|
Post by axelotl38 on Jul 6, 2021 5:46:52 GMT
It's not meant to be fun. Yeah, no shit.
|
|
|
Post by xlozdob on Jul 6, 2021 9:28:17 GMT
I do find it odd, its like we have decided that people in the public eye can’t say dumb stuff. I mean Peter Purves is an anti masker, a but silly yeah but should he loose his job over it? Some have argued for it. Obviously there are occasions where the things people say and do are not okay and they shouldn’t get work. But most of the time its people not thinking and saying a silky thing, sometimes not even that. Thats my major issue with “cancel culture” or at least what it refers to in this day and age. The end result, the punishment is always the same which is ridiculous as thats not how we deal with regular workers so why hold actors to a much much higher standard. 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. Ah, yet more trials by social media. I would call it consequences culture, although i can't think of any specific examples of someone who has been cancelled in the context of the above. 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. 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?
(I feel a disclaimer is needed here since I've taken a lot of comments out context; just did so to highlight certain ideas I would like to respond to, not necessarily the poster's overall opinion.) The problem with people whose work put them in the public eye (whether they're in the film/TV industry, publishing, sports or whatever) is that they are in a position where they're able to influence public opinion (which, at the end of the day, that's what social media boils down to, it's a public forum, which has allowed minorities worldwide to organise and find a community even in cases where it would've been impossible for them irl, so not so bad a tool when used right). Now, if they use that position to champion hurtful ideas, then you should also be ready to face the people you're trying to hurt. In general, I would agree with what johnhurtdoctor has said numerous times: cancel culture doesn't exist. The people who get "cancelled" almost never have any real consequences. Look at Kevin Spacey, he's back in the game, Amber Heard and JK Rowling, they never left. Of course we have the opposite, people whose wrongdoings were minute or inexistent, like Noelle Stevenson or James Gunn, who were "saved" by social media tribunal just as well. At least they showed they had learnt from their mistakes (whether they were misunderstandings, or sins of online personas past). This makes you wonder whether it's the same, at the end of the day, people defending their idols to the extreme, not stopping to think whether what they defend is really hurtful or not, and just taking their word for it. Still, we should be careful with these people, the ones in the public eye, they are opinion leaders, gatekeepers of public opinion; they are allowed to "shout the loudest" because of their jobs, so of course they should be held accountable, especially by the most vulnerable, for every last thing they say. It could have very real impact for very real people. And I think that's much more important than the livelihood of a singular people, who in most cases is vastly privileged (or at least more than the people they could hurt), and who could find another job away from the public eye. It's not like being in the public eye immediately means getting "cancelled" either. People use their platform for good, Jane Fonda comes to mind as an example. And yeah, even those are still often critiqued, but that just goes to remind us that no-one should be blindly idolised, that's when dangerous behaviours start. And it's not like the majority of people are lenient and willing to give second chances or gloss over a small mistake. But once you have to give third, fourth, tenth chances... it begins to look like you're the fool. My question now is this. If someone in the public eye is using their platform to hurt people, and more times than not, people who cannot defend themselves... If they send mobs against these vulnerable people... If they make these mobs braver (both online and irl) by validating their bigoted views... Why isn't *that* cancel culture? It could be argued that by sweeping their comments under the rug and holding their words as merely debate material, you're allowing them to cancel whole groups of vulnerable people (or allowing them to make people act in a harmful way, in the case of antivaxxers, for example). Why is it never cancel culture when mobs of bigots drive minority individuals to suicide? Or when mobs kill someone calling them a f****t? All those people feel allowed to do this kind of horrific stuff because they are emboldened by the fact that a bunch of privileged people with a platform (again, actors, politicians...) feel like minorities' rights to exist and live are up for debate. Btw, both those cases have happened these past few days. It's not a healthy debate when people are being denied their right to exist because of who they are. It's not about keeping people silent for the sake of it, it's about creating a safe environment for people to live their lives.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
Member is Online
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 6, 2021 9:51:41 GMT
Interesting discussion here. Not being into social media myself, I have no idea what a lot of the folks mentioned are alleged to have said or done so can't really comment.
I must confess that I do really struggle with the pace of change today - something or someone that was perfectly acceptable 10 or even 5 years ago seems all of a sudden no longer acceptable. I'm not passing a value judgement on what should or should not be acceptable, just saying that I personally find it very difficult to keep up nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 6, 2021 10:32:04 GMT
Well this is an incredibly long and detailed thread. So just to throw my two cents in. Part of this is simply more access to creatives’ views. A few decades ago, practically no way of the average joe knowing where a creative stood on a political or cultural issue of any sort unless they explictly made a piece of work about one or actually pushed their opinions in interviews and campaigns. Nowadays, anyone can spout forth their opinion on anything almost instantly for the whole world to see, and the whole world to judge. So creatives facing consequences for their views is just a side effect of that, now people can be discerning about who they support based on what their views are. Don’t want that, don’t put your views out there. Does that force a kind of censorship on people online? Well yes, but literally when I was in school I was taught to be aware of what I was putting out online. Be it photos of drinking or jokes that people might misinterpret, you have to be careful. I’m very careful what my online presence is. This is partly why I’ve never brought up my real name on this forum, though I’m sure if someone really put their mind to it they could probably join the dots and find me (I trust members here sufficiently that I don’t think any of you would actually do that). People can judge you based on what you put out online, that is a simple fact of the matter. And employers, like Big Finish Productions, are among those people judging. Of course some people go further and jump on any minor indiscretion someone might make online in an attempt to “cancel” them, every movement in human history has had its zealots. I’d recommend this video by Lindsay Ellis on what happens when something minor is blown out of proportion by some zealots who then try to use every possible past sin of a person to effectively shut them down. James Gunn is the biggest example of this, though it was ultimately reversed (rather proving that it is really just a very vocal minority jumping on age-old tweets). But, and there is a but, is “cancelling” really a great defining issue of our time? No I suspect it’s the actions of a very online minority being blown up by certain political wings itching for a culture war (cos controversy makes them money) and of no real concern to the world outside of the very online. Exhibit A-
|
|
|
Post by kipperserver on Jul 6, 2021 16:50:11 GMT
People can be discerning about who they support based on what their views are. Don’t want that, don’t put your views out there. Amen to that, brother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2021 19:00:44 GMT
I do find it odd, its like we have decided that people in the public eye can’t say dumb stuff. I mean Peter Purves is an anti masker, a but silly yeah but should he loose his job over it? Some have argued for it. Are you sure Peter Purves is an anti-masker? Is there any proof?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2021 20:41:48 GMT
I do find it odd, its like we have decided that people in the public eye can’t say dumb stuff. I mean Peter Purves is an anti masker, a but silly yeah but should he loose his job over it? Some have argued for it. Are you sure Peter Purves is an anti-masker? Is there any proof? It's kind of irrelevant now that people in the UK won't have to wear masks very shortly...
|
|
|
Post by kipperserver on Jul 6, 2021 22:19:19 GMT
Here's one to watch.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 7, 2021 5:48:28 GMT
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. At least we have the meddling nun now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2021 9:46:46 GMT
He went over this last year on twitter when the press went after him, i think he will be fine
(its a thread)
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jul 7, 2021 10:36:22 GMT
He went over this last year on twitter when the press went after him, i think he will be fine (its a thread) Interesting. Although slightly distasteful of him to retweet conspiracy theories about the Manchester bombing. A very odd man.
|
|
|
Post by ollychops on Jul 17, 2021 8:30:05 GMT
A certain ex-Master is ranting and raving on Twitter and going after BF fans again…
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 17, 2021 9:21:30 GMT
A certain ex-Master is ranting and raving on Twitter and going after BF fans again… That's what happens when the official Twitter Account asks the Question "What's the most Controversial thing BF have ever done" Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jul 17, 2021 9:36:02 GMT
Yup- I saw this a few hours ago.. wow.. Just walk away mate.. just.. walk away.
|
|
boffy
Full Member
Likes: 139
|
Post by boffy on Jul 17, 2021 17:10:33 GMT
He's @'d Nicholas Briggs a couple of times about this, can he seriously be thinking he's going to get an answer?
You'd think he'd have taken the hint after Masterful .
|
|
|
Post by kipperserver on Jul 17, 2021 18:06:20 GMT
A certain ex-Master is ranting and raving on Twitter and going after BF fans again… That's what happens when the official Twitter Account asks the Question "What's the most Controversial thing BF have ever done" Regards mark687 That's not exactly what they said, though, is it?
|
|
|
Post by kipperserver on Jul 17, 2021 18:12:52 GMT
I'm sure there was a link to a tweet in this first time I posted it. Has it been deleted?
|
|
|
Post by kipperserver on Jul 17, 2021 18:22:42 GMT
Hi, I know this started with a discussion about Oliver Wood but I missed the bit where he had a fight with Yvonne Hartman.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jul 17, 2021 20:33:49 GMT
That's what happens when the official Twitter Account asks the Question "What's the most Controversial thing BF have ever done" Regards mark687 That's not exactly what they said, though, is it? I apologize i got the emphasis wrong the Results the same the Twitter Feeds being high jacked. Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Aug 3, 2021 11:23:30 GMT
|
|