“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”

[djmich 1,208]

8 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

In the bolded, does CC refer to Climate Change or Cancel Culture?  You may want to edit for clarity.

Ha, I meant cancel culture.  I don't think we're there yet with climate change (or cancel culture for that matter) but I do believe in the same concept and it concerns me.

Edited March 4 by djmich

[djmich 1,208]

.

Edited March 4 by djmich
sorry...i suck at distinguishing edit & quote on new board

[sho nuff 17,181]

1 minute ago, djmich said:

I agree sho.  To stick with the comparison I also don't think many climate sceptics help the movement based on the extremism of their view or "absoluteism".

In terms of the many examples and some real/some not.  I'd compare to climate change in two ways....First, the ocean is vast don't get hung up on what happened in a 2 square mile radius in the middle of the atlantic, step back and look at the totality of evidence and change.  Second, some #### just isnt climate change or for sure not man made, sceptics will grab onto those to discredit the whole movement...same can be said for cancel culture.

Im not a huge fan of the analogy though because we are now comparing scientific behavior with social behavior.  Im not trying to discredit the whole movement though...i get that from how I worded things...Id like the canceling side to settle the heck down actually.  The constant need to go after everyone for any past misdeed is ridiculous and often blows up in their face as they themselves have skeletons in their closets.

[glvsav37 3,851]

3 hours ago, FairWarning said:

It's a big deal in these times, you must be "authentic", she's not for that role.  This explains it more - https://jcommmarketing.com/2019/01/30/brands-should-be-authentic-in-woke-marketing/

the comparison is not the same. 

you are quoting a blog post about marketing, where the OP was speaking of a person writing a piece of fiction and being denied that opportunity b/c certain people—completely unrelated to the project—didn't feel she was "qualified" to write that based on her ethnicity. IDK, sounds pretty racist to me. 

In the end, that group get the publisher to bend and the author never got the opportunity to publish her book. 

 

[FairWarning 1,034]

32 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

the comparison is not the same. 

you are quoting a blog post about marketing, where the OP was speaking of a person writing a piece of fiction and being denied that opportunity b/c certain people—completely unrelated to the project—didn't feel she was "qualified" to write that based on her ethnicity. IDK, sounds pretty racist to me. 

In the end, that group get the publisher to bend and the author never got the opportunity to publish her book. 

 

My post was in response to rockactions post about the Asian playing the Hispanic role, not Dr Seuss.

[Da Guru 6,557]

1 hour ago, Insein said:

Yes. Simple tweaks here and there that are deemed "progressive" for society further erase the origins of language until there is nothing original left. We only have the new, sterile language of the current power.

Ask any hispanic person what they think of Latinx. Most will say they never heard of it but those that have we tell you it's another attempt to colonize their language into white culture.

tt is intersting how terms evolve in the USA.   When I worked at Ford I traveled to Japan and China many times.  The people there used the term "Oriental" all the time and many refer to themselves as Oriental and the elders still do.   Yet in the late 60s in the USA 2 students teamed up with professors at Cal-Berkely and decided this was an incorrect term and Asians should be the new term. Then deemed Oriental offensive and racist when it is neither. Oriental means from East Asia that is China, Japan, Mongolia, South and North Korea, and Taiwan.

The actual people of that society from that part the world had no say. 

[Hov34 4,861]

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

2 hours ago, rockaction said:

The last starfighter crashes to earth. Our hero, taken away by Lilliputian mortals. Later a famous man will say, "I prefer my heroes to not get captured."

Does it make it okay that I deliberately did it but seem to have triggered the wrong people? I couldn't not use "Latinx" in that story. How would I have lived with myself if not now, if not in this particular thread?

Great movie of my younger days...though caught it once again when I was a bit older and realized how awful of a movie it really was.

Of course you did.

 

 

[rockaction 26,123]

I feel like my wokeness caused the second Great Awakening. I had no idea...

[Quint 2,239]

48 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

tt is intersting how terms evolve in the USA.   When I worked at Ford I traveled to Japan and China many times.  The people there used the term "Oriental" all the time and many refer to themselves as Oriental and the elders still do.   Yet in the late 60s in the USA 2 students teamed up with professors at Cal-Berkely and decided this was an incorrect term and Asians should be the new term. Then deemed Oriental offensive and racist when it is neither. Oriental means from East Asia that is China, Japan, Mongolia, South and North Korea, and Taiwan.

The actual people of that society from that part the world had no say. 

“Oriental” also includes North Africa and the Middle East. 
 

at least according to Edward Said. 

[Da Guru 6,557]

42 minutes ago, Quint said:

“Oriental” also includes North Africa and the Middle East. 
 

at least according to Edward Said. 

In the present North Africa is associated with West Asia. Asia as a whole is divided into 6 regions that also include Africa and the Middle East. Russia is considered part of North Asia.

So maybe the term Asian is totally wrong.

[FairWarning 1,034]

eBay is now banning sales of the offensive Dr Seuss books.

[glvsav37 3,851]

2 hours ago, FairWarning said:

My post was in response to rockactions post about the Asian playing the Hispanic role, not Dr Seuss.

I know, thats what I was referring too. 

I dont remember everything about it, but now we cant even create literature with certain nationalities in it unless you ARE that nationality? 

Again, "Wokeness" is setting the sidelines of what is and is not appropriate so close together that it will eventually be impossible to create anything soon. 

 

 

Edited March 4 by glvsav37

[FairWarning 1,034]

8 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

I know, thats what I was referring too. 

I dont remember everything about it, but now we cant even create literature with certain nationalities in it unless you ARE that nationality? 

Again, "Wokeness" is setting the sidelines of what is and is not appropriate so close together that it will eventually be impossible to create anything soon. 

 

 

I guess not, needs to be an authentic Hispanic. Yes, it hurts our creativity also.

[Sand 6,112]

43 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

eBay is now banning sales of the offensive Dr Seuss books.

Modern day book burning.  We should be so proud.

[Sand 6,112]

12 hours ago, rockaction said:

I don't think so. I think that was a cynical sexual harassment claim trumped up by political expediency. It was much more rational that a woke mob coming after somebody.

Yep - and as we've seen from the Cuomo scandal that door swings one way only among major politicians (except Hillary).    Schumer, Pelosi, Gillibrand, etc. - nope, definitely not striding to the nearest microphone to proclaim to the heavens that "I believe her".  News outlets, with obvious exceptions, quashing this like the Hunter Biden scandal.

In other words, yet another day on the Hill and in the 4th Estate.

[rockaction 26,123]

51 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

eBay is now banning sales of the offensive Dr Seuss books.

Don't worry. It's just the publisher. It's only one auction company. 

[rockaction 26,123]

You can use all the other auction companies in the world you dream of. 

[Maurile Tremblay 22,689]

14 hours ago, djmich said:

Not sure I’d put Woody Allen in with cancel culture, I mean if he’s accused of child abuse (true or not) that’s not the same as being canceled for thinking trans men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports.

One is potentially a real crime, the other is a thought crime.

I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side."

[Rich Conway 3,968]

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Don't worry. It's just the publisher. It's only one auction company. 

"The left wants to cancel free speech!"

"Corporations can't be allowed to make their own decisions!"

Which is it?

[rockaction 26,123]

1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

"The left wants to cancel free speech!"

"Corporations can't be allowed to make their own decisions!"

Which is it?

You might want to read that again. They're not mutually exclusive like you think. It's not clever when both don't cancel the other.

[Sand 6,112]

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

You can use all the other auction companies in the world you dream of. 

Well, today you can.  Those dominos are just starting to fall.

[djmich 1,208]

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

"The left wants to cancel free speech!"

"Corporations can't be allowed to make their own decisions!"

Which is it?

I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that?  

 

[rockaction 26,123]

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

Well, today you can.  Those dominos are just starting to fall.

I know. It was a joke. It was a typical liberal response to the cancellation. "Well," they'd stamp, "you can always use one of our many fine computer-based auction services." It's kind of funny, that sentiment. How many before you have an effective ban on the book?

Edited March 4 by rockaction

[rockaction 26,123]

Just now, djmich said:

I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that? 

Yeah, he's really, really bad at analogies today and yesterday. I was writing a detailed description of how this failed, but let's just let it fail.

[djmich 1,208]

5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side. #metoo"

Good points.

The term cancel culture is really broad and some things are going to fit better than others.  There are parallels here but just not right on bullseye imo.  Frankly I'm not intimate with the details but my sense is this is more about Woody Allen is just a weird guy and therefore has a target on his back to begin with (my circus freak parallel).  Mia Farrow piling on doesnt help.

[Hov34 4,861]

24 minutes ago, Sand said:

1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

eBay is now banning sales of the offensive Dr Seuss books.

Modern day book burning.  We should be so proud.

Who's next?  

[FairWarning 1,034]

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

Who's next?  

They haven’t banned that yet, have they?

[Rich Conway 3,968]

13 minutes ago, djmich said:

I suggest stop getting so caught up in trying to play "gotcha".  Is the trap here supposed to be conservatives are pro business so not allowing them to make decisions is anti-business or anti-freedom or something like that?  

 

It's not a trap.  I'm honestly confused what conservatives are complaining about, as the arguments tend to contradict each other.  Kind of like how people argued all summer that Joe Biden was experiencing dementia but was also a secret socialist with a master plan to sneakily end capitalism and all freedoms.

[Sand 6,112]

5 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Who's next?  

Probably C.S. Lewis.  Christian apologists need to be silenced.  Bonus points for prominent, deceased ones.

[sho nuff 17,181]

Ebay not allowing the sale of a handful of books is now the modern day book burning?

Yeah...nothing over the top about that reaction at all.

[Hov34 4,861]

I have a couple of those Seuss books, what should I do?

 

Edit:  I just looked through "The Cat's Quizzer" and I don't see the fuss at all.  Not sure about the others.

 

Edited March 4 by Hov34

[IvanKaramazov 22,555]

27 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

"The left wants to cancel free speech!"

"Corporations can't be allowed to make their own decisions!"

Which is it?

Corporations should absolutely be allowed to make their own decisions, and we should criticize them when they make bad decisions.

[KarmaPolice 18,075]

Just now, Hov34 said:

I have a couple of those Seuss books, what should I do?

 

Well, first step was to probably not post that and let Big Brother know you have contraband items.... 

[Hov34 4,861]

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

Well, first step was to probably not post that and let Big Brother know you have contraband items.... 

[IvanKaramazov 22,555]

28 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think it's an example of cancel culture.

When actors refuse to work with him, producers choose not to distribute his movie, and book publishers cut ties with him, the sense I get from their statements about it seems to be a lot less "I've personally reviewed the evidence and find him likely to be guilty on the merits" than "Mia Farrow is higher-status than the pale little creepy guy, so I'm affiliating with her side."

I never followed the Woody Allen stuff much at all.  Not a fan of his movies, didn't care when scandal struck.  I'll defer to your interpretation of the social dynamics in that one particular case.

In general, though, I think it's helpful to include a distinction that "cancel culture" is mainly about punishing people for saying or believing something wrong, as opposed to doing something wrong.  If a person says "I think norms against sexual harassment have gone too far," and they get punished for that, that would be cancel culture.  If a person pinches his secretary on her rear and gets punished for that, that's totally fine and appropriate.

This is less of a response to you than it is a preemptive response to tim who is going to want to re-litigate the Harvey Weinstein saga.  I'm glad that guy's gone.

[Rich Conway 3,968]

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Corporations should absolutely be allowed to make their own decisions, and we should criticize them when they make bad decisions.

Great.  So by allowing corporations to make their own decisions, "the left" isn't trying to cancel free speech at all.

[KarmaPolice 18,075]

9 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Great.  So by allowing corporations to make their own decisions, "the left" isn't trying to cancel free speech at all.

But, but...   every big tech company is run by the left... 

[Maurile Tremblay 22,689]

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

In general, though, I think it's helpful to include a distinction that "cancel culture" is mainly about punishing people for saying or believing something wrong, as opposed to doing something wrong.  If a person says "I think norms against sexual harassment have gone too far," and they get punished for that, that would be cancel culture.  If a person pinches his secretary on her rear and gets punished for that, that's totally fine and appropriate.

The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group. ("Believe credible women!" will never inspire a hashtag.)

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.

[IvanKaramazov 22,555]

10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group.

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.

I hadn't thought it about it that way before.  Now I need to chew on this a little.

[Sea Duck 1,471]

58 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ebay not allowing the sale of a handful of books is now the modern day book burning?

Yeah...nothing over the top about that reaction at all.

What makes the eBay decision especially weird and bad is that the Seuss Organization didn't even ask them to do it. It's like strange form of virtue signaling where the deference is based entirely on assumption.

[IvanKaramazov 22,555]

1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

Great.  So by allowing corporations to make their own decisions, "the left" isn't trying to cancel free speech at all.

No, if you're encouraging corporations to suppress speech on the basis of you not liking what's being said, it's fair to say that you're opposed to free speech as a matter of principle.  That doesn't involve the government or the first amendment or anything, but that doesn't make it not illiberal.

[Rich Conway 3,968]

16 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

No, if you're encouraging corporations to suppress speech on the basis of you not liking what's being said, it's fair to say that you're opposed to free speech as a matter of principle.  That doesn't involve the government or the first amendment or anything, but that doesn't make it not illiberal.

I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

[djmich 1,208]

1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

It's not a trap.  I'm honestly confused what conservatives are complaining about, as the arguments tend to contradict each other.  Kind of like how people argued all summer that Joe Biden was experiencing dementia but was also a secret socialist with a master plan to sneakily end capitalism and all freedoms.

I don't think you're confused, belligerent maybe?.  The bolded really helps understand the place you are coming from...you are upset, you are caught up in the "the red/blue war", it is probably driving some of the confusion.

Free speech is good.

When people are not able to exercise free speech for fear of reprisal that is generally not good.

When When publishers are afraid of publishing content for fear of reprisal that is not good.  Sure they made the decision to not publish a book that questions the health ramifications of increased gender changes in teenagers.  But if they decided that simply because the woke mob would mete out retribution that is not good.   

[Hov34 4,861]

3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?

 

 

[FairWarning 1,034]

59 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The mark of cancel culture, in my view, is that the criticism leading to cancelation is motivated (usually subconsciously) by jockeying for status.

If being woke is good, being more woke is better, and the way to show off your level of wokeness is by expanding the range of things you can artfully diagnose as being oppressively offensive.

The same psychological dynamic is present among, for example, religious fundamentalists -- there's a sort of contest to see who can most strongly signal loyalty to the in-group by believing transparently crazy things.

When you believe something because it's actually true, that's not fundamentalism. When you disaffiliate with someone because he's actually bad, that's not cancel culture. Those things have very little signaling value to any particular in-group.

But when you disaffiliate with someone because you think doing so will raise your status among your (usually left-leaning) in-group, that's what I'd call cancel culture.

Strong post here,especially the 2nd paragraph. 

[Rich Conway 3,968]

Just now, Hov34 said:

The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?

In the three cases I mentioned (Hasbro, Seuss Enterprises, eBay/Seuss), it's not that I'm unable to guess the affiliation of a group, it's that I haven't seen any evidence that any group encouraged the actions of the corporations.

[Sea Duck 1,471]

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I could be persuaded to this argument, but it only applies if group X is actually doing said encouraging.  I'm not seeing that in the most recent examples (Hasbro, Seuss enterprises, eBay).  I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

The "people" who are encouraging this, what "side" (left or right) do you think they are affiliated with?

Who is encouraging it, though? Why assume without evidence that it's coming from anyone at all? Isn't it possible that the Seuss Organization took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the books, and then decided, without any pressure or provocation, to delete some of them? Until there's evidence to the contrary, I feel like we should give the Seuss company the benefit of the doubt.

[Hov34 4,861]

8 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Who is encouraging it, though? Why assume without evidence that it's coming from anyone at all? Isn't it possible that the Seuss Organization took it upon themselves to re-evaluate the books, and then decided, without any pressure or provocation, to delete some of them? Until there's evidence to the contrary, I feel like we should give the Seuss company the benefit of the doubt.

Because it did come from someone else?

The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, Anti-Blackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss' Children's Books

By Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens (I hate to assume, but after reading this "paper" I'm just going to go ahead and say they are liberal democrats - :nttawwt:

 

Edited March 4 by Hov34

[Rich Conway 3,968]

8 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

Because it did come from someone else?

The Cat is Out of the Bag: Orientalism, Anti-Blackness, and White Supremacy in Dr. Seuss' Children's Books

By Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens (I hate to assume, but after reading this "paper" I'm just going to go ahead and say they are liberal democrats - :nttawwt:

 

You're suggesting that Seuss Org read this paper, that lists instances of "offensive stuff" in dozens upon dozens of Seuss books, and considered that as pressure related to six books?  And that this pressure was suddenly enough to force their hand, two years later?

[Hov34 4,861]

3 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

You're suggesting that Seuss Org read this paper, that lists instances of "offensive stuff" in dozens upon dozens of Seuss books, and considered that as pressure related to six books?  And that this pressure was suddenly enough to force their hand, two years later?

You asked:

Quote

I keep hearing that "the left" is forcing these corporations to act in a particular way, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

I gave evidence to suggest that's the case.