OTG Forums
 OTG

Search | Statistics Forums | Calendars | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Cancel Culture
Moderators: Moderators

Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   OTG Forums -> The Junk YardMessage format
 
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-02-22 10:59 PM (#775289)
Subject: Cancel Culture





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
The cancel culture is actually sponsors and advertisers who decide who get banned from networks. Politically correctness... It’s all about the money and advertising... end of story! Entertainers have been getting canceled since the birth of radio and TV.

But then, with in the fabric of truth, it’s funny how the privileged, all of sudden are blaming everything on “cancel culture” like it’s new and they discovered the term! When in actuality, they created it hundreds of years ago, by canceling a whole gender from the culture. Woman couldn’t vote, run for office, work for over a 100 years.

Then the privileged culture, not so long ago, cancelled people of color from, eating where they eat, equal education, voting! working where they work. People of color couldn’t compete in the same leagues and sports teams, For years they were cancelled from being on TV shows and Movies.

There were dozens of golf courses where Tiger Woods was the first man of color to play in. But now that the tables are turned and openly racist and sexist and bigots are being cancelled from social media and from the entertainment world, they’re crying like baby’s! Like Little bitches!

There was a reason why the KKK wore hoods, because they knew the consequences for their actions were growing! Put your hoods back on and go back to your back forest shacks!

Edited by Andy Bathgate 2021-02-22 11:14 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-02-26 6:01 PM (#775424 - in reply to #775289)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
This may very well be the most IDIOTIC statement I've seen on OTG.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-05 11:13 AM (#775851 - in reply to #775424)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 1527
1000
So according to what I'm reading at the top, injustices and violations of rights occurring now are ok because there were injustices and violations of rights in the past. Wow.

Not only is that take twisted and inconsistent with a civilized society, it's factually incorrect.

The cancel culture we see now has nothing to do with race, gender or other identity group. It's about speech and thought that doesn't comply with the "acceptable" narrative of Leftist corporate media, Hollywood and big tech. If you question the election results by pointing out statistical anomalies or unconstitutional rule changes in certain states you get kicked off of social media, fired from your job and targeted by Leftists in Congress. Example: letter sent by two House members to cable/satellite TV providers questioning why they are still carrying Fox, OANN and Newsmax. That had nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with thought and free expression of ideas.

Why did Amazon, in coordination with Google and Apple, attack and de-platform a social media company (Parler)?
Why did Twitter ban the NY Post for reporting on Hunter Biden?
Why was a soccer player (Seth Jahn) removed from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Athlete Council for expressing an opinion about standing for the anthem?

Cancel culture is thought and speech tyranny. Leftists have learned that the 1st Amendment only prohibits government action which infringes free speech. And they're using private companies to accomplish what they can't do through government action.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-05 12:19 PM (#775853 - in reply to #775851)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
PV29 - 2021-03-05 1:13 PM

So according to what I'm reading at the top, injustices and violations of rights occurring now are ok because there were injustices and violations of rights in the past. Wow.

Not only is that take twisted and inconsistent with a civilized society, it's factually incorrect.

The cancel culture we see now has nothing to do with race, gender or other identity group. It's about speech and thought that doesn't comply with the "acceptable" narrative of Leftist corporate media, Hollywood and big tech. If you question the election results by pointing out statistical anomalies or unconstitutional rule changes in certain states you get kicked off of social media, fired from your job and targeted by Leftists in Congress. Example: letter sent by two House members to cable/satellite TV providers questioning why they are still carrying Fox, OANN and Newsmax. That had nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with thought and free expression of ideas.

Why did Amazon, in coordination with Google and Apple, attack and de-platform a social media company (Parler)?
Why did Twitter ban the NY Post for reporting on Hunter Biden?
Why was a soccer player (Seth Jahn) removed from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Athlete Council for expressing an opinion about standing for the anthem?

Cancel culture is thought and speech tyranny. Leftists have learned that the 1st Amendment only prohibits government action which infringes free speech. And they're using private companies to accomplish what they can't do through government action.



Top of the page Bottom of the page
Fish
Posted 2021-03-05 12:31 PM (#775854 - in reply to #775289)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture



Publisher

Posts: 1852
1000
Location: USA
I think that the term "Cancel Culture" has been applied pretty broadly, or narrowly, depending on who is delivering the message.

For me, the definition can be summed up as: a politically motivated group, organization or individual who seeks to use social pressure to isolate or neutralize the opinions of a group, organization, business or individual.

In the examples you give, I see in the first two examples, choices made by corporations as to what they think will be the least damaging to them on a bottom line. In the Amazon example, Parler running on Amazon was probably not widely known before Parler became a more prominent part of the conversation. When some of the content that was being shared and posted on Parler became known, and that it was being hosted on Amazon, then they had a choice...they could either deal with potential backlash from those who found the material objectionable, or the backlash from taking down a platform that many conservatives were now using for social media. They gave Parler the opportunity to deal with the objectionable material, and Parler declined to implement it, so Amazon made the decision to shut them off.

You could argue it was those who went crawling through Parler looking for the material were bent on shutting down the site, and they did everything they could do generate social pressure, which in turn influences Amazon's decision - and that would be Cancel Culture as I see it, but Amazon I don't see as part of that per se. If the pressure didn't exist, Parler would probably be still there.

On the Twitter example, I think that one is more related to the specific content. If you look at the timeline for that story, it was first brought to the Wall Street Journal, who after doing their own work, decided that the information wasn't credible enough to publish, and as such they didn't. The story then went to the New York Post, where the byline - that is to say who the story was credited to was Emma-Jo Morris a deputy politics editor who just joined the Post, and Gabrielle Fonrouge, who reportedly had little to do with the article. Bruce Golding who apparently did contribute to it, did not wish his byline to be used because he felt like much of it wasn't credible. If you also consider that Rudy Giulinani - Trump's personal attorney - is the one that brought it to the Post, and had a vested interest in causing damage to a political rival, then I think there's good reason to be cautious about it.

The challenge comes down to determining when something is untrue, and what sort of damage that might do to individuals, institutions or the nation. Libel and Slander laws are not sufficient, nor is the court system efficient enough to deal with these things. In history, you've seen where lies have been used to "cancel" or indeed kill people. The two best examples in US History would be the Salem witch trials, and the McCarthy era purges, where being accused of being a witch or a communist sympathizer basically tarnished, or even condemned that individual before they had a fair trial.

When faced with promoting something that is quite questionable, or very suspect, I think social media companies are faced with a challenge...when is it okay to publish these things, and when is it not. I think they've made plenty of mistakes trying to be too lenient and seen things like Qanon flare up, and so they've overreacted in some instances the other way.

I myself don't know what the answer is. I got interested in Qanon from a "where did it come from" and "what do followers believe" and was really quite amazed at how the whole thing operates. It's an alternate reality that seems like no regular person would believe in, but then again there are wide range of people that do indeed believe it.

When someone in the public eye or a leader gives credence to it, even tacitly, then that can have far ranging impact on those individuals as well as those who may be impacted by their actions.

Nazism and Fascism in some sense were similar more politically motivated incidents of this behavior, as is what has transgressed in places like Venezeula, where a small group uses those actions to manipulate the country as a whole to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

I'm not for cancelling out voices, but I do have concern about those who tell lies and from positions of authority, and I think there will always be reactions to things that are socially questionable. Personally I'd like to see more voices heard, and I'd like it to be less about preventing and more about creating...but that's a pipe dream.

When a party like the Democratic party helps engineer Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2016, or when Donald Trump threatens to crush all those who disagree with him, it makes people disaffected, and in some cases, can enable more extreme behavior.

For me Cancel Culture is part of a broader issue of attacking those you disagree with, and that is something that is far more prevalent than just liberal activists suppressing conservative voices.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-05 6:42 PM (#775865 - in reply to #775854)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 1527
1000
I disagree that Amazon ejected Parler for business reasons. there is plenty of objectionable material that is currently hosted on AWS. And there is a serious debate about what "chances" Amazon gave Parler to remove certain material. The mullahs of Iran post "death to America" on Twitter and that's seemingly OK. But post about the election being less than fair and they target you for censorship and cancellation.

As the for the Post story about Hunter's laptop, it's very convenient that the FBI confirmed AFTER the election that an investigation into Hunter's tax returns is ongoing. Twitter had no problem allowing posts about portions of Trump's tax returns that were leaked. Disclosing federal tax returns without consent is a federal crime, yet they never blocked or suspended anyone who posted those leaked returns. Their faux pearl clutching over whether the material about Hunter was "reliable" is laughable. The story was corroborated by a former business partner of Hunter who provided further documents and gave TV interviews. Twitter had no problem in 2015 and 2016 allowing posts by/about Avenatti and his clients and their claims against Trump (Stormy Daniels). But that's because it was potentially damaging to the candidate they hated.

Social media has the protections of Section 230, so they have NO liability for libel or slander. There is no reasoning for this fear as the motivation for censorship.

The decision about whether something is credible and not "disinformation" is up to each of us. It is our right, and our duty as citizens, to hear and read as much as we can and make up our own minds as to what we believe. We don't want or need big tech overlords telling us what is "safe" to read and see. The free exchange of ideas and information is the cornerstone of our society. Offensive speech is protected from censorship by the government because the proper response to false and offensive speech is MORE speech which opposes and challenges it.

I'll end with this: When big tech companies and corporations like Amazon start censoring and canceling voices at the behest of politicians and political parties (see as an example, AOC and Michele Obama calling for Trump's ban from Twitter) then these companies are acting as de facto government entities. They should therefore be prohibited by the 1st Amendment from infringing upon free speech. Look to the near future for lawsuits that will allege this and challenge the idea that Twitter, Facebook, etc., are private companies that can censor as they see fit.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-05 6:44 PM (#775866 - in reply to #775289)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 1527
1000
By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-05 7:04 PM (#775867 - in reply to #775865)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
PV29 - 2021-03-05 8:42 PM

I disagree that Amazon ejected Parler for business reasons. there is plenty of objectionable material that is currently hosted on AWS. And there is a serious debate about what "chances" Amazon gave Parler to remove certain material. The mullahs of Iran post "death to America" on Twitter and that's seemingly OK. But post about the election being less than fair and they target you for censorship and cancellation.

As the for the Post story about Hunter's laptop, it's very convenient that the FBI confirmed AFTER the election that an investigation into Hunter's tax returns is ongoing. Twitter had no problem allowing posts about portions of Trump's tax returns that were leaked. Disclosing federal tax returns without consent is a federal crime, yet they never blocked or suspended anyone who posted those leaked returns. Their faux pearl clutching over whether the material about Hunter was "reliable" is laughable. The story was corroborated by a former business partner of Hunter who provided further documents and gave TV interviews. Twitter had no problem in 2015 and 2016 allowing posts by/about Avenatti and his clients and their claims against Trump (Stormy Daniels). But that's because it was potentially damaging to the candidate they hated.

Social media has the protections of Section 230, so they have NO liability for libel or slander. There is no reasoning for this fear as the motivation for censorship.

The decision about whether something is credible and not "disinformation" is up to each of us. It is our right, and our duty as citizens, to hear and read as much as we can and make up our own minds as to what we believe. We don't want or need big tech overlords telling us what is "safe" to read and see. The free exchange of ideas and information is the cornerstone of our society. Offensive speech is protected from censorship by the government because the proper response to false and offensive speech is MORE speech which opposes and challenges it.

I'll end with this: When big tech companies and corporations like Amazon start censoring and canceling voices at the behest of politicians and political parties (see as an example, AOC and Michele Obama calling for Trump's ban from Twitter) then these companies are acting as de facto government entities. They should therefore be prohibited by the 1st Amendment from infringing upon free speech. Look to the near future for lawsuits that will allege this and challenge the idea that Twitter, Facebook, etc., are private companies that can censor as they see fit.


Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-05 7:05 PM (#775868 - in reply to #775866)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
PV29 - 2021-03-05 8:44 PM

By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!




I completely agree.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-05 7:09 PM (#775869 - in reply to #775854)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
Fish - 2021-03-05 2:31 PM

I think that the term "Cancel Culture" has been applied pretty broadly, or narrowly, depending on who is delivering the message.

For me, the definition can be summed up as: a politically motivated group, organization or individual who seeks to use social pressure to isolate or neutralize the opinions of a group, organization, business or individual.

In the examples you give, I see in the first two examples, choices made by corporations as to what they think will be the least damaging to them on a bottom line. In the Amazon example, Parler running on Amazon was probably not widely known before Parler became a more prominent part of the conversation. When some of the content that was being shared and posted on Parler became known, and that it was being hosted on Amazon, then they had a choice...they could either deal with potential backlash from those who found the material objectionable, or the backlash from taking down a platform that many conservatives were now using for social media. They gave Parler the opportunity to deal with the objectionable material, and Parler declined to implement it, so Amazon made the decision to shut them off.

You could argue it was those who went crawling through Parler looking for the material were bent on shutting down the site, and they did everything they could do generate social pressure, which in turn influences Amazon's decision - and that would be Cancel Culture as I see it, but Amazon I don't see as part of that per se. If the pressure didn't exist, Parler would probably be still there.

On the Twitter example, I think that one is more related to the specific content. If you look at the timeline for that story, it was first brought to the Wall Street Journal, who after doing their own work, decided that the information wasn't credible enough to publish, and as such they didn't. The story then went to the New York Post, where the byline - that is to say who the story was credited to was Emma-Jo Morris a deputy politics editor who just joined the Post, and Gabrielle Fonrouge, who reportedly had little to do with the article. Bruce Golding who apparently did contribute to it, did not wish his byline to be used because he felt like much of it wasn't credible. If you also consider that Rudy Giulinani - Trump's personal attorney - is the one that brought it to the Post, and had a vested interest in causing damage to a political rival, then I think there's good reason to be cautious about it.

The challenge comes down to determining when something is untrue, and what sort of damage that might do to individuals, institutions or the nation. Libel and Slander laws are not sufficient, nor is the court system efficient enough to deal with these things. In history, you've seen where lies have been used to "cancel" or indeed kill people. The two best examples in US History would be the Salem witch trials, and the McCarthy era purges, where being accused of being a witch or a communist sympathizer basically tarnished, or even condemned that individual before they had a fair trial.

When faced with promoting something that is quite questionable, or very suspect, I think social media companies are faced with a challenge...when is it okay to publish these things, and when is it not. I think they've made plenty of mistakes trying to be too lenient and seen things like Qanon flare up, and so they've overreacted in some instances the other way.

I myself don't know what the answer is. I got interested in Qanon from a "where did it come from" and "what do followers believe" and was really quite amazed at how the whole thing operates. It's an alternate reality that seems like no regular person would believe in, but then again there are wide range of people that do indeed believe it.

When someone in the public eye or a leader gives credence to it, even tacitly, then that can have far ranging impact on those individuals as well as those who may be impacted by their actions.

Nazism and Fascism in some sense were similar more politically motivated incidents of this behavior, as is what has transgressed in places like Venezeula, where a small group uses those actions to manipulate the country as a whole to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

I'm not for cancelling out voices, but I do have concern about those who tell lies and from positions of authority, and I think there will always be reactions to things that are socially questionable. Personally I'd like to see more voices heard, and I'd like it to be less about preventing and more about creating...but that's a pipe dream.

When a party like the Democratic party helps engineer Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2016, or when Donald Trump threatens to crush all those who disagree with him, it makes people disaffected, and in some cases, can enable more extreme behavior.

For me Cancel Culture is part of a broader issue of attacking those you disagree with, and that is something that is far more prevalent than just liberal activists suppressing conservative voices.


I appreciate your view and opinion about this subject. I appreciate the fact that it appears that you think for yourself, and aren't swayed by a biased liberal media!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-05 9:17 PM (#775873 - in reply to #775851)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
PV29 - 2021-03-05 1:13 PM

So according to what I'm reading at the top, injustices and violations of rights occurring now are ok because there were injustices and violations of rights in the past. Wow.

Not only is that take twisted and inconsistent with a civilized society, it's factually incorrect.

The cancel culture we see now has nothing to do with race, gender or other identity group. It's about speech and thought that doesn't comply with the "acceptable" narrative of Leftist corporate media, Hollywood and big tech. If you question the election results by pointing out statistical anomalies or unconstitutional rule changes in certain states you get kicked off of social media, fired from your job and targeted by Leftists in Congress. Example: letter sent by two House members to cable/satellite TV providers questioning why they are still carrying Fox, OANN and Newsmax. That had nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with thought and free expression of ideas.

Why did Amazon, in coordination with Google and Apple, attack and de-platform a social media company (Parler)?
Why did Twitter ban the NY Post for reporting on Hunter Biden?
Why was a soccer player (Seth Jahn) removed from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Athlete Council for expressing an opinion about standing for the anthem?

Cancel culture is thought and speech tyranny. Leftists have learned that the 1st Amendment only prohibits government action which infringes free speech. And they're using private companies to accomplish what they can't do through government action.



That’s funny, Democrats have been canceled also... Chris Matthews on MSNBC, cancelled for saying something not politically correct, Bill Mahr was cancelled, Al Franken cancelled... Tiki Barber Canceled... Colin Kaepernick, canceled! ... over the last 20 years 100’s of people in politics and the entertainment world have been cancelled for saying stupid crap... do I agree with it no! But to pretend it’s anything new and to victimize yourself is a freakin joke... there’s a list of tens of thousands of people since the 1920s that have been fired for saying politically incorrect stuff as politicians or entertainers! Give me a Republican or white person being fired-or cancelled and I can give you a lefty who has been also. So stop with this victimization crap already! Disconnect from the FOX radicalization.

Speech Tyranny? LOL! Who’s been arrested ? Advertisers force fire people!

Do I think Mr. Potato head or Dr Seuss or Little House in Prairie should cancel books and products ? HELL NO! But those are not Government decisions, they’re weak weak decisions, that at the end of the don’t affect my life!

So according to your rules of free speech, in the middle of a corporate board meeting, you can stand up and freely spew crap very little people agree with, racist, bigoted, political, left or right,,, stuff that had nothing to do with the company’s agenda... and if a corporation fires that person... it’s speech tyranny?

And by the way, I guess it’s okay with you that FOX and the Republicans have cancel cultured the senators and congressmen who voted to impeach or convict orange man. Even though they were expressing their free choice and speech.



Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-05 9:26 PM (#775874 - in reply to #775869)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
Cap'nMess - 2021-03-05 9:09 PM

Fish - 2021-03-05 2:31 PM

I think that the term "Cancel Culture" has been applied pretty broadly, or narrowly, depending on who is delivering the message.

For me, the definition can be summed up as: a politically motivated group, organization or individual who seeks to use social pressure to isolate or neutralize the opinions of a group, organization, business or individual.

In the examples you give, I see in the first two examples, choices made by corporations as to what they think will be the least damaging to them on a bottom line. In the Amazon example, Parler running on Amazon was probably not widely known before Parler became a more prominent part of the conversation. When some of the content that was being shared and posted on Parler became known, and that it was being hosted on Amazon, then they had a choice...they could either deal with potential backlash from those who found the material objectionable, or the backlash from taking down a platform that many conservatives were now using for social media. They gave Parler the opportunity to deal with the objectionable material, and Parler declined to implement it, so Amazon made the decision to shut them off.

You could argue it was those who went crawling through Parler looking for the material were bent on shutting down the site, and they did everything they could do generate social pressure, which in turn influences Amazon's decision - and that would be Cancel Culture as I see it, but Amazon I don't see as part of that per se. If the pressure didn't exist, Parler would probably be still there.

On the Twitter example, I think that one is more related to the specific content. If you look at the timeline for that story, it was first brought to the Wall Street Journal, who after doing their own work, decided that the information wasn't credible enough to publish, and as such they didn't. The story then went to the New York Post, where the byline - that is to say who the story was credited to was Emma-Jo Morris a deputy politics editor who just joined the Post, and Gabrielle Fonrouge, who reportedly had little to do with the article. Bruce Golding who apparently did contribute to it, did not wish his byline to be used because he felt like much of it wasn't credible. If you also consider that Rudy Giulinani - Trump's personal attorney - is the one that brought it to the Post, and had a vested interest in causing damage to a political rival, then I think there's good reason to be cautious about it.

The challenge comes down to determining when something is untrue, and what sort of damage that might do to individuals, institutions or the nation. Libel and Slander laws are not sufficient, nor is the court system efficient enough to deal with these things. In history, you've seen where lies have been used to "cancel" or indeed kill people. The two best examples in US History would be the Salem witch trials, and the McCarthy era purges, where being accused of being a witch or a communist sympathizer basically tarnished, or even condemned that individual before they had a fair trial.

When faced with promoting something that is quite questionable, or very suspect, I think social media companies are faced with a challenge...when is it okay to publish these things, and when is it not. I think they've made plenty of mistakes trying to be too lenient and seen things like Qanon flare up, and so they've overreacted in some instances the other way.

I myself don't know what the answer is. I got interested in Qanon from a "where did it come from" and "what do followers believe" and was really quite amazed at how the whole thing operates. It's an alternate reality that seems like no regular person would believe in, but then again there are wide range of people that do indeed believe it.

When someone in the public eye or a leader gives credence to it, even tacitly, then that can have far ranging impact on those individuals as well as those who may be impacted by their actions.

Nazism and Fascism in some sense were similar more politically motivated incidents of this behavior, as is what has transgressed in places like Venezeula, where a small group uses those actions to manipulate the country as a whole to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

I'm not for cancelling out voices, but I do have concern about those who tell lies and from positions of authority, and I think there will always be reactions to things that are socially questionable. Personally I'd like to see more voices heard, and I'd like it to be less about preventing and more about creating...but that's a pipe dream.

When a party like the Democratic party helps engineer Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2016, or when Donald Trump threatens to crush all those who disagree with him, it makes people disaffected, and in some cases, can enable more extreme behavior.

For me Cancel Culture is part of a broader issue of attacking those you disagree with, and that is something that is far more prevalent than just liberal activists suppressing conservative voices.


I appreciate your view and opinion about this subject. I appreciate the fact that it appears that you think for yourself, and aren't swayed by a biased liberal media!


I guess you didn’t read what he wrote!

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-05 9:31 PM (#775875 - in reply to #775868)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
Cap'nMess - 2021-03-05 9:05 PM

PV29 - 2021-03-05 8:44 PM

By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!




I completely agree.


This is old school, I remember the days on here when we debated this stuff all the time..I remember when Coach and I were roasted for supporting McCain.





Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-05 9:51 PM (#775876 - in reply to #775854)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
Fish - 2021-03-05 2:31 PM

I think that the term "Cancel Culture" has been applied pretty broadly, or narrowly, depending on who is delivering the message.

For me, the definition can be summed up as: a politically motivated group, organization or individual who seeks to use social pressure to isolate or neutralize the opinions of a group, organization, business or individual.

In the examples you give, I see in the first two examples, choices made by corporations as to what they think will be the least damaging to them on a bottom line. In the Amazon example, Parler running on Amazon was probably not widely known before Parler became a more prominent part of the conversation. When some of the content that was being shared and posted on Parler became known, and that it was being hosted on Amazon, then they had a choice...they could either deal with potential backlash from those who found the material objectionable, or the backlash from taking down a platform that many conservatives were now using for social media. They gave Parler the opportunity to deal with the objectionable material, and Parler declined to implement it, so Amazon made the decision to shut them off.

You could argue it was those who went crawling through Parler looking for the material were bent on shutting down the site, and they did everything they could do generate social pressure, which in turn influences Amazon's decision - and that would be Cancel Culture as I see it, but Amazon I don't see as part of that per se. If the pressure didn't exist, Parler would probably be still there.

On the Twitter example, I think that one is more related to the specific content. If you look at the timeline for that story, it was first brought to the Wall Street Journal, who after doing their own work, decided that the information wasn't credible enough to publish, and as such they didn't. The story then went to the New York Post, where the byline - that is to say who the story was credited to was Emma-Jo Morris a deputy politics editor who just joined the Post, and Gabrielle Fonrouge, who reportedly had little to do with the article. Bruce Golding who apparently did contribute to it, did not wish his byline to be used because he felt like much of it wasn't credible. If you also consider that Rudy Giulinani - Trump's personal attorney - is the one that brought it to the Post, and had a vested interest in causing damage to a political rival, then I think there's good reason to be cautious about it.

The challenge comes down to determining when something is untrue, and what sort of damage that might do to individuals, institutions or the nation. Libel and Slander laws are not sufficient, nor is the court system efficient enough to deal with these things. In history, you've seen where lies have been used to "cancel" or indeed kill people. The two best examples in US History would be the Salem witch trials, and the McCarthy era purges, where being accused of being a witch or a communist sympathizer basically tarnished, or even condemned that individual before they had a fair trial.

When faced with promoting something that is quite questionable, or very suspect, I think social media companies are faced with a challenge...when is it okay to publish these things, and when is it not. I think they've made plenty of mistakes trying to be too lenient and seen things like Qanon flare up, and so they've overreacted in some instances the other way.

I myself don't know what the answer is. I got interested in Qanon from a "where did it come from" and "what do followers believe" and was really quite amazed at how the whole thing operates. It's an alternate reality that seems like no regular person would believe in, but then again there are wide range of people that do indeed believe it.

When someone in the public eye or a leader gives credence to it, even tacitly, then that can have far ranging impact on those individuals as well as those who may be impacted by their actions.

Nazism and Fascism in some sense were similar more politically motivated incidents of this behavior, as is what has transgressed in places like Venezeula, where a small group uses those actions to manipulate the country as a whole to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

I'm not for cancelling out voices, but I do have concern about those who tell lies and from positions of authority, and I think there will always be reactions to things that are socially questionable. Personally I'd like to see more voices heard, and I'd like it to be less about preventing and more about creating...but that's a pipe dream.

When a party like the Democratic party helps engineer Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2016, or when Donald Trump threatens to crush all those who disagree with him, it makes people disaffected, and in some cases, can enable more extreme behavior.

For me Cancel Culture is part of a broader issue of attacking those you disagree with, and that is something that is far more prevalent than just liberal activists suppressing conservative voices.


I don’t think it’s that tough to understand... money, the stock market, profit, brand pride, tv commercials, advertisers...etc etc etc is the dividing line of what’s politically correct... again, Chris Matthews, a big liberal, 30 years MSNBC highly decorated broadcaster .. FIRED .... Canceled in one night for using a bad analogy about the Holocaust that offended Bernie Sanders... Al Franken major liberal Senator, on a military comedy tour in the Middle East. with a military comedian woman.. she fell asleep on the plane, and he pretended to grab her breast.... Canceled. Mean while there’s photos of her roasting him, while he feel asleep.

My point of this thread is, this is nothing new. But since Trump, who is openly old Archie Bunker, bigot, racist, fascist, sexist who stirred the pot like a third world country dictator, has made it appear it’s okay for everyone else to be outwardly disgusting. But it’s not okay, to be these things at work, you’re free to say anything you want, but, again there’s a reason why the KKK wore hoods!







Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-06 6:37 AM (#775878 - in reply to #775875)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-05 11:31 PM

Cap'nMess - 2021-03-05 9:05 PM

PV29 - 2021-03-05 8:44 PM

By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!




I completely agree.


This is old school, I remember the days on here when we debated this stuff all the time..I remember when Coach and I were roasted for supporting McCain.









Being roasted for supporting a candidate is one thing, but you started this thread and basically called anyone who disagrees with it part of the KKK.

Stay classy, stay woke!



Edited by Cap'nMess 2021-03-06 6:44 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-06 7:00 AM (#775879 - in reply to #775873)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 992
500
Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-05 11:17 PM

PV29 - 2021-03-05 1:13 PM

So according to what I'm reading at the top, injustices and violations of rights occurring now are ok because there were injustices and violations of rights in the past. Wow.

Not only is that take twisted and inconsistent with a civilized society, it's factually incorrect.

The cancel culture we see now has nothing to do with race, gender or other identity group. It's about speech and thought that doesn't comply with the "acceptable" narrative of Leftist corporate media, Hollywood and big tech. If you question the election results by pointing out statistical anomalies or unconstitutional rule changes in certain states you get kicked off of social media, fired from your job and targeted by Leftists in Congress. Example: letter sent by two House members to cable/satellite TV providers questioning why they are still carrying Fox, OANN and Newsmax. That had nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with thought and free expression of ideas.

Why did Amazon, in coordination with Google and Apple, attack and de-platform a social media company (Parler)?
Why did Twitter ban the NY Post for reporting on Hunter Biden?
Why was a soccer player (Seth Jahn) removed from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Athlete Council for expressing an opinion about standing for the anthem?

Cancel culture is thought and speech tyranny. Leftists have learned that the 1st Amendment only prohibits government action which infringes free speech. And they're using private companies to accomplish what they can't do through government action.



That’s funny, Democrats have been canceled also... Chris Matthews on MSNBC, cancelled for saying something not politically correct, Bill Mahr was cancelled, Al Franken cancelled... Tiki Barber Canceled... Colin Kaepernick, canceled! ... over the last 20 years 100’s of people in politics and the entertainment world have been cancelled for saying stupid crap... do I agree with it no! But to pretend it’s anything new and to victimize yourself is a freakin joke... there’s a list of tens of thousands of people since the 1920s that have been fired for saying politically incorrect stuff as politicians or entertainers! Give me a Republican or white person being fired-or cancelled and I can give you a lefty who has been also. So stop with this victimization crap already! Disconnect from the FOX radicalization.

Speech Tyranny? LOL! Who’s been arrested ? Advertisers force fire people!

Do I think Mr. Potato head or Dr Seuss or Little House in Prairie should cancel books and products ? HELL NO! But those are not Government decisions, they’re weak weak decisions, that at the end of the don’t affect my life!

So according to your rules of free speech, in the middle of a corporate board meeting, you can stand up and freely spew crap very little people agree with, racist, bigoted, political, left or right,,, stuff that had nothing to do with the company’s agenda... and if a corporation fires that person... it’s speech tyranny?

And by the way, I guess it’s okay with you that FOX and the Republicans have cancel cultured the senators and congressmen who voted to impeach or convict orange man. Even though they were expressing their free choice and speech.





I agree the first few people you mentioned were cancelled, although I think Franken was accused of sexual harassment which is a completely different thing, like if the accusations are true against Cuomo he should resign. I agree both sides lie against each other and try to cancel one another, but now compared to 20 years ago, it is INSANE!

You are absolutely correct about Dr Seuss Mr Potato Head and so on, but what's going to be next?

Lets not make it a Dem, Rep, or Ind thing, let's agree together that we live in a FREE country (FOR NOW) and keep our rights. We should not be force fed what to think or not to think, say or what not to say. Whether you're the wackiest liberal or the most up tight conservative.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-06 7:12 AM (#775880 - in reply to #775289)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
Actually Matthews was let go because of saying something inappropriate to a guest, not political.

Maher who is as liberal as they come, says cancel culture is real and insane and needs to stop, he also told liberals to wake up.

Kaepernick was given the chance at a tryout for a team and didn't show up.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Fish
Posted 2021-03-06 8:18 AM (#775881 - in reply to #775866)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture



Publisher

Posts: 1852
1000
Location: USA
PV29 - 2021-03-05 5:44 PM

By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!


Top of the page Bottom of the page
Cap'nMess
Posted 2021-03-06 8:21 AM (#775882 - in reply to #775289)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 992
500
Just one more thing, well maybe one more.....

You said it's advertisers that cancel, well Hillary, AOC and others (politicians) Katie Couric, Whoopie, Joy blowhard (Media) have stated that Trump supporters need to be "reprogrammed". Some Dems, including AOC have stated that anyone who worked for Trump should never be employed again. AOC has also said that there should be "lists" of all Trump supporters. That is a lot more than just advertisers!

Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-06 8:23 AM (#775883 - in reply to #775873)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 1527
1000

Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-05 11:17 PMThat’s funny, Democrats have been canceled also... Chris Matthews on MSNBC, cancelled for saying something not politically correct, Bill Mahr was cancelled, Al Franken cancelled... Tiki Barber Canceled... Colin Kaepernick, canceled! ... over the last 20 years 100’s of people in politics and the entertainment world have been cancelled for saying stupid crap... do I agree with it no! But to pretend it’s anything new and to victimize yourself is a freakin joke... there’s a list of tens of thousands of people since the 1920s that have been fired for saying politically incorrect stuff as politicians or entertainers! Give me a Republican or white person being fired-or cancelled and I can give you a lefty who has been also. So stop with this victimization crap already! Disconnect from the FOX radicalization. Speech Tyranny? LOL! Who’s been arrested ? Advertisers force fire people! Do I think Mr. Potato head or Dr Seuss or Little House in Prairie should cancel books and products ? HELL NO! But those are not Government decisions, they’re weak weak decisions, that at the end of the don’t affect my life! So according to your rules of free speech, in the middle of a corporate board meeting, you can stand up and freely spew crap very little people agree with, racist, bigoted, political, left or right,,, stuff that had nothing to do with the company’s agenda... and if a corporation fires that person... it’s speech tyranny? And by the way, I guess it’s okay with you that FOX and the Republicans have cancel cultured the senators and congressmen who voted to impeach or convict orange man. Even though they were expressing their free choice and speech.

 

I think you're equating an employers right to fire an employee with the targeting of businesses and persons by bigtech for expressing political ideas.  They are not the same.

Of course an employee can't yell racist or insensitive things without repercussions.  That's NOT cancel culture.  You're not seeing the distinction and, honestly, I'm probably not explaining it as clearly as I should.  Some examples:  Amazon is censoring books because they disagree with the ideas of the authors.  YouTube takes down Trump's CPAC speech because they oppose his politics.  Goya gets boycotted because the CEO went to the White House for a meeting with Trump.  MyPillow gets cancelled by BedBath& Beyond and Target because the owner says he has evidence of voter fraud,  Statues of Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and Grant (none of them Confederates, two of which fought the Confederacy) must be taken down because of some perceived offense (Washington and Jefferson "owned" slaves, but also forged a nation that saw slavery abolished in the North shortly thereafter and then in the South after a bloody Civil War).

Just because people haven't been "arrested" doesn't mean that there isn't tyranny.  Taking away someone's business, destroying their career and their livelihood is also a form of tyranny.  It is a "taking" without due process that constitutes tyranny if the government did it.  That is the issue now.  Private actors are carrying out the persecution of political rivals on behalf of Leftists in government and corporatist cronies (Amazon, Google, Apple).

Republicans are not "canceling" the members of Congress who voted to impeach Trump.  Those people still have their jobs and nobody is censoring them.  They're gonna get primaried in '22 though.  That's called politics.

Kapernick canceled himself when he walked out on his contract with the 49ers.

Last point:  China has decreed (through their corrupt court system) that homosexuality is a "mental disorder".  How come the NBA, Apple, WalMart, and all the big corps that do billions of dollars of business with China are not screaming about this and pulling their business out of China?  Well, obviously it's because of money.  Cancel culture is not only tyrannical, it's also hypocritical.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-06 8:26 AM (#775885 - in reply to #775879)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 1527
1000

Cap'nMess - 2021-03-06 9:00 AM  I agree the first few people you mentioned were cancelled, although I think Franken was accused of sexual harassment which is a completely different thing, like if the accusations are true against Cuomo he should resign. I agree both sides lie against each other and try to cancel one another, but now compared to 20 years ago, it is INSANE! You are absolutely correct about Dr Seuss Mr Potato Head and so on, but what's going to be next? Lets not make it a Dem, Rep, or Ind thing, let's agree together that we live in a FREE country (FOR NOW) and keep our rights. We should not be force fed what to think or not to think, say or what not to say. Whether you're the wackiest liberal or the most up tight conservative.

 

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-06 8:36 AM (#775886 - in reply to #775878)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
Cap'nMess - 2021-03-06 8:37 AM

Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-05 11:31 PM

Cap'nMess - 2021-03-05 9:05 PM

PV29 - 2021-03-05 8:44 PM

By the way, it's refreshing to be able to debate these things without insults and ad hominen attacks. Cheers!




I completely agree.


This is old school, I remember the days on here when we debated this stuff all the time..I remember when Coach and I were roasted for supporting McCain.









Being roasted for supporting a candidate is one thing, but you started this thread and basically called anyone who disagrees with it part of the KKK.

Stay classy, stay woke!



Sorry that wasn’t my intention.... I just wanted to point out the cancel culture has been around forever, and that people had freedom of speech, know ones been arrested.. being fired from your job for saying things that offend others whether political, racist, sexist, is up to the employer.

The heart of the Cancel Culture in the entertainment- media-professional athletes and Politicians come down to our true masters... The advertisers and tv commercials that pays everyone salaries... they decide and force fire people they think will harm their Brand, hurt their profit.

And there was a reason why the KKK wore hoods!

Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-06 8:39 AM (#775887 - in reply to #775876)
Subject: Re: Cancel Culture





Posts: 1527
1000

Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-05 11:51 PM  I don’t think it’s that tough to understand... money, the stock market, profit, brand pride, tv commercials, advertisers...etc etc etc is the dividing line of what’s politically correct... again, Chris Matthews, a big liberal, 30 years MSNBC highly decorated broadcaster .. FIRED .... Canceled in one night for using a bad analogy about the Holocaust that offended Bernie Sanders... Al Franken major liberal Senator, on a military comedy tour in the Middle East. with a military comedian woman.. she fell asleep on the plane, and he pretended to grab her breast.... Canceled. Mean while there’s photos of her roasting him, while he feel asleep. My point of this thread is, this is nothing new. But since Trump, who is openly old Archie Bunker, bigot, racist, fascist, sexist who stirred the pot like a third world country dictator, has made it appear it’s okay for everyone else to be outwardly disgusting. But it’s not okay, to be these things at work, you’re free to say anything you want, but, again there’s a reason why the KKK wore hoods!

 

I kinda understand how Trump's style is too coarse for some, but I have no clue why people insist that he's racist, bigoted or a fascist.

What has he done that proves that he's a racist?  I see him creating Opportunity Zones in minority neighborhoods.  I see him giving Historically Black Colleges & Universities more money than they evver had and for a longer term than even Obama gave them.  I see minority uneployment pre-COVID being the lowest ever in history.  I see criminal justice reform finally being passed that corrected the unfair treatment of blacks in the criminal justice system.  I see him fighting for charter schools and school choice that benefits parent in primarily minority school dstricts because the public schools suck and they can't afford to send their kids to Sidwell Friends like Obama did.  I see people like Herschel Walker and Alveda King saying that he's a champion for the economic and educational advancement of minorities, moreso than any Democrat whose empty promises have done nothing to help minorities. 

What has he done to prove that he's a fascist?  Did he sign 60+ EO's in his first week in office?  Did he take over private businesses, or enact federal mandates that violated states' rights?  Did he build a razor-wire wall around the Capitol and place thousands of troops to defend it?  Where exactly is the fascism?

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Andy Bathgate
Posted 2021-03-06 8:56 AM (#775890 - in reply to #775885)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 921
500
Location: NYC & Charlotte, NC
PV29 - 2021-03-06 10:26 AM

Cap'nMess - 2021-03-06 9:00 AM  I agree the first few people you mentioned were cancelled, although I think Franken was accused of sexual harassment which is a completely different thing, like if the accusations are true against Cuomo he should resign. I agree both sides lie against each other and try to cancel one another, but now compared to 20 years ago, it is INSANE! You are absolutely correct about Dr Seuss Mr Potato Head and so on, but what's going to be next? Lets not make it a Dem, Rep, or Ind thing, let's agree together that we live in a FREE country (FOR NOW) and keep our rights. We should not be force fed what to think or not to think, say or what not to say. Whether you're the wackiest liberal or the most up tight conservative.

 





Laura Ingalls Wilder books Little House in the prairie, have been scrubbed from libraries, banned from schools and book stores over concerns about her depiction of other races! Mainly about American Indians...Views that people had 120 years ago... she grew up on the prairie and the Indians were boggy men in the shadows back then... this disturbs me, I can see if people had these views now, but scrubbing these books is censoring history, taking away the understanding of the past... aren’t we developed enough to understand, this was how people thought then?

Top of the page Bottom of the page
PV29
Posted 2021-03-06 9:06 AM (#775894 - in reply to #775890)
Subject: Re: Cancel Cult





Posts: 1527
1000

Andy Bathgate - 2021-03-06 10:56 AM  Laura Ingalls Wilder books Little House in the prairie, have been scrubbed from libraries, banned from schools and book stores over concerns about her depiction of other races! Mainly about American Indians...Views that people had 120 years ago... she grew up on the prairie and the Indians were boggy men in the shadows back then... this disturbs me, I can see if people had these views now, but scrubbing these books is censoring history, taking away the understanding of the past... aren’t we developed enough to understand, this was how people thought then?

 

It's about power.  The people who cause this type of whitewashing of history do it because it makes them feel powerful.  There is no valid educational or cultural reason for this. 

I read Huck Finn as a young lad.  It was taught to me that the deragatory words and depictions used to describe black people and Native Americans as portrayed in the book were commonplace back then but had no place in current society.  I was taught CONTEXT, and crtical thinking.  Two principles that apparently threaten certain segments of our society becuase they equip people with the vision to see through the bullshit.



Edited by PV29 2021-03-06 9:08 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2021 PD9 Software