I actually have three very specific questions:


1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?

2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?

3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?

I really want to parse this out because these terms get thrown around so much so we should probably all know what we are each really talking about here.

d

Legal action : R Kelly, Cosby, Kevin Spacey.


Louis CK has had his shows removed from platforms so he's probably losing money from that and he had his movie that was getting ready to premier got cancelled

Behind the scenes we don't necessarily know what if any possible deals people lost out on as a result of bad press.

>Legal action : R Kelly, Cosby, Kevin Spacey.
>
that's why we need to first define "cancel culture"...its a pretty big catchall.

>Louis CK has had his shows removed from platforms so he's
>probably losing money from that and he had his movie that was
>getting ready to premier got cancelled

again, is this because of "cancel culture" or because he used his position of power to cause harm to others?

>Behind the scenes we don't necessarily know what if any
>possible deals people lost out on as a result of bad press.

so then we're saying cancel culture is bad press?


d

People getting their material removed from media platforms.

I don't know if any of these people have had their live shows protested or anything (although Louis CK did have at least one lady show up to his show and dare him to start masturbating. But Hecklers have always been a part of comedy)

You can slow down somebody's momentum but If they're good enough at what they do/have a loyal enough fanbase it's really hard to TOTALLY stop somebody from having a career in comedy/music.

I guess LITERALLY canceling somebody would be to go out and MURDER them

>>Behind the scenes we don't necessarily know what if any
>>possible deals people lost out on as a result of bad press.
>
>so then we're saying cancel culture is bad press?
>
>
>d
>

>People getting their material removed from media platforms.

like who?


>
>I don't know if any of these people have had their live shows
>protested or anything (although Louis CK did have at least one
>lady show up to his show and dare him to start masturbating.
>But Hecklers have always been a part of comedy)

yeah that's pretty minor.


>You can slow down somebody's momentum but If they're good
>enough at what they do/have a loyal enough fanbase it's really
>hard to TOTALLY stop somebody from having a career in
>comedy/music.

exactly. cuz generally, no one is ENTITLED to a certain level of success in a popularity contest (which is ultimately what alot of the entertainment business is). you're hot one minute and not the next. what you do or say, as a person, affects that (or not), and it always has.


>I guess LITERALLY canceling somebody would be to go out and
>MURDER them

exactly.


>>>Behind the scenes we don't necessarily know what if any
>>>possible deals people lost out on as a result of bad press.

exactly. we don't know.

so I think you've proven that "cancel culture" is a fantasy that has no real power or teeth.

d

>>Legal action : R Kelly, Cosby, Kevin Spacey.
>>
>that's why we need to first define "cancel culture"...its a
>pretty big catchall.
>
>>Louis CK has had his shows removed from platforms so he's
>>probably losing money from that and he had his movie that
>was
>>getting ready to premier got cancelled
>
>again, is this because of "cancel culture" or because he used
>his position of power to cause harm to others?
>
>>Behind the scenes we don't necessarily know what if any
>>possible deals people lost out on as a result of bad press.
>
>so then we're saying cancel culture is bad press?
>
>
>d
>

"__________ is cancelled" after their misdeeds came to light


I don't really use Twitter, I don't know if people are still hashtagging that

Not saying the people named DON'T deserve to face negative consequences if there's credible claims against them

He hasn't done shit SINCE that weird self produced short he made right after shit fell apart

I would have at least thought he could get work in some type of low budget movies

on a primetime network TV show.

https://ew.com/tv/2018/01/04/family-guy-producers-kevin-spacey-joke/

and his train didn't stop until it got legally sticky for him. if that's cancel culture, shit it hasn't gone far enough

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I mean, it kinda happens in the case of legal issues - Cosby, etc. But even still, I watch The Cosby Show on Amazon cause it's still dope as hell.

But it's shooting daggers at a public person for awhile until the next person takes their place, I guess.

ENTIRELY possible folks have lost out on money and opportunities. I have conversations all the time about, "Well, can we work with *insert name here*? They're....wildly problematic." but that's as far as that goes. And it fades.

People get mad and that's nothing new, but the widespread outrage dies as fast as it happens.

that's a part of being a public figure. nothing new at all about that

d

it is only a point when it comes to Black folks specifically Black men.

Bill Cosby to be specific.

No one is banning Weinstein movies

No one is banning Woody Allen movies

No one is banning Spacey movies

Its a twitter trend that is over blown

now this post can end.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

meatwad

oh and fuck Bill Cosby

d

what a leap in logic you have there

Either way what I said is FACTS.

cheers to you tho.

*tips hat*

d

IT seems like everyone is looking for something to get outraged over. I feel like we know what the big things are that should not be tolerated, but a comic making jokes, people need to calm down, a comic being a sexual creep, yes let him serve out his punishment.

There is no forgiving and moving on, its remembering every little offense and never telling it go.

Everyone is talking at each other. There are people who exploit and are good at feeding the outrage. So instead of having a conversation it turns to a shouting match.

I don't really participate in social media so I miss out on all the twitter outrage and I prefer that.

but you just assume they exist

and are bad

and you're offended by your imagination.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Because I don't participate, doesn't mean I don't hear about it.

As I allude to in my 1st post, I feel that certain offenses get blow out of proportion and instead of it helping to teach and learn from, it becomes a rallying cry to take away everything.

Again, I think not all offenses are created equal.

and you got outraged by that.

and you cancelled something you imagined.

you are cancel culture.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Because I don't participate, doesn't mean I don't hear about
>it.

Have you ever thought that what you've heard about it might not be true?

>As I allude to in my 1st post, I feel that certain offenses
>get blow out of proportion and instead of it helping to teach
>and learn from, it becomes a rallying cry to take away
>everything.

can you be more specific? what exactly are you referring to? this is very vague.

>Again, I think not all offenses are created equal.

okayyyyy meaning what?

d

>IT seems like everyone is looking for something to get
>outraged over. I feel like we know what the big things are
>that should not be tolerated,

really? so what are those big things?

but a comic making jokes, people
>need to calm down, a comic being a sexual creep, yes let him
>serve out his punishment.
>
>There is no forgiving and moving on, its remembering every
>little offense and never telling it go.

and who is doing this? and how has it harmed who exactly?

>Everyone is talking at each other. There are people who
>exploit and are good at feeding the outrage. So instead of
>having a conversation it turns to a shouting match.
>
>I don't really participate in social media so I miss out on
>all the twitter outrage and I prefer that.

so then how do you know about it?

d

which is enforced as "mainstream" mentality via media, art, music, movies, socialization, education, health, science, war, psychology etc.

Anything outside of that is politically incorrect.

They're even madder than you are about the big bad PC people.

or have you assumed that to fit your narrative around me?

d

1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?
It doesn't *really* exist.
They're both white liberal, performative pearl-clutching. Such as they do exist, they only exist to silence, pathologize & punish working class Black people in general, and Black men, in particular. And occasionaly to quietly dump inconvenient white people.

2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?
Materially? Working class Black people, but especially Black men.

3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?
Like every other form of American Liberalism, discussions about policy and how material reality shapes lives is replaced by performative morality. So instead of discussing policies to alleviate poverty, or policies that push for a familial rights to protect our communities, we find ourselves talking about celebrities and media, as if the lives of millionaires are analogous/influential to working poor Black people.

R Kelly becomes a stand in for the sex trafficking of Black girls, when his situation is miles from the norm of how our Black girls get into sex work.
The VAAAAST majority of Black men aren't pedos, but because Kells is a Black man, we all have to prove we ain't Kells to the Cancellers.

And then to show how good we are, we claim to "cancel" people who like his music, as if they themselves created the conditions that made it possible for Kellz to be foul as fuck.

But we got no heat for label heads, radio programmers, Disney, or any of the white power structure that paid for and profitted from & promoted dudes work.
And we don't even *look at* the real causes of sex trafficking and abuse in our communities.

It's bullshit

>1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?
>It doesn't *really* exist.
>They're both white liberal, performative pearl-clutching. Such
>as they do exist, they only exist to silence, pathologize &
>punish working class Black people in general, and Black men,
>in particular. And occasionaly to quietly dump inconvenient
>white people.

I'm genuinely confused at how it doesn't really exist but does, at the same time.

>2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?
>Materially? Working class Black people, but especially Black
>men.

>3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?
>Like every other form of American Liberalism, discussions
>about policy and how material reality shapes lives is replaced
>by performative morality. So instead of discussing policies to
>alleviate poverty, or policies that push for a familial rights
>to protect our communities, we find ourselves talking about
>celebrities and media, as if the lives of millionaires are
>analogous/influential to working poor Black people.

All of that is the mechanisms of White Supremacy, which is woven into the fabric of this country and everything its about. I don't see how you can attribute any of that to a phantom concept called "cancel culture" that Black men and white men alike complain loudly about.

What you're missing in all of that is how patriarchy comes into play, and the harm that does to women, whiich is a blindspot of most American men...so I'm not surprised. It seems easy for you to see how things affect you, but not how shit affects us.


>R Kelly becomes a stand in for the sex trafficking of Black
>girls, when his situation is miles from the norm of how our
>Black girls get into sex work.

ah and here it is.

to be clear, he is a RAPIST, CHILD MOLESTING SEX TRAFFICER. period. waxing poetic on what he symbolizes gives the appearance that that is far more important than the extreme traumatizing harm he has done to those girls for DECADES.

He is the worst person to hang your "look how Black men are treated" hat. Sorry. nope. That's an epic logical fail right there.

>The VAAAAST majority of Black men aren't pedos, but because
>Kells is a Black man, we all have to prove we ain't Kells to
>the Cancellers.
>
>And then to show how good we are, we claim to "cancel" people
>who like his music, as if they themselves created the
>conditions that made it possible for Kellz to be foul as
>fuck.


i hear this complaint alot and you gotta understand his crimes don't exist in a vacuum.

His music, and the income from it, the industry's protection of him, specifically enabled him to have the means to do the things he did. So sorry, yes streaming his music or providing him any reason to receive royalties etc can be argued to be enabling him.

Whether you agree or not, you can say that isn't a valid argument.


>But we got no heat for label heads, radio programmers, Disney,
>or any of the white power structure that paid for and
>profitted from & promoted dudes work.

I have seen lots of heat in the that direction.


>And we don't even *look at* the real causes of sex trafficking
>and abuse in our communities.

who is we cuz women have been SCREAMING about this from the rooftops.

quite honestly, the people that don't want to examine the root causes of abuse in the Black community is BLACK MEN. Because it would cause y'all to have to examine your own attitudes towards girls and women.



>It's bullshit

I agree.

d

no diss, but re-read my reply.
You just made up a bunch of strawmen arguments, threw out the words "patriarchy" and "misogyny", threw in a dash of "BLACK MEN ARE TERRIBLE" and peaced out like Sexual Chocolates, lol
It's Friday, I'm gonna go drink with real human beings, so I ain't getting into all this...BUT

The saying "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail" is hella relevant, lol

"BLACK
>MEN ARE TERRIBLE" and peaced out like Sexual Chocolates, lol
>It's Friday, I'm gonna go drink with real human beings, so I
>ain't getting into all this...BUT

the fact that you read what I wrote and interpreted that as BLACK MEN ARE TERRIBLE says alot about your inability to do any kind of introspection about how black women are treated and viewed by black men. very on-brand for this website too.

noted.

d

that hammer ain't working.

get over yourself

the fuck i care what is or isn't working

i said what I said. and?

d

and incapable of having a discussion that doesn't devolve into buzzwords about this issue?
And as a result you miss a ton of nuance that actually will help people/facilitate understanding?
Quoting sassy reality TV people doesn't really do anything.

Plain and simple.

It's all about control.


The concept of "Cancelling" someone seems frighteningly-close to a concept straight out of 1984: an un-person https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unperson

...that exploit the everyday citizen. The people that write letters, make phone calls, stage boycotts and protests, send emails/texts/etc.


The answer #3 (who loses): Almost everyone.

>...that exploit the everyday citizen. The people that write
>letters, make phone calls, stage boycotts and protests, send
>emails/texts/etc.

that answer is confusing and devoid of any context.

So you're saying the citizens that are exploited are writing letters, protesting and etc? Is it because they are being exploited? and if so, how is it bad that they are protesting/boycotting to end their own exploitation?

>The answer #3 (who loses): Almost everyone.

how?

and they’re right 100%.

You disagree and you’re the enemy shit is lame.

asking someone to explain their opionion detail isn't playing dumb.

I'm interested in how folks think and approach this issue and yes, challenging them to explain is what a conversation is.

if that upsets you, then so sorry to hurt your brain LOL

d

>I actually have three very specific questions:
>
>
>1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?

A culture that seeks to eliminate hypocritical distinctions held by privileged members of popular culture. The main adherents to PC Culture or Cancel Culture promote equity, egalitarianism, and behaviors that align with holding privileged members of racial, gender, and economic groups accountable for moral and ethical transgressions.

>2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?

PC Culture has kept many bigots from being able to spew their bigoted ideas on race, gender, and class on mainstream media platforms. White supremacists that have redefined themselves as "conservatives" feel like their right to free speech/press is inhibited, so do religious zealots who feel like their right to religious freedom is harmed, neo-confederates feel like their right to have a redress of grievances by the government is harmed because the union won. Misogynists feel harmed by women, namely feminists, being able to say whatever they want, when they want, on massive platforms. It's really all about the first amendment.

>
>3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?

Conservatives lost a great deal of political power by not being able to propagandize the voting populace with outright bigoted views on mass media platforms. They lost the ability to discriminate against people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, creed, and nationality in housing, employment, education, and commerce.


>I really want to parse this out because these terms get thrown
>around so much so we should probably all know what we are each
>really talking about here.
>
>d


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

>>I actually have three very specific questions:
>>
>>
>>1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?
>
>A culture that seeks to eliminate hypocritical distinctions
>held by privileged members of popular culture. The main
>adherents to PC Culture or Cancel Culture promote equity,
>egalitarianism, and behaviors that align with holding
>privileged members of racial, gender, and economic groups
>accountable for moral and ethical transgressions.

I can't even tell you how many times I've read this over. Well said.

>>2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?
>
>PC Culture has kept many bigots from being able to spew their
>bigoted ideas on race, gender, and class on mainstream media
>platforms. White supremacists that have redefined themselves
>as "conservatives" feel like their right to free speech/press
>is inhibited, so do religious zealots who feel like their
>right to religious freedom is harmed, neo-confederates feel
>like their right to have a redress of grievances by the
>government is harmed because the union won. Misogynists feel
>harmed by women, namely feminists, being able to say whatever
>they want, when they want, on massive platforms. It's really
>all about the first amendment.

yes yes and yes.

>>3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?
>
>Conservatives lost a great deal of political power by not
>being able to propagandize the voting populace with outright
>bigoted views on mass media platforms. They lost the ability
>to discriminate against people on the basis of race, gender,
>sexual orientation, religion, creed, and nationality in
>housing, employment, education, and commerce.

thank you, again, for taking the time.

d

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Using words and common sense on a regular basis.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

the "culture" is a handful of performative, Folgers can sniffing "woke" white liberals and their exceptional black friends on social media.

when the "PC" argument happens with people/things in the public sphere, it's mostly CORPORATE actions brought about by bad PR fostered by the above.

"cancel culture" is a catch-all term for people who call out others for things that are "bad". that much is real. people don't always get "cancelled", but the "call outs" are often geared toward that goal more than they are educating the "offenders" about the behavior, hence it being called such.

it's sometimes a strawman, because the call outs don't always come.

now, on the other side of the fence:

the "culture" that often complains of "cancel culture" or "SJWs" or some other placeholder, are reacting to something being censored, something being criticized, or the like... the actual cancelling/censoring they're complaining about is not coming from those calling out, but from the corporate entities that hold domain over the "called out". and that's where I think their ire should be directed.

>I actually have three very specific questions:
>
>
>1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?
It's something where if someone said/done anything incendiary in the past they should be "banished" from society.
>
>2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?
Most people deserve it because they either harmed/terrorized other people, have not shown any contrition for what they've said/done, or have tried to sweep things under the rug.
But you have cases like Aziz Ansari, who got railroaded over a bad date.
>
>3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?
Some monetary. Sarah Silverman lost a job recently, and others take a massive hit to their reputation.
>
>I really want to parse this out because these terms get thrown
>around so much so we should probably all know what we are each
>really talking about here.
My thing is don't say/do stupid shit and you have nothing to worry about. However stupid is relative
>d

https://gfycat.com/HeavyWellgroomedChinchilla

https://images.app.goo.gl/DiidT3QunfRzTMrY6

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

....

More twitter shit tho like "performative wokeness" "virtue signalling" and other annoying ass terms


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

lotta people trying to show what a good person they are by being woker than though assholes

i'm hesitant to call it cancel culture because people will throw out the "well X still has a career, so who got cancelled?" defense. but it ain't always from lack of trying.

and yeah lots of folks whine about PCness to a point where they're just demonstrating the very victimhood they're bitching about, but that also doesn't mean PC just is some made up boogeyman either.

from your point of view..

what exactly is "PCness"? etc

d

good luck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

my post was specific.

i found you reply whiny so I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself lol

*kanyeshrug*

More than likely created in a think tank somewhere.

It's such a good use of negative messaging that NOBODY has a positive view of the term and EVERYONE regardless of their social-political position is able to come up with a definition of how it's hindering them in some way.

I read something recently about the right wings pivot from the cold war to PC Culture.

It's one of those words like "Pro Abortion" or "Racism" that no one will copt to being for.


I find Political Correctness to be a mild annoyance rather than, as people like Newt Gingrinch, Trump or even David Brooks, consider a big problem in this country.

I had a homegirl who works at a young company who was chewed out because she used the term "guys" in a meeting to refer to the mixed group. Anyone who insists on correcting a person for using the term "guy" is as annoying as the person who wants to correct how I pronounce Gyyro.





>More than likely created in a think tank somewhere.
>
>It's such a good use of negative messaging that NOBODY has a
>positive view of the term and EVERYONE regardless of their
>social-political position is able to come up with a definition
>of how it's hindering them in some way.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

they interpret 'happy holidays' as not being inclusive, but aggressively anti-christian

a few years ago they were insisting we call billionaires job creators instead because billionaire was offensive and mean

they automatically interpreted black lives matter as only black lives matter

they automatically interpreted Kaep kneeling as i hate america, no matter how many times his intent was explained.

they know these things aren't meant as offensive but pretend to be offended anyway.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

at least 95% of it is

leave aside that anthem kneeling isn't even disruptive, people don't want to admit they just don't like it, and they should know their place, so they pretend that an atnthem kneeler is an attacker who is aggressively disrespecting america and the troops. It makes people feel better about themselves for not giving a shit about whatever they're trying to draw attention to. it makes them the good guy

people know happy holidays isn't something born out of malice. i want everyone to say merry christmas so i'm gonna pretend happy holidays is an attack on my beliefs

But I get your point they aren't being outraged about the thing they say they are being outraged about.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

whole "Contract With America" in the 1990s was outrage over...


...a Democratic President trying to enact universal healthcare

it's a trip how they've managed to make this look like its something exclusive to the left

when talking to a group of transgender women going to lobby congress for the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Nobody chewed me out.

Also, this is why the "cancel Culture" discussion is really about "safe spaces" "trigger warnings" "harm" and other terms that are meant to identify when a speaker or actor has a malicious intent in their description of differences. Not everyone has a malicious intent and many people carry their prejudices into environments where they may not even be aware of how their language is disrespectful. The problem is that there are so many large groups of people that are socialized in "toxic" environments and there are so many identities that are gaining a platform for expression, that the interaction of cultures on social media is confusing for some people of privilege to understand their place when navigating in oppressed cultures. That viral video of Ta-nehisi Coates explaining why white people saying the word "nigga" is wrong comes to mind.

That's the difference between a resident of West Baltimore saying "west baltimore is rat infested" and Donald Trump saying "west baltimore is rat infested." One of us has an ulterior motive that is malicious in intent, generally to deflect from taking responsibility. If I was to be saying the same thing, there would be issues of class that may cause offense because city dwellers are on guard against bougie people from the county who have alienated them and segregated them economically into these rat infested ghettoes.


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

I hate those people.

and you're still using it as an example.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I just don't feel like dealing with the responses that'll come. Suffice it to say, I think "Cancel Culture" isn't really a thing. Too many of the Cancelled still work plenty for that to be real.

Also Frank: I don't believe Cancel Culture is a thing.

4 the lulz.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

but it's not so much about cancels being permanent or devestating...of course the powerful can navigate around it...regular people get cancelled every day though

it may even "feel" warranted more often than not

it's about just how easy it is to weaponize outrage though

it's like a lot of social issues that i differ from popular progressive theory over...

it's ineffectiveness shouldn't be a reason to debate it's existence or squabble over the semantics of it...it should be an argument for why it's not worth it since if anything...it rarely does what it intends to do for long enough to matter and it's often yet another vehicle for groupthink

and how you explained your fury over something that you admit you can't prove exists, has no impact on anyone and isn't a thing.

thank you friend.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and why reply if you arent going to disupte it nor offer quality snark?

performative fuckboi

"regular people get cancelled every day though"

what regular person got cancelled yesterday?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

We just don't hear or really care about it since we don't know them

#2 - uh, getting fired for fucking up is usually the reason people get fired.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I assume the culture didn't take the fall off, did they? whoever they are?


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Bridge Liquors in New Port. Rhodes Island?

I heard he got fired last month for making suggestive comments to one of his female co-workers


Matter of fact, with the prevalence of Social Media and Cameras everywhere, regular people get public scorn/fired/shamed pretty regularly

https://www.themuse.com/advice/yes-you-can-get-fired-for-your-social-media-posts-9-times-people-learned-this-lesson-the-hard-way

show me these callouts.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Cosby and R kelly are not adequate examples of Cancel Culture. Those two are actual criminals who are now being ostracized by society, like most criminals who break the law, regardless of their fame.

Cancel Culture is an unreasonable movement, where people cancel, degrade, shun, or blacklist individuals because those individuals exhibit beliefs, feelings, statements, actions or ideas that are different or opposite of the movement ( or opposite of their beliefs). Usually, these people react off of allegations, speculation, and gossip when it comes to passing judgement. They don't research or ascertain information before they past judgment.

They feel that their ideas or beliefs are greater and more important than one's freedom of speech or freedom of choice. If the choice or action does not correlate or fall in line with the masses of Cancel Culture, then it is deemed not proper or incorrect.

It's a movement that originated from the internet and social media.

Example of cancel culture goes all the way back to beginning of social
media, 2004 ( facebook came about), with the Janet Jackson nipple controversy. Janet Jackson flashed a breast during her superbowl dance routine. Even though the areola was covered, social media was outraged with her actions, and she has been blacklisted ever since. She was the biggest entertainer in the world at the time, and the queen of pop. Everything she accomplished and built as one of the greatest song/dance acts of all time was all destroyed in one night.


That was the beginning of Cancel Culture/PC

Ironically, Michael's legacy has found a way to survive no matter how much they try to tear it down. They were trying to get radio stations to cancel the play of his music, but it never came to fruition. Mike's worldwide fan base, love and appreciation are just too strong...especially with Asians and Middle Easterns.

Also, accusing past artist of Color Appropriation is also a part of Cancel Culture/PC

Now, they are gunning for Elvis and accusing the man of Culture Appropriation, where all he did was praise black entertainers, perform with black entertainers, and stated that his music didn't come from him, but from black blues artist in the Delta. And all the great black entertainers respected him : James Brown, Little Richard, hell black Civil Rights leader Julian Bond used his song as a theme song.

I'm so glad that white soulful artists like Bobby Caldwell, Michael Mcdonald, Bob James, ad Jamiroqui are not of this era. They would be gunning for them too. Can you imagine the flack that Wild Cherry and Average White Band would have gotten in this day and age as a white soul band?

the news media was blowing it up. no one knew what facebook was

>Example of cancel culture goes all the way back to beginning
>of social
>media, 2004 ( facebook came about), with the Janet Jackson
>nipple controversy. Janet Jackson flashed a breast during her
>superbowl dance routine. Even though the areola was covered,
>social media was outraged with her actions, and she has been
>blacklisted ever since. She was the biggest entertainer in the
>world at the time, and the queen of pop. Everything she
>accomplished and built as one of the greatest song/dance acts
>of all time was all destroyed in one night.

“There is this sense sometimes of ‘the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough,’” he said, then offered an example:

Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb. Then, I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was? I called you out.’ I’m gonna get on TV. Watch my show. Watch ‘Grown-ish.’ You know, that’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/30/barack-obama-tells-woke-youth-get-over-quickly/4095362002/

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1189555651531476994?s=19

who or what he's talking about right there, wish he was more specific. sounding
like a cryptic scammer.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

whatever you think about the existence or merits of an actual 'cancel culture' (i personally think its overblown)...even liberals, black people, etc are getting annoyed by the 'purity left'.

'woke' has legitimately become a pejorative on both sides of the aisle now.

but the standards being imposed by many on the left are only hurting many on the left. its become a circular firing squad.

at least when the right created/utilized the 'outrage machine'...they knew to only point it at the opposition.

>at least when the right created/utilized the 'outrage
>machine'...they knew to only point it at the opposition.

because I have a bunch of people they need to get rid of

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I had to consider it in isolation, and ignore the messenger, and I do agree with what he's saying.

even the people favored by the ACTUAL left have issues.
social media callouts aren't "activism"

and really, a lot of the behavior of which he speaks seems to be more of a "liberal (centrist)" issue than it does the working-class-aligned left.

but since it was Obama, and this IS fair:

it can be seen as someone from the centrist/liberal lot trying to redirect the pitchforks, given his actual record as President.

that's been the tone of much of the reaction to what he's said.
Because it was Obama.

If it were you or I saying it it would be interpreted differently, with the same exact words.

such a craven, smug, asshole move

they have no allies.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The point is to sell outrage, not to make change. Right wing talk radio can't make money having a new angle on their enemy every 24 hrs.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Too many people are laying in the cut to create controversy.

Divisive purity politics: criticizing rich people on the internet.

barack knows what is happening and is failing to speak to it, as usual. He knows that the two party system is fracturing and the center is not holding. He knows that the weight of wealth inequality is weighing upon the most informed, active, and civically engaged generation in 40 years. He knows that American imperialism and militarism is crumbling under the weight of its own failures and hypocrisy and is now rearing its ugly head against the citizens that has opposed it the most here in America.

He knows these things and is attempting to impose some sense of order on them as opposed to showing leadership to use his platform and his power to direct change on their behalf. He had the power to direct change and instead stated that he himself was the change.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

>barack knows what is happening and is failing to speak to it,
>as usual. He knows that the two party system is fracturing
>and the center is not holding. He knows that the weight of
>wealth inequality is weighing upon the most informed, active,
>and civically engaged generation in 40 years. He knows that
>American imperialism and militarism is crumbling under the
>weight of its own failures and hypocrisy and is now rearing
>its ugly head against the citizens that has opposed it the
>most here in America.
>
>He knows these things and is attempting to impose some sense
>of order on them as opposed to showing leadership to use his
>platform and his power to direct change on their behalf. He
>had the power to direct change and instead stated that he
>himself was the change.
>
>America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan
>than it has exported democracy.

because he's always been in the "Should Know Better" seat when it comes to this kind of thing.

>He had the power to direct change and instead stated that he
>himself was the change.

That means he never lied to us about who he is, right? A liberal technocrat unwilling to risk putting political power in the hands of the actual people who are vulnerable to political change.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

Activism seeks to actually create and implement solutions to the world's problems. So much of our discourse today is not about problem-solving or coalition building, but pointing the finger, blaming, and chastising "the other" in order to prop up "us."

This approach has fused so much more toxicity into our body politic. I'm with Obama on this one.

-->

can't wait to see it!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

For all the fake news and vapid shit some people post, it at least can serve as a communication tool for fam/friends

Twitter can def be entertaining, but it's more and more a cesspool of call-outs/dogpiles/mob mentality, that encourages being shitty to each other. Where people feel justified in saying shit they'd never say to another human being's face because they're on the right 'side'

fuckin' woke comment section

>Activism seeks to actually create and implement solutions to
>the world's problems. So much of our discourse today is not
>about problem-solving or coalition building, but pointing the
>finger, blaming, and chastising "the other" in order to prop
>up "us."
>
>This approach has fused so much more toxicity into our body
>politic. I'm with Obama on this one.
>
>-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html


A few weeks ago, Neelam, a high school senior, was sitting in class at her Catholic school in Chicago. After her teacher left the room, a classmate began playing “Bump N’ Grind,” an R. Kelly song.

Neelam, 17, had recently watched the documentary series “Surviving R. Kelly” with her mother. She said it had been “emotional to take in as a black woman.”

Neelam asked the boy and his cluster of friends to stop playing the track, but he shrugged off the request. “‘It’s just a song,’” she said he replied. “‘We understand he’s in jail and known for being a pedophile, but I still like his music.’”

She was appalled. They were in a class about social justice. They had spent the afternoon talking about Catholicism, the common good and morality. The song continued to play.

That classmate, who is white, had done things in the past that Neelam described as problematic, like casually using racist slurs — not name-calling — among friends. After class, she decided he was “canceled,” at least to her.

Her decision didn’t stay private; she told a friend that week that she had canceled him. She told her mother too. She said that this meant she would avoid speaking or engaging with him in the future, that she didn’t care to hear what he had to say, because he wouldn’t change his mind and was beyond reason.

“When it comes to cancel culture, it’s a way to take away someone’s power and call out the individual for being problematic in a situation,” Neelam said. “I don’t think it’s being sensitive. I think it’s just having a sense of being observant and aware of what’s going on around you.”

The term “canceled” “sort of spawned from YouTube,” said Ben, a high school junior in Providence, R.I. (Because of their age and the situations involved, The New York Times has granted partial anonymity to some people. We have confirmed details with parents or schoolmates.)

He talked about the YouTuber James Charles, who was canceled by the platform’s beauty community in May after some drama with his mentor, Tati Westbrook, also a YouTuber, and a vitamin entrepreneur. That was a big cancellation, widely covered, that helped popularize the term. Teenagers often bring it up.

Ben, 17, said that people should be held accountable for their actions, whether they’re famous or not, but that canceling someone “takes away the option for them to learn from their mistakes and kind of alienates them.”

His school doesn’t have much bullying, he said, and the word carries a gentler meaning in its hallways, used in passing to tease friends. Often, the joke extends beyond people. One week, after students were debating the safety of e-cigarettes and vaping, some declared that Juul was canceled.


3.

It took some time for L to understand that she had been canceled. She was 15 and had just returned to a school she used to attend. “All the friends I had previously had through middle school completely cut me off,” she said. “Ignored me, blocked me on everything, would not look at me.”

Months went by. Toward the end of sophomore year, she reached out over Instagram to a former friend, asking why people were not talking to her. It was lunchtime; the person she asked was sitting in the cafeteria with lots of people and so they all piled on. It was like an avalanche, L said.

Within a few minutes she got a torrent of direct messages from the former friend on Instagram, relaying what they had said. One said she was a mooch. One said she was annoying and petty. One person said that she had ruined her self-esteem. Another said that L was an emotional leech who was thirsty for validation.

“This put me in a situation where I thought I had done all these things,” L said. “I was bad. I deserved what was happening.”

Two years have passed since then. “You can do something stupid when you’re 15, say one thing and 10 years later that shapes how people perceive you,” she said. “We all do cringey things and make dumb mistakes and whatever. But social media’s existence has brought that into a place where people can take something you did back then and make it who you are now.”

In her junior year, L said, things got better. Still, that rush of messages and that social isolation have left a lasting impact. “I’m very prone to questioning everything I do,” she said. “‘Is this annoying someone?’ ‘Is this upsetting someone?’”

“I have issues with trusting perfectly normal things,” she said. “That sense of me being some sort of monster, terrible person, burden to everyone, has stayed with me to some extent. There’s still this sort of lingering sense of: What if I am?”
4.

Alex is 17, and she hears the word “canceled” every day at her high school outside Atlanta. It can be a joke, but it can also suggest that an offending person won’t be tolerated again. Alex thinks of it as a permanent label. “Now they’ll forever be thought of as that action, not for the person they are,” she said.

“It’s not like you’ll sit away from them at lunch or something,” she said. “It’s just a lingering thought in the back of your mind, a negative connotation.”

During a mock trial practice a couple of weeks before a big competition, the song “Act Up” by City Girls was playing. One of Alex’s teammates, who is of Indian descent, rapped along with the lyrics, which include a racist slur.

The students, who until that point had been chatty because their teacher wasn’t in the room, went silent. “I was the only black person in the room,” Alex said.

Alex and another friend on the team explained to their teammate why he shouldn’t have used that word. “We’re a team, so we can’t have tension exist there,” she said.

He said he understood why they were uncomfortable but that it wouldn’t necessarily prevent him from using it again when singing along. He wouldn’t take it back.

“You’re canceled, sis,” her friend told the teammate. It was partially to lighten the mood, but also partly serious.

“It’s a joke, but still, we understand you have that opinion now and we’re not going to get closer,” Alex said.

Despite his initial tough stance, the teammate didn’t rap the word again, and Alex said that he had remained respectful during practice. The team took ninth and 11th place at the competition.
5.

It was orientation day for freshmen at Sarah Lawrence College, where one new student was unnerved by a social justice group’s presentation. The presenters discussed pronoun use and called on the entering freshmen to “‘battle heteronormativity and cisgender language,’” the student said.

Even if you accidentally misgendered someone, the new students were told, you needed to be either called out or called in. (“Called in” means to be gently led to understand your error; call-outs are more aggressive.) The presenters emphasized that the impact on the person who was misgendered was what mattered, regardless of the intent of the person who had misgendered them.

The freshman thought back to a time when her father had misgendered a friend of hers. Her father had asked her to apologize on his behalf. She did. “‘I only get mad when people intentionally try to misgender me because they feel like they have to correct who I am,’” she recalled her friend saying.

Sarah Lawrence has fewer than 1,500 undergraduates. One upperclassman she became friends with said that she had been canceled in her own freshman year.

But, this upperclassman said, the politics enforced through cancellation don’t always fit neatly into the social dynamics of college.

“I think where it loses me, we’re taking these systems that are applying huge abstract ideas of identity’s role and we’re shrinking it into these interpersonal, one-on-one, liberal arts things,” the upperclassman said.

Among the upperclassman’s friend group now, the idea of cancellation is “basically a joke.” Too many people had been canceled. At a recent party the upperclassman had attended, one guy said, “‘If you haven’t been canceled, you’re canceled.’”
6.

One night during Mike’s freshman year at a New York state college, he and a group of friends were headed to a party downtown. As they were waiting for their Uber, someone cracked a political joke, and then the casual conversation turned confrontational. One of Mike’s friends asked his roommate, D, if he was a Trump supporter.

D had a history of making the group uncomfortable. Mike and their mutual friend Phoebe said that he would make sexist, homophobic and racist remarks in past hangouts.

D said he did support the president — an anomaly in their liberal friend group — and “blew up” at the friend who asked the question. When the friend tried to change the subject, he became more upset. Mike stepped between the two to defuse the situation. “He got in my friend’s face, and that was the last straw,” Mike said.

He tried to cool D down; it didn’t work. D called Mike a homophobic slur, multiple times. The group split up. Mike didn’t return to his dorm that night, staying at a friend’s place instead.

“Even before this, we could tell, if I weren’t roommates with him, we wouldn’t have been friends,” Mike said. “So that was the breaking point for me, him saying that when I was sticking up for him.”

D left an apology note on Mike’s desk, which mostly tried to “justify his actions,” Mike said. “That set in my mind that he didn’t really feel bad about what he did,” he said. “He just felt bad for himself, that he would be looked at in a different light.”

A couple of days later, Phoebe, Mike and D sat down and D repeated the apology. Phoebe and Mike heard him out but said it didn’t clear him of wrongdoing and that he would have to demonstrate that he was different now. Both said that while D appeared sad about losing his friends, tearing up during their discussion, he didn’t show remorse.

Other friends didn’t accept the apology. “We wouldn’t tolerate it anymore, we cut him out of our lives,” Phoebe said.

Thus canceled, D moved from sadness to frustration and anger, Phoebe said. He grew “very bitter,” she said. She noticed that he had unfollowed and blocked the group on Snapchat and other social media a few weeks later.

“He did feel bullied by this whole canceled idea,” she said. “But in this case, no one felt bad doing it, because he didn’t really take responsibility for a lot of the things he said.”

Mike, though, still lives with D. He had signed on to live with him before the ordeal. They don’t speak. D has stopped acknowledging Mike and most everyone from their old group. “I’m definitely not living with him next year,” Mike said.

Phoebe managed to keep things civil. “Every time we see him, I still say hi,” she said. Sometimes, but not always, he nods or says hi back.

I mean, a lot of it sounds like goofy kid shit I'd never relate to no matter what, but I'm glad I grew up without the internet and social media

as a concept to explain why certain social media is so terrible.

It took me a long time on my own to figure out that there are certain people I just should have certain discussions with, because we don't share enough in common whether its experience or knowledge base.

It flies in the face of what's supposed to be so great about the internet, but it true. The more people from vastly different backgrounds join a conversation, the worst it gets.


https://warzel.substack.com/p/its-not-cancel-culture-its-a-platform



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You get a bunch of polarized Very Online people (who have spent tons of time silo'd in their own social media and youtube-enabled bubbles, imbibing fringe ideas, and who don't have good social skills or empathy) together with a trending topic to discuss the same phenomenon, but they all bring their own contexts and neuroses("context collapse" I'm reading to mean, the collapse of a common framework of understanding, which can be ideological but also social), but the author of the piece wants to blame the attraction of so many diverse views to one subject, in other words, the author is blaming not the siloing and personality disorders that lead to the context collapse, but the mass-media attraction that merely reveals it.

To me it's a bit like blaming lynchings on the existence of roads or cities.

Gotta admit I glazed over partway through the piece though, so maybe I missed some context myself lol....

"look at this dumb thing someone is saying, everyone get mad and yell at them".


Like its design to amplify the worst feature (and it is a feature and not a bug) of online social interactions.

The trending topic aspect of the story was less interesting to me than just the whole concept of context collapse. I feel like the trending topic feature has an easy fix, delete the tweet or limit who can see your tweet.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Def related.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/facebook-is-shiris-scissor

I am not sure its fiction. Black Mirror should do an episode.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I wish this idea of how social media promotes scissor issues to the top of our feeds (or “sorts the world by controversial”) was much more well known, it might help.

>I actually have three very specific questions:

Okay

>1. What is PC or Cancel Culture?

politically correct meaning to speak or behave in a manor that is inoffensive to others.

Cancel culture - dismissing and shaming anyone who doesn’t believe as you do or has betrayed the public’s trust.

>2. Who exactly has PC/Cancel culture actually harmed?

- look towards the anti defamation league

>3. What are the specific losses they have suffered?

- I’m not that vested in the lives of others

>I really want to parse this out because these terms get thrown
>around so much so we should probably all know what we are each
>really talking about here.

- Cancel Culture is rooted in Shame Culture in my opinion. Who are the main people saying Shame on You?

>d