Cancel culture

[G51]

The idea that JK Rowling, who is rich beyond her wildest dreams and has influence that nobody here could ever imagine, can be “cancelled” is fucking hilarious to be honest. 

What she’s feeling is people standing up to her for her views. Getting shredded online isn’t getting cancelled. Just log off and spend your vast fortune on something.

Cancel culture is when someone actually suffers as a result of holding or expressing views/opinions. A good example would be someone getting sacked for something they post on Twitter. Or someone downvoting one of my posts.

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 hours ago, Satoshi said:

 

What a terrible time it is to be a young person, 

 

It's better than being dead or old.

[BFTD]

8 hours ago, velo army said:

Fair enough. I read "I'm perfectly happy with them having to trek down to a shite comedy show to work out for themselves that they're having their time wasted." and took too much of a leap in interpretation.

I actually am not happy that the police go down to see for themselves, as that in itself can be intimidating. It represents the possibility of prosecution for saying the wrong thing or making the wrong joke. 

I understand that a lot of the times "cancel culture" is as you say, bullshit hype where people have done well out of it (see Robinson, Tommy and a host of similar grifters), but the presence of a whole host of folk who have merely been held to account and faced consequences doesn't mean that there isn't an increase in puritanical censoriousness and threats of livelihood being taken away for those who don't conform, or who voice opinions counter to what is accepted. Making it fairly normal for police to investigate jokes for being offensive is regressive. 

As Invergowrie Arab pointed out, Joe Lycett was investigated because somebody mentioned child pornography. I'm OK with the polis ending up down a few garden paths when an accusation like that has been thrown out and, if they were being honest, most of the people being investigated probably would be too, considering what happens when the bizzies routinely brush these things off.

Yer man Lycett's had a lovely publicity boost out of the story, will now have a slightly edgier image than bears scrutiny, and some coppers had to sit through one of his routines as punishment for anything bad they'd been up to that week. One of those rare stories where everyone does well, even the roaster who reported it in the first place, who gets to brag about doing something that made the papers.

[invergowrie arab]

13 hours ago, velo army said:

I think the Jimmy Carr gypsy joke resulted in a polis complaint or two. There have been others lately, but I can't for the life of me remember who. What I'm seeing a lot is a culture where people aren't encouraged to take responsibility for their feelings or to engage in introspection. Sometimes the intention behind comedy is to shine a light on hypocrisy and double standards, so it behoves us to have a word with ourselves about what this offended reaction is within us, where it comes from and what we can do going forward.

The Jimmy Carr joke absolutely should have been referred to the police.

I think there are a lot of comedians and celebrities out there who refuse to take any responsibility or ownership of their own words or the consequences of them and hide behind pissweak defences of what is essentially pandering to populism.

Next time a trans kid is getting the shit kicked out of them they should really explain Ricky Gervais is being ironic 

[welshbairn]

29 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

The Jimmy Carr joke absolutely should have been referred to the police.

I think there are a lot of comedians and celebrities out there who refuse to take any responsibility or ownership of their own words or the consequences of them and hide behind pissweak defences of what is essentially pandering to populism.

Next time a trans kid is getting the shit kicked out of them they should really explain Ricky Gervais is being ironic 

One of the worst things about the Jimmy Carr joke was that he just threw it in at the end of a really boring Roy Chubby Brown level set to get mugs like me to get his Netflix audience up. The lame excuse that it was to get people to think about the holocaust was pure bullshit, it was clickbait for ratings.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

5 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Lewis Hamilton trying to cancel old folk. "Why are we listening to older voices?"

I get that the three guys he is targeting (Jackie Stewart, Piquet and Ecclestone) have been outrageous but to then try to shut up all older people? 

One day, a 60 year old Hamilton might be the one being cancelled as he will be out of touch.

Hamilton is a whiny gimp. Cancelling F1 would be a huge net positive for humanity.

[coprolite]

I've seen people who are in favour of online "cancelling" sneer at "the marketplace of ideas" as a concept. 

I've also seen people who argue against "cancel culture" because they claim to be free speech advocates and support the marketplace of ideas. 

In my mind there is no difference between the two concepts. You spout opinions which are unpopular, you bear the cost. You spout popular opinions, you can benefit. That's a market mechanism. 

 

[carpetmonster]

45 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I've seen people who are in favour of online "cancelling" sneer at "the marketplace of ideas" as a concept. 

I've also seen people who argue against "cancel culture" because they claim to be free speech advocates and support the marketplace of ideas. 

In my mind there is no difference between the two concepts. You spout opinions which are unpopular, you bear the cost. You spout popular opinions, you can benefit. That's a market mechanism. 

 

Or to put it another way 

 

[DA Baracus]

Aye, 'cancelling' should be down to the consumer, i.e. folk can put their material out and if folk don't like it, for whatever reason, said material won't be popular/won't make much (or any) money or not get viewers (potentially leading to platforms not picking up future stuff from someone).

So pretty much how things are now really.

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I've seen people who are in favour of online "cancelling" sneer at "the marketplace of ideas" as a concept. 

I've also seen people who argue against "cancel culture" because they claim to be free speech advocates and support the marketplace of ideas. 

In my mind there is no difference between the two concepts. You spout opinions which are unpopular, you bear the cost. You spout popular opinions, you can benefit. That's a market mechanism. 

 

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, invergowrie arab said:

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

Of course there is. Contradiction and hypocrisy on both sides. 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

It seems like it would be much harder to be a kid now then when I was at school. 24/7 bullying, culture wars, social media, bleak future and if you live in the US some weirdo kid will inevitably come in with a machiney and shoot up the place.

 

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Of course there is. Contradiction and hypocrisy on both sides. 

 

What's the contradiction or hyprocisy in being in favour of a regulated market?

Your saying its hypocritical to be against a regulated market that banned chlorinated chicken because in a free market people would choose not to eat chlorinated chicken 

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

What's the contradiction or hyprocisy in being in favour of a regulated market?

Your saying its hypocritical to be against a regulated market that banned chlorinated chicken because in a free market people would choose not to eat chlorinated chicken 

It's not a question of whether there's regulation at all. It's a matter of degree. I think the current law and enforcement is round about right. 

That's because we've stopped prosecuting blasphemy and obscenity. 

That change is why we're now in a position where sexuality for example can be freely discussed. 

If people have homophobic or racist views it shouldn't be against the law for them to express those views. But people should absolutely feel free to shun them, sack them or call them all the c***s under the sun for expressing those views. 

I think the line we've drawn at banning incitement of violence, discrimination etc is about right. 

I don't trust a government to proscribe the sort of speech i'd like them to. Any restriction would open the door for further restriction on things like anti-patriotic or anti capitalist sentiment being expressed. 

I'm in favour of free speech and cancel culture and don't see them as opposing positions. 

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye, 'cancelling' should be down to the consumer, i.e. folk can put their material out and if folk don't like it, for whatever reason, said material won't be popular/won't make much (or any) money or not get viewers (potentially leading to platforms not picking up future stuff from someone).

So pretty much how things are now really.

The consumer doesn't actually have this power across most forms of media though, because mainstream content is published, distributed and placed at the front of an audience's attention by large, often multinational organisations prior to consumption. 

An actor for example can't just go on to Twitter and make a living - they need the co-operation of studios/writers/other performers to create a viable product. That gives the managerial class in creative industries like TV, film, the press etc. an enormous gatekeeping power to cancel bad apples (and rightly so) but also anyone else that doesn't fit the bill.

The internet has not actually democratised this process at all. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by vikingTON

[DA Baracus]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

The consumer doesn't actually have this power across most forms of media though, because mainstream content is published, distributed and placed at the front of an audience's attention by large, often multinational organisations prior to consumption. 

An actor for example can't just go on to Twitter and make a living - they need the co-operation of studios/writers/other performers to create a viable product. That gives the managerial class in creative industries like TV, film, the press etc. an enormous gatekeeping power to cancel bad apples (and rightly so) but also anyone else that doesn't fit the bill.

The internet has not actually democratised this process at all. 

Aye I see what you mean, but if, for example, loads of folk don't watch a Netflix show because some actor(s) said some shit then Netflix won't renew that series, or will write the character out. Like what happened with the show Kevin Spacey was in.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

 

While it's certainly true that a marketplace is inherently unequal and not in fact free at all (see above), that doesn't mean that ideas or opinions should be treated in the same way as defective or dangerous goods. 

We should set a much higher bar on regulating ideas and opinions because it is a fundamental part of human free will to create ideas and concepts - even moronic or obnoxious ideas and concepts - but is not a fundamental right to create a hopelessly unsafe car or phone charger that ends up electrocuting someone. Ideas are not a tangible product and so shouldn't be regulated with the equivalent of Trading Standards in every generation.

7 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

The Jimmy Carr joke absolutely should have been referred to the police.

I think there are a lot of comedians and celebrities out there who refuse to take any responsibility or ownership of their own words or the consequences of them and hide behind pissweak defences of what is essentially pandering to populism.

Next time a trans kid is getting the shit kicked out of them they should really explain Ricky Gervais is being ironic 

Well the comedian is far from the only one refusing to take responsibility in that analogy. On what basis does a Netflix show give someone a free pass to enact violence? 

The bar for inciting violence should be considered much, much higher than causing offence, because offence and violence are fundamentally different levels of response.

Edited July 1, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye I see what you mean, but if, for example, loads of folk don't watch a Netflix show because some actor(s) said some shit then Netflix won't renew that series, or will write the character out. Like what happened with the show Kevin Spacey was in.

But AFAIK the audience weren't given that choice, and Spacey was (understandably) written out of the show before the marketplace of ideas could possibly kick in. If the management class of producers view someone to be a significant risk to the project then you'll either be binned before the social media storm gets out of hand and/or will miss out on future opportunities.

There's an element of public pressure involved but it is the opposite of a 'media produces, consumers approve/reject' market dynamic. The managers are second guessing what they think the consumer wants them to do. 

[DA Baracus]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

But AFAIK the audience weren't given that choice, and Spacey was (understandably) written out of the show before the marketplace of ideas could possibly kick in. If the management class of producers view someone to be a significant risk to the project then you'll either be binned before the social media storm gets out of hand and/or will miss out on future opportunities.

There's an element of public pressure involved but it is the opposite of a 'media produces, consumers approve/reject' market dynamic. The managers are second guessing what they think the consumer wants them to do. 

I suppose it's more of a reactive or, more precisely, future 'cancelling' in terms of the consumer.

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I suppose it's more of a reactive or, more precisely, future 'cancelling' in terms of the consumer.

But a viewer can't actually 'future cancel' anything. They have to actually see a product and decide to consume/not consume it for your market choice argument to actually kick in. If it isn't actually available on the market (Kevin Spacey continuing in House of Cards), then it's not a viable choice. 

There were plenty of obnoxious morons like Roy Chubby Brown or Jim Davidson who objectively failed by most market tests - in their later years at least. They had to get to the market (and pass the managerial screening) to do so though.

The current issue is that because of the exaggerated feedback loop that social media provides about any topic, the managerial class that gatekeeps mainstream culture across film, TV, press etc. are increasingly risk-averse and liable to cancel anything that poses an uncontrollable risk. This is completely understandable from their point of view, but it leads to the reduction of mainstream views to a hopelessly narrow 'consensus' that most of the public don't fully buy into anyway.