame, but what about on the other side of that coin, when figures will not listen at all when they cause harm? When they will not go somewhere new and better? What's left then?
Thank you. That is the impossible question, isn't it? How do we deal with that which cannot or will not be changed? I wish I had an answer. If I did, maybe someone else would have thought it, too, and we wouldn't have so many hardliners in the world. I think the only thing I can really say is recognising when and where a voice of tolerance will be heard. If someone believes fundamentally, they will not change their behaviour. However, it's not necessarily true that all those who follow also believe fundamentally. Otherwise, we wouldn't have people who wake up one day in real-world structures like cults and go: "What the hell is going on with my life? I have to get out of here..." In that case, I think it's just the reminder that it's their life, not anyone else's. They get to make the choices. They can live in fear, fear may be very comfortable for them, or, they can be shown that tolerance really isn't so terrifying as they've been led to believe. Taking all that weight off and letting them breathe again. It may not shift the crowd, it may not move the figure behind the wave, but it matters to the one and that one will likely matter to others on their own level. It's the same impulse behind the man who walks up to the soldier and says: "I understand you killed my son." The warrior's hand is on his weapon and he says, "Yes, I did." He doesn't know what to expect from the man. He's come into the camp. Weaponless. Under an escort led by the soldier's own surviving son. "And I understand that if you are killed," continues the man, "your son will stand in your place." "Yes," he says again. "I did the same for my own father," nods the man. He stands, his eyes meeting his opponent. "I come to you as a father, not a soldier to say -- I will not kill you today. I will not kill you any other day. I know what it is like to see my father die and to lose my son. I could not bear the grief of knowing I had done the same. I can barely stand the grief of my own." And it's true, there is an almost imperceptable shake to his knees. "One day, you will have to decide," says the man, "whether what we fight for is worth the blood of your father and your children." "Remove him from the camp," orders the soldier, his hand still on his weapon. The man walks with his escort back to the edge of the camp. It's night. Fire only lights the trees and the wall. They both stand there for a long time. No battle, no weapons, no fear. Just them. "You may go," ushers the son. The man nods and steps into the night. And the son walks, unsettled, back to the tent. The man never met his father's eye. He looked at him. The words were meant for him. And in that dark, he could feel the man's love for his own son and the grief at his passing. Waves of shuddering despair that threatened to swallow him in emptiness. The stranger's clothes in shadow, his face by firelight, he didn't look too much unlike the son's father. As descendants of the son would likely resemble their father. He had a decision to make. I think that's all I can offer for now. Cheers for a well-reasoned and thoughtful discussion.
|
|