Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

What are the odds that text was actually sent as she said?

I would put odd on that it was. It is easy to prove if they send the owner a screen shot with the time and phone number stamp, and then the owner asks to see it on the diver's phone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

I want to see the text and what the slur was

according to the article: 

Quote

As Patch previously reported, Jerry was sent a text saying that "Black lives do matter but yours doesn't," and she was referred to as a "dumb n-----." The text allegedly finished by telling her to get out of Wantagh, according to Hawkins' video on Facebook.

I posted the story as part of the larger question: What else could the owner have done and how responsible if he for the driver? 

in regards to the thread topic, what is canceling this business going to solve? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

according to the article: 

I posted the story as part of the larger question: What else could the owner have done and how responsible if he for the driver? 

in regards to the thread topic, what is canceling this business going to solve? 

No I read that I am just saying I want to see the text.  If you are going to accuse someone of that you better produce the evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pantherclub said:

I want to see the text and what the slur was

It is highly unlikely to me that this text exists as she is saying. This woman has given several interviews and there are several articles. Still being referred to as allegedly received. In other words she hasnt shown it to anybody. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rct said:

Yeah, this left-wing Cancel Culture is completely out of control.

Cancel Culture and boycotts are 2 different things.

Boycotts aim to impact a corporation or business to force them to reverse a policy they may have recently enacted. Usually doesn't work as the corporation is large enough to wait it out until the will of the boycott dies down.

Cancel culture aims to destroy individual people by outing them publically for perceived societal wrong doing whether it happened or not. The goal is to destroy a person's life financially and personally.  These have varying degrees of effectiveness but when they work, it ruins lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one -Mike Huckabee being eviscerated as racist and anti-Asian for tweeting "I’ve decided to “identify” as Chinese. Coke will like me, Delta will agree with my “values” and I’ll probably get shoes from Nike & tickets to @MLB games. Ain’t America great?"

These folks either don't understand political satire or are willingly ignoring it.  Either way, not a good look for the race baiters here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

Another one -Mike Huckabee being eviscerated as racist and anti-Asian for tweeting "I’ve decided to “identify” as Chinese. Coke will like me, Delta will agree with my “values” and I’ll probably get shoes from Nike & tickets to @MLB games. Ain’t America great?"

These folks either don't understand political satire or are willingly ignoring it.  Either way, not a good look for the race baiters here.

Its funny i started to post this in here, but deleted and put it in the things that werent racist thread. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Insein said:

Cancel Culture and boycotts are 2 different things.

Boycotts aim to impact a corporation or business to force them to reverse a policy they may have recently enacted. Usually doesn't work as the corporation is large enough to wait it out until the will of the boycott dies down.

Cancel culture aims to destroy individual people by outing them publically for perceived societal wrong doing whether it happened or not. The goal is to destroy a person's life financially and personally.  These have varying degrees of effectiveness but when they work, it ruins lives. 

Not really, the words are used interchangeably for the most part and the end result often the same as far as the target is concerned. The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by Country Music radio stations and the purpose wasn't to force them to a reverse a policy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Insein said:

Cancel Culture and boycotts are 2 different things.

Boycotts aim to impact a corporation or business to force them to reverse a policy they may have recently enacted. Usually doesn't work as the corporation is large enough to wait it out until the will of the boycott dies down.

Cancel culture aims to destroy individual people by outing them publically for perceived societal wrong doing whether it happened or not. The goal is to destroy a person's life financially and personally.  These have varying degrees of effectiveness but when they work, it ruins lives. 

What exactly do you think happens if a boycott is successful, a company goes bankrupt and thousands of people no longer have their jobs? While the intention might not be to screw over individual people, the result is the same.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

What exactly do you think happens if a boycott is successful, a company goes bankrupt and thousands of people no longer have their jobs? While the intention might not be to screw over individual people, the result is the same.

Boycotts rarely if ever make a company go out of business. The people engaged in them usually do it as a response to a sudden policy change or product that the company just came out with. The goal is usually to get the company to reverse the decision back to the way it was. There's no going after the employees jobs. There's no call for the firing of individuals (except maybe CEOs). It's a move to affect the bottom line of a company through the market in order to make them change. 

Cancel culture does none of that. The results are completely different. Not sure how you can't see that.

Edited by Insein
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Insein said:

Boycotts rarely if ever make a company go out of business. The people engaged in them usually do it as a response to a sudden policy change or product that the company just came out with. The goal is usually to get the company to reverse the decision back to the way it was. There's no going after the employees jobs. There's no call for the firing of individuals (except maybe CEOs). It's a move to affect the bottom line of a company through the market in order to make them change. 

Cancel culture does none of that. The results are completely different. Not sure how you can't see that.

The most important distinction between a boycott and cancel culture is that cancel culture can be from completely external forces. 

A boycott requires people that are actually customers to avoid buying. Cancel culture can, and usually does, use harassment to achieve its goal.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rct said:

Not really, the words are used interchangeably for the most part and the end result often the same as far as the target is concerned. The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by Country Music radio stations and the purpose wasn't to force them to a reverse a policy. 

Dixie Chicks insulted their core audience. They started with a simple political statement and could have left it at that. People attacked them for hating on the president but it was both within their rights. It's when they doubled down to insult their fans by calling them rednecks and saying they were looking for a more progressive, smarter crowd that it was over for them. That's certainly their right to do so but it was a very bad business decision. They still made some money from the people that agreed with them but I wouldn't call that a cancelling so much as career mismanagement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

The most important distinction between a boycott and cancel culture is that cancel culture can be from completely external forces. 

A boycott requires people that are actually customers to avoid buying. Cancel culture can, and usually does, use harassment to achieve its goal.

 

Exactly. Cancel culture usually comes from activists who have one goal in mind and don't actually care about the product the individual target is representing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

The most important distinction between a boycott and cancel culture is that cancel culture can be from completely external forces. 

A boycott requires people that are actually customers to avoid buying. Cancel culture can, and usually does, use harassment to achieve its goal.

 

Most of the time, members of the mob don't even buy the products, watch the movies/tv shows, etc.. that they are trying to remove people from.

It's just all outrage, all day, 24/7.  No thought required than doing what your told by the liberal orthodoxy.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2021 at 1:16 PM, Insein said:

Dixie Chicks insulted their core audience. They started with a simple political statement and could have left it at that. People attacked them for hating on the president but it was both within their rights. It's when they doubled down to insult their fans by calling them rednecks and saying they were looking for a more progressive, smarter crowd that it was over for them. That's certainly their right to do so but it was a very bad business decision. They still made some money from the people that agreed with them but I wouldn't call that a cancelling so much as career mismanagement. 

I don't follow country music, but was aware of their name change.  I haven't heard any more about them and now I know why.  Did the same thing happen with Lady Antebellum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

I don't follow country music, but was aware of their name change.  I haven't heard any more about them and now I know why.  Did the same thing happen with Lady Antebellum?

Lady antebellum simply decided on their own to change the name, I think because of the ties to the civil war. I don’t recall any outrage or pressure, maybe them just getting out in front of it. I think you don’t hear about them much anymore because some of the members have since worked on solo projects, and also were fighting with a singer who already called herself “Lady A” for the rights. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

This is the essense of woke - finding a tree nickname offensive.  Of course it was a Karen who thought so - 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/portland-high-schools-choice-of-new-mascot-evergreen-trees-could-be-a-problem-due-to-lynching-connotations-officials-say

I began to read the article but I simply won’t keep clicking links to “read more” when articles are set up like that, regardless of the content. Slideshow type articles are annoying. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From United Airlines

"Our flight deck should reflect the diverse group of people on board our planes every day. That’s why we plan for 50% of the 5,000 pilots we train in the next decade to be women or people of color."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

From United Airlines

"Our flight deck should reflect the diverse group of people on board our planes every day. That’s why we plan for 50% of the 5,000 pilots we train in the next decade to be women or people of color."

 

:shrug: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I began to read the article but I simply won’t keep clicking links to “read more” when articles are set up like that, regardless of the content. Slideshow type articles are annoying. 

I posted the local story in the things that are racist thread. 

They renamed their mascot the evergreens.

Somebody brought up lynching and trees. Blindspots. Woke nonsense etc.

Probably not a single documented case of an evergreen being used for lynching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I posted the local story in the things that are racist thread. 

They renamed their mascot the evergreens.

Somebody brought up lynching and trees. Blindspots. Woke nonsense etc.

Probably not a single documented case of an evergreen being used for lynching. 

thats why I used the laughing emoji for the OP (for lack of a better choice)....I mean has anyone every tried to even climb an evergreen tree, let alone hang anyTHING off of????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

:shrug: 

 

I'm not saying women or minorities are unqualified, but I think there are certain jobs where I would hope experience and skills should come before agenda and quotas.

Plus who sees a pilot anymore anyway? I could see if this was in relation to the flight crew working directly with the diverse group of people on their planes. 

I've said it before, sometimes lack of diversity in certain jobs is in part to lack of educational opportunities or exposure to the career in high school. If these companies were really serious about diversity AND getting the best qualified candidates they would invest in education in underserved areas. United should help support pilot and aircraft focused training by providing simulators or education modules to predominantly minority high schools. Google should help create and subsidize coding and development programs that could be offered as electives or part of a career track. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

If someone doesn't know which trees are good for lynching, I'm kind of OK with that.

I am not in this case. She is the one bringing it up. I expect all people that bring up changing a mascot or symbol or anything to actually have some knowledge of the matter. Especially if they are going to bring racism into the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I am not in this case. She is the one bringing it up. I expect all people that bring up changing a mascot or symbol or anything to actually have some knowledge of the matter. Especially if they are going to bring racism into the discussion. 

Completely agree. But I oppose it because associating any tree with lynching is silly (also, a tree for a mascot is silly to me), not because "wrong tree you bunch of lynch illiterates".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

I'm not saying women or minorities are unqualified, but I think there are certain jobs where I would hope experience and skills should come before agenda and quotas.

Plus who sees a pilot anymore anyway? I could see if this was in relation to the flight crew working directly with the diverse group of people on their planes. 

I've said it before, sometimes lack of diversity in certain jobs is in part to lack of educational opportunities or exposure to the career in high school. If these companies were really serious about diversity AND getting the best qualified candidates they would invest in education in underserved areas. United should help support pilot and aircraft focused training by providing simulators or education modules to predominantly minority high schools. Google should help create and subsidize coding and development programs that could be offered as electives or part of a career track. 

I agree with this post.   I guess I see some of these examples as people looking for "woke" everywhere.   

Maybe it's because in principle I agree with this, especially in the context you posted.  They said in the next decade and I would sure hope they wouldn't put people in the air that weren't qualified and didn't pass their training.   I get you guys saying that the announcement might be signalling a bit.  

Like you said, and what I agree with - we could be looking more at careers and fields that don't reflect the make up of our country.   Maybe there are programs or ways to boost access to these things for everybody.  I would guess there are people slipping through the cracks all the time and it would benefit us all to have everybody have similar avenues to do what they want.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I agree with this post.   I guess I see some of these examples as people looking for "woke" everywhere.   

Maybe it's because in principle I agree with this, especially in the context you posted.  They said in the next decade and I would sure hope they wouldn't put people in the air that weren't qualified and didn't pass their training.   I get you guys saying that the announcement might be signalling a bit.  

Like you said, and what I agree with - we could be looking more at careers and fields that don't reflect the make up of our country.   Maybe there are programs or ways to boost access to these things for everybody.  I would guess there are people slipping through the cracks all the time and it would benefit us all to have everybody have similar avenues to do what they want.  

I was going to add to my post that there is no denying that getting your foot in the door to some of these potential careers costs money—same with certain sports like ice hockey where there is a lack of minorities at the pro level.

My buddy's kid is in HS and wants to be a pilot, so he is taking private flying lessons. Those are no joke on the pocket book. But he is middle class and can afford it for the most part. However, if we are serious about diversity, we need to bring those opportunities—at least in their basic sense—into communities that would normally be out of reach for those families. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glvsav37 said:

I was going to add to my post that there is no denying that getting your foot in the door to some of these potential careers costs money—same with certain sports like ice hockey where there is a lack of minorities at the pro level.

My buddy's kid is in HS and wants to be a pilot, so he is taking private flying lessons. Those are no joke on the pocket book. But he is middle class and can afford it for the most part. However, if we are serious about diversity, we need to bring those opportunities—at least in their basic sense—into communities that would normally be out of reach for those families. 

Agree 100%, and as I was posting that I was thinking about hockey as an example too.  :lol:  

Like I said, what we need to do is not say tomorrow we are going to start 30% POC in the NHL or throw 30% into being pilots, but it would benefit us to look at situations like that and see if there is something we could do to boost access and reach out to all communities.   I fully understand there are careers and industries that are more attractive to different groups, but we should try our best to give people that opportunity to get there if they want.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

California prisons grapple with hundreds of transgender inmates requesting new housing.  LINK

Absolutely no one could see this coming.

What does this have to do with “Cancel Culture” and “Woke”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

From United Airlines

"Our flight deck should reflect the diverse group of people on board our planes every day. That’s why we plan for 50% of the 5,000 pilots we train in the next decade to be women or people of color."

I remember the good old days when Safety came first.  Guess now it's somewhere at the end of the checkbox list.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

California prisons grapple with hundreds of transgender inmates requesting new housing.  LINK

Absolutely no one could see this coming.

This may make the problem easier, perversely.  They have enough for their own wing, or heck, their own prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djmich said:

UVA Lawsuit   🤣

This one is incredibly infuriating. This stuff is straight dystopian:

-Immediately following the panel, she filed a "professionalism concern card"—a kind of record of a student's violations of university policy.

-According to Bhattacharya's lawsuit, the concern card generated interest from an assistant dean in the medical school, who emailed him and offered to meet. The assistant dean assured him that "I simply want to help you understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations."

-Meanwhile, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to to discuss the concern card

-Bhattacharya responded that contrary to anyone's assertions, he had not lost his temper or become frustrated with the panel:

Your observed discomfort of me from wherever you sat was not at all how I felt.

-On November 26, this suggestion became a mandate: The student was informed that he must be evaluated by psychological services before returning to classes. 

-He was ultimately suspended for "aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations." On December 30, UVA police ordered him to leave campus.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djmich said:

UVA Lawsuit   🤣

This is absolutely infuriating.  Asking a presenter about contradictory statements isn't bad behavior - heck, he pointed to their own slides to show the discrepancy.  That they asked him to undergo a mandatory psych evaluation is insane and is the reason why we, as a society, should be concerned with taking away rights based on "mental health".  Those defining mental health, as in this case, may be certifiable.  I hope he wins a big award here.  UVA's behavior was outrageous.

As an anecdote UVA was one of the places I looked at for schools.  Of all the schools I visited this one was the easiest "no way" - they were the most stuck up, pompous admissions group we ran across.  Light years more snooty than places like Duke.   Not surprised at all this came out of this institution.  (Places Like Va Tech and NC State were pretty awesome).

Edited by Sand
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GroveDiesel said:

This one is incredibly infuriating. This stuff is straight dystopian:

-Immediately following the panel, she filed a "professionalism concern card"—a kind of record of a student's violations of university policy.

-According to Bhattacharya's lawsuit, the concern card generated interest from an assistant dean in the medical school, who emailed him and offered to meet. The assistant dean assured him that "I simply want to help you understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations."

-Meanwhile, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to to discuss the concern card

-Bhattacharya responded that contrary to anyone's assertions, he had not lost his temper or become frustrated with the panel:

Your observed discomfort of me from wherever you sat was not at all how I felt.

-On November 26, this suggestion became a mandate: The student was informed that he must be evaluated by psychological services before returning to classes. 

-He was ultimately suspended for "aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations." On December 30, UVA police ordered him to leave campus.

For me, the interesting thing about this story is that I can imagine the social dynamics at play and how a bunch of people sign off on a decision that they know is wrong but they go along anyway because it's just easier.  Obviously I don't know any of the people involved in this story, but there is a type of "social justice" personality who flips out over any deviation from orthodoxy.  That's how this starts -- a student asks a pointed question to the wrong person, who reports them for what is essentially wrongthink.  

At this point, ordinarily the dean or a department chair or somebody would sit down with Dr. Social Justice and talk him off the ledge.  But this actually requires some skill, because you can't just tell Dr. Social Justice that he's being unreasonable and he needs to get over it.  Dr. Assistant Dean is going to have to work with Dr. Social Justice for years and possibly decades, and Dr. Social Justice is a bully.  If Dr. Assistant Dean says the wrong thing or inadvertently suggests that the student's viewpoint is worthy of consideration, then Dr. Assistant Dean becomes the bad guy in this narrative, and Dr. Social Justice, who has probably grown bored with such pedestrian concerns as teaching, research, and service, will make it his goal in life to undermine Dr. Assistant Dean.  That's not at all an unrealistic scenario when you consider that Dr. Social Justice has a posse and none of them have ever been told that they're anything but 100% on the side of Virtue and Truth, and administrators are evil anyway. 

So the Assistant Dean asks himself, who do I want to piss off?  A student who I'll never see again, or a colleague who I'll need to work with in the future?  I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is a type of university administrator who is sufficiently cynical to view that decision as a no-brainer.  [I've been told as much by folks.  One of my favorite academic administration anecdotes involves a panel of university general counsels -- in-house attorneys -- that I sat in on a few years ago at a conference.   They were very open about the fact that they sometimes advise their presidents and provosts that it's better to lose or settle a lawsuit than to end up in the local newspaper as the bad guy.  Now of course those people are lawyers so of course they're soulless Machiavellians, but I run into this kind of mindset all the time among people who want to advance their careers.  Also, the general counsels had a very good dark sense of humor about this and they're probably fun to be around at the local tavern, which is not the case for your average office drone.  It was a genuinely fun panel.] 

In this case, that calculation backfired.  But it only backfires like 1% of the time.  For every student that ends up like the student in this story -- with a lawsuit and an audio recording the more or less backs up his side of the story -- there are 99 other students who go away quietly.  

Of course, it's not just the Assistant Dean.  A bunch of people had to sign off on the decision to ban this student from campus, and I do worry that some vital piece of information is being left out of this story.  I had a situation years ago with a psychotic graduate student who was an expert at threatening people without saying anything that would look especially bad if you were simply reading a transcript (think Cape Fear).  So I don't want to sit here and say that obviously everybody at UVA is craven and awful.  If a follow-up story revealed that there was something seriously wrong with the student, I would not be shocked or even surprised.  But yeah I can see how UVA officials may have gotten cornered by a bully and are now regretting it. 

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

 That's not at all an unrealistic scenario when you consider that Dr. Social Justice has a posse and none of them have ever been told that they're anything but 100% on the side of Virtue and Truth 

So you’re saying that @timschochet is on UVA faculty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...