08/12 OT: Cancel Culture isn't a thing, it's propaganda

-

Cancelled Lincoln 3 Cent Stamp

cancelled_Lincoln public domain

What is cancel culture? It is a propaganda term and hence likely propaganda, but to what end? "Oh look, somebody lost a spoon, oh, but it's bent. No use for a bent spoon, but there's a blue frisbee over there and some oblong pieces of driftwood." Nobody ever stumbled across a cancel culture- that is NOT a natural locution, it was created and, imo, carefully crafted. Nicely alliterative, paired 2 syllable words, each beginning with a hard c. Lots of connotation but no real denotation, vague, and even some tension and contradiction. Culture, if not art or petri dish contents, is shared and collaborative, cancel, if not stamps or orders is somewhat along the lines of negation. Negation of culture or a culture of negation? Which, if either? This didn't just happen, somebody created it to achieve something.

Something of a vignette here: Statues of Confederate Heroes are cancel culture if there ever were such a thing. They cancel every bit of progress on the civil rights front since 1861. They cancel black culture, ancestral, in the US past and present, and in the future. They cancel the idea that black people are even human, let alone equal. They cancel the very idea of a nation based on equal opportunity, equality before the law, equal rights and individual freedom. Yet nobody noticed that. Nobody discovered the existence of some "cancel culture", or, more to the point, nobody felt obligated to create and weaponize a phrase, cancel culture. Not, that is, until there was a widespread call to destroy these emblems of evil, then, That was cancel culture.

OMG, they're trying to destroy our glorious, proud Confederate history and legacy, our illustrious past, what ever shall we do.

Some laborites are clamoring for the repeal of laws and regulations prohibiting secondary boycotts, potentially giving them more clout in their lopsided struggle against the oligarchs. This too, it turns out, will be decried as cancel culture.

Somebody is pushing something here, and it isn't a broom.

-
-

Behold: Americans tune in to ‘cancel culture’ — and don't like what they see -- As Donald Trump seizes on it and elite journalists obsess over it, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows significant concern about the practice. --

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/americans-cancel-culture-377412...

I'm pretty sure that this isn't necessarily too bad of a thing, depending upon exactly what it is or means. Politico says:

In a Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore, Trump said, “We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture. We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.” Speaking of the left, he added that “one of their political weapons is ‘cancel culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.” (One commentator quickly pointed out that Trump has long been one of the most enthusiastic practitioners of cancel culture.)

That alone is several different things, and not at all a definition, but they tell us further on that:

The POLITICO survey used a neutral definition of cancel culture adapted from its entry on dictionary.com: “the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."

. (my emphasis)

That is a vast multitude of different things, and pretty much largely not in line with what they say trump said or with the following:

Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.

There's nothing about group or other shaming or about getting people fired in the definition. Beyond that, if you read the article, it is mostly about going after people for what they said.

stuff seemingly considered to be "cancel culture"

"punishing people or institutions over offensive views," "shared their dislike of a public figure on social media after they did something objectionable," "public shaming and ostracism" Those are all very different things.

We claim to believe in freedom of speech, and kind of do to varying degrees, but don't fully practice what we preach, especially the corporate-government symbiote. All the same, as even the article notes, we also believe that those who say things that much of the populace finds offensive should expect push-back and criticism, we have free speech, but it is nonetheless to be expected that some speech will have consequences and it is even proper and desirable that speech have consequences.

So what line is being drawn here and where? Also by whom and why? I mean making negative comments about somebody on social media, or criticising them for something they said or did? This is a bad thing? Bwahahaha. Not in this country. In reality, one should arguably criticise the comment or act and not the person making or doing it, but that's also not remotely "The American Way" (which is or was a rip-off, fwiw). There is, however, a hidden assumption that one is trying to deal with persons of good will, persons capable of learning and willing to do so. We are not always doing so any more. The purpose of free and open discussion, no holds barred and nothing off of the table, has always been to facilitate and implement the exchange of ideas.

So let's visit that definition.

“the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.".

Note that they straight up equate "withdrawing support" with "canceling". So cancelling doesn't mean anything vaguely resembling its normal usage and meaning when when used as part of this convoluted locution. Arguably if you decide to stop funding a candidate who withdraws, or your bra or jock breaks, these are all instances of "cancellation". I suggest that this new usage of the terms "cancel" and "cancellation" be henceforth italicized or placed in scare quotes.

Getting somebody fired or deplatformed or otherwise punishing them hardly seems to be merely withdrawing support. Also, withdrawing support is silently forked, merely withdrawing support and publicly withdrawing support. Then there is the why clause, which, again, is forked, for something they said or did. Not discussed above is currency, was this said or done recently, or 40 years ago, and, if in the past, how old was the perpetrator at the time. Also ignored is the severity of the offense, ex: boycott x because the owner said women were inferior to men in 1952 when he was 16, or because an employee criticized my girlfriend's hair and the manager refused to fire her on the spot, or because the owner openly advocates for outlawing homosexuality and killing gay people and refuses to hire or serve gays. These are also highly different things.

quietly withdrawing support because of something they said

vs

quietly withdrawing support because of something they did

vs

publicly withdrawing support because of something they said

vs

publicly withdrawing support because of something they did

Why are those very disparate things being lumped together and then tarred via guilt by association with people trying to get somebody fired for something they said in high school in the fifties? Is it perhaps because they wish to denounce certain current and likely future boycotts as some sort of knee jerk, yet evil, bit of cancel culture. Is it perhaps, as hinted at above, to smear those wishing to remove symbols of institutionalized racism or religious preference from the courthouse door?

Some things seem clear.

Deplatforming people for expressing unpopular opinions or views is an extreme form of censorship and the ultimate in prior restraint. True, nobody is guaranteed a platform unless they can afford to buy one, but in a day and age when the same oligarchs that control the government also control the majority of the media sources and carriers, it reeks of government censorship. There is also an element of intellectual cowardice involved, the "no,no,no, I don't want to hear it" fear of heretics and heresies that is the hallmark of certain true believers of all types who hold a fanatical devotion to an idea, belie, or set or system thereof but who secretly know that they themselves cannot support it with any better reasoning than "the great illustrious poobah told us so" and hence fear that plausible well reasoned heresies might cause them to lose their faith. But a small step above those is those who would otherwise be willing let anybody say their piece, but who don't wish to feel that they must try to refute it and fear that they will be unable to do so. Censorship is almost never a good thing; if you fear my words, don't read them, but also don't ban them.

For all of the reasons that censorship is bad, criticism must be held to be acceptable and arguably good in its own right. Criticism most certainly should not be dectied and lambasted as "cancellation", if only on empirical grounds. Even the briefest exposure to politics will prove than even the most unerringly perfect, true and unarguable demolition of the most erroneous, fatuous, false and irrational theory, idea, proposition or meme will be ineffective in persuading something like 40 to 50% of its adherents to abandon it.

Few would disagree that I have the right to adhere to or support any person, place, or thing; any candidate, company, or brand; any idea, theory or ideology of my choosing. So why then is it some sort of problem for the proponents of this highly suspect neologism if I should chose to withdraw such support, be it for whatever cause or even out of arbitrary capriciousness. If decide, in belated recognition of his demise, to finally withdraw my support for Pat Paulsen as a presidential candidate, how in holy hell can that be deemed to somehow cancel his life and existence. Firstly, there are many senses in which that can never occur, and, secondly, the fates already did that in 1997 in Tijuana. If I were to create a web page listing all of the things I boycott and giving my reasons, that would cancel nothing. If I were then to be deplatformed for so coing, as I most certainly would, that would be a cancellation of sorts.

Is perhaps the real problem here that ordinary humans are, to the limited extent possible, taking control of their little personal chunk of the global narrative themselves, and, for better or worse, using it for their own individual purposes and goals? Did the hoi polloi grab the mike? Is that what this is really about?

I claim to have no answers or certainty, but I do know propaganda when I see it, and I know that with the phrase "cancel culture", indeterminate as to both denotation and connotation, vastly vague and vaguely vast, but ever so greatly negative in every regard, I am for shit sure being propagandazed.

Your mileage may vary and your opinions should, at least to some extent, differ.

be well and have a good one.

.

-

It's an open thread, so have at it. The floor is yours
.

-
-

Share
up
21 users have voted.

Comments

as to how the thought manipulators
wage war on critical thinking

"new" buzz words such as woke and cancel culture
seem designed to deeply obscure self-evident ideas

witness how concepts are propagandized
socialism becomes commies
progressive becomes radical
muslim becomes terrorist
authority becomes incarceration
health care becomes health insurance

The list is long. Thanks for the clarity.

up
18 users have voted.

Let's try to help each other
find a better way.

enhydra lutris's picture

@QMS
and examples.

be well and have a good one.

up
6 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Lookout's picture

and we're in a wild truth free free for all - especially where media and information is concerned.

Onward through the fog...it is foggy here this AM after all.

Have a good one everyone!

up
12 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

usefewersyllables's picture

@Lookout
has been the target all along. Once the entire concept of objective truth has been cancelled, then the public is ripe for the appearance and ascension to power of a Prophet who will speak The Only Real Truth and Who Must Be Believed. All other information, if it came from any other source, will be Lies and Must Be Suppressed.

This dystopia feels more like Heinlein than Orwell. The way I see it unfolding, we're pretty much ready for a Nehemiah Scudder. Can't be Trump, he's the equivalent of shelling the truth-beaches from offshore to soften them up before the landing craft get underway. Cotton, maybe. Somebody with a completely sociopathic grasp of the fake smile and the friendly aphorism to take up The Good Book (whichever one) and Make Everything All Better. This "election", featuring two babbling dementia victims, will go a long way towards readying the public to accept anyone who might appear to have a clear voice and a clear idea of how they might be most efficiently enslaved. The religious aspect will just be the cherry on top. You called it, Sinclair.

At times like these, I'm frankly glad that I'm old and childfree. But your mileage may vary. Soon come!

up
13 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

enhydra lutris's picture

@usefewersyllables
always the first target and the first casualty. We've been sliding downhill toward this catastrophic finale for quite some time now. As you note, religion will be the cherry on top, and it will be there because in the US it is the easiest ideology to foist upon the people because:

Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.
-- Frederick the Great

be well and have a good one

up
9 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

enhydra lutris's picture

@Lookout
time to knock off some chores.

Culture, to the extent it existed here, has indeed been canceled, by TV, or else replaced by or morphed into TV. It does, some extent still exist in sneaky places, the odd private (or public) sculpture garden, for example.

be well and have a good one.

up
8 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

mimi's picture

I have cancelled my cultural standards, I thought I had, for quite a while and behave like a dirty cultured piggy online without any morals, sigh.

I mean I have to fit in somehow ...

I can't be serious anymore. It's over. Blame the heat, Covid 19 and all those political types you don't like. They deserve it.

up
9 users have voted.

“Trauma is not what happens to you.
Trauma is what happens inside you,
as a result of what happens to you.”
— Dr. Gabor Maté

enhydra lutris's picture

@mimi
Ionesco and all that crew, the surrealists and dada crowd all presaged this era, or, if one prefers, Wilde who told us that "Life is too important to be taken seriously".

be well and have a good one.

up
8 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

mimi's picture

@enhydra lutris @enhydra lutris
to my out of bound ranting along.

It is true though that the worse the outlook of the future looks like the more humorous banter between me and the folks who live in the same house becomes.

As a highschool student I had to make a presentation of 'Absurdes Theater', in which I talked about Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" and Ionesco. And I read Sartre. Oh well, all forgotten, see what happened to my life, it is beyond absurd. Wink

Thank you for all you give us here.

up
6 users have voted.

“Trauma is not what happens to you.
Trauma is what happens inside you,
as a result of what happens to you.”
— Dr. Gabor Maté

enhydra lutris's picture

@mimi

also in high school. I'd read all of the works I could find, plus such dada as I could find already and even some more or less parallel works by beats (Ferlingetti's "Seven Unfair Arguments with Existence", for example), so I wrote on Lewis Carroll as a precurser. He was a logician and philosopher and keen social critique disguised as a mathematician.

There is a lot of existential-absurdist stuff in the Alice books, and more in "Sylvie and Bruno", but his pseudo-epic poem "Hunting of the Snark" really is or can be read as pure absurdist theatre, and really should be performed sometime somewhere as such.

be well and have a good one

up
1 user has voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Azazello's picture

From my morning paper: Man's curse-filled rant at Tucson store over face-mask requirement goes viral

Linked at naked capitalism: 40 Ignorant People Getting Shut Down With Science Facts

What a country.
Have a nice day.

up
11 users have voted.

It didn't have to be this way.

enhydra lutris's picture

@Azazello
entertaining video. I find it intriguing that so many are placing such a great store upon the development of a vaccine. If only 1/2 of the population take it, this disease will be with us forever all the same.

be well and have a good one.

up
6 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Azazello's picture

up
8 users have voted.

It didn't have to be this way.

enhydra lutris's picture

up
5 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Good topic. I think we all experienced this earlier at Top. Post an opinion, or response that went against the "establishment". After a few responses, a trusted user who joined DK waaaay back in 1957 would chime in, aggrieved and slightly hostile to tell you you're wrong. Then other trusted users would chime in agreeing that you're wrong, and foolish, not woke, a Naderite, were the reason HER lost the election and should be embarrassed to even be posting, as if you weren't checking for comments. If you had the audacity to show up again to defend yourself, well, there's always skull and crossbones.

up
8 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@Snode
the hiddens or else ban hammer, much easier than actually refuting somebody's position.

be well and have a good one.

up
4 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

snoopydawg's picture

@Snode

an opposing opinion on whatever the subject is. I used to see 2 people regularly try to hit back on Russia Russia Russia over there, but not recently. Today a few people hit back on Harris being a progressive attorney general and boy did the "shut up!" folks come down on them. And don’t dare say anything derogatory about the Lincoln Project folks. Just because they were in Bush’s cabinet and pushed for the Iraq war doesn’t mean they are bad peoples. Not when they are being mean to Trump. And backing Biden. Oh noes...

up
6 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

snoopydawg's picture

@Snode

what we went through in '16 was mild compared to now. And it’s just an echo chamber anymore. I can collapse one comment and it collapses all comments in some diaries.

up
6 users have voted.

“You know me. Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” - Joe Biden 8/31/2020

It is the transformation of morality into a terror state. The goal is the Cultural Revolution and the Stalinist purges, Orwell's thought crimes made real. By making morality fluid and potentially fatal morality is negated and thus the whims of the powerful are elevated and assured.
Suggested reading: David Reisman's Faces In The Crowd, Hanna Arendt's Eichmann In Jerusalem. The Origins Of Totalitarianism, Crises In The Republic, and then 1984.

up
8 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

enhydra lutris's picture

@doh1304
"morality" has always been fluid and potentially fatal, most of "western history" is tied up in that, suppression of heresy, witches, pagans, unbelievers and eventually holy wars, the Crusades and other xtian jihads.

be well and have a good one.

up
6 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

lotlizard's picture

Very extended and detailed discussion of how they, from their various personal viewpoints, see a “cancel culture” phenomenon as working.

https://np.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/hre26t/white_hot_harlots_rain...

[user AdmiralAkbar1:] To give my own personal definition of cancel culture:

Cancel culture is a political and social environment where the act of "cancellation" is the quickest and most common way for someone's social standing to decline. There are several hallmarks of cancellation:

Cancellation is exclusionary. Much like Catholic excommunicatio vitandi, Jehovah's Witnesses' disfellowshipping, and Amish shunning, cancellation declares something or someone to be anathema and urges all good people to minimize contact at once, lest they be declared anathema as well.

Cancellation is atemporal. The only prerequisite for cancellation is that someone has said or done something that could be considered racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive at any point in time. There is no statute of limitations.

Cancellation is absolutist. People are treated as if they are either bigoted or they aren't, no in between. People cannot change over time, and something from thirty years ago is taken to be as representative of one's current character as something from three days ago.

Cancellation is vindictive. Furthermore, because people are incapable of changing over time, there is no effort to try and make them see where they went wrong or change their ways. The only solution is to therefore keep them away from the non-bigots forever.

Cancellation is decentralized. Anyone can initiate cancellation against anyone else, and it becomes wide-reaching due to mass support. There is no single body responsible for cancellation, and thus nobody who the accused can appeal to.

Cancellation is Kafkaesque. The definition of what exactly qualifies as racist/sexist/offensive/etc. is constantly shifting, and someone being cancelled has a difficult time ascertaining how what they did qualifies as such. Associating with a figure who was once perfectly acceptable gets you in hot water in a matter of days if they're cancelled too.

Cancellation is disproportionate. There is nothing that guarantees that the punishment will fit the crime. A teenager tweeting a racist joke may get his college offers revoked, his family members harassed, and his parents fired. The defendant's only hope is that the movement loses steam before things go too far.

[user idw_h8train:] There's one important point missing:

Cancellation is unjust. If evidence is shown that the person cancelled did not actually say or do the things they are accused of, no effort will be made to undo the damage done by cancellation. If a victim of harassment who reported what happened believes the response has been disproportionate, they will be ignored.

up
6 users have voted.

@lotlizard An example of cancellation might be Franken being hounded out of the Senate; however, he had the means to fight back but chose not to do so a luxury not available to everyday folks who get targeted and lose their jobs.

Cancellation is nothing new and was frequently used by various establishments, left and right: show too much interest in the labor movement and you lose your job and perhaps future jobs in an industry; be sympathetic towards Marxism and get put on the McCarthy blacklist; be insufficiently enthusiastic towards various Communist parties and end up in the Soviet Gulag or a Chinese reeducation camp (or worse). The main difference is that you don't need the power of government or the corporatocracy to carry out a cancellation.

up
5 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@MinuteMan

"she's a witch, burn her" comes to mind. So does Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies.

be well and have a good one.

up
5 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

thanatokephaloides's picture

@enhydra lutris

"she's a witch, burn her" comes to mind.

But does she weigh the same as a duck? Wink

up
2 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

enhydra lutris's picture

@thanatokephaloides
ya know. Thanks.

be well and have a good one.

up
1 user has voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

enhydra lutris's picture

@lotlizard
social media culture, and perhaps wider too, but I don't think this is a thing and I don't think very many people sit down and think to themselves, "OK, I'm gonna go and try to cancel so and so". It is the neighborhood and schoolyard cliques of yesteryear writ large, amplified and expanded by the media. It's still the cool kids excluding and harassing the "others" but with ever shifting rules and definitions of what it takes to be in and to be cool and what will get you targeted as opposed to ignored and globally as opposed to the PS-52 5th grade clique.

be well and have a good one.

up
4 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

lotlizard's picture

@enhydra lutris  
when, for example, Linus Torvalds can be forced out of his own life’s work, Linux, by people wielding a hyper-political, woke-ish “code of conduct” they and their allies have succeeded in railroading through numerous projects in the free-software field.

Or, for another example, when people who owe a huge part of their success in the entertainment industry to Joanna Rowling’s Harry Potter oeuvre turn around and, in unison, denounce her and repudiate their friendship with her based on disagreement over one single opinion of hers that they disagree with. Is basic loyalty no longer a principle in their personal and professional relationships? Is the political atmosphere so polarized and poisoned that, after no matter how many years of faithful collaboration, they feel obligated to jump on the nearest bandwagon, unable or unwilling to speak up in defense of a valued colleague or give her the slightest benefit of the doubt?

up
7 users have voted.

@lotlizard

up
3 users have voted.

Let's try to help each other
find a better way.

CS in AZ's picture

@lotlizard

He didn't give up his life's work. He took a few weeks off a couple of years ago to decide whether he wanted to continue being an asshole or not, then he came back to work, making over a million dollars a year and still controlling Linux as well as working on other open source projects. I guess he decided to try to be less of an asshole when he came back. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.

Cancel culture? Please.

Arron Swartz. Arron Swartz

Now there is someone who truly had his life cancelled. That's the "cancel culture" we should be worried about. People like him get cancelled, for real, where was/is the outrage?

Multi-millionaires like JK Rowling getting criticized? Boo hoo. I think she will manage to carry on.

There was a time when it was well understood by everyone that when it comes to keeping your job or for celebrities and artists, public popularity, it is typically necessary to keep one's opinions to oneself, and it was a given to keep discussions of hot button topics like politics and religion out of the workplace and keep it private.

Then came Facebook, followed by twitter and similar social media, and at first we older folks shook our collective heads at the bizarre "oversharing" that started happening everywhere. And we laughed at the stupid people who got themselves fired for posting racist rants on their FB page. Duh!

Now everyone thinks they are entitled to let it all hang out, anywhere, anytime. And some are shocked and outraged to discover there are consequences to doing so, especially in a public venue. Unpopular opinions makes one unpopular! This is obvious, no? Just ask The Chicks (formerly Dixie Chicks) who got widely blacklisted way back in 2003 after Natalie Maines made a mildly critical personal comment about her opinion of Bush Jr.

I agree that "Cancel culture" is a catchy bit of modern propaganda that points at a typically human phenomena that has existed forever. Social pressures to conform to popular beliefs is nothing new.

In the meantime, the real cancel culture of taking out real activists like Arron Swartz goes on, and nobody notices.

up
9 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@CS in AZ

There was a time when it was well understood by everyone that when it comes to keeping your job or for celebrities and artists, public popularity, it is typically necessary to keep one's opinions to oneself, and it was a given to keep discussions of hot button topics like politics and religion out of the workplace and keep it private.

Then came Facebook, followed by twitter and similar social media, and at first we older folks shook our collective heads at the bizarre "oversharing" that started happening everywhere. And we laughed at the stupid people who got themselves fired for posting racist rants on their FB page. Duh!

Ceterem censeo: Facebook delendum est! (And further I opine: Facebook must be destroyed!)

Many communities, families, churches, relationships, friendships, etc., are no more simply and solely because Facebook exists and does what it does in the ways in which it does it.

You explain the "how" better than I, however. Smile

up
5 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

CS in AZ's picture

@thanatokephaloides

I don't think I blame Facebook for existing or agree that it is solely responsible for the (to me inexplicable) way that people suddenly started feeling a need or desire to publish every detail of their lives and every thought that runs through their heads.

I had an aversion to it from the beginning. I knew it was a terrible idea to do that. I still don't actually have any clue how or why having a site like FB caused many (but certainly not all) people to start doing that. Many of us retained the self-control or common sense to avoid the mistakes made by the many persons and groups you speak of. They did make a choice to "publish" -- as in, make available to the public -- whatever it was that came back to bite them in some way.

I was around when the Internet was born, and we were told from the start: "NEVER put anything in an email or on the internet that you would not want to see in the morning newspaper." It was good advice. Somehow, that has gotten lost completely. Is that the fault of the platforms, or is this more of a result human nature in some way?

up
4 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@CS in AZ

Hi Sean, it's good to see you back.

I never really left. I'm just bedridden due to arthritis and can only use one hand to type. But it's always good to hear from you!! Smile

I don't think I blame Facebook for existing or agree that it is solely responsible for the (to me inexplicable) way that people suddenly started feeling a need or desire to publish every detail of their lives and every thought that runs through their heads.

I believe that the reason that so much havock has been wrought by Facebook (FB) is that FB combines high ease, cheap gossip capacity with "the Internet is forever". But I can't afford the loss of my few remaining social contacts just to make Mark Zuckerberg richer.

up
3 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

enhydra lutris's picture

@thanatokephaloides

I never really left. I'm just bedridden due to arthritis and can only use one hand to type.

I was completely unaware of this. I am very sorry to hear it. Take care of yourself.

up
3 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

lotlizard's picture

@CS in AZ  
and get them banned and fired since practically forever, which most people accept without thinking — so one aspect “cancel-culture deniers” ::wink:: are right about is, it’s not that new a thing.

https://www.972mag.com/weaponization-antisemitism-cancel-culture/

https://www.972mag.com/achille-mbembe-germany-israel-antisemitism/

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/music/indian-origin-sing...

Whether “cancel culture” is a recognizable phenomenon is a question on a different level, separate from whether one feels any personal sympathy for Ms. Rowling’s or Mr. Torvalds’ situation in particular. Those were just examples.

I agree about Aaron Swartz. And Snowden, Manning, Assange, Kiriakou, … That’s in no way a dichotomy. People can oppose both cancel culture and the bipartisan deep-state’s hounding of Aaron Swartz.

On the level of the larger cosmos, of course, what I most oppose is Americans’ generations-long attempt to cancel the Hawaiian people’s sovereignty, autonomy, cultural consciousness, and independence.

https://undividednation.us/podcasts/strangling-hands-upon-a-nations-thro...

up
5 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@lotlizard

On the level of the larger cosmos, of course, what I most oppose is Americans’ generations-long attempt to cancel the Hawaiian people’s sovereignty, autonomy, cultural consciousness, and independence.

Brought to you by the same "people" (the American 0.1%) who had successfully cancelled the American 99%'s sovereignty, autonomy, cultural consciousness, and independence.

The American conquest of Hawaii and the Haymarket Uprising were semi-contemporary......

up
4 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

enhydra lutris's picture

@lotlizard

Charges of anti-Semitism have been used to silence people
and get them banned and fired since practically forever, which most people accept without thinking — so one aspect “cancel-culture deniers” ::wink:: are right about is, it’s not that new a thing.

As have charges of heresy, political correctness, being a commie-red-pinko-fellow traveler, and oh so many more. Events, people getting shut down, are quite real, yes. But this is a tactic used to shut down and dismiss people, groups, ideas and the like immemorial. (And somewhat of a spin off of a certain classical fallacy). The phrase, however, is really self-referential. If one accuses somebody of applying, using or indulging in "cancel culture" their real goal and purpose is to get that person or their criticism(s) dismissed, ignored, and run out of town on a rail. It is simply a broader form ot the previous "Political correctness" accusation, another short hand for "what they say has no merit, dismiss and silence them". Because the events that occur are real, it is easy to see the "phenomenon" as a real thing, but it is really just a slogan used to cut-off debate.

be well and have a good one.

up
1 user has voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

enhydra lutris's picture

@CS in AZ
dismissal, yes, a cancellation if one must, like Political correctness, or heresy. The phrase is really used to achieve the thing that it decries, which is a big part of how it works as propaganda and why I'm sure that is what it is. Since it is generally tossed abound by those who used to control the narrative, I's very suspicious that I know by whom and to what end.

be well and have a good one

up
2 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Only the rich and famous can be cancelled. That's what I'm reading, anyway. Those bozos are all up in the air about being cancelled. Welcome to the real world, jackasses. Then there are those who are woke! What a bunch of bullshit. Anything to distract the masses - QUICK! fall for it!

So glad I dropped out of the electorate. Harris and Biden - what a pair! What a joke! America is a joke. Unrest for the next five years. Join in.

Live in the present. Live in love. Be grateful for everything.

Enjoy the day - Pleasantry

up
8 users have voted.

"When will our conscience's grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?" Eleanor Roosevelt

"The secret of change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new." Socrates (469-399 BC)

enhydra lutris's picture

@Raggedy Ann
Those are the ones who have a goodly distance to fall I suddenly realized that this is a media creation in more than one wat, those doing the cancelling, back in the day, wrote letters to the editor, but are now empowered by myspace and facetweet and all that.

be well and have a good one.

up
4 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@Raggedy Ann
Tell that to the owner of a small press comic book publisher who was SWATted because he asked his authors not use blockchains. The amount of real life popularity gives you some immunity from cancellation, but only if your popularity is among people willing to defy the culture. Likewise the extent of your exposure to public notice is a factor in your vulnerability to cancellation. Keeping your head down is little defense however, as anything you say or do can be used as a cause to cancel you.

up
7 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

travelerxxx's picture

@doh1304

So, now I know what SWATted means. I had to look it up.

People have lost their lives from this stunt. It's well beyond radical to do this to someone simply because you disagree with their views – or what you think are their views.

People found guilty of doing this should be facing felony charges.

up
5 users have voted.
magiamma's picture

et al

Good one, el. 1984 double speak. Step back from your amygdala. Lol. The ptb cancel much culture, black, red, brown, female, but have a hissy fit when called on it, and accuse others of canceling their cancel-culture. Down with statues of racists. Meh! Kancel Kancel-Kulture.

Take good care, all, and have a good one

up
5 users have voted.

Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation

Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook

enhydra lutris's picture

@magiamma
foremost:

The ptb cancel much culture, black, red, brown, female, but have a hissy fit when called on it, and accuse others of canceling their cancel-culture.

Whatever it is and whatever the fuss is all about, "cancel culture", the phrase and concept, is a propaganda tool, and is probably not being wielded with an eye toward our benefit.

be well and have a good one.

up
3 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@magiamma
acting to discredit and intimidate us. I've considered that. It's almost certainly true, at least in a large part.

up
5 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

mimi's picture

I had one sitting on the top of my monitors at work for a long time. Some time ago I was in a Linux user group and tried to learn something (not much success though), what has happened to Linus Thorwald?

Sigh.

I agree:

Ceterem censeo: Facebook delendum est! (And further I opine: Facebook must be destroyed!)

May be it happens in my next life?

I feel so old. Before I heard about reddit, I used redhat. 1994 I think it was. I miss my Tux. Can't understand what anybody would have against Linus Thorwald.

up
4 users have voted.

“Trauma is not what happens to you.
Trauma is what happens inside you,
as a result of what happens to you.”
— Dr. Gabor Maté

lotlizard's picture

@mimi  
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=linus+torvalds+code+of+conduct

Try to look at it from all sides and then judge for yaself, I allus say…

up
3 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@mimi

tux-1

be well and have a good one.

up
1 user has voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --