Good essay on cancel culture and free speech from FIRE

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Cancel culture empowers the powerful — at everyone else’s expense

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions expanded discretionary power.

www.thefire.org

"In the absence of a culture that champions a principled defense of free speech, institutions not legally obligated to uphold free speech are, in the short term, incentivized to implement and enforce policy in whatever direction the social wind blows, strategically capitulating to the loudest voices.

In this, institutions can count on backup from those who play down the effects of their decisions — at least when those decisions impact someone they don’t like. “Cancel culture is overblown. You yourself said that Chappelle was able to perform the same week at a different venue!” This conveniently overlooks the fact that when it comes to comedy, Chappelle is the powerful. He’s already wealthy, massively popular, and can book and fill a show in less than a day. It’s similar for many of the famous figures in entertainment and culture whose cancellations make the news, yet who seem mostly to make out all right.

But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: “If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian — powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans — imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set.” The message isn’t aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power. Left free to selectively enforce policies in the manner those in charge find most palatable or convenient, the powerful are further empowered to crack down on anything they don’t like, from bad jokes and unorthodox opinions to critiques of bad governance and exposure of corruption. This might be a good deal for those running the institutions; it’s a bad deal for everyone else."

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Cancel culture empowers the powerful — at everyone else’s expense

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions expanded discretionary power.

www.thefire.org

"In the absence of a culture that champions a principled defense of free speech, institutions not legally obligated to uphold free speech are, in the short term, incentivized to implement and enforce policy in whatever direction the social wind blows, strategically capitulating to the loudest voices.

In this, institutions can count on backup from those who play down the effects of their decisions — at least when those decisions impact someone they don’t like. “Cancel culture is overblown. You yourself said that Chappelle was able to perform the same week at a different venue!” This conveniently overlooks the fact that when it comes to comedy, Chappelle is the powerful. He’s already wealthy, massively popular, and can book and fill a show in less than a day. It’s similar for many of the famous figures in entertainment and culture whose cancellations make the news, yet who seem mostly to make out all right.

But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: “If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian — powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans — imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set.” The message isn’t aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power. Left free to selectively enforce policies in the manner those in charge find most palatable or convenient, the powerful are further empowered to crack down on anything they don’t like, from bad jokes and unorthodox opinions to critiques of bad governance and exposure of corruption. This might be a good deal for those running the institutions; it’s a bad deal for everyone else."

I think a definition of cancel culture is missing from all the discussions here. I bet several people here refuse to watch a Jane Fonda movie, is that cancel culture?

Refusing to watch a football game with Kap?

If those two are not cancel culture, why not?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think a definition of cancel culture is missing from all the discussions here. I bet several people here refuse to watch a Jane Fonda movie, is that cancel culture?

Refusing to watch a football game with Kap?

If those two are not cancel culture, why not?

At first blush, Id say because they are not advocating for someone to be fired for their speech.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

At first blush, Id say because they are not advocating for someone to be fired for their speech.

If enough people state they will not see a movie or attend an event, doesn't that make it harder for someone to hire them? I would bet Fonda was passed up for projects because producers were concerned about her marketability.

It is tough, I love free speech but people also are accountable for what they say (or do). Balancing free speech with accountability is not as easy as we think.

 

[twenty02]

If enough people state they will not see a movie or attend an event, doesn't that make it harder for someone to hire them? I would bet Fonda was passed up for projects because producers were concerned about her marketability.

It is tough, I love free speech but people also are accountable for what they say (or do). Balancing free speech with accountability is not as easy as we think.

Was Chapelle having an issue selling out the show that was canceled?

 

[T.M.P.]

Cancel culture empowers the powerful — at everyone else’s expense

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions expanded discretionary power.

www.thefire.org

"In the absence of a culture that champions a principled defense of free speech, institutions not legally obligated to uphold free speech are, in the short term, incentivized to implement and enforce policy in whatever direction the social wind blows, strategically capitulating to the loudest voices.

In this, institutions can count on backup from those who play down the effects of their decisions — at least when those decisions impact someone they don’t like. “Cancel culture is overblown. You yourself said that Chappelle was able to perform the same week at a different venue!” This conveniently overlooks the fact that when it comes to comedy, Chappelle is the powerful. He’s already wealthy, massively popular, and can book and fill a show in less than a day. It’s similar for many of the famous figures in entertainment and culture whose cancellations make the news, yet who seem mostly to make out all right.

But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: “If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian — powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans — imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set.” The message isn’t aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should “cancel” people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power. Left free to selectively enforce policies in the manner those in charge find most palatable or convenient, the powerful are further empowered to crack down on anything they don’t like, from bad jokes and unorthodox opinions to critiques of bad governance and exposure of corruption. This might be a good deal for those running the institutions; it’s a bad deal for everyone else."

How much of a culture is it? Is it as extensive as Southern culture or is it a counter culture? How many people are in this culture and who and what defines it as one? Do they celebrate it with parades like Latinos and Irish celebrate theirs. Or are they like a biker club wearing homoerotic leather gear?

Or is it just another lazy minded meme level label for excusing accountability for reprehensible behavior especially when towards ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality?

Quit using overly simplified easily propagandized labels for severely complex issues .. start there ......

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

If enough people state they will not see a movie or attend an event, doesn't that make it harder for someone to hire them? I would bet Fonda was passed up for projects because producers were concerned about her marketability.

It is tough, I love free speech but people also are accountable for what they say (or do). Balancing free speech with accountability is not as easy as we think.

Having a preference for not seeing a production because of your dislike of a person doesn't seem to fit the same category as openly calling for the firing of that person from the production.

Also, I'll refer back to the excerpt I quoted:

"But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: “If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian — powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans — imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set.” The message isn’t aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear."

We should worry about cancel culture because of its chilling effects on all of us normal people--maybe not as much about the powerful, wealthy, and famous.

 

[cosmickid]

At first blush, Id say because they are not advocating for someone to be fired for their speech.

Really? I'd say you're being pretty selective in your definitions about what constitutes being fired... I'm sorry but I've been around for 67 yrs, and imho the Right invented and perfected cancel culture. They only came to view it as a problem when they felt it effected them. Sort of how some people who never had an issue with racism now all of a sudden think they are somehow the victim...

And not to make this about Trump, but Trump's earliest legal advisor and confidante was Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn made his bones as a protege of Joe McCarthy, so Trump having the gall to accuse anyone else of engaging in "cancel culture" is one of the most absurd complaints he ever raised, among a litany of them...
Two examples, that imho trump any of the folks currently whining about "being cancelled"...

"After the statement was reported by the British newspaper The Guardian, it led to backlash from American country listeners, who were mostly right-wing and supported the war. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats, and were criticized by other country musicians. The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets and lost them corporate sponsorship."

Maybe you aren't old enough to have witnessed the persecution of Jane Fonda? I was 15 in 1970, but with people like John Wayne in charge, Hollywood was certainly not some sort of "liberal bastion"...Here is her description of her infamous arrest for "drug smuggling"...

"My first speech was given at a college in Canada and when I re-entered the US at the Cleveland airport all my luggage was seized and gone through. They discovered a large bag containing little plastic envelopes marked (in red nail polish) ‘B’, ‘L’, ‘D’–signifying breakfast, lunch and dinner- that contained the vitamins I took with each meal. They confiscated that as well as my address book (which was photocopied) and arrested me for drug smuggling. I told them what they were but they said they were getting orders from the White House–that would be the Nixon White House. I think they hoped this “scandal” would cause the college speeches to be canceled and ruin my respectability. I was handcuffed and put in the Cleveland Jail, which is when the mug shot was taken. (I had just finished filming “Klute” so, yes, it was the Klute haircut).

Headlines across the country had the story of me being jailed on suspicion of drug smuggling. I was released on bond and months later, after every pill had been tested in a lab (with taxpayers money!) The charges were dismissed and there were a few paragraphs hidden in the back of papers that they were vitamins, not drugs"

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Really? I'd say you're being pretty selective in your definitions about what constitutes being fired... I'm sorry but I've been around for 67 yrs, and imho the Right invented and perfected cancel culture. They only came to view it as a problem when they felt it effected them. Sort of how some people who never had an issue with racism now all of a sudden think they are somehow the victim...

And not to make this about Trump, but Trump's earliest legal advisor and confidante was Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn made his bones as a protege of Joe McCarthy, so Trump having the gall to accuse anyone else of engaging in "cancel culture" is one of the most absurd complaints he ever raised, among a litany of them...
Two examples, that imho trump any of the folks currently whining about "being cancelled"...

"After the statement was reported by the British newspaper The Guardian, it led to backlash from American country listeners, who were mostly right-wing and supported the war. The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats, and were criticized by other country musicians. The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets and lost them corporate sponsorship."

Maybe you aren't old enough to have witnessed the persecution of Jane Fonda? I was 15 in 1970, but with people like John Wayne in charge, Hollywood was certainly not some sort of "liberal bastion"...Here is her description of her infamous arrest for "drug smuggling"...

"My first speech was given at a college in Canada and when I re-entered the US at the Cleveland airport all my luggage was seized and gone through. They discovered a large bag containing little plastic envelopes marked (in red nail polish) ‘B’, ‘L’, ‘D’–signifying breakfast, lunch and dinner- that contained the vitamins I took with each meal. They confiscated that as well as my address book (which was photocopied) and arrested me for drug smuggling. I told them what they were but they said they were getting orders from the White House–that would be the Nixon White House. I think they hoped this “scandal” would cause the college speeches to be canceled and ruin my respectability. I was handcuffed and put in the Cleveland Jail, which is when the mug shot was taken. (I had just finished filming “Klute” so, yes, it was the Klute haircut).

Headlines across the country had the story of me being jailed on suspicion of drug smuggling. I was released on bond and months later, after every pill had been tested in a lab (with taxpayers money!) The charges were dismissed and there were a few paragraphs hidden in the back of papers that they were vitamins, not drugs"

I like the Dixie Chicks. Own most of their albums. I will watch movies with Jane Fonda (love 9 to 5).

It sounds like you don't support cancel culture. Good. Try reading the article. You might find it enlightening. If you refuse to read things from conservative sources, don't worry: FIRE is not a conservative organization (nor a liberal one for that matter). It is dedicated to protecting free speech--what the ACLU used to care about.

I have no idea why you brought Trump into this. I am not a Trump supporter and he had nothing to do with the linked article.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Having a preference for not seeing a production because of your dislike of a person doesn't seem to fit the same category as openly calling for the firing of that person from the production.

Also, I'll refer back to the excerpt I quoted:

"But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: “If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian — powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans — imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set.” The message isn’t aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear."

We should worry about cancel culture because of its chilling effects on all of us normal people--maybe not as much about the powerful, wealthy, and famous.

Let me ask this, if a person said, Hitler's problem was he did not go far enough", would it make sense for their work to fire them? So who is to blame, the work for firing them, the fault of people saying they will not shop there as long as that person is there, or the fault of the person who said it?

That is extreme, but somewhere there are "standards" and where they are at any moment evolves. But crossing them has always had repercussions. We saw it with Lennie Bruce.

I agree with the article to an extent, the famous and powerful can get away with more. That is true for everything.

But Taleb has a different point. Someone like an author can get in a bar room right and his sales go up. A CEO gets into a bar room fight and will almost certainly lose their job. An auto worker gets into a bar room fight and the probability is very high no career change happens.

For the vast majority of crazy uncles saying racist things, there isn't a cancel culture from a Ford or WalMart.

Think about how hard it is to be a top flight comedian. The odds are one in a million. Chances are all sorts of things will block someone, a little too short, a little too heavy, a strange nose, nasally voice. And yes, saying something stupid. A truly great comedian might overcome that, John Candy made it with his weight. Chappelle is huge still. But everything is out of balance makes it a little harder.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Let me ask this, if a person said, Hitler's problem was he did not go far enough", would it make sense for their work to fire them? So who is to blame, the work for firing them, the fault of people saying they will not shop there as long as that person is there, or the fault of the person who said it?

That is extreme, but somewhere there are "standards" and where they are at any moment evolves. But crossing them has always had repercussions. We saw it with Lennie Bruce.

I agree with the article to an extent, the famous and powerful can get away with more. That is true for everything.

But Taleb has a different point. Someone like an author can get in a bar room right and his sales go up. A CEO gets into a bar room fight and will almost certainly lose their job. An auto worker gets into a bar room fight and the probability is very high no career change happens.

For the vast majority of crazy uncles saying racist things, there isn't a cancel culture from a Ford or WalMart.

Think about how hard it is to be a top flight comedian. The odds are one in a million. Chances are all sorts of things will block someone, a little too short, a little too heavy, a strange nose, nasally voice. And yes, saying something stupid. A truly great comedian might overcome that, John Candy made it with his weight. Chappelle is huge still. But everything is out of balance makes it a little harder.

Taleb makes a good point (do you have a link, I'd like to read his argument). Does he address the chilling effect, though, discussed in the article?

I think the chilling effect is a real thing. I encounter it on a daily basis and feel uncomfortable even talking about entire topic areas with anyone I don't really, really trust. Of course, Chicago is much different than Indiana in this respect, although I read and hear the same thing from friends in other metro areas and in academia.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Having a preference for not seeing a production because of your dislike of a person doesn't seem to fit the same category as openly calling for the firing of that person from the production.

More importantly, choosing not to watch Kap isn't equivalent to cancelling the football game because Kap is playing. If the Colts decided to pick up Kap, some people wouldn't like it. But the show would go on.

Equally worthwhile, would Colts fans that disagree with the signing of Kap physically and verbally assault patrons that still want to see the Colts game? Perhaps the Eagles fans might, but I'd venture to guess not.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

But Taleb has a different point. Someone like an author can get in a bar room right and his sales go up. A CEO gets into a bar room fight and will almost certainly lose their job. An auto worker gets into a bar room fight and the probability is very high no career change happens.

For the vast majority of crazy uncles saying racist things, there isn't a cancel culture from a Ford or WalMart.

I somewhat agree with this counterargument that common people are less likely to require cancelling and people are held to different standards. The question is, should then be held to different standards, as it pertains to the first amendment?

I'm not smart enough to know the answer.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Taleb makes a good point (do you have a link, I'd like to read his argument). Does he address the chilling effect, though, discussed in the article?

I think the chilling effect is a real thing. I encounter it on a daily basis and feel uncomfortable even talking about entire topic areas with anyone I don't really, really trust. Of course, Chicago is much different than Indiana in this respect, although I read and hear the same thing from friends in other metro areas and in academia.

His point was in Antifragility. He was suggesting corporate execs live in a fragile world, a fight, a DUI, saying something stupid, very often leads to their dismissal. Blue color workers are robust, a fight, a DUI, a dumb comment, very seldom impacts their job. An author, actor, rock musician, are antifragile. They live in a world where no press is bad press. More than a few have made the "bad boy of __" image work.

Now it was written before Me Too, which was a paradigm even the stars could not escape. But even Me Too may be weakening, see the movie Amsterdam. Russell was "blacklisted" but now has Amsterdam coming out seemingly with every celeb known in it.

I am not sure about the topics afraid of discussing around people I am not sure I trust point. I almost never discuss politics, for example, around people who are not friends. I sure heard at work Dobbs being discussed. I never joined in, I do not discuss politics at work no matter the politics. Even among friends I don't discuss most politics or religion. My gaming group is a big mix of liberals and conservatives, religious and atheist. So when politics or religion comes up, I listen, I smile, I validate that they have a right to their opinion, I move on. When some here say we should not draw differences to our racial differences, I feel that way about politics and religion. People get way too upset way too easily. It isn't worth losing a friend over their opinion of Dobbs or the way to say The Lord's Prayer.

So I know what it is to not discuss things unless you trust someone, but I find that a positive. I have seen groups dissolve over political disagreements.

My technique of listening and validating has friends on both sides of politics and religion convinced I side with them.

Heck, my own family still debates who I vote for in Democratic primaries as I don't tell them. The 2008 primary saw my wife switch from R to D, and my two oldest vote in a presidential election the first time. They all 3 loved Obama, and they will at some point this year in a family get together try to pin me down on who I voted for.

Here I have only met CO and Cosmic. And we come here specifically to discuss politics. So 1) I won't lose friends and 2) we have to expect disagreement since that is why we are here.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

More importantly, choosing not to watch Kap isn't equivalent to cancelling the football game because Kap is playing. If the Colts decided to pick up Kap, some people wouldn't like it. But the show would go on.

Equally worthwhile, would Colts fans that disagree with the signing of Kap physically and verbally assault patrons that still want to see the Colts game? Perhaps the Eagles fans might, but I'd venture to guess not.

So why has no one hired Kap? I get he isn't a great QB, but teams have lined up for Wentz, Dalton, Fitzpatrick. He isn't worse than those guys.

 

[Stuffshot]

I like the Dixie Chicks. Own most of their albums. I will watch movies with Jane Fonda (love 9 to 5).

It sounds like you don't support cancel culture. Good. Try reading the article. You might find it enlightening. If you refuse to read things from conservative sources, don't worry: FIRE is not a conservative organization (nor a liberal one for that matter). It is dedicated to protecting free speech--what the ACLU used to care about.

I have no idea why you brought Trump into this. I am not a Trump supporter and he had nothing to do with the linked article.

Trump is fair game for this discussion.

Trump has called for retribution against lots of average people who had offended him in some way. Look it up.

 

[ButHerEmails]

How much of a culture is it? Is it as extensive as Southern culture or is it a counter culture? How many people are in this culture and who and what defines it as one? Do they celebrate it with parades like Latinos and Irish celebrate theirs. Or are they like a biker club wearing homoerotic leather gear?

Or is it just another lazy minded meme level label for excusing accountability for reprehensible behavior especially when towards ethnicity, religion, gender and sexuality?

Quit using overly simplified easily propagandized labels for severely complex issues .. start there ......

The second someone uses “cancel culture” or “woke”, I immediately know I don’t have to waste my time trying to take them seriously.

 

[Stuffshot]

The second someone uses “cancel culture” or “woke”, I immediately know I don’t have to waste my time trying to take them seriously.

Also when they use "agenda."

 

[8Stars5Banners]

So why has no one hired Kap? I get he isn't a great QB, but teams have lined up for Wentz, Dalton, Fitzpatrick. He isn't worse than those guys.

How do you know that? Teams want to win…. Watson is pretty toxic but the Browns thought he could help them win

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How do you know that? Teams want to win…. Watson is pretty toxic but the Browns thought he could help them win

Watson is clearly better than Dalton, Wentz, Fitz (who I think retired). The Browns will take the chance for an elite QB.

Kap isn't elite. He is a backup, maybe a starter years ago. There is much more risk aversion for that level.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

So why has no one hired Kap? I get he isn't a great QB, but teams have lined up for Wentz, Dalton, Fitzpatrick. He isn't worse than those guys.

He’s 100% worse than those guys. He hasn’t played in years and the word was his Vegas workout was a disaster.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I somewhat agree with this counterargument that common people are less likely to

So why has no one hired Kap? I get he isn't a great QB, but teams have lined up for Wentz, Dalton, Fitzpatrick. He isn't worse than those guys.

Yes he is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

He’s 100% worse than those guys. He hasn’t played in years and the word was his Vegas workout was a disaster.

Yes he is.

Did anyone here watch the Colts last game of the year against a pathetic Jacksonville team?

For the record, Wentz does have about 1.5 point better passer rating for his career than Kap, but Dalton has about 1.5 worse. Jacoby Brissett has about 6 points worse.

That was just passing, Kap rushed for more yards in his career, 2300, than Dalton (1411), Wentz (1276), Brissett (300).

Yes, rumors are he had a terrible tryout. But 1) rumors are rumors 2) years after he left the game. Payton would have a terrible tryout now. At the time he was released, he was not far from a recent Super Bowl QB. As Wentz with his 1.5 point better passer rating shows, that still carries a lot of weight as both the Colts and Commanders have traded pretty decent draft capital to acquire him.

Kap's weakness was he took too many sacks. His strength was a great interception rate. So he was the opposite of Wentz.

Metrics that Matter: Just how good (or not) is Colin Kaepernick? | Fantasy Football News, Rankings and Projections | PFF

The QB has been the subject of much debate this offseason, both on-field and off. Scott Barrett looks at the on-field side.

www.pff.com

 

[Crayfish57]

Trump is fair game for this discussion.

Trump has called for retribution against lots of average people who had offended him in some way. Look it up.

In your world Trump is fair game in any discussion , I'm guessing when a dandelion comes up in your yard if there is any discussion Trump is involved. . What has the last 6 years been like for you?

 

[Crayfish57]

The second someone uses “cancel culture” or “woke”, I immediately know I don’t have to waste my time trying to take them seriously.

Kind of like how the rest of view liberals? There is no point taking you seriously because you never are. All you have to do is log on with your name and that becomes obvious.

If some one logged in as '' BidenHasDementia'' would you take anything they had to say seriously?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Did anyone here watch the Colts last game of the year against a pathetic Jacksonville team?

For the record, Wentz does have about 1.5 point better passer rating for his career than Kap, but Dalton has about 1.5 worse. Jacoby Brissett has about 6 points worse.

That was just passing, Kap rushed for more yards in his career, 2300, than Dalton (1411), Wentz (1276), Brissett (300).

Yes, rumors are he had a terrible tryout. But 1) rumors are rumors 2) years after he left the game. Payton would have a terrible tryout now. At the time he was released, he was not far from a recent Super Bowl QB. As Wentz with his 1.5 point better passer rating shows, that still carries a lot of weight as both the Colts and Commanders have traded pretty decent draft capital to acquire him.

Kap's weakness was he took too many sacks. His strength was a great interception rate. So he was the opposite of Wentz.

Metrics that Matter: Just how good (or not) is Colin Kaepernick? | Fantasy Football News, Rankings and Projections | PFF

The QB has been the subject of much debate this offseason, both on-field and off. Scott Barrett looks at the on-field side.

www.pff.com

Wentz was almost an NFL MVP. Kaepernick had no pedigree - which is fine - and found success early on with a great defensive team that had a good running game. He was a game manager. The liberal need to make him a Could’ve Been a Star is very strange. The NFL lets wife beaters and druggies back into the league. They clearly didn’t want a self-absorbed mediocre QB back in. I don’t blame them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Wentz was almost an NFL MVP. Kaepernick had no pedigree - which is fine - and found success early on with a great defensive team that had a good running game. He was a game manager. The liberal need to make him a Could’ve Been a Star is very strange. The NFL lets wife beaters and druggies back into the league. They clearly didn’t want a self-absorbed mediocre QB back in. I don’t blame them.

At no point have I said he was close to a star. He was a low end starter or very very serviceable backup.

If you don't think these wife-beaters are self-absorbed I am not sure what to say. No team wanted to deal with backlash of Kap. I actually have no problem with that, teams have to make all kinds of decisions. The NFL has marketed itself as God and Country, Kap did not fit that bill. He made his choice, he pays the price.

I am not sure why we say people who speak should never, ever face consequences for what they say. Kap did, that is the way the system works.

If you discovered that a chain was openly supporting Russia's involvement in Ukraine, would you shop there? I wouldn't. Would you tell others what you learned so they would not shop there? How is that not cancel culture.

 

[NPT]

Did anyone here watch the Colts last game of the year against a pathetic Jacksonville team?

For the record, Wentz does have about 1.5 point better passer rating for his career than Kap, but Dalton has about 1.5 worse. Jacoby Brissett has about 6 points worse.

That was just passing, Kap rushed for more yards in his career, 2300, than Dalton (1411), Wentz (1276), Brissett (300).

Yes, rumors are he had a terrible tryout. But 1) rumors are rumors 2) years after he left the game. Payton would have a terrible tryout now. At the time he was released, he was not far from a recent Super Bowl QB. As Wentz with his 1.5 point better passer rating shows, that still carries a lot of weight as both the Colts and Commanders have traded pretty decent draft capital to acquire him.

Kap's weakness was he took too many sacks. His strength was a great interception rate. So he was the opposite of Wentz.

Metrics that Matter: Just how good (or not) is Colin Kaepernick? | Fantasy Football News, Rankings and Projections | PFF

The QB has been the subject of much debate this offseason, both on-field and off. Scott Barrett looks at the on-field side.

www.pff.com

Why piss off a bunch of your fans when you can have someone almost as good or a little better without pissing them off?

 

[VanPastorMan]

I think a definition of cancel culture is missing from all the discussions here. I bet several people here refuse to watch a Jane Fonda movie, is that cancel culture?

Refusing to watch a football game with Kap?

If those two are not cancel culture, why not?

Your examples are about preference. Preference is actually more about the freedoms we have as a country. If you want to live in this certain place you can move there. If you want to hang around with these certain people you can. If you want to worship the way you want then you can do that too. If you want to comment on any of those then you can. None of that impairs anyone else from exercising their rights too.
What cancel culture does is says,"If you don't agree with us you don't have the right to speak,work, or pursue your freedoms." It is about control not freedom.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why piss off a bunch of your fans when you can have someone almost as good or a little better without pissing them off?

That's exactly right. We give great people a whole lot more leeway (see the Browns and Watson or the Chiefs drafting Hill). In that regard, Brad's article is very accurate. I'm not sure the solution is to say that we let all wifebeaters and rapists play, but we enforce the same standards on the elite.

It seems we call it Cancel if we don't agree with the reason. If a tv star today were to make a big deal about supporting Russia and donating money to Russia, their career might well be over. I doubt it would get labeled cancel culture, just millions of people expressing their preference.

 

[TDHoosier]

If Kap were a good enough QB it wouldn't matter he would find a team much like Watson. If Fonda were an elite actress she would be hired because society would somehow mitigate whatever it is they thinks she stands for or does that isn't the status quo. Problem with both of these arguments are neither that good so they are expendable and not worth the risk.

To quote my favorite movie "The Equalizer" when I look at them it is like they are a bottle cap or piece of lent they meaning nothing to me. I might be a bit off on the exact quote, too lazy to look it up, but you get the drift.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If Kap were a good enough QB it wouldn't matter he would find a team much like Watson. If Fonda were an elite actress she would be hired because society would somehow mitigate whatever it is they thinks she stands for or does that isn't the status quo. Problem with both of these arguments are neither that good so they are expendable and not worth the risk.

To quote my favorite movie "The Equalizer" when I look at them it is like they are a bottle cap or piece of lent they meaning nothing to me. I might be a bit off on the exact quote, too lazy to look it up, but you get the drift.

That is what Brad's link suggests, Cancel Culture impacts those who aren't elite. But that also seems to bolster the idea that Kap was a victim of cancel culture. But for some reason no one seems to accept that. It is because people agree Kap needed canceled. That is why we need a neutral definition.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

At no point have I said he was close to a star. He was a low end starter or very very serviceable backup.

If you don't think these wife-beaters are self-absorbed I am not sure what to say. No team wanted to deal with backlash of Kap. I actually have no problem with that, teams have to make all kinds of decisions. The NFL has marketed itself as God and Country, Kap did not fit that bill. He made his choice, he pays the price.

I am not sure why we say people who speak should never, ever face consequences for what they say. Kap did, that is the way the system works.

If you discovered that a chain was openly supporting Russia's involvement in Ukraine, would you shop there? I wouldn't. Would you tell others what you learned so they would not shop there? How is that not cancel culture.

Of course they’re all self-absorbed, but CK made his decision that his brand was more important than anything. And he has had numerous chances to get back in and didn’t. Starting with his tantrum in Atlanta, he verified what GMs fear, that he’s a prima donna look-at-me charlatan. Why would any GM or owner muck with that opportunity cost when they can get a stable veteran in at backup? It’s not only about pissing off fans, it’s about introducing a stage iv tumor into the locker room.

 

[NPT]

That's exactly right. We give great people a whole lot more leeway (see the Browns and Watson or the Chiefs drafting Hill). In that regard, Brad's article is very accurate. I'm not sure the solution is to say that we let all wifebeaters and rapists play, but we enforce the same standards on the elite.

It seems we call it Cancel if we don't agree with the reason. If a tv star today were to make a big deal about supporting Russia and donating money to Russia, their career might well be over. I doubt it would get labeled cancel culture, just millions of people expressing their preference.

The NFL is a business and make business decisions. Maybe some are bad decisions but the bottom line is they make decisions that they think will add to their profits.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Of course they’re all self-absorbed, but CK made his decision that his brand was more important than anything. And he has had numerous chances to get back in and didn’t. Starting with his tantrum in Atlanta, he verified what GMs fear, that he’s a prima donna look-at-me charlatan. Why would any GM or owner muck with that opportunity cost when they can get a stable veteran in at backup? It’s not only about pissing off fans, it’s about introducing a stage iv tumor into the locker room.

He was on the decline before he went woke. IIRC he had been benched and that was when he suddenly got the fever for activism. Kudos to him, it was a marketing gimmick that kept his name around for longer than his athletic prowess would have.

 

[Crayfish57]

The NFL is a business and make business decisions. Maybe some are bad decisions but the bottom line is they make decisions that they think will add to their profits.

Exactly, he chose to market himself as a big afro medium talent player that pissed a lot people off. NFL said we dont need you and then it becomes racism. Its not Marino in his prime, he is a mid level player at BEST . He made tons of money so lets not feel sorry for him, he chose a path and it had consequences. He was never that good to begin with. No one cares.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Exactly, he chose to market himself as a big afro medium talent player that pissed a lot people off. NFL said we dont need you and then it becomes racism. Its not Marino in his prime, he is a mid level player at BEST . He made tons of money so lets not feel sorry for him, he chose a path and it had consequences. He was never that good to begin with. No one cares.

The part NO ONE has answered, how is this any different than someone who CHOOSES to make fun of transsexuals? Chappelle chooses what he says just as Kap chose to kneel. Yet we say Kap deserves what he gets and Chappelle is a martyr. Why isn't it consistent to say both are martyrs or both deserve what they get.

That's the question I am trying to get to. Why is the term cancel culture dependent on how much we agree with someone?

An NFL team has the right to choose their QB. I get none of them wanted Kap. A venue has a right to choose who will headline. If they don't want to deal with Chappelle, so be it.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Exactly, he chose to market himself as a big afro medium talent player that pissed a lot people off. NFL said we dont need you and then it becomes racism. Its not Marino in his prime, he is a mid level player at BEST . He made tons of money so lets not feel sorry for him, he chose a path and it had consequences. He was never that good to begin with. No one cares.

What does having a big afro have to do with it?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The part NO ONE has answered, how is this any different than someone who CHOOSES to make fun of transsexuals? Chappelle chooses what he says just as Kap chose to kneel. Yet we say Kap deserves what he gets and Chappelle is a martyr. Why isn't it consistent to say both are martyrs or both deserve what they get.

That's the question I am trying to get to. Why is the term cancel culture dependent on how much we agree with someone?

An NFL team has the right to choose their QB. I get none of them wanted Kap. A venue has a right to choose who will headline. If they don't want to deal with Chappelle, so be it.

At a macro level we’re aligned. But you’re speaking with a narrative on the Kaepernick side. Chappelle isn’t “picking on” transsexuals. He’s pointing out how ridiculous their power grab has been and how they’re in some fantasyland where teasing is “punching down.” Kaepernick uses skewed statistics and talking points to invent an approach to a cause that alienates half of the country and stops being a teammate.

Of course venues don’t need to book Chappelle if they don’t want to - and they’re free to lose all of that revenue to a competitor. That’s a major opportunity cost. If they choose that path out of wokeness, by swallowing the narrative, then that’s on them. There is only downside to signing Kaepernick. He stinks. That’s not cancel culture.

But we agree on your definition of cancel culture.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

At a macro level we’re aligned. But you’re speaking with a narrative on the Kaepernick side. Chappelle isn’t “picking on” transsexuals. He’s pointing out how ridiculous their power grab has been and how they’re in some fantasyland where teasing is “punching down.” Kaepernick uses skewed statistics and talking points to invent an approach to a cause that alienates half of the country and stops being a teammate.

Of course venues don’t need to book Chappelle if they don’t want to - and they’re free to lose all of that revenue to a competitor. That’s a major opportunity cost. If they choose that path out of wokeness, by swallowing the narrative, then that’s on them. There is only downside to signing Kaepernick. He stinks. That’s not cancel culture.

But we agree on your definition of cancel culture.

Instead of Kap, substitute Dixie Chicks who were reasonably popular before their free speech cost them fans. If we agree that they canceled even though many of the people who decry cancel culture supported stations not playing their music, we are pretty much in line.