ADVERTISEMENT

A definition of cancel culture

  • Thread starter anon_6hv78pr714xta
  • Start date
A

anon_6hv78pr714xta

Guest
DeBoer floats this definition and I think it fits with how most people think of the term (with the corollary that the wrongdoers should often suffer permanently):

“a culture where social norms are enforced with repeated and vociferous public shaming”

 
DeBoer floats this definition and I think it fits with how most people think of the term (with the corollary that the wrongdoers should often suffer permanently):

“a culture where social norms are enforced with repeated and vociferous public shaming”

Yes i like this definition. There's a cult on the left that this certainly applies to. The notion of social norms as I understand it is that it doesn't have to include everyone; it can be limited to that group. In this case we know what that cult on the left looks and sounds like and that's certainly how they enforce their social norms
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Well, someone who actually admits that Right cancel culture exists. I am impressed, and agree with the article.
I see the right less as canceling and more as the impetuous child refusing to do what's in their best interest. like when my daughter was little and would tell me that if she couldn't get a new LOL doll she'd go home and throw away every LOL doll she owned
 
I see the right less as canceling and more as the impetuous child refusing to do what's in their best interest. like when my daughter was little and would tell me that if she couldn't get a new LOL doll she'd go home and throw away every LOL doll she owned

Wasn't it Stoll who tried to stalk Mark and threaten to call his work over what he posted here?
 
Yes i like this definition. There's a cult on the left that this certainly applies to. The notion of social norms as I understand it is that it doesn't have to include everyone; it can be limited to that group. In this case we know what that cult on the left looks and sounds like and that's certainly how they enforce their social norms

I seem to recall a certain GOP Governor banning books at schools and trying to prevent courses from being taught that he doesn't agree with.

I don't think either side has a monopoly on cancel culture.
 
I seem to recall a certain GOP Governor banning books at schools and trying to prevent courses from being taught that he doesn't agree with.

I don't think either side has a monopoly on cancel culture.
Yea this is true re DeSAVAGE. He has that in him.
 
Wasn't it Stoll who tried to stalk Mark and threaten to call his work over what he posted here?
im too sexy right said fred GIF


Thats because Mark is to sexy for this board.
 
Yes i like this definition. There's a cult on the left that this certainly applies to. The notion of social norms as I understand it is that it doesn't have to include everyone; it can be limited to that group. In this case we know what that cult on the left looks and sounds like and that's certainly how they enforce their social norms
My favorite comment on the article so far:


It's so weird that Louis C.K. would ever even be considered a representative example of cancel culture. I mean, he did some really weird, gross shit. He jerked off in front of a bunch of random women as part of some gross fetish. It's very normal to want to distance yourself from that kind of person! I'm not saying this is unforgivable. It's certainly forgivable. And his apologies did seem more or less sincere. But the idea that he's who we speak of when we criticize cancel culture is just ridiculous.

The threat of cancel culture isn't that some comedian millionaire will have to retire with his millions of dollars after he got caught being a weird pervert. It's that many ordinary, average people will have their lives ruined over meaningless slights, and a much larger group of rank-and-file people will be bludgeoned and conditioned into a suffocating intellectual homogeneity that will stifle our culture and turn our society into a gray, boring wasteland at best and a ticking powder keg at worst.
 
My favorite comment on the article so far:


It's so weird that Louis C.K. would ever even be considered a representative example of cancel culture. I mean, he did some really weird, gross shit. He jerked off in front of a bunch of random women as part of some gross fetish. It's very normal to want to distance yourself from that kind of person! I'm not saying this is unforgivable. It's certainly forgivable. And his apologies did seem more or less sincere. But the idea that he's who we speak of when we criticize cancel culture is just ridiculous.

The threat of cancel culture isn't that some comedian millionaire will have to retire with his millions of dollars after he got caught being a weird pervert. It's that many ordinary, average people will have their lives ruined over meaningless slights, and a much larger group of rank-and-file people will be bludgeoned and conditioned into a suffocating intellectual homogeneity that will stifle our culture and turn our society into a gray, boring wasteland at best and a ticking powder keg at worst.
co-sign
 
My favorite comment on the article so far:



The threat of cancel culture isn't that some comedian millionaire will have to retire with his millions of dollars after he got caught being a weird pervert. It's that many ordinary, average people will have their lives ruined over meaningless slights, and a much larger group of rank-and-file people will be bludgeoned and conditioned into a suffocating intellectual homogeneity that will stifle our culture and turn our society into a gray, boring wasteland at best and a ticking powder keg at worst.
Well, if removing the perverted "let's jerk off in front of women who feel their careers may depend on watching" element makes us a little more homogenous as a society, I'm not that opposed.
And CK is one of favorite comedians of all time, and that hasn't changed over this.
The other side of the coin is when people feel their opinion is not being given its due weight, and may in fact, have to deal with deserved ridicule, begin wailing "Cancel Culture!" Just look around this place. As the article points out, it's not the same.
 
Last edited:
Well, if removing the perverted "let's jerk off in front of women who feel their careers may depend on watching" element makes us a little more homogenous as a society, I'm not that opposed.
And CK is one of favorite comedians of all time, and that hasn't changed over this.
The other side of the coin is when people feel their opinion is not being given its due weight, and may in fact, have to deal with deserved ridicule, begin wailing "Cancel Culture!" Just look around this place. As the article points out, it's not the same.
Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you are canceling me. Actively seeking to make sure I don't have a forum or that my choice of forums is severely limited to disagree with you is cancel culture. Threatening to fire people or go to their employer because they disagreed with you is that culture.

This site and none of us are important enough for anyone to feel "canceled" here. It was sites like Twitter and Facebook throttling content, sometimes at the behest of government, that is the issue.
 
Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you are canceling me. Actively seeking to make sure I don't have a forum or that my choice of forums is severely limited to disagree with you is cancel culture. Threatening to fire people or go to their employer because they disagreed with you is that culture.

This site and none of us are important enough for anyone to feel "canceled" here. It was sites like Twitter and Facebook throttling content, sometimes at the behest of government, that is the issue.
Well, stoll did attempt to get someone fired by contacting his employer, so there's that. When asked, he proudly admitted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you are canceling me. Actively seeking to make sure I don't have a forum or that my choice of forums is severely limited to disagree with you is cancel culture. Threatening to fire people or go to their employer because they disagreed with you is that culture.

This site and none of us are important enough for anyone to feel "canceled" here. It was sites like Twitter and Facebook throttling content, sometimes at the behest of government, that is the issue.
The why do I have one thread here that says..... "Insufficient Privileges" .. Canceled!
Cancel Social Justice GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NOT joe_hoopsier
Motion to have your name changed to Whatabout. Do I have a second?
This entire board is built on whatabouts, either posting directly or arguing about them . Both sides. Without them board traffic would be reduced 50 percent.
 
This entire board is built on whatabouts, either posting directly or arguing about them . Both sides. Without them board traffic would be reduced 50 percent.
I stand by the post. Hickory has the lowest signal to noise ratio on the board out of regular posters. It isn't even close. He could literally change his handle to Whatabout, hit reply, type nothing and it would effectively cover 90% of anything he posts here.

I am just trying to save the guy time.
 
the biggest problem with the term “cancel culture” is that it’s become too often used.

Neither side has any high ground on the issue. There were no shortage of conservative boycotts and movements when I was growing up. My church wouldn’t watch the Super Bowl halftime show after ZZ Top because it was too risqué. Disney boycotts in the 90s about being too gay friendly. Dixie Chicks CDs being smashed. Beatles records being burned. Keurig machines being destroyed. Notably, liberals are trying to deplatform or boycott any number of people that offend them these days.

If we go back farther in time, sit ins and the Montgomery Bus Boycott had an effect of hurting the financial situation of the targets. Hell, “buy local” campaigns have an effect of “hurting” big business because of their predation on local business.

It’s all really two sides of the same coin. Every “cancel” to one person is a righteous use by another to vote with their wallet to that person.

I think cancel culture has gone too far. I often think of the kid at U of Iowa who got a bunch of money Venmoed to him because of a sign on Gameday, gave it to the children’s hospital, got famous, then got burned hard by a reporter. Trying too hard to tear down and cancel people is bad for the country.
 
Last edited:
the biggest problem with the term “cancel culture” is that it’s become too often used.

Neither side has any high ground on the issue. There were no shortage of conservative boycotts and movements when I was growing up. My church wouldn’t watch the Super Bowl halftime show after ZZ Top because it was too risqué. Disney boycotts in the 90s about being too gay friendly. Dixie Chicks CDs being smashed. Beatles records being burned. Keurig machines being destroyed. Notably, liberals are trying to deplatform or boycott any number of people that offend them these days.

If we go back farther in time, sit ins and the Montgomery Bus Boycott had an effect of hurting the financial situation of the targets. Hell, “buy local” campaigns have an effect of “hurting” big business because of their predation on local business.

It’s all really two sides of the same coin. Every “cancel” to one person is a righteous use by another to vote with their wallet to that person.

I think cancel culture has gone too far. I often think of the kid at U of Iowa who got a bunch of money Venmoed to him because of a sign on Gameday, gave it to the children’s hospital, got famous, then got burned hard by a reporter. Trying too hard to tear down and cancel people is bad for the country.
I agree neither side has the high ground over the sweep of history. The Left, though, over the last 10-20 years seems to have done a 180 on these issues and I find it really concerning.

Also, I think there is a line and a difference between voting with your wallet for perceived moral reasons and publicly shaming a person for perceived moral reasons.

In the case of these comedians, it's one thing to say "I won't listen to him or pay him money because he's a bad person," and another to argue no one should listen to him or pay him money by urging his venues to reject him or have social media companies "deplatform" him. The whole deplatforming thing has always struck me as anti-free speech authoritarianism.
 
the biggest problem with the term “cancel culture” is that it’s become too often used.

Neither side has any high ground on the issue. There were no shortage of conservative boycotts and movements when I was growing up. My church wouldn’t watch the Super Bowl halftime show after ZZ Top because it was too risqué. Disney boycotts in the 90s about being too gay friendly. Dixie Chicks CDs being smashed. Beatles records being burned. Keurig machines being destroyed. Notably, liberals are trying to deplatform or boycott any number of people that offend them these days.

If we go back farther in time, sit ins and the Montgomery Bus Boycott had an effect of hurting the financial situation of the targets. Hell, “buy local” campaigns have an effect of “hurting” big business because of their predation on local business.

It’s all really two sides of the same coin. Every “cancel” to one person is a righteous use by another to vote with their wallet to that person.

I think cancel culture has gone too far. I often think of the kid at U of Iowa who got a bunch of money Venmoed to him because of a sign on Gameday, gave it to the children’s hospital, got famous, then got burned hard by a reporter. Trying too hard to tear down and cancel people is bad for the country.
Correct. I was thinking about this overnight and especially the “social norms” part. We all have different social norms and they come from the left, right, and middle. Hell I’m old enough to remember conservatives threatening to boycott the NFL because players kneeled. This is not something recently invented by the “woke” left.
 
Last edited:
In the case of these comedians, it's one thing to say "I won't listen to him or pay him money because he's a bad person," and another to argue no one should listen to him or pay him money by urging his venues to reject him or have social media companies "deplatform" him. The whole deplatforming thing has always struck me as anti-free speech authoritarianism.
I certainly agree with that.

I also think one of the most concerning things happening is on college campuses. On one side you've had people going from protesting campus speakers to trying to dis-invite campus speakers. When Obama was president I recall him making a statement at one time or another saying that this was not what college is supposed to be about. On the other side, there are moves to cancel whole areas of scholarship from all schools because they disagree with the real or perceived worldview associated with it.
 
The Left, though, over the last 10-20 years seems to have done a 180 on these issues and I find it really concerning.
White liberal guilt is a real and powerful thing. Misguided? Sometimes, maybe most times. I don't know. So we white liberals have done some kind of service to the identity politics we see today obviously. We can't seem to find a gropu we won't champion, though I think we're getting pretty close to having covered 99% of the groups out there which have been historically disadvantaged.

Furries are probably next. Or the body modifiers. who knows.

And while I can note the thinness of the scholarship involved here, there was a part of the article re: Ms. Hannah-Jones which did hit me right in the feelz and forced me to ponder my own biases.

Hannah-Jones: No. They are clearly linked, but whether you have integrated communities or segregated communities, we have school segregation. In communities that are gentrifying, the gentrification stops at the schoolhouse door. White communities want neighborhood schools if their neighborhood school is white. If their neighborhood school is black, they want choice. Housing segregation just becomes a convenient excuse. The problem—and I never use the phrase “white supremacy” because it’s a word that people automatically discount as soon as you use it, but that is the problem.

We have a system where white people control the outcomes. And the outcome that most white Americans want is segregation. And I don’t mean the type of segregation that we saw in 1955. I don't mean complete segregation. I don't think there are very many white Americans who want entirely white schools. What they do want is a limited number of black kids in their schools.

Goldberg: What do you call “curated diversity.”

Hannah-Jones: I never talk about school inequality in terms of “diversity” because I think it’s a useless word. I think it’s a word that white people love. When I say “curated diversity,” it means white parents like a type of diversity so they’ll still be the majority and there won’t be too many black kids.

White Americans, in general, are willing to accept about the ratio of black Americans at large: 10 to 15 percent.

Goldberg: But you get into the 20s...

Hannah-Jones: When you get into the 20s, white folks start to exaggerate how large the percentage is. So in New York City, one of the most segregated school systems in the country, if you’re a white parent in the public schools, you don’t want all-white schools.


Goldberg: Because you’re a liberal?

Hannah-Jones: Yeah. But what you want is a majority-white school with a small number of black kids and a good number of Latino, a good number of Asian. That makes you feel very good about yourself because you feel like your child is getting this beautiful integrated experience. The problem is that the public schools in New York City are 70 percent black and Latino. So, for you to have your beautiful diversity, that means that most black and Latino kids get absolutely none.

The tolerance for increasing particularly the percentage of black kids is very low, and even lower if those black kids are poor. No white parents in New York City mind having my kid in their school because they feel like I’m on their level. But if you get too many of kids like mine who are black but poor, there’s very little tolerance.

Goldberg: Do most white parents in New York City achieve curated diversity for their children?

Hannah-Jones: Yes.

Goldberg: They’re winning that?

Hannah-Jones: Oh, definitely.

I think she has a point about white liberal's "curated diversity".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark and TMFT
the biggest problem with the term “cancel culture” is that it’s become too often used.

Neither side has any high ground on the issue. There were no shortage of conservative boycotts and movements when I was growing up. My church wouldn’t watch the Super Bowl halftime show after ZZ Top because it was too risqué. Disney boycotts in the 90s about being too gay friendly. Dixie Chicks CDs being smashed. Beatles records being burned. Keurig machines being destroyed. Notably, liberals are trying to deplatform or boycott any number of people that offend them these days.

If we go back farther in time, sit ins and the Montgomery Bus Boycott had an effect of hurting the financial situation of the targets. Hell, “buy local” campaigns have an effect of “hurting” big business because of their predation on local business.

It’s all really two sides of the same coin. Every “cancel” to one person is a righteous use by another to vote with their wallet to that person.

I think cancel culture has gone too far. I often think of the kid at U of Iowa who got a bunch of money Venmoed to him because of a sign on Gameday, gave it to the children’s hospital, got famous, then got burned hard by a reporter. Trying too hard to tear down and cancel people is bad for the country.
The reach and power of "cancel culture" is the issue today, because of the advancements of technology. I'm not sure what the answer is to the problem. It's like high school never ends, now. People really enjoy bullying each other into submission.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT