Author Topic: You're cancelled!  (Read 15983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #175 on: February 17, 2021, 01:11:33 PM »
This is indeed a problem with capitalism. It's the corporations that have the power to cancel people.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #176 on: February 17, 2021, 01:13:41 PM »
Agreed. Kaepernick should've never been black balled from the NFL.

:neverusethis:

You mean other than the fact that he sucked as a player?  :lol

Not sure how anyone could think he wasn't at least one of the best 60 QBs in the country.  You'd really take Jay Cutler or Tom Savage over Kaep?
Maybe not those two, but it's really only some number less than 32.   I wouldn't have him as a back up except under very specific circumstances (like when Cutler went to Miami).  Not every QB can be a backup in the NFL; it takes a certain mindset that I don't think Kaep has shown.  The best backup QBs put themselves third, behind the club and the starter.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #177 on: February 17, 2021, 01:15:48 PM »
This is indeed a problem with capitalism. It's the corporations that have the power to cancel people.

That's not the problem.  The problem is wanting to have our cake and wanting to eat it too.   I can't speak for anywhere else in the world, but America has a short memory when it comes to the foot being on the other shoe.

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #178 on: February 17, 2021, 01:33:40 PM »
The Kaep scenario highlights the problem with the "cancel culture".  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We're not talking about any compromise, or agreement, or understanding.   We're talking about one party having "hand" and reacting to thoughts and ideas with action.   There's no structure, no checks and balances, no due process, so we're stuck with the by-product of a blunt instrument.  Kaep and Carano were bad for business, and it doesn't matter what any one person thinks about the content of their individual message.

With the benefit of hindsight (including Roger fucking Goddell acquiescing and recognizing the NFL didn't address the situation properly or fairly), how many people nowadays think Kaep got shafted?  He hasn't changed his stance, or had to do anything to 'rehabilitate' his image/brand.  I wonder if in 3-4 years, the same can/would be said about Carano.  I don't see her being in any Nike ads anytime soon.  :lol

Since you've used he example, I don't think that Gibson got shafted - he was able to rehabilitate is image/brand, and has revived his career.  A similar example of someone who didn't would be Michael Richards.

Ultimately, I don't see Kaep's situation as a parallel to Carano's.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Dublagent66

  • Do you feel lucky?
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8311
  • Gender: Male
  • Well, do ya punk?
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #179 on: February 17, 2021, 02:39:50 PM »
Agreed. Kaepernick should've never been black balled from the NFL.

:neverusethis:

You mean other than the fact that he sucked as a player?  :lol

Not sure how anyone could think he wasn't at least one of the best 60 QBs in the country.  You'd really take Jay Cutler or Tom Savage over Kaep?

The only QB you mentioned who's in the top 100 is Jay Cutler.  So yeah, I'd take Cutler over Kaep any day.  :p

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #180 on: February 17, 2021, 03:46:01 PM »
Plenty of actresses better than Gina too. 
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #181 on: February 17, 2021, 04:12:40 PM »
I feel like defining everything with the blanket term "cancel culture" is doing a major disservice to the discussion.

A show being cancelled because the lead person or someone else said something bad is being cancelled.

Gina not being hired for season 3 of Mandalorian is just an actress not being rehired. That's not being cancelled.

Someone being fired isn't being cancelled. Someone losing a platform to reach millions of viewers isn't being cancelled. It's just being fired/punished. Just because it's happening to people who, historically, have been well above such possibilities does not mean it's somehow now a thing to worry about and wasn't beforehand. Gina is getting a whole movie deal out of this. She's fine.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 05:13:55 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #182 on: February 17, 2021, 05:13:03 PM »
Plenty of actresses better than Gina too.

Ain't that the truth.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #183 on: February 18, 2021, 07:31:32 AM »
Also, although Disney hasn't gone to great lengths to make the distinction, I actually don't think she was "fired".  She was most likely "not re-hired".  I think her contract was for 2 seasons of The Mandalorian, which was up.  Their original press release mentioned that she was "not currently employed", not that she was let go, and that there were "no plans for her to be in the future."  It may have just been an opportunity for them not to sign a new contract with her.

I could be totally wrong, of course, and it may not make much difference either way, depending on your point of view.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #184 on: February 18, 2021, 09:45:30 AM »
I feel like defining everything with the blanket term "cancel culture" is doing a major disservice to the discussion.

A show being cancelled because the lead person or someone else said something bad is being cancelled.

Gina not being hired for season 3 of Mandalorian is just an actress not being rehired. That's not being cancelled.

Someone being fired isn't being cancelled. Someone losing a platform to reach millions of viewers isn't being cancelled. It's just being fired/punished. Just because it's happening to people who, historically, have been well above such possibilities does not mean it's somehow now a thing to worry about and wasn't beforehand. Gina is getting a whole movie deal out of this. She's fine.

Semantics, no?   What do YOU call "cancelled"?   To me, "cancelled" is when ideas are turned into action in a way that is out of proportion.   (I'm of the opinion that turning the ideas into action is ITSELF out of proportion, but I'll concede that point).  In other words, her ideas, her words, and someone took that and turned it into ACTION to her detriment.  You used the word "punishment", and that is telling.   Whether they CAN or not isn't the question; Jingle often reminds us that "legal" doesn't mean "right".   That's a double-edged sword because "legal" is objective (or at least more objective) and "right" boils down to the individual in so many ways.  I'm reminded almost daily that my sense of "right" isn't in complete synch with everyone around me, if not in substance then in application (I see threads and whiffs of "vengeance" in Carano's firing, and there's no room for "vengeance" in my sense of "right", for example).  I don't see how other people, with the same rights and privileges I do (on a human level) get to "punish" me.  That's an exercise in power, not justice.  We give the government power to punish us, but with a very strict, very comprehensive set of rules, not least of which is "due process".   Where's the due process in all this "cancelling" (in quotes because I know we're questioning the use of the word).

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #185 on: February 18, 2021, 10:33:05 AM »
Words and the expression of ideas in a public forum are, in themselves, action. "Cancelling" is just the action of withdrawing support of someone in response to their actions.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #186 on: February 18, 2021, 10:58:14 AM »
Words and the expression of ideas in a public forum are, in themselves, action. "Cancelling" is just the action of withdrawing support of someone in response to their actions.

Good Point.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #187 on: February 18, 2021, 11:01:55 AM »
I feel like defining everything with the blanket term "cancel culture" is doing a major disservice to the discussion.

A show being cancelled because the lead person or someone else said something bad is being cancelled.

Gina not being hired for season 3 of Mandalorian is just an actress not being rehired. That's not being cancelled.

Someone being fired isn't being cancelled. Someone losing a platform to reach millions of viewers isn't being cancelled. It's just being fired/punished. Just because it's happening to people who, historically, have been well above such possibilities does not mean it's somehow now a thing to worry about and wasn't beforehand. Gina is getting a whole movie deal out of this. She's fine.

I think using Culture is not the right word choice.

I would call it Cancel Mob or even better....Cancel Bullying. Bullying until that whatever you're bullying gives in.

That gives it to those people whom are hardcore advocates for bullying in schools and social media bullying.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #188 on: February 18, 2021, 11:34:13 AM »
Those terms don’t really fit either.  Too many examples where “bullying” or “mob” simply don’t apply.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #189 on: February 18, 2021, 12:40:16 PM »
Words and the expression of ideas in a public forum are, in themselves, action. "Cancelling" is just the action of withdrawing support of someone in response to their actions.

Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #190 on: February 18, 2021, 12:43:29 PM »
I feel like defining everything with the blanket term "cancel culture" is doing a major disservice to the discussion.

A show being cancelled because the lead person or someone else said something bad is being cancelled.

Gina not being hired for season 3 of Mandalorian is just an actress not being rehired. That's not being cancelled.

Someone being fired isn't being cancelled. Someone losing a platform to reach millions of viewers isn't being cancelled. It's just being fired/punished. Just because it's happening to people who, historically, have been well above such possibilities does not mean it's somehow now a thing to worry about and wasn't beforehand. Gina is getting a whole movie deal out of this. She's fine.

I think using Culture is not the right word choice.

I would call it Cancel Mob or even better....Cancel Bullying. Bullying until that whatever you're bullying gives in.

That gives it to those people whom are hardcore advocates for bullying in schools and social media bullying.

Cancel extortion?   :)

It most certainly is the practice of obtaining something - compliance - through the use force or threat - economic or public relations harm.   

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #191 on: February 18, 2021, 01:09:40 PM »
Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed. 

Alternate hypothesis: these are different types of actions that require individual evaluation.

Stating my desire/intention to bludgeon you to death is obviously not the same as actually doing so, but that is not an argument in favour of the former being free of consequence, and indeed the former is itself a distinct crime, because the law correctly recognizes that speech/ideas can directly have detrimental effects.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #192 on: February 18, 2021, 01:31:48 PM »
Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed. 

Alternate hypothesis: these are different types of actions that require individual evaluation.

Stating my desire/intention to bludgeon you to death is obviously not the same as actually doing so, but that is not an argument in favour of the former being free of consequence, and indeed the former is itself a distinct crime, because the law correctly recognizes that speech/ideas can directly have detrimental effects.

Good point.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #193 on: February 18, 2021, 01:47:37 PM »
Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed. 

Alternate hypothesis: these are different types of actions that require individual evaluation.

Stating my desire/intention to bludgeon you to death is obviously not the same as actually doing so, but that is not an argument in favour of the former being free of consequence, and indeed the former is itself a distinct crime, because the law correctly recognizes that speech/ideas can directly have detrimental effects.

Except two problems:    one, speech ALONE isn't usually enough.  You telling me from... where are you?  Sweden (I thought you were in England)? over the internet that you want to bludgeon me is, at least here in the States, not a crime. There is no 'imminent lawless action' associated with that.  If you were standing in front of my face, with a meat cleaver raised over your head and spittle flying from your lips, there's a different analysis.  In that case, it's not the speech that necessarily CAUSES the infraction, it's that you DON'T get the protections ON the speech.  Subtle difference, but not the same thing.   

Two, we're also now blending criminal actions - which have volumes of rules about due process, and have numerous checks and balances built in - with individual actors with no such safeguards.  If you DID stand in my face, meat cleaver akimbo, and threatened me, you DON'T automatically get any consequences I feel are appropriate in my wrathful, vengeful ire.  You get what the system affords you after what is likely a long trial, by jury, and a sentencing by a judge tasked SOLELY with that responsibility and held accountable for same.

That latter one is really the problem I have; I don't mind punishment, per se,  but it can't be meted out unilaterally by an unqualified actor on a subjective and sometimes arbitrary basis, using a standard that is far from objective.   Well, that and this false impression that the CONTENT of the speech matters; even though there are restrictions on freedom of speech, almost none of them are solely based on CONTENT, and that gets lost almost every time.  To my immediate reckoning, there is literally no instance where the standard for "free speech" protections hinges on whether ONE PERSON gets offended or not.

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #194 on: February 18, 2021, 02:08:33 PM »
Words and the expression of ideas in a public forum are, in themselves, action. "Cancelling" is just the action of withdrawing support of someone in response to their actions.

Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed.

Walk into an airport and speak about having a bomb, and see if they agree with your distinction of ideas and actions.  :lol

Not everything fits into a tidy legal hypothesis or framework.  The court of public opinion doesn't plays by no rules.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #195 on: February 18, 2021, 02:46:21 PM »
Except two problems:    one, speech ALONE isn't usually enough.  You telling me from... where are you?  Sweden (I thought you were in England)?

Born in England. Lived in Sweden 8 years. :)

Quote
...over the internet that you want to bludgeon me is, at least here in the States, not a crime. There is no 'imminent lawless action' associated with that.

This is certainly not the case in either the UK or Sweden. It could class as online harassment at the very least (depending on other circumstances).

Quote
Two, we're also now blending criminal actions - which have volumes of rules about due process, and have numerous checks and balances built in - with individual actors with no such safeguards.  If you DID stand in my face, meat cleaver akimbo, and threatened me, you DON'T automatically get any consequences I feel are appropriate in my wrathful, vengeful ire.  You get what the system affords you after what is likely a long trial, by jury, and a sentencing by a judge tasked SOLELY with that responsibility and held accountable for same.

Well you were the one originally brought the comparison with the legal system into this discussion, and for what its worth, I don't think they are remotely comparable. Why should me deciding to withdraw my business or expressing my displeasure at someone's actions (online or otherwise), be held to the same standards as that of a criminal prosecution? The law is held to higher standards because the breaking the law has far higher consequences (death, in the extreme case). The worst the "mob" has ever achieved is to get someone fired, and even then that's only in the cases where companies decided the costs outweighed the benefits of keeping people on (i.e., the companies, not the mob, has the power at the end of the day). Conversely there's plenty of "cancelled" individuals who still manage to have Netflix specials, bestselling book deals, or are now in the process of making a film with the daily wire. Standards of proof are proportional to the scale and severity of the consequences.

Quote
That latter one is really the problem I have; I don't mind punishment, per se,  but it can't be meted out unilaterally by an unqualified actor on a subjective and sometimes arbitrary basis, using a standard that is far from objective.

I agree. But this is how capitalism functions.

Quote
Well, that and this false impression that the CONTENT of the speech matters; even though there are restrictions on freedom of speech, almost none of them are solely based on CONTENT, and that gets lost almost every time.  To my immediate reckoning, there is literally no instance where the standard for "free speech" protections hinges on whether ONE PERSON gets offended or not.

Their speech is protected. Gina expressed her views comparing conservatives to holocaust victims, and they propagated far and wide. I think you'd struggle to find someone remotely connected to western pop culture who has not been subjected to them. Far from being suppressed,  they are present on every news site. As far as speech goes, that is as protected as it gets. But equally, people are free to respond to that speech, with their own expressions of free speech and the free market.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 08:49:10 AM by XJDenton »
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32125
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #196 on: February 18, 2021, 03:00:35 PM »
I feel like defining everything with the blanket term "cancel culture" is doing a major disservice to the discussion.

A show being cancelled because the lead person or someone else said something bad is being cancelled.

Gina not being hired for season 3 of Mandalorian is just an actress not being rehired. That's not being cancelled.

Someone being fired isn't being cancelled. Someone losing a platform to reach millions of viewers isn't being cancelled. It's just being fired/punished. Just because it's happening to people who, historically, have been well above such possibilities does not mean it's somehow now a thing to worry about and wasn't beforehand. Gina is getting a whole movie deal out of this. She's fine.

Semantics, no?   What do YOU call "cancelled"?   To me, "cancelled" is when ideas are turned into action in a way that is out of proportion.   (I'm of the opinion that turning the ideas into action is ITSELF out of proportion, but I'll concede that point).  In other words, her ideas, her words, and someone took that and turned it into ACTION to her detriment.  You used the word "punishment", and that is telling.   Whether they CAN or not isn't the question; Jingle often reminds us that "legal" doesn't mean "right".   That's a double-edged sword because "legal" is objective (or at least more objective) and "right" boils down to the individual in so many ways.  I'm reminded almost daily that my sense of "right" isn't in complete synch with everyone around me, if not in substance then in application (I see threads and whiffs of "vengeance" in Carano's firing, and there's no room for "vengeance" in my sense of "right", for example).  I don't see how other people, with the same rights and privileges I do (on a human level) get to "punish" me.  That's an exercise in power, not justice.  We give the government power to punish us, but with a very strict, very comprehensive set of rules, not least of which is "due process".   Where's the due process in all this "cancelling" (in quotes because I know we're questioning the use of the word).

God damn busy day means having to jump in after the convo goes on for a while. Ah well.

And no, these are not just semantics. Cancelled means cancelled. It does not mean action that we think is too extreme. In the case of Gina, she was not fired mid show, or anything of the sort. They decided not to hire her again or work with her again. They could do that for whatever reason they want. It's not being cancelled.

If she showed up on set every day and farted ALL the time and laughed about it and made everyone feel very uncomfortable and they decided not to rehire her, no one on earth would care or talk about it. We only care now because she made some really stupid statements (several, not one) that are politically based. Don't fool yourself into thinking we care about "cancel" culture. We only care now because it's conservatives that are being impacted, and not just conservatives, but extreme ones that....as far as I know...aren't being punished for espousing typical conservative beliefs. If being a conservative means being anti-mask, anti-vax, racist, homophobic, whatever (not that Gina was all these things, just examples) then conservatism is screwed. But it's not those things, so she is NOT being punished for being conservative. She just also happens to be a conservative. You know who else is conservative? Most of these huge media CEOs making the big decisions. Pretty sure if Gina or Rosanne or whomever made a tweet, or 20 tweets, about their distaste for liberal economic reform and their support for limited foreign involvement, no one would be in any trouble. Just like the Arab guy who says he wants to blow a building isn't being arrested for being Arab, but for being an idiot and a lunatic.

Second, we don't only fire or not hire or cancel or whatever people for breaking the law. Turns out I can deal with A LOT of consequences for doing things that are VERY legal. So holding that standard is not helpful, accurate, or genuine.

All due respect to Jingle, I'm going to not agree with his airport metaphor being apt here because then we ARE moving it to the legal standard which it needn't be and isn't. Here's a better example. If a new guy signs up for DTF and has been posting for a few weeks and then tells you or me or Hef that we are (insert extremely crude insult here) and continues to do so, that person will likely be banned (probably after a warning or two) and none of us...NONE of us would have a problem with that. Because Bosk isn't limiting that person's freedom of speech. Bosk is telling that person that DTF has rules and he broke those rules and is no longer welcome. Companies have rules too and those are not the same as state and federal laws. Gina (and whomever else) broke Disney's rules. She was warned several times and continued to do it, so she was shown the door. Not because she's conservative. Not because they want to censor her speech. Not because they hate Trump. Because she broke the rules and was making the environment one which was not healthy for them.


As to your final point, I agree. People who gleefully relish her firing are being dicks. I am separating out the action and the public response. The public response is always the same. A lot of people being dicks. On both sides. On every side. A lot of dicks online. The internet is a dick filled land of dickliness. But that's a separate issue. I wish people didn't rejoice at her being not re-hired. I wish people didn't jerk off when Rush Limbaugh died. I wish people didn't massage their sausage to the idea of libtards being owned or whatever, but that's the world we're in and it's a different issue.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #197 on: February 18, 2021, 03:36:10 PM »
VERY well said.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #198 on: February 18, 2021, 04:31:22 PM »
That latter one is really the problem I have; I don't mind punishment, per se,  but it can't be meted out unilaterally by an unqualified actor on a subjective and sometimes arbitrary basis, using a standard that is far from objective.   

Out of curiosity, could you clarify what you mean by an unqualified actor?  I'm not sure I follow.  In the scenario where a company fires (or fails to rehire) an employee because of public backlash regarding that employee, who is the unqualified actor meting out punishment?  And what exactly is it they are doing which they are not qualified to do? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #199 on: February 19, 2021, 08:43:42 AM »
Words and the expression of ideas in a public forum are, in themselves, action. "Cancelling" is just the action of withdrawing support of someone in response to their actions.

Provably not true.   

There is a fundamental difference between ideas and action.   I can go into any public forum and say "I want to steal the Mona Lisa", or even "I am going to steal the Mona Lisa", or, better yet, "I STOLE the Mona Lisa", and yet that is not enough to jail me for that crime.  Once I actually DO "steal the Mona Lisa" I am, potentially, in a lot of trouble.

The proof required is not that I thought about it, but that I DID it.

And therefore the latter is false as well; it's the judgment, the punishment for a "crime" that was never committed.

Walk into an airport and speak about having a bomb, and see if they agree with your distinction of ideas and actions.  :lol

I've already covered that; it's NOT content related, but time, place and manner, and with the intent to incite imminent lawless action (those words taken from case law).   Again, this isn't the trite "consequences for free speech", but something independent of free speech.

Look guys, I get it. You need to argue with me because whatever.  But I'm on solid ground here; this isn't unsettled law, there isn't a debate here.  There are decades of case law that back me up on this.   Read " Brandenburg v. Ohio", and what was protected speech by a 9-0 decision.  It wasn't even CLOSE.   

Quote
Not everything fits into a tidy legal hypothesis or framework.  The court of public opinion doesn't plays by no rules.

Except, of course, that it does fit, and the idea of the CoPO having no rules is my entire point.   That's the very essence of the problem.    This is settled law, and the court of public opinion doesn't know/doesn't care, but rather is playing on the fickle base of emotion and immediate personal reaction.  One person, or even a group of people, on the other side of a social media platform getting mad in their mom's basement because someone wasn't acknowledging and adhering to their precious and sacred world view does NOT, in any way shape or form, rise to the level of "inciteful of imminent unlawful action".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #200 on: February 19, 2021, 08:56:45 AM »
Well you were the one originally brought the comparison with the legal system into this discussion, and for what its worth, I don't think they are remotely comparable. Why should me deciding to withdraw my business or expressing my displeasure at someone's actions (online or otherwise), be held to the same standards as that of a criminal prosecution? The law is held to higher standards because the breaking the law has far higher consequences (death, in the extreme case). The worst the "mob" has ever achieved is to get someone fired, and even then that's only in the cases where companies decided the costs outweighed the benefits of keeping people on. Conversely there's plenty of "cancelled" individuals who still manage to have Netflix specials, bestselling book deals, or are now in the process of making a film with the daily wire. Standards of proof are proportional to the scale and severity of the consequences.

I brought the law in to draw contrast to the subjectivity of what you're talking about.   Of COURSE, on an individual basis, you have the right to hire or fire for any reason; my fingers are tired in agreeing with that.  But way back we - I - noted that that's not always the case.  I can't fire for ANY reason, just selected reasons.   And I'm making the point that maybe there ought to be a little more thought put into the firing when someone else says something I don't like. 

And I heartily disagree with the last sentence of that paragraph.   There isn't a proportion, and that's a part of my point. 

Quote
I agree. But this is how capitalism functions.

Not always; so why do we allow it here and not elsewhere? 

Quote
Their speech is protected. Gina expressed her views comparing conservatives to holocaust victims, and they propagated far and wide. I think you'd struggle to find someone remotely connected to western pop culture who has not been subjected to them. Far from being suppressed,  they are present on every news site. As far as speech goes, that is as protected as it gets. But equally, people are free to respond to that speech, with their own expressions of free speech and the free market.

And back to that. Please go back and read where I broke apart what she said.  Where in fact does she compare those two?  She doesn't.  She never once ever mentions "conservatives" (or any substitute for conservatives) and never once compares them to Holocaust victims. What she DOES compare is the GOVERNMENT ACTION in both cases.    Very different.   

And that's important; this is a sort of odd example of the tragedy of the commons. What is okay, acceptable, defensible on an individual level becomes unwieldly or dangerous on the mass level.  What when an employer decides to fire an employee for a rainbow sticker on his computer?   Or posting a "Pro-choice" screed on their social media?   Maybe, since my company does a lot of business with the U.S. Military, I can't have my employees going around with "Make Love, Not War" bumper stickers.  Capitalism, amiright?   So it's all good?   

We take the good with the bad; we either want to be able to discuss, promulgate and further ideas or not.  But (and I'll write more about this in a minute to answer another question) we shouldn't be leaving the ad hoc discussion as to what's acceptable and what's not to moment-by-moment social media reactions.   

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2021, 09:19:34 AM »
Well you were the one originally brought the comparison with the legal system into this discussion, and for what its worth, I don't think they are remotely comparable. Why should me deciding to withdraw my business or expressing my displeasure at someone's actions (online or otherwise), be held to the same standards as that of a criminal prosecution? The law is held to higher standards because the breaking the law has far higher consequences (death, in the extreme case). The worst the "mob" has ever achieved is to get someone fired, and even then that's only in the cases where companies decided the costs outweighed the benefits of keeping people on. Conversely there's plenty of "cancelled" individuals who still manage to have Netflix specials, bestselling book deals, or are now in the process of making a film with the daily wire. Standards of proof are proportional to the scale and severity of the consequences.

I brought the law in to draw contrast to the subjectivity of what you're talking about.   Of COURSE, on an individual basis, you have the right to hire or fire for any reason; my fingers are tired in agreeing with that.  But way back we - I - noted that that's not always the case.  I can't fire for ANY reason, just selected reasons.   And I'm making the point that maybe there ought to be a little more thought put into the firing when someone else says something I don't like. 

And I heartily disagree with the last sentence of that paragraph.   There isn't a proportion, and that's a part of my point. 

Quote
I agree. But this is how capitalism functions.

Not always; so why do we allow it here and not elsewhere? 

Quote
Their speech is protected. Gina expressed her views comparing conservatives to holocaust victims, and they propagated far and wide. I think you'd struggle to find someone remotely connected to western pop culture who has not been subjected to them. Far from being suppressed,  they are present on every news site. As far as speech goes, that is as protected as it gets. But equally, people are free to respond to that speech, with their own expressions of free speech and the free market.

And back to that. Please go back and read where I broke apart what she said.  Where in fact does she compare those two?  She doesn't.  She never once ever mentions "conservatives" (or any substitute for conservatives) and never once compares them to Holocaust victims. What she DOES compare is the GOVERNMENT ACTION in both cases.    Very different.   

And that's important; this is a sort of odd example of the tragedy of the commons. What is okay, acceptable, defensible on an individual level becomes unwieldly or dangerous on the mass level.  What when an employer decides to fire an employee for a rainbow sticker on his computer?   Or posting a "Pro-choice" screed on their social media?   Maybe, since my company does a lot of business with the U.S. Military, I can't have my employees going around with "Make Love, Not War" bumper stickers.  Capitalism, amiright?   So it's all good?   

We take the good with the bad; we either want to be able to discuss, promulgate and further ideas or not.  But (and I'll write more about this in a minute to answer another question) we shouldn't be leaving the ad hoc discussion as to what's acceptable and what's not to moment-by-moment social media reactions.   

What you're saying is why I am saying, Disney and these other companies don't care either way. They are just trying to save their assets/asses.

These companies understand one wrong opinion from an employee can cause the "Mob" to gather and then detriment the company. They understand they can gather and write a bad review that affects peoples perceptions of the company. Do people even write good reviews or are they mostly just bad reviews?

That happened with the cake guy. What about him, it's his own private business, and shouldn't he have the right to not serve whom he doesn't want to? If he does, then I have the right to not use his business, and can write the review that the owner is prejudiced and not to go there if a Gay person wants a wedding cake done. There's plenty of cake businesses I am sure, that would gladly make that cake. That's what upsets me about that situation. That couple could've easily went to another cake designer, but no they wanted this one and demanded him to change to suit their want of his business. You're basically telling someone to go against their beliefs just to please you. Would it have been better if the cake owner said on his site or in his building somewhere that it's a christian business and holds Christian values? Why would you want to work at Chick-fil-A, when you know they're a christian company with high Christian values and standards, even the prejudices, and are gay?



I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2021, 09:22:27 AM »
If she showed up on set every day and farted ALL the time and laughed about it and made everyone feel very uncomfortable and they decided not to rehire her, no one on earth would care or talk about it. We only care now because she made some really stupid statements (several, not one) that are politically based. Don't fool yourself into thinking we care about "cancel" culture. We only care now because it's conservatives that are being impacted, and not just conservatives, but extreme ones that....as far as I know...aren't being punished for espousing typical conservative beliefs. If being a conservative means being anti-mask, anti-vax, racist, homophobic, whatever (not that Gina was all these things, just examples) then conservatism is screwed. But it's not those things, so she is NOT being punished for being conservative. She just also happens to be a conservative. You know who else is conservative? Most of these huge media CEOs making the big decisions. Pretty sure if Gina or Rosanne or whomever made a tweet, or 20 tweets, about their distaste for liberal economic reform and their support for limited foreign involvement, no one would be in any trouble. Just like the Arab guy who says he wants to blow a building isn't being arrested for being Arab, but for being an idiot and a lunatic.

I don't know if you're doing this or not, but on the off chance you are, don't use the royal "we" to cloud the issue.  My beef here has nothing to do with "conservative".  My beef DOES have to do with the REACTION to conservative, but I would say the same thing to anything dismissed as "liberal".   I've not had much platform to do so, but I waste no time in castigating the Sean Hannity's of the world for their equally partisan, equally divisive behavior.   My beef is about the mob and the lack of rigor around the consequences and the reaction.

I'm also really bothered by the repeated misstatements and false expressions of what was said. Not because I care about HER words, but because I care about ALL words.  Look, if you want to see the world through distorted lenses, I can't stop you; but I can make sure, to the best of my ability, that I don't allow the system to devolve into a state (too late, Stads!) where my intent and meaning is, well, meaningless.  WORDS MATTER.  We've heard that countless times in the last four years when Trump butchered the English language; well then, they count HERE too.   If you want to support the non re-hiring of Gina Carano go right ahead, but OWN it.  Don't continually, repeatedly and purposefully twist her words to jusify your position.  OWN it.  Don't continually decide that you have some super power to decide when and if someone's words ought to materially impact their financial and social well-being.  OWN it.  Don't point the finger and blame her (or anyone else) for implementing YOUR will.

Quote
Second, we don't only fire or not hire or cancel or whatever people for breaking the law. Turns out I can deal with A LOT of consequences for doing things that are VERY legal. So holding that standard is not helpful, accurate, or genuine.

All due respect to Jingle, I'm going to not agree with his airport metaphor being apt here because then we ARE moving it to the legal standard which it needn't be and isn't. Here's a better example. If a new guy signs up for DTF and has been posting for a few weeks and then tells you or me or Hef that we are (insert extremely crude insult here) and continues to do so, that person will likely be banned (probably after a warning or two) and none of us...NONE of us would have a problem with that. Because Bosk isn't limiting that person's freedom of speech. Bosk is telling that person that DTF has rules and he broke those rules and is no longer welcome. Companies have rules too and those are not the same as state and federal laws. Gina (and whomever else) broke Disney's rules. She was warned several times and continued to do it, so she was shown the door. Not because she's conservative. Not because they want to censor her speech. Not because they hate Trump. Because she broke the rules and was making the environment one which was not healthy for them.

Welll, with the repeated proviso that this is not about Gina Carano specifically, Bosk would ABSOLUTELY be limiting their free speech, let's not beat the bush here, he's just not obligated to PROTECT anyone's speech.  There's a difference.   But there are other differences as well:  Bosk is also the owner of the site, he is the progenitor and arbitrator of the rules, and has published them for all to see.  We can go back and see a history of his actions/inactions, and form a sort of jurisprudence.  We've also tacitly or otherwise agreed that his word on intent and perception carries the day.  I know when I signed up, I agreed to that.   I know what I bought into. 

That's what the Supreme Court does, in a way.  That's why the law comes into play here; it's not Federal or State law, but it is a system of sorts, and has a standard of sorts.  I don't know this for sure, but I think if I wrote something harsh to you, and Bosk said "you're cancelled", I may have some means of appealing to Hef, Yeshaberto, Ariich, Nick or XJ, and say "is this how it really reads?   Because I meant THIS."  May or may not work, but still.  Certainly if there is a court case, I can, up to a point, appeal.   Certainly, if Gina Carano has the time, money, or inclination, she can hire an attorney to take it to Disney.   We're not talking that.  We're talking "mob", who hears "Holocaust", assumes "bigotry" and drops the hammer.  Yeah, it's indirect, but Disney isn't not rehiring because she's an overwhelming fan favorite.  They're panderers of the highest order; they can milk blood from a stone, and they've proven that over the years.   So we're in a sitch where there ISN'T a set standard, we DON'T know what we're signing up for, we can't rely on our own intent and good will/good faith to carry us through... 

We're now in the general population; there are 331 million, plus or minus, different viewpoints on this.   And we're now taking an arbitrary (and potentially different every time) subsection, in both quantity and quality, to weigh in on that.  I'm saying here, that I'm not buying into that and there ought to be some way of expressing that.   I have the option of "not signing up for DTF", but I don't have the option of "not signing up for society".   


Quote
As to your final point, I agree. People who gleefully relish her firing are being dicks. I am separating out the action and the public response. The public response is always the same. A lot of people being dicks. On both sides. On every side. A lot of dicks online. The internet is a dick filled land of dickliness. But that's a separate issue. I wish people didn't rejoice at her being not re-hired. I wish people didn't jerk off when Rush Limbaugh died. I wish people didn't massage their sausage to the idea of libtards being owned or whatever, but that's the world we're in and it's a different issue.

And that's some part of this; I won't call anyone here a "dick", except for Jingle (kidding!), but I think twisting the facts around what she said, inserting our own interpretations, is closer to relishing her firing than objectively reporting the action.   To me, given the number of times people have blatantly ignored how often I've said "this isn't specifically about Gina Carano; I don't object to her not being rehired", it appears that to most they are indelibly intertwined.  Not me.  I can agree with the instance, and not agree with the broader implications of that instance, and demand that those individual instances be handled with more care, introspection, and caution than they are.   

Any one of you would be PISSED if I repeatedly went around misstating important things you've said, and you KNOW that.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 09:44:53 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2021, 09:28:54 AM »
That latter one is really the problem I have; I don't mind punishment, per se,  but it can't be meted out unilaterally by an unqualified actor on a subjective and sometimes arbitrary basis, using a standard that is far from objective.   

Out of curiosity, could you clarify what you mean by an unqualified actor?  I'm not sure I follow.  In the scenario where a company fires (or fails to rehire) an employee because of public backlash regarding that employee, who is the unqualified actor meting out punishment?  And what exactly is it they are doing which they are not qualified to do?

I'm not specifically speaking of a Disney employee; I've repeatedly said that they acted as is their right to do so.  I'm talking more generally about the notion of an ad hoc subgroup passing judgment, with action, on an individual for their words/ideas.  When I say "unqualified actor", I mean someone that isn't interested or aware of any objective standard, that isn't interested in any consistency or precedence being formed, and is acting either in personal self interest, or based on personal emotions and feelings.  Disney not rehiring her is not precedent; there's nothing new there.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 09:45:55 AM by Stadler »

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2021, 09:33:39 AM »
If she showed up on set every day and farted ALL the time and laughed about it and made everyone feel very uncomfortable and they decided not to rehire her, no one on earth would care or talk about it. We only care now because she made some really stupid statements (several, not one) that are politically based. Don't fool yourself into thinking we care about "cancel" culture. We only care now because it's conservatives that are being impacted, and not just conservatives, but extreme ones that....as far as I know...aren't being punished for espousing typical conservative beliefs. If being a conservative means being anti-mask, anti-vax, racist, homophobic, whatever (not that Gina was all these things, just examples) then conservatism is screwed. But it's not those things, so she is NOT being punished for being conservative. She just also happens to be a conservative. You know who else is conservative? Most of these huge media CEOs making the big decisions. Pretty sure if Gina or Rosanne or whomever made a tweet, or 20 tweets, about their distaste for liberal economic reform and their support for limited foreign involvement, no one would be in any trouble. Just like the Arab guy who says he wants to blow a building isn't being arrested for being Arab, but for being an idiot and a lunatic.

I don't know if you're doing this or not, but on the off chance you are, don't use the royal "we" to cloud the issue.  My beef here has nothing to do with "conservative".  My beef DOES have to do with the REACTION to conservative, but I would say the same thing to anything dismissed as "liberal".   I've not had much platform to do so, but I waste no time in castigating the Sean Hannity's of the world for their equally partisan, equally divisive behavior.   

I'm also really bothered by the repeated misstatements and false expressions of what was said.  Look, if you want to see the world through distorted lenses, I can't stop you; but I can make sure, to the best of my ability, that I don't allow the system to devolve into a state (too late, Stads!) where my intent and meaning is, well, meaningless.  WORDS MATTER.  We've heard that countless times in the last four years when Trump butchered the English language; well then, they count HERE too.   If you want to support the non re-hiring of Gina Carano go right ahead, but OWN it.  Don't continually, repeatedly and purposefully twist her words to jusify your position.  OWN it.  Don't continually decide that you have some super power to decide when and if someone's words ought to materially impact their financial and social well-being.  OWN it.  Don't point the finger and blame her (or anyone else) for implementing YOUR will.

Quote
Second, we don't only fire or not hire or cancel or whatever people for breaking the law. Turns out I can deal with A LOT of consequences for doing things that are VERY legal. So holding that standard is not helpful, accurate, or genuine.

All due respect to Jingle, I'm going to not agree with his airport metaphor being apt here because then we ARE moving it to the legal standard which it needn't be and isn't. Here's a better example. If a new guy signs up for DTF and has been posting for a few weeks and then tells you or me or Hef that we are (insert extremely crude insult here) and continues to do so, that person will likely be banned (probably after a warning or two) and none of us...NONE of us would have a problem with that. Because Bosk isn't limiting that person's freedom of speech. Bosk is telling that person that DTF has rules and he broke those rules and is no longer welcome. Companies have rules too and those are not the same as state and federal laws. Gina (and whomever else) broke Disney's rules. She was warned several times and continued to do it, so she was shown the door. Not because she's conservative. Not because they want to censor her speech. Not because they hate Trump. Because she broke the rules and was making the environment one which was not healthy for them.

Welll, with the repeated proviso that this is not about Gina Carano specifically, Bosk would ABSOLUTELY be limiting their free speech, let's not beat the bush here, he's just not obligated to PROTECT anyone's speech.  There's a difference.   But there are other differences as well:  Bosk is also the owner of the site, he is the progenitor and arbitrator of the rules, and has published them for all to see.  We can go back and see a history of his actions/inactions, and form a sort of jurisprudence.  We've also tacitly or otherwise agreed that his word on intent and perception carries the day.  I know when I signed up, I agreed to that.   I know what I bought into. 

That's what the Supreme Court does, in a way.  That's why the law comes into play here; it's not Federal or State law, but it is a system of sorts, and has a standard of sorts.  I don't know this for sure, but I think if I wrote something harsh to you, and Bosk said "you're cancelled", I may have some means of appealing to Hef, Yeshaberto, Ariich, Nick or XJ, and say "is this how it really reads?   Because I meant THIS."  May or may not work, but still.  Certainly if there is a court case, I can, up to a point, appeal.   Certainly, if Gina Carano has the time, money, or inclination, she can hire an attorney to take it to Disney.   We're not talking that.  We're talking "mob", who hears "Holocaust", assumes "bigotry" and drops the hammer.  Yeah, it's indirect, but Disney isn't not rehiring because she's an overwhelming fan favorite.  They're panderers of the highest order; they can milk blood from a stone, and they've proven that over the years.   So we're in a sitch where there ISN'T a set standard, we DON'T know what we're signing up for, we can't rely on our own intent and good will/good faith to carry us through... 

We're now in the general population; there are 331 million, plus or minus, different viewpoints on this.   And we're now taking an arbitrary (and potentially different every time) subsection, in both quantity and quality, to weigh in on that.  I'm saying here, that I'm not buying into that and there ought to be some way of expressing that.   I have the option of "not signing up for DTF", but I don't have the option of "not signing up for society".   


Quote
As to your final point, I agree. People who gleefully relish her firing are being dicks. I am separating out the action and the public response. The public response is always the same. A lot of people being dicks. On both sides. On every side. A lot of dicks online. The internet is a dick filled land of dickliness. But that's a separate issue. I wish people didn't rejoice at her being not re-hired. I wish people didn't jerk off when Rush Limbaugh died. I wish people didn't massage their sausage to the idea of libtards being owned or whatever, but that's the world we're in and it's a different issue.

And that's some part of this; I won't call anyone here a "dick", except for Jingle (kidding!), but I think twisting the facts around what she said, inserting our own interpretations, is closer to relishing her firing than objectively reporting the action.   To me, given the number of times people have blatantly ignored how often I've said "this isn't specifically about Gina Carano; I don't object to her not being rehired", it appears that to most they are indelibly intertwined.  Not me.  I can agree with the instance, and not agree with the broader implications of that instance, and demand that those individual instances be handled with more care, introspection, and caution than they are.   

Any one of you would be PISSED if I repeatedly went around misstating important things you've said, and you KNOW that.

You want a good forum example...Look at my posts in the Coronavirus thread. My intent is not to offend anyone. Even if the words I choose to use may come across that way, it is not my intent. It's hard for me to convey what I mean into words on a forum, well not as hard, but still harder than it would if you were to hear me talk and explain or more have a face to face conversation.

I guarantee, we all would come to simple agreements and disagreeing to agree, and finding the middle ground, a lot faster than on an online forum where words are all we comprehend. There's no tone, and emotion in these words...It's why they had to invent these lovely things..... :corn :chill :yarr :flame: to show what emotion we are trying to show when we say these words....like now.  :biggrin:
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2021, 09:51:39 AM »
I'm not specifically speaking of a Disney employee; I've repeatedly said that they acted as is their right to do so.  I'm talking more generally about the notion of a mob passing judgment, with action, on an individual for their words/ideas.  When I say "unqualified actor", I mean someone that isn't interested or aware of any objective standard, that isn't interested in any consistency or precedence being formed, and is acting either in personal self interest, or based on personal emotions and feelings.  Disney not rehiring her is not precedent; there's nothing new there.


I don't mean to tie you to the specific example of Disney and Gina.  I'm just looking for some specific example to help me wrap my brain around the point.  When you talk about a mob passing judgment 'with action', I'm genuinely not sure what kind of action you're referring to.  In my view, in the context of cancel culture, the main role of 'the mob' mostly involves expressing opinions loudly and trying to use their collective opinion to influence other people.  But perhaps I'm being reductive there, and that's what I'm hoping you can clarify for me.  Is there more to it than that?  Is there another level of action I should be considering to understand your perspective better?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #206 on: February 19, 2021, 10:15:12 AM »
Ben, I'm not raising these issues because they're wholly intellectual and theoretical.   I had my words twisted and taken out of context and against intent and it's bothersome (and I'm not suggesting I'm alone in this, or a victim in this).  Not everything I talk about is simple or reductive, and yet there are those (not necessarily here, but maybe) that insist on being reductive, that insist on viewing every word every statement through their moral/value lens.  The "intolerance of intolerance" concept falls into this, as well as the "you're with us or against us" concept.  It's frustrating at times, and while I get that they're entitled to see the world as they see it (distorted though it may be, IMO) I'm not as clear as to why I should unilaterally bear the burden of the consequences from that distorted world view.  There ought to be SOME consequences for owning one's world view, on BOTH sides.

For every Gina Carano, there are thousands, maybe millions, of people that are held accountable to a unilateral standard like this, that don't have the option of signing "another movie deal", or being industry- or project-mobile enough to "move on" and don't have the bandwidth - financial or otherwise - to force their "case" to be heard.  They're just getting steamrolled.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #207 on: February 19, 2021, 10:16:37 AM »
And back to that. Please go back and read where I broke apart what she said.  Where in fact does she compare those two?  She doesn't.  She never once ever mentions "conservatives" (or any substitute for conservatives) and never once compares them to Holocaust victims. What she DOES compare is the GOVERNMENT ACTION in both cases.    Very different.

Ok, if you stop at a literal interpretation of the exact words of the post, ignoring the context of the other political views she has expressed recently, who she is now working with, and the current political environment, and ignoring all subtext, you can can certainly come to that conclusion. In any case, the exact nature of the content is not really relevant to the point being discussed, which is whether cancel culture has resulted in her views and speech being suppressed. Conversely, her speech is everywhere.

Quote
And that's important; this is a sort of odd example of the tragedy of the commons. What is okay, acceptable, defensible on an individual level becomes unwieldly or dangerous on the mass level.  What when an employer decides to fire an employee for a rainbow sticker on his computer?   Or posting a "Pro-choice" screed on their social media?   Maybe, since my company does a lot of business with the U.S. Military, I can't have my employees going around with "Make Love, Not War" bumper stickers.  Capitalism, amiright?   So it's all good?

Not at all. But this is a problem with capitalism and crappy labour protection, not cancel culture. Companies fire people. Mobs don't.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #208 on: February 19, 2021, 10:45:29 AM »
I'm not specifically speaking of a Disney employee; I've repeatedly said that they acted as is their right to do so.  I'm talking more generally about the notion of a mob passing judgment, with action, on an individual for their words/ideas.  When I say "unqualified actor", I mean someone that isn't interested or aware of any objective standard, that isn't interested in any consistency or precedence being formed, and is acting either in personal self interest, or based on personal emotions and feelings.  Disney not rehiring her is not precedent; there's nothing new there.


I don't mean to tie you to the specific example of Disney and Gina.  I'm just looking for some specific example to help me wrap my brain around the point.  When you talk about a mob passing judgment 'with action', I'm genuinely not sure what kind of action you're referring to.  In my view, in the context of cancel culture, the main role of 'the mob' mostly involves expressing opinions loudly and trying to use their collective opinion to influence other people.  But perhaps I'm being reductive there, and that's what I'm hoping you can clarify for me.  Is there more to it than that?  Is there another level of action I should be considering to understand your perspective better?

Was EVERY person who was accused of a #MeToo transgression AND who suffered consequences, actually guilty of the crime of sexual assault, or any crime for that matter?   How many people were fired or suffered the fabled "consequences" as a result of the accusation, and never - even those that COULD be tried, based on statute of limitations - saw the inside of a courtroom and never had any reasonable opportunity to raise their own objections or state their case?   

This is an important statement:  "the main role of 'the mob' mostly involves expressing opinions loudly and trying to use their collective opinion to influence other people."    I think you have it only partly right; if it was just about "influence", we wouldn't be using the word "consequences" as frequently as we are, or at least we would separate the "influencers" from the people administering the consequences.  In other words, "influence" to me incorporates a degree of free choice, not burdened choice.  If I ask my girlfriend to perform a sex act she's not immediately interested in doing, I can entice her with possibilities; "it will feel good", or "we can share this together and grow closer", or "and when you're doing that I can do this and elevate both of us".  When I veer into "well, do this or there will be consequences", or "do this or I'm opening separate bank accounts", or "do this or I'm filing for divorce", it's not "influence" any more.  At some point it transitions from an exercise of free will to a sort of burdened choice.  YOU don't get to tell me when that transition point is for me (and likewise, me to you); I joked about it above, but not really.  At some point it's not a choice anymore, it's extortion.

I'm trying to avoid political examples, because they've got a heat of their own, but this is really about stemming the knee-jerk and incorporating a little temperance into the discussions. These are HIGHLY emotional topics, and ought to be treated as such.  Which, to me, first means acknowledging that it IS an emotion, and as such we cannot and should not expect others to share them or value them the same way.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: You're cancelled!
« Reply #209 on: February 19, 2021, 11:35:08 AM »
Thanks for the response.  I think I understand where you're coming from better now, which was my main goal.  I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm not sure they're well-formed enough to be helpful here, so I'll go back to lurking on this one.  Just wanted to say that I appreciate you taking the time to clarify.  :) 
Sincerely,
Jaffa