They continued releasing videos, is still active on Twitter. So... they weren't deplatformed or anything, so how exactly were they cancelled?
For every person that you could make the argument for being unfairly "cancelled" there are 1000 people who received backlash for something they did or said. That's not some unique mistreatment worthy of having a term invented for it.
Being cancelled and being deplatformed are not the same thing to me. Being cancelled means that you receive a shitstorm with the clear aim to destroy or hurt you rather than for you to change an actually offensive behavior. So an attack on your personhood rather than your actions.
And that did happen in case of contrapoints and it does happen a lot in the internet age, often on a smaller scale.
It does, but that is not how it's utilized. This is why I think having an emphasis on the term itself ends up being moot most of the time. In practice, invoking cancel culture is usually someone being insensitive or ignorant and not owning up to it. And instead making a cottage industry out of crying about the "introlerance of the tolerant".
--- Double Post Merged, 4 minutes ago ---
So much of our existence these days is spent being terminally online, most often out of necessity. That's not changing any time soon. "Cancel culture" is just emergent behavior because of that. That is the main reason, the method of discourse has just changed.
I really have no problem with the term. It is just like with social justice warrior back then, or wokeness today. It is often used by rightwingers unfairly, but it certainly exists as a phenomenon and needs a name.
I think there is rightful complaining about cancel culture, as in, a culture that focuses on outrage and destruction rather than having polarizing conversations. And it is hurtful even if it does not completely destroy the person it is aimed at, because it creates divides in society rather than letting people argue out polarizing things.
I think that topic should not be disregarded just because rightwingers are silly. A lot of cancelling comes FROM the right and it should be named as such.
I think there is rightful complaining about cancel culture, as in, a culture that focuses on outrage and destruction rather than having polarizing conversations. And it is hurtful even if it does not completely destroy the person it is aimed at, because it creates divides in society rather than letting people argue out polarizing things.
I think that topic should not be disregarded just because rightwingers are silly. A lot of cancelling comes FROM the right and it should be named as such.
Like I said, those complaints are valid at about a rate of 1:1000, so how much of it is rightful? Where is the widespread damage being done?
Agreed, except it isn't named as such. And is mostly used to disregard completely valid criticism. Being harassed does not invalidate the reason why someone might be harassed. We can have a debate about the real meaning all we want, it's not really how it's used. Just look at anyone acting like Trump was cancelled or acting like that was anything of any consequence.
That is not him being cancelled, that is him breaking the rules despite being warned by Twitter multiple times and finally facing the consequences for it. He was finally held accountable for breaking Twitter's rules. The fact is, Trump should have been banned from Twitter years ago, but he kept getting away with lying, being bigoted, and inciting violence because he was both the president and because Twitter was using him for hits and getting new users.
Another fact is that it's often the minorities/the more vulnerable groups that quickly get banned, suspended, or restricted, and just for defending themselves against bigots and asshats. If a republican man attacks a transgender woman, he's not going to get in trouble, but the transgender woman will if she defends herself. It's happened many times, but incidentally, people whining about "cancel culture" and "freedom of speech" won't stick up for her. Wonder why.
How was she cancelled by the transgender community? She chose to deactivate Twitter but was still able make more videos since the tweet. An article even says small number. I won't deny that the left tends to overreact and lose their shit too quickly, but rarely anyone is ever cancelled, other than a certain group I mentioned.
Let's be real though, people whining about "cancel culture" and being silenced only give a shit because they don't want their ideas or views to be seen as bad or for them to face consequences if others know about it. If it's something they disagree with, then they couldn't care less, or they may help silence or "cancel" those people or organizations.
Like I said, those complaints are valid at about a rate of 1:1000, so how much of it is rightful? Where is the widespread damage being done?
Agreed, except it isn't named as such. And is mostly used to disregard completely valid criticism. Being harassed does not invalidate the reason why someone might be harassed. We can have a debate about the real meaning all we want, it's not really how it's used. Just look at anyone acting like Trump was cancelled or acting like that was anything of any consequence.
I dont think so, I think you very often see people getting cancelled that basically did nothing wrong. And that is especially on the lower scales, when we are not talking about celebrities but about some bakery that made local news or s th.
To me, cancel culture also includes when people just go too far, for example when someone actually made a stupid comment but then his shop gets its windows thrown in several times even after an apology.
And words are used in various different ways. What someone on the right calls "fascism" certainly is not how a historian would use it, the same goes for cancellings.
My definition would be: "Cancelling is a campaign of significant moral outrage aimed at an individual or institution that aims to make the victim a pariah or hurting him rather than just solving the stated reason for the campaign or reaching a concrete betterment of the situation/consensus".
The telltale sign is that the cancelling persists no matter whether the victim apologizes or stops, it twists words to gain more ammunition and it does not state any concrete demand that the victim can satisfy to stop the outrage. And what i described does happen a lot.
How was she cancelled by the transgender community? She chose to deactivate Twitter but was still able make more videos since the tweet. An article even says small number. I won't deny that the left tends to overreact and lose their shit too quickly, but rarely anyone is ever cancelled, other than a certain group I mentioned.
Let's be real though, people whining about "cancel culture" and being silenced only give a shit because they don't want their ideas or views to be seen as bad or for them to face consequences if others know about it. If it's something they disagree with, then they couldn't care less, or they may help silence or "cancel" those people or organizations.
If people from a community keep piling onto you until you feel forced to deactivate twitter and do so due to a campaign of moral outrage that twists your words and renders you as a transphobe, that is cancelling in my book.
I don't think using the right is a good reason to excuse cancelling. The left is not "overreacting", that is a euphemism. The left is often destructive, toxic and hateful towards people that did not deserve it, or at least not in that severity. And that has to be stated, no matter what the right does.
If people from a community keep piling onto you until you feel forced to deactivate twitter and do so due to a campaign of moral outrage that twists your words and renders you as a transphobe, that is cancelling in my book.
I don't think using the right is a good reason to excuse cancelling. The left is not "overreacting", that is a euphemism. The left is often destructive, toxic and hateful towards people that did not deserve it, or at least not in that severity. And that has to be stated, no matter what the right does.
Your book is incorrect, then. She was still able to make videos and was still offered platforms to talk on. Deactivating a social media doesn't make anyone cancelled, at all. Again, if you really care about people being cancelled, then you should be angry at how many Palestinians are losing their jobs and livelihood just because they condemn Israel's genocide against Palestinians.
I'm not using the right for anything, nor am I excusing something that isn't even real. Again, "cancel culture" is just another way for people to avoid accountability or holding others accountable, especially when they agree with them. Nicki Minaj and her stans complained about being cancelled. Do you think she was being cancelled when her own fans politely pointed out that her husband is a sex offender and that she shouldn't marry him?
No, the left does overreact a lot, but let's not act as if the right isn't destructive, toxic, and hateful. Just not to anyone that's conservative or right since they usually share nearly the same views on almost everything. The left does hold people to a rigid standard, which they shouldn't do, but they at least try to combat bigotry, whereas when the right are destructive or shitty, it's due to bigotry.
People like Milo Yiannapolous deserve to be deplatformed when all they do is spread hatred and put people in danger.
People complained Gina Carano got cancelled. She signed with a right wing tabloid bullshit, The Daily Wire or something, so she's still getting roles and money. Louis CK as far as I know chose not to do standup for a while, but when he did appear after months, he got loud cheers. Not cancelled.
I feel like this kind of discussion gets can get dominated by a theoretical worst case scenario that almost never happens. Things happen in the court of the chronically online-public opinion sometimes, and that's just how the cookie crumbles.
I feel sympathy for people who get harassed over a misunderstanding, or those that are sincere in being contrite but to no avail. But are those cases in some sort of crazy abundance? I would say no, not really.
Your book is incorrect, then. She was still able to make videos and was still offered platforms to talk on. Deactivating a social media doesn't make anyone cancelled, at all. Again, if you really care about people being cancelled, then you should be angry at how many Palestinians are losing their jobs and livelihood just because they condemn Israel's genocide against Palestinians.
I'm not using the right for anything, nor am I excusing something that isn't even real. Again, "cancel culture" is just another way for people to avoid accountability or holding others accountable, especially when they agree with them. Nicki Minaj and her stans complained about being cancelled. Do you think she was being cancelled when her own fans politely pointed out that her husband is a sex offender and that she shouldn't marry him?
No, the left does overreact a lot, but let's not act as if the right isn't destructive, toxic, and hateful. Just not to anyone that's conservative or right since they usually share nearly the same views on almost everything. The left does hold people to a rigid standard, which they shouldn't do, but they at least try to combat bigotry, whereas when the right are destructive or shitty, it's due to bigotry.
People like Milo Yiannapolous deserve to be deplatformed when all they do is spread hatred and put people in danger.
I dont think my 'book is incorrect', cancel culture is certainly not defined as the same thing as deplatforming, it is about ostracism of people, and that can happen in various forms.
Someone can be deplatformed without it being cancelling, someone can not be deplatformed but it is cancelling.
Cancel culture is when it is not enough for you that someone stops a certain kind of beavior or a concrete claim but when you try to get that person out of certain social circles no matter what they do from that point on (and sometimes no matter what they actually did).
A good example would be Jeremy Corbyn. He certainly got cancelled by creating moral outrage because he did call Hamas and Hizbollah "friends". Now, don't get me wrong here, he was wrong to do that and he said some things i too find fucked up. But that was not really what the cancelling was about.
Corbyn apologized for that and regreted it, it was 10 years ago and instead of just staying with that fact, people started calling him an 'antisemitist' and claiming he had antisemitist history.
The story went from fucked up comments to him BEING an antisemitist, and there is really no defense against that, and that was what was repeated throughout social media. THAT is cancellation, even if he was hardly deplatformed (i mean, who really is deplatformed in an illegal way?).
THat is different from Trump, for example. Trump DID get deplatformed on twitter to some extent, but Trump did not get cancelled. The normal Twitter rules applied to him and he kept doing offensive behavior which people kept being angry about.
The difference is that Corbyn got called antisemitist for a story from 10 years ago as if he was constantly doing antisemitist things, while Trump was attacked for things he recently did and that made people angry and people attacked him for WHAT HE DID.
Had Trump stopped being offensive ten years ago (as if he could, but IF), become a respectable politician, THEN it would be a different matter.
I feel like this kind of discussion gets can get dominated by a theoretical worst case scenario that almost never happens. Things happen in the court of the chronically online-public opinion sometimes, and that's just how the cookie crumbles.
I feel sympathy for people who get harassed over a misunderstanding, or those that are sincere in being contrite but to no avail. But are those cases in some sort of crazy abundance? I would say no, not really.
I think there certainly is a severe impact and it happens for often than you'd think on the smaller scale. It gets attention when its about celebrities, but cancel culture happens on small scales, too.
I can give you one example from my Uni:
Students are supposed to describe a scene. A male student describes an actor with "he is sitting in a gayish way".
Another female student gets offended by that and tells him that using "gay" to describe feminine is offensive. They argue.
Professor interferes and says that in his class, everyone should say what they think and she shouldnt tell him how to speak. They argue, it gets kinda heated and he say some stupid things (no insults, he made bad comparisons and says stuff like "you should not see yourself as a victim")
She goes to uni leadership and tells them she ad to endure homophobia in class and absolutely cannot work with the professor anymore. She also runs around Uni and tells everyone how he is a sexist and a homophobe. She also takes other comments (some actually stupid, but none vile) and twists them so he is not only homophobe but also an antisemitist.
A lot of students that were not part of that situation believe her, Uni leadership has to act, partially out of PR reasons, because Uni is proud of being diverse.
In the end, there was enough of a backlash to cost him his job. That would never come up in any newspaper, it was framed as "they just did not extent his contract", but he got removed.
There is some "truth is in the middle" here as, yes, some of his comments were kinda stupid. But that was not what he was removed for, a lot of people say kinda stupid things, he got removed because it was claimed he was homophobe and antisemitist and more and a lot of people just jumped onto the train. There was a petition to get him removed and LOTS of people that did not even know the guy signed.
And even for the people who do not get cancelled, that creates an atmosphere of not being able to talk freely because even if you do not mean any harm, suddenly you get treated like a racist or sexist. And i dont mean people who wanna say racial slurs here.
These are just everyday occurences, i have witnessed enough of them and i would suspect it is worse in the US media, university, school and job landscape than here.
I dont think my 'book is incorrect', cancel culture is certainly not defined as the same thing as deplatforming, it is about ostracism of people, and that can happen in various forms.
Someone can be deplatformed without it being cancelling, someone can not be deplatformed but it is cancelling.
Cancel culture is when it is not enough for you that someone stops a certain kind of beavior or a concrete claim but when you try to get that person out of certain social circles no matter what they do from that point on (and sometimes no matter what they actually did).
A good example would be Jeremy Corbyn. He certainly got cancelled by creating moral outrage because he did call Hamas and Hizbollah "friends". Now, don't get me wrong here, he was wrong to do that and he said some things i too find fucked up. But that was not really what the cancelling was about.
Corbyn apologized for that and regreted it, it was 10 years ago and instead of just staying with that fact, people started calling him an 'antisemitist' and claiming he had antisemitist history.
The story went from fucked up comments to him BEING an antisemitist, and there is really no defense against that, and that was what was repeated throughout social media. THAT is cancellation, even if he was hardly deplatformed (i mean, who really is deplatformed in an illegal way?).
THat is different from Trump, for example. Trump DID get deplatformed on twitter to some extent, but Trump did not get cancelled. The normal Twitter rules applied to him and he kept doing offensive behavior which people kept being angry about.
The difference is that Corbyn got called antisemitist for a story from 10 years ago as if he was constantly doing antisemitist things, while Trump was attacked for things he recently did and that made people angry and people attacked him for WHAT HE DID.
Had Trump stopped being offensive ten years ago (as if he could, but IF), become a respectable politician, THEN it would be a different matter.
But it is. Cancel culture isn't about ostracism, and even if it is, people don't get ostracized from society. That woman you mentioned did not get ostracized, she was still making videos and still giving interviews, and she had people defend her, I think. That's not her being cancelled, but it is some transgender people overreacting to what she said. And it is weird, given that she herself is a transgender woman as well.
That's not cancel culture. Neither is what happened to Corbyn. That sort of thing is normal in politics, and he still had support from people. He wasn't cancelled. Again, Palestinians who speak up for Palestine and are bullied by Zionist scums are the ones actually cancelled, but no one ever says anything about that. Wonder why
Corbyn was in politics, just as Trump was/is. Cancelling is not a thing because Corbyn still had support, just as Trump did. You are aware in politics, politicians and opposing groups tend to say things to make others look bad?
Fuck Trump, he's a piece of shit. So are so many of his supporters.
If republicans take part in it then it can't not be a thing. Cancel culture is absolutely a thing, it's just not a partisan thing. I don't think anyone likes cancel culture, specially over overblown stuff to people who are largely politically irrelevant, but realistically speaking cancel culture is just the free market so to speak. It's... natural to not want to support someone in whichever way whom you find abhorrent.
If republicans take part in it then it can't not be a thing. Cancel culture is absolutely a thing, it's just not a partisan thing. I don't think anyone likes cancel culture, specially over overblown stuff to people who are largely politically irrelevant, but realistically speaking cancel culture is just the free market so to speak. It's... natural to not want to support someone in whichever way whom you find abhorrent.
When people use the term cancel culture to refer to digging up years-old problematic statements by someone to justify getting rid of them, I agree with that being something bad that we should discourage.
Fortunately for the people that have their past dug up for such attacks, the shit never works. Kevin Spacey has a show coming up despite him being Metoo'd. He just took a little break like everyone else has.
But it is. Cancel culture isn't about ostracism, and even if it is, people don't get ostracized from society. That woman you mentioned did not get ostracized, she was still making videos and still giving interviews, and she had people defend her, I think. That's not her being cancelled, but it is some transgender people overreacting to what she said. And it is weird, given that she herself is a transgender woman as well.
That's not cancel culture. Neither is what happened to Corbyn. That sort of thing is normal in politics, and he still had support from people. He wasn't cancelled. Again, Palestinians who speak up for Palestine and are bullied by Zionist scums are the ones actually cancelled, but no one ever says anything about that. Wonder why
Corbyn was in politics, just as Trump was/is. Cancelling is not a thing because Corbyn still had support, just as Trump did. You are aware in politics, politicians and opposing groups tend to say things to make others look bad?
Fuck Trump, he's a piece of shit. So are so many of his supporters.
It is. Cancel Culture is about ostacism. Claiming it is just about deplatforming is just not accurate.
And you can get ostracized while still making videos. She got ostracized from a community and successfully bullied off twitter. Basically, you just move the goalpost. It is only cancel culture in your book if the person suffering from it basically dies, but that is not what the phenomenon is about.
What happened to corbyn and to contrapoints is cancel culture. Just because people still have support does not mean they have not been cancelled. Just like you can be bullied even if you are fine after.
You are basically changing what the word means so you can claim it does not exist. But it exists.
Now I think about it, it's funny how Putin knows about cancel culture. It's supposed to be just an American thing im sure. Im guessing china does too. I think Russia and China especially are working together to brainwash Americans. Tiktok has some very weird community guidelines. I see ***** that are completely ***** on there and it doesn't get taken down, even after getting hundreds of reports and hundreds of thousands of likes, no exaggeration. They are purposely allowing and promoting certain content because they know it is dumbing down and brainwashing the americans! I hate saying this because I sound like trump cry about toktok , but It is very susspicious! Just saying,
When people use the term cancel culture to refer to digging up years-old problematic statements by someone to justify getting rid of them, I agree with that being something bad that we should discourage.
Fortunately for the people that have their past dug up for such attacks, the shit never works. Kevin Spacey has a show coming up despite him being Metoo'd. He just took a little break like everyone else has.
But what is with the people who are not rich? Cancel Culture is not only about celebrities. You can very much lose your job over some divisive comment nowadays. Or you can be rendered a sexist or even rapist by hearsay because people pile onto you.
For normal average joes, it is far more hurtful than for celebrities, because they dont have millions on the bank to come back from it, and often have very little support (or the wrong kind of support).
Cancel culture to me is not about actors and stars but about local news where someone said s th wrong and then their whole community or even a nation wide community tries to get them cancelled no matter what they do after.
And for that, to me it does not matter whether there was actually a bad thing they did.
Recently. a restaurant in germany made news because the owner put a sign with "due to the war, no russian citizens allowed". That is a bad thing. He should not have done that. And it is absolutely fine to complain or even shitstorm that, especially in his community.
BUT: Cancel culture started when it went on after he apologized and put the sign down.
By any margin what he did was hardly in the same league as assaulting or abusing someone, he did not even enforce that rule, it was a sign that was up for a day or two. Still, he had his windows thrown in, he had his yelp reviews shattered and an insane twitter pile on so that his restaurant got into actual trouble (after corona, no less). And that is where it starts being toxic (even without the windows). He IS a racist now. He did not just do a bad thing that he apologized for, he IS a racist and as such people want him to lose his restaurant, no amtter what he does form then on.
And that is actual cancel culture. This has nothing to do with deplatforming or whether it is successful, it is a campaign to destroy someone, regardless of the stated problem.
If republicans take part in it then it can't not be a thing. Cancel culture is absolutely a thing, it's just not a partisan thing. I don't think anyone likes cancel culture, specially over overblown stuff to people who are largely politically irrelevant, but realistically speaking cancel culture is just the free market so to speak. It's... natural to not want to support someone in whichever way whom you find abhorrent.
But the thing is, they complain about cancel culture but try to get people who they disagree with cancelled. They're no better than the people they complain about. Worse, actually.
I think people who try hard to look like they care about social issues or want clout like the idea of cancel culture, because they can point out other's wrongdoings and look better for doing so.
It may be, but it's not a thing the way that most people think it is. ALmost every time I see people complain about it, it's usually because of accountability and their inability to handle it.
It is. Cancel Culture is about ostacism. Claiming it is just about deplatforming is just not accurate.
And you can get ostracized while still making videos. She got ostracized from a community and successfully bullied off twitter. Basically, you just move the goalpost. It is only cancel culture in your book if the person suffering from it basically dies, but that is not what the phenomenon is about.
What happened to corbyn and to contrapoints is cancel culture. Just because people still have support does not mean they have not been cancelled. Just like you can be bullied even if you are fine after.
You are basically changing what the word means so you can claim it does not exist. But it exists.
I never said it was about deplatforming, I'm just saying cancel culture isn't about ostracism, nor is it a thing. Though maybe as ninjabot pointed out, digging up old posts and tweets might be close to it, at least if people throw a shitfit.
You can, but you still can't get cancelled. She was still making videos, still getting views, and still likely getting money and getting interviewed. That's not being cancelled. Kaepernick was cancelled in NFL because no team was willing to hire him because he refused to stop kneeling in protest of USA's treatment of Black people. And even then, he wasn't really cancelled because he still has a lot of support and is working with Nike, and I say this as someone who supports his action and is disgusted with how he's been blackballed.
YOu're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of saying things I never even came close to hinting at thinking. Cancel culture is not a thing because it hasn't destroyed lives, for the most part, nor have people really been hurt. Ninety-five percent of the time, at the very least, people confuse accountability with cancel culture, and I rarely see proof otherwise.
That's not cancel culture. What happened to Corbyn is part of politics, the other side dug up dirt on him and used that to hurt his standing. It's a tactic. Does contrapoints have a job? Does she still earn money? Does she still work with others? If so, she's definitely not cancelled.
I am not, you are. I've actually looked up what it means. If cancel culture existed, then people like Chris Brown wouldn't be releasing songs and working with other artists, he'd be casted out of the industry for being an abusive, , violent, and homophobic piece of shit. Hell, James Gunn was under fire for his old tweets, but he wasn't truly cancelled because he still got hired for different projects even though he did get fired from GotG.
Bet you think Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, and Bill Cosby got unfairly cancelled.
But the thing is, they complain about cancel culture but try to get people who they disagree with cancelled. They're no better than the people they complain about. Worse, actually.
I think people who try hard to look like they care about social issues or want clout like the idea of cancel culture, because they can point out other's wrongdoings and look better for doing so.
It may be, but it's not a thing the way that most people think it is. ALmost every time I see people complain about it, it's usually because of accountability and their inability to handle it.
That's not really at odds with what I am saying. Which is basically that cancel culture exists AND it is largely bipartisan. Discussing which party is marginally worst at this is eyeroll inducing tbh, pretty sure you can whatabout- the topic ad infinitum...
I say we forgive Russia or whatever as soon as possible, just let them or even help them take Ukraine. We need them to help us fight climate change. We can't let ourselves get separated like this, we should be working together. For the good of all of us, forgive Russia. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/rus...thout-russia-harder-tackle-climate-change-and
