ForumTouchy Subjects ► Cancel Culture
Been in a lot of different threads recently, so why not make a dedicated thread.

How do you feel about cancel culture in a whole?
Is it good?
Is it bad?
What is it all about?
  
Harvey Weinstein cancellation: Good.

Louis C.K. cancellation: Bad.

Why? Weinstein was a monster on purpose. Fuck that guy.

Louis is a fuckin' idiot who made people uncomfortable on accident by being stupid as shit and then stopping it and apologized when people finally spelled it out for him.

I think if someone is shitty on accident and immediately stops when they're told to stop, I don't see why they need their whole life and career cancelled.

Like if there's no opportunity for reform, redemption, or right action, what's the point of trying to educate people?

Who with a problem with a problem will come forward and ask for help if they know the response is going to be a mob with torches and pitchforks that wants to ruin their life forever with no chance for a second chance?
  
Uhhh Louis C K literally asked women who were in subordinate positions to him to watch him masturbate and in some cases essentially forced them to

I think that's a pretty valid reason to say that we should give someone else a spotlight and maybe he should remove himself from the situation.

Here's the thing with men like Louis C K. The women he hurt can NEVER be comfortably in the same space with him again. Ever. If he goes to a networking event? Cool, they either have to go and be desperately uncomfortable around a man who made them watch him masturbate, or they have to forego that networking event.

It's more important to center the victims and their needs in situations like this. And that means removing the abuser from those circles permanently in most cases, because you can't magically give the victims that space back without doing that - and their needs are more important than the person who was a sexual abuser.
  
Louis C.K.'s 2020 shows were all sold out. How is he canceled? I think people mistake "criticised" for "canceled, basically dead".
  
I didn't realized he forced people to, erio. That would change my opinion on that. I was under the impression that he asked and they felt pressured to say yes, but I didn't know that he forced people to. That would be good enough reason to keep him permanently out of the same space with anyone he forced to.
  
people cancelled dr suess for his racist caricatures and strange viewpoints in his cough cough political cartoons but at the same time he is dead. why. most people over 11 already know about his political cartoons
  
It is weird that people will cancel Dr. Seuss, but nobody cancels FDR as a historical figure/role model.
  
and they cancelled someone (dead) based on common knowledge THIS late too. like even "quick henry the flit!" had some racist commercials by him. i bet the roosevelt will get cancelled in 2039 for something he did in the 1800's
  
hoylecake said:
people cancelled dr suess for his racist caricatures

Nope. This kind of misinformation/misunderstanding is why some people think "cancel culture" is this big bad thing. Yes, sometimes it overreacts or gets out of control, but in this case, it was an unprompted business decision.

The big deal is that the publishing companies are stopping printing the problematic books in which illustrations could be misinterpreted as racist, in the same way things like Roald Dahl's original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was reprinted because its illustrations and descriptions of Oompa-Loompas could be misinterpreted as racist. Nobody is stopping the production of Cat in the Hat or The Lorax, just a couple of books that have reflected poorly in the modern era.

What's more is that NOBODY ASKED THE PUBLISHERS TO DO THIS. This is a company decision over their brand and ensuring that there aren't any problems with the books going forward. There was no crowd whipping up a frenzy, if anything the biggest and loudest crowd are the people claiming that this was a "cancellation" when in fact it was a brand safety move.

TL;DR; Seuss is fine and people still like him. His books were actually a lot about anti-authoritarianism and anti-racism, so he was overall not too bad and seems pretty safe from cancellation. It's just a couple of books that had drawings that could be misinterpreted or misconstrued as racist so the publishers are pulling the plug now to ensure that doesn't happen.
  
I didn't realized he forced people to, erio. That would change my opinion on that. I was under the impression that he asked and they felt pressured to say yes, but I didn't know that he forced people to. That would be good enough reason to keep him permanently out of the same space with anyone he forced to.


They were put into a position where they felt they could not say no without jeopardizing their careers. While, sure, he didn't lock them in a room, they sure didn't have many options - especially since if they HAD said no, how were they to know he wouldn't BECOME violent? How were they to know there wouldn't be professional repercussion for saying no? Not a single one of them WANTED to watch the guy jerk himself off.

I would never be comfortable in a space with men like Louis C K, and nor would most other survivors of abuse I know. I think that the needs of victims need to be prioritized. I don't actually care that much about men like Louis C K who are already set for life. He permanently traumatized women by abusing his position of authority and power, and that's enough reason to say he should be permanently removed from those spaces - because as long as he is there, those women can't be there comfortably. Why should be be prioritized over them? His desire to stay in professional spaces should be an afterthought after we determine how to do right by victims of his and others' abuse.
  
How on earth is Dr. Seuss cancelled? His estate posthumously decided to stop releasing a very small number of his works. The end. Where's the cancellation?
  
What scares me about cancel culture is how it could so easily be taken advantage of. What's stopping somebody from making up accusations from 5 years ago, and people believing them without a shred of evidence being shown? An innocent person's life could be altered forever just because somebody else was mad online. Whether it's in court or on twitter, all I wanna see is the receipts.
  
Yeah, I feel like the court of public opinion is easy to sway. On the other hand, if it ruins their life, that's a libel suit worth thousands or millions. So the question is about how many people are willing to risk having their pants sued off them just to get a creator taken off the air?

I think that the accusers should always be given the benefit of the doubt, but there should be some hard evidence in most cases.
  
If it's sexual assault there will almost never be physical evidence. Requiring 'hard evidence' means almost no victim is ever believed, despite it being very common.
  
KyIIjoy said:
It's just a couple of books that had drawings that could be misinterpreted or misconstrued as racist so the publishers are pulling the plug now to ensure that doesn't happen.

I'm nitpicking, but they weren't misconstrued as racist, they are racist.
  
Fwip said:

I'm nitpicking, but they weren't misconstrued as racist, they are racist.

Were they? My bad. I'm admittedly not as well read on this topic as I should be
  
If it's sexual assault there will almost never be physical evidence. Requiring 'hard evidence' means almost no victim is ever believed, despite it being very common.


I mean at the very least things like cell records and social media posts could pin people at certain places and times.

KyIIjoy said:
On the other hand, if it ruins their life, that's a libel suit worth thousands or millions. So the question is about how many people are willing to risk having their pants sued off them just to get a creator taken off the air?


Very few people have the $50000 minimum in order fund such a case, and after all that it could just be dismissed or settled without anything coming to light.
  
ecr674 said:

I mean at the very least things like cell records and social media posts could pin people at certain places and times.

Sexual assault cases very seldom turn on whether the person was there. A person's presence in the same room as another is seldom what's contested. The argument is usually about what happened, not whether the two people were in the same room. Also, how are you going to get a person's cell phone records without, at the very least, already having made a complaint to the police*? If the idea is "you should have hard evidence before complaining out loud", good luck getting any before making a complaint.

* Not that the police would ever bother getting a warrant for this.
  
To be honest I think we miss the forest for the trees if we get bogged down in conversations about false or unprovable accusations. Most celebrities who get "cancelled" are fine financially and career-wise. The ones who are imprisoned are serial offenders who got away with it for years.

The funny thing is (poor expression but eh), rape cases aren't always a cut-and-dry "scary man grabbed a woman from the bushes in a dimly lit park." They lie on a weird spectrum from "I probably pressured a little too hard" to "she was drunk and saying no, but my bros have my back." Consent for teens especially isn't talked about or encouraged, and a positive effect of #MeToo (for me at least) has been reviewing those grey areas in my past and whether I should examine how I've behaved towards women and how I behave going forward. Easy to say #NotAllMen, better to do some self reflection. Shit to be honest some girls in my past should examine how they behaved when I turned them down, but men tend to be in a position of power/insistence in the bedroom.

Yea there's going to be a bit of a #MeToo crossfire, and there are going to be some vindictive people trying vindictive shit (there always have been by the way), but at least we won't (or shouldn't) have the kind of treatment sitting senators gave to Anita Hill in future. At least we'll foster a culture where HR departments take reports of sexual assault seriously. Even if Bill O'Reilly keeps his radio show there is some recourse for deeply inappropriate behaviour at Fox in the future.

As for the racism stuff: Kids have access to media from a different time. Sometimes the culture was just different and no offence was intended: Warner Bros and the Muppets have put up warnings about problematic portrayals in the past, but I don't blame Dr Seuss' estate for pulling problematic portrayals. The only one that grates is Disney just outright pretending it never happened.
  
ecr674 said:
What scares me about cancel culture is how it could so easily be taken advantage of. What's stopping somebody from making up accusations from 5 years ago, and people believing them without a shred of evidence being shown? An innocent person's life could be altered forever just because somebody else was mad online. Whether it's in court or on twitter, all I wanna see is the receipts.


Given that people who come forward about sexual assault typically face harassment, death threats, and more online, there generally has to be a strong impetus for someone to do so. If people don't believe a victim online, they are likely to be doxxed, moving the threat from the internet and into real life. Frequently, there are also career repercussions as well, either relating to your current job or to trying to get a job again later because of all the harassment and news that will show up if anyone googles your name.
  
KyIIjoy said:
Were they? My bad. I'm admittedly not as well read on this topic as I should be
Yeah, they were pretty racist.
  
remember when like two people on twitter tried to cancel a guy for speaking his native language because they thought speaking spanish when you speak english most of the time is racist or something, yea fortunately not even the bts stans bought that so he's fine now
  
People misconstrue "cancelling". Dr. Seuss's books, whichever ones we're talking about, haven't become illegal, and shouldn't. They'll be collectors items now. There'll be book-dealers all over marking up the prices on them. The estate has just decided they don't want to print any more and make any more money off them. Fair enough. I haven't seen the pictures so I don't know how bad they are. If you want to see the original pictures, they'll be out there.

There was that story about Gone With the Wind and some streaming service that kept it up but added a warning at the start saying "this is a bit racist" or whatever. I think that was a cop-out. If viewers are offended, they don't need to be told to be offended. Take it down or leave it up. You're obviously not so opposed to it that you're prepared to lose any money. And if you're such a gung-ho Gone With the Wind fan that the disclaimer offends you, then surely you have your own copy anyway, so just watch that. No one's taken it away from you.
  
I think the warning is for kids, who don't necessarily have the context to understand that things are racist or bad. Kids learn half of what they know about people through media and a lot of media isn't a safe learning space because of things like this. Warning them in advance is good.

Also fuck Gone with the Wind.
  
It had a good ending though.

Edit: I had to read that book when I was six and most of it went over my head. I didn't even understand the slavery bit really because the book made it seem like Africans were swimming across the Atlantic on their own eager to be a slave or something which didn't make sense to me because a year ago when I was five they had me reading the Bible and slavery was this really fucking awful thing the Egyptians did that brought a whole list of plagues on them.

So now whenever my Christian acquaintances say America is God's country or whatever I remind them about Egypt and what happened to Egypt.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Cancel Culture