|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 17:46:45 GMT -5
Speaking of Fantasy authors. Tolkien has been referenced as really edging the line on racism sometimes. Yeah, but Tolkien was afaik really tame in that regard compared to a rabid Howard Phillips Lovecraft. And, uh, let's talk about film historians having to deal with Birth of a Nation? That's even worse than looking at Lovecraft's life! I wasn't saying “We should only read perfect authors” I was just saying “Terry Pratchett is a gem, isn't he?”. James Gunn as an example of some of the problems with Cancel Culture. You have someone attacked for tweets made 20 years ago, fired in a knee jerk response, and then brought back on board the moment executives think the coast is clear. Tell me where that solved ANYTHING. No, that was stupid. JK Rowling writes a bunch of transphobic garbage, and the Harry Potter fandom then turns to 'she didn't really write the books'. Who did then, did they just materialize? POTTER APPEARIO! J.K. Rowling is still credited for Harry Potter. Unlike Notch, who isn't credited anymore for Minecraft, lol.( He actually is, but not in the opening credits) I've never seen anyone call for this to happen, though, so I don't know if that counts as cancel culture or not? It's likely bad, but… given that Notch doesn't do anything but life an idle life right now, and stopped being productive long before he got removed from the credits, I don't think I really care about it. Is Rowling still writing books? Or involved in new Harry Potter stuff? If she is, good for her and the fans. Now, I'm not going to write you all an entire history of the Blacklist, it's many negative impacts on American Culture and the Arts, but the end result was that many of our best writers, directors, and actors were forced to give up being credited for their work or forced out of work entirely And the Hays code sucked balls too. This insanity actually created the current issues with the film industry, and is also, unfortunately, why said industry is so resistant to actual change. How so? Not a rhetorical question. This is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 17:47:14 GMT -5
People want a change in culture, actors are one of the most visible parts of said culture. And I took time explaining why that does not work. To me it looks like it is working, for good or ill. There has been a huge shift in societal mores since 2000. The concept of “punch down not up” has taken root in the mainstream as a result of motivated backlash or whatever “canceling” was called before the term was coined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2021 17:48:47 GMT -5
Was he cancelled? I seem to remember him being a respected author whose works were still published. I wrote a letter to the editor once about religion, and someone wrote a rebuttal. Have I been canceled?
That had nothing to do with cancelling, but congratulations on managing the hat trick of posting a deflection, a strawman, AND a false equivalency in one post! Wemb would be proud to claim that as his own.
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Jan 21, 2021 17:48:55 GMT -5
I think what Baron is trying to say is that we need to be very careful about what's enough tob just boot someone off of a social media platform versus what's enough to boot someone off all social media, fired from their job, made unhireable in any professional capacity, and forever ostracized and made a pariah in polite society. The problem is that we're too quick to jump straight to the latter these days.
But I understand why it's happening, though. For centuries, conservatives in general had the power to censor, silence, and cast out those they didn't like. It's only today, thanks to technology, that liberals have the power to do so just as easily, and we may be being a wee bit too vengeful/vindictive with that power.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 17:49:42 GMT -5
Speaking of Fantasy authors. Tolkien has been referenced as really edging the line on racism sometimes. Yeah, but Tolkien was afaik really tame in that regard compared to a rabid Howard Phillips Lovecraft. And, uh, let's talk about film historians having to deal with Birth of a Nation? That's even worse than looking at Lovecraft's life! I wasn't saying “We should only read perfect authors” I was just saying “Terry Pratchett is a gem, isn't he?”. Oh no, I didn't mean to imply you said that. I'm agreeing with you and providing examples of MORE questionable authors whose works are still doing well and arguably better then ever. We can seperate the work from the author, but that's a lot harder to do when the author is still alive and profiting off it.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 17:51:46 GMT -5
Was he cancelled? I seem to remember him being a respected author whose works were still published. I wrote a letter to the editor once about religion, and someone wrote a rebuttal. Have I been canceled?
That had nothing to do with cancelling, but congratulations on managing the hat trick of posting a deflection, a strawman, AND a false equivalency in one post! Wemb would be proud to claim that as his own.
I like to think of it more as taking the piss, but sure. Perhaps you could explain why you brought up the Daily Mail thing and/or how you think Pratchett has been canceled? In what way is that beloved authors continued success a sign of the hazards of cancel culture?
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 17:59:07 GMT -5
I think what Baron is trying to say is that we need to be very careful about what's enough tob just boot someone off of a social media platform versus what's enough to boot someone off all social media, fired from their job, made unhireable in any professional capacity, and forever ostracized and made a pariah in polite society. The problem is that we're too quick to jump straight to the latter these days. But I understand why it's happening, though. For centuries, conservatives in general had the power to censor, silence, and cast out those they didn't like. It's only today, thanks to technology, that liberals have the power to do so just as easily, and we may be being a wee bit too vengeful/vindictive with that power. That’s a conversation we could have, but not with loaded terms like “cancel culture”, which we all know means “liberals not letting us tell it like it is”. It’s the people who do deserve to be kicked off trying to associate with those who only deserve a conversation or rebuke in order to muddy the issue. It does not help that, like false sexual assault allegations, some are motivated to take a rare (though serious) injustice and use it as an excuse to justify not pursuing far more numerous and insidious injustices.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jan 21, 2021 17:59:14 GMT -5
And for the record, no one here is saying "all of cancel culture is good," but we are challenging the idea that you presented of "all of cancel culture is incredibly stupid." Hell, contra points gave me a new perspective on the issues surrounding it. Ok, as I pointed out earlier but you apparently didn't take the time to read, it not only does not yield results, or the results it does yield are quickly undone. James Gunn as an example of some of the problems with Cancel Culture. You have someone attacked for tweets made 20 years ago, fired in a knee jerk response, and then brought back on board the moment executives think the coast is clear. Tell me where that solved ANYTHING.
JK Rowling writes a bunch of transphobic garbage, and the Harry Potter fandom then turns to 'she didn't really write the books'. Who did then, did they just materialize? POTTER APPEARIO!
It does nothing to address the underlying issues. Studio management has not, for example, actually done anything about the culture that permitted men like Bill Cosby to act for years. They're more than happy to continue on with business as usual, having thrown the angry mobs a bone that was no longer making them money.
The reason that this does not work is that this whole thing has been done before in the 1950s. Going after actors and others involved in film for their politics reeks to high heaven of the Hollywood Blacklist, one of the various facets of McCarthyism, and one that Hollywood was forced to learn to deal with to survive.
Replace reds and communists with whatever the flavor of the hour is and tell me if this sounds familiar to anyone?
Now, I'm not going to write you all an entire history of the Blacklist, it's many negative impacts on American Culture and the Arts, but the end result was that many of our best writers, directors, and actors were forced to give up being credited for their work or forced out of work entirely, because of their political views, while studios tried to exploit them anyway. This insanity actually created the current issues with the film industry, and is also, unfortunately, why said industry is so resistant to actual change. It's like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. It's amazing how you have continued to avoid answering my question. Do you do it because you know you can't back it up, or because you know you're wrong? You have yet to prove your original claim. As for your points here (some of which I'll be echoing what others have said): 1. You're blaming people for capitalism's failings, not people's failings. 2. No one has argued cancel culture is perfect like you seem to think. 3. You are once again cherrypicking people and painting them as a the majority. This is exactly what despic does. Be better. 4. Just because it doesn't get immediate change does not mean it isn't worth trying to get it regardless. Even gradual change is good, and don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We especially don't need to cancel people forever if they've truly apologized and understand why they were wrong i.e. 5. I personally did not attack James Gunn for the record. 6. Baron, post some fucking evidence. Links to what you say has happened that demonstrates it as being more than a literal handful of cranks or stans. You accuse me of acting like despic here, but you are more closely echoing posting style right now. Devoid of proof, spurious claim after spurious claim. I think what Baron is trying to say is that we need to be very careful about what's enough tob just boot someone off of a social media platform versus what's enough to boot someone off all social media, fired from their job, made unhireable in any professional capacity, and forever ostracized and made a pariah in polite society. The problem is that we're too quick to jump straight to the latter these days. But I understand why it's happening, though. For centuries, conservatives in general had the power to censor, silence, and cast out those they didn't like. It's only today, thanks to technology, that liberals have the power to do so just as easily, and we may be being a wee bit too vengeful/vindictive with that power. I think this is a very generous interpretation of what he has actually said considering what he has actually posted implying that all cancel culture is bad and is always insane (i.e. the supposed "Cancel Mando" stuff he hasn't backed up while presenting it as the majority opinion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2021 18:03:48 GMT -5
How so? Not a rhetorical question. This is interesting. Ok, simple explanations: When the blacklist was in play, the studios developed systems where they could still exploit the talent.
Let's say you have Bill Cosby, and you want his (lol) talent for a film, as a comedian. What you do is you have him write the screenplay, then don't credit him. Without the credit, John Q Public has no idea that you've cheerfully employed a sex offender, because you never see him on camera. Now, Cosby takes a hit on the pay check, but the people he wants to know, know, and the people he doesn't want to know, don't.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 18:05:54 GMT -5
I think what Baron is trying to say is that we need to be very careful about what's enough tob just boot someone off of a social media platform versus what's enough to boot someone off all social media, fired from their job, made unhireable in any professional capacity, and forever ostracized and made a pariah in polite society. The problem is that we're too quick to jump straight to the latter these days. But I understand why it's happening, though. For centuries, conservatives in general had the power to censor, silence, and cast out those they didn't like. It's only today, thanks to technology, that liberals have the power to do so just as easily, and we may be being a wee bit too vengeful/vindictive with that power. That’s a conversation we could have, but not with loaded terms like “cancel culture”, which we all know means “liberals not letting us tell it like it is”. It’s the people who do deserve to be kicked off trying to associate with those who only deserve a conversation or rebuke in order to muddy the issue. It does not help that, like false sexual assault allegations, some are motivated to take a rare (though serious) injustice and use it as an excuse to justify not pursuing far more numerous and insidious injustices. Bob is completely right, to pretend this is a liberal 'thing'is completely ignoring we just left the 'cancel culture' presidency behind us yesterday: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/finance-202-trump-call-goodyear-boycott-joins-long-history-bullying-companies-that-cross-him/
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:18:07 GMT -5
You must have missed his row with the Daily Mail over Religion. I indeed missed it. I hate to echo Manchu, but at this point it feels like you’re taking phenomena that have always been happening and then trying to fit them into a more modern label and pretend it’s a new, distinct problem? I’ll give the video another chance and see if I get a better idea what you’re driving at. Yeah, it is a phenomena that has been happening for a long time, but takes a specific form right now with social media and stuff. I mean, ContraPoint openly acknowledge that, despite no-one asking her to, every time she quotes from Jo Freeman's book (from 1976), where Jo calls it “trashing” instead of “cancel culture” because the expression didn't exist yet but the phenomena already did. It's not a new, distinct problem, it's an old problem. See at 1:12:47 and 1:26:17. Perhaps you could explain why you brought up the Daily Mail thing and/or how you think Pratchett has been canceled? In what way is that beloved authors continued success a sign of the hazards of cancel culture? I can. He answered because I asked a question about whether Terry Pratchett ever did something controversial. Terry Pratchett did something controversial, and I take his side on the controversy, but it means he did something controversial. Oh no, I didn't mean to imply you said that. I'm agreeing with you and providing examples of MORE questionable authors whose works are still doing well and arguably better then ever. We can seperate the work from the author, but that's a lot harder to do when the author is still alive and profiting off it. Yeah I agree. Though I think the part where I draw the line where I really refuse to give money for something because of who was part of making it is when it involves more than just believes but actual actions, especially in the case of sexual violence. For instance, my country shamefully protects some movie director that did rape a 13 years old, is a fugitive ever since, and who is still doing movies. I just refuse to pay a dime to watch his movies. Like, literally being a fugitive means he eschewed due process, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ fuck him and everything he stands for. I hope (and think) Baron with agree with me that this line is fair to draw. Let's say you have Bill Cosby, and you want his (lol) talent for a film, as a comedian. What you do is you have him write the screenplay, then don't credit him. Without the credit, John Q Public has no idea that you've cheerfully employed a sex offender, because you never see him on camera. I thought there where Actor's Union rules preventing uncredited work or something, like if you don't credit all your actors, all the Union actor would refuse to work for you? Or did I mix things up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2021 18:19:02 GMT -5
6. Baron, post some fucking evidence. Links to what you say has happened that demonstrates it as being more than a literal handful of cranks or stans. You accuse me of acting like despic here, but you are more closely echoing posting style right now. Devoid of proof, spurious claim after spurious claim. Wolf, let me make a point then:
Me: Nazism is bad.
Despic: Prove it.
Me: They killed millions of people.
Despic: I want to see a link.
If this doesn't explain my level of frustration with you guys at the moment, I'm not sure what will. Because, as I see it, this is the point we are at.
Bob has managed to earn my utter scorn, but you wolf have put me in a position I honestly really never thought I'd find myself in.
Because now *I* owe despic an apology. Have fun with your echo chamber.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jan 21, 2021 18:23:18 GMT -5
Have fun with your echo chamber. Baron I want to hear what you have to say and I'm asking questions in good faith and openly agreeing with some of your points! (I'm especially interested about the movie stuff because I like movies, and I like movie trivia!)
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jan 21, 2021 18:23:31 GMT -5
Baron, I feel that the Nazism comparison is a bit of a false equivalence. We ALL know about the Holocaust, there isn't an educational program in the world that doesn't cover it.
Requests for sources for your much more specific and less well known arguments is in no way comparable. Everyone is coming across as hostile and combative, because that is exactly how you opened up your side of the argument.
Your opening statement can just as easily be read as 'if you think about it, you must realize I'M right.'
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jan 21, 2021 18:25:19 GMT -5
So the Terry Pratchett discussion was not about him getting cancelled but rather about him doing something controversial and then not getting canceled?
|
|