Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

Saw this trending the other day: controversy with the UT fight song.  I think it's a good example of what people view as the excesses of cancel culture.  Someone declares that the long-standing fight song of a southern university is racist, which on its face doesn't seem like a stretch.  Except, in this case, the song appears to be from the early 20th century and the lyrics themselves, while IMO kind of stupid, are unobjectionable.  The pro cancel people then pivot to the “I’ve been working on the railroad” melody, which may or may not have unsavory roots (the exact origin of the melody seems disputed).  Next pivot seems to be that at some point maybe people in blackface performed the song, which while they don’t seem to have any proof, is certainly possible. 

There are the usual sort of overwrought declarations about how people seeing the plaque in the visitor’s center will not feel welcome.  Which, to be fair, may be true now that half of the guides have declared the song racist, but if those same people had stumbled across the plaque 5 years ago, I doubt they would have given it a second glance.  I don’t see how the phrase “the eyes of Texas” itself would put anyone in some sort of distress.

People who are closer on the ground can feel free to chime in, but to me it seems like a group of people for whatever reason decided they didn’t like the song, declared it racist on flimsy grounds, and now are demanding that anything short of complete acquiescence to their demands is an affront to the entire minority community.

And I think the natural tendency of most people is to say, “well, it’s only a stupid song, just get rid of it if it’s causing so much dissension.”  The problem with this line of thinking is seen by looking at the actual facts around this – by the standard of “proof” that has been put forward, basically anything a small group of people declare problematic must be cancelled.  And that sort of power is going to be abused by the worst sorts of people.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was way too long a post.  Gordon Gekko is looking at that and wondering why I couldn't tighten it up a little.

Cancelling an awards show might be the best thing ever to emerge from the woke movement.  If they cancel the Oscars, I might become pro-woke.

I make sure to tell Tim that he's wrong about something at least weekly.  It's my good deed of the day.

31 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

And I think the natural tendency of most people is to say, “well, it’s only a stupid song, just get rid of it if it’s causing so much dissension.”  The problem with this line of thinking is seen by looking at the actual facts around this – by the standard of “proof” that has been put forward, basically anything a small group of people declare problematic must be cancelled.  And that sort of power is going to be abused by the worst sorts of people.

This is exactly, 100% right.  When a normal person encounters a situation like this -- a group of people freaking out over something really minor in the grand scheme of things -- your ordinary reaction is something like "Geeze, alright already, we'll get a different song."  Because really, aside from some alumni who care way too much, what normal person wants to get into a big knock-down drag-out fight over a school song?    

But the people instigating the freak-out tend to be inconsolable.  In many cases, they're literally just bullies.  Bullies don't go away when you hand over your lunch.  They get emboldened.  Then you find yourself in a situation where you can't refer to mothers as "mothers" and the normal people all look around wondering how that happened and how they got there.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I just don't understand what people are getting so worked up about" is the new useful idiot claim to rebut the seeming zeal with which we object to changes in language and tradition like this.

Because there is no slippery slope, really. Generally, just assume, given an Activist A, that Activist A is coming for everything possible under the sun and you've got a pretty good idea of what happens if you don't push back against the original complaints about something's existence. In other words, if you have to squint yet can indeed barely see something happening at Activist A's logical end, start from the premise that if it isn't stopped, it will progress there. See things like: Abraham Lincoln's name being removed by the San Francisco school board.

It won't just stop at the targets they ask for. They want to re-write history, tradition, and even biology. It's not quite just bullying, and they are not reformers. They seek to be your next tyrants, no matter how much they gussy up the window dressing of their means and ends.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the big story from our local news comes to us from a 24 year old substitute teacher  (she wants to be referred to as a "guest teacher") who was subbing for a day in a history class. In the classroom there was a confederate flag on display. She complained to the powers that be and started a Change.org petition that already has 25k signatures calling for the banning of Confederate flags in classrooms. 

Her quote, " "Classrooms are meant to be a safe space for all students, and it cannot be a safe space if a modern-day symbol of hate is on display."

The District investigated and here are their findings: 

We learned the flag was displayed as part of an 8th grade American History from Revolution to Reconstruction course. Numerous flags were displayed as the class learned about periods in American history. At the close of the unit, the class removed the flags and examined each flag’s historical context. Specific to the Confederate Flag, the class also discussed what the battle flag signified and how today, in 2021, the flag is viewed as a symbol of hate. The flag, along with others, are no longer on display as the unit of study has concluded.

We believe our classrooms are spaces for safe, supported dialogue around historical and current events. We are grateful for the open conversations with all involved. These conversations will continue, and we will engage in further learning to push our district forward to make sure all in our school communities feel safe and supported."

Here is the Article

I just shake my head....

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rockaction said:

"I just don't understand what people are getting so worked up about" is the new useful idiot claim to rebut the seeming zeal with which we object to changes in language and tradition like this.

Because there is no slippery slope, really. Generally, just assume, given an Activist A, that Activist A is coming for everything possible under the sun and you've got a pretty good idea of what happens if you don't push back against the original complaints about something's existence. In other words, if you have to squint yet can indeed barely see something happening at Activist A's logical end, start from the premise that if it isn't stopped, it will progress there. See things like: Abraham Lincoln's name being removed by the San Francisco school board.

It won't just stop at the targets they ask for. They want to re-write history, tradition, and even biology. It's not quite just bullying, and they are not reformers. They seek to be your next tyrants, no matter how much they gussy up the window dressing of their means and ends.

The bold is so annoying. 

Put it with "Omg, stop reading the news then" as a defense of bs media coverage.

"Omg people denying something is racism are just as bad as the racists"

New one i am seeing is "if we cant do x, what have we become." This is of course being brought up as a way to assume that their side is righteous and that their belief is inarguable and opposition to it makes you bad bad bad. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

So the big story from our local news comes to us from a 24 year old substitute teacher  (she wants to be referred to as a "guest teacher") who was subbing for a day in a history class. In the classroom there was a confederate flag on display. She complained to the powers that be and started a Change.org petition that already has 25k signatures calling for the banning of Confederate flags in classrooms. 

Her quote, " "Classrooms are meant to be a safe space for all students, and it cannot be a safe space if a modern-day symbol of hate is on display."

The District investigated and here are their findings: 

We learned the flag was displayed as part of an 8th grade American History from Revolution to Reconstruction course. Numerous flags were displayed as the class learned about periods in American history. At the close of the unit, the class removed the flags and examined each flag’s historical context. Specific to the Confederate Flag, the class also discussed what the battle flag signified and how today, in 2021, the flag is viewed as a symbol of hate. The flag, along with others, are no longer on display as the unit of study has concluded.

We believe our classrooms are spaces for safe, supported dialogue around historical and current events. We are grateful for the open conversations with all involved. These conversations will continue, and we will engage in further learning to push our district forward to make sure all in our school communities feel safe and supported."

Here is the Article

I just shake my head....

 

My brother is a history teacher, isn't the confederate flag part of history?  Can't we as a society learn from it and go forward?  You want a safe space?  Go home and play video games in the basement.  No 6th grader isn't feeling safe because of a confederate flag in the classroom.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

The bold is so annoying. 

Put it with "Omg, stop reading the news then" as a defense of bs media coverage.

"Omg people denying something is racism are just as bad as the racists"

New one i am seeing is "if we cant do x, what have we become." This is of course being brought up as a way to assume that their side is righteous and that their belief is inarguable and opposition to it makes you bad bad bad. 

Yeah, I don't understand why you are getting worked up about this one.   ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr_Zaius said:

Saw this trending the other day: controversy with the UT fight song.  I think it's a good example of what people view as the excesses of cancel culture.  Someone declares that the long-standing fight song of a southern university is racist, which on its face doesn't seem like a stretch.  Except, in this case, the song appears to be from the early 20th century and the lyrics themselves, while IMO kind of stupid, are unobjectionable.  The pro cancel people then pivot to the “I’ve been working on the railroad” melody, which may or may not have unsavory roots (the exact origin of the melody seems disputed).  Next pivot seems to be that at some point maybe people in blackface performed the song, which while they don’t seem to have any proof, is certainly possible. 

There are the usual sort of overwrought declarations about how people seeing the plaque in the visitor’s center will not feel welcome.  Which, to be fair, may be true now that half of the guides have declared the song racist, but if those same people had stumbled across the plaque 5 years ago, I doubt they would have given it a second glance.  I don’t see how the phrase “the eyes of Texas” itself would put anyone in some sort of distress.

People who are closer on the ground can feel free to chime in, but to me it seems like a group of people for whatever reason decided they didn’t like the song, declared it racist on flimsy grounds, and now are demanding that anything short of complete acquiescence to their demands is an affront to the entire minority community.

And I think the natural tendency of most people is to say, “well, it’s only a stupid song, just get rid of it if it’s causing so much dissension.”  The problem with this line of thinking is seen by looking at the actual facts around this – by the standard of “proof” that has been put forward, basically anything a small group of people declare problematic must be cancelled.  And that sort of power is going to be abused by the worst sorts of people.

Pretty interesting story that I have been keeping an eye on.  I have a feeling the old money will lose out in the end.  What football recruit will want to go to a school that is considered racist?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Pretty interesting story that I have been keeping an eye on.  I have a feeling the old money will lose out in the end.  What football recruit will want to go to a school that is considered racist?  

In all fairness, what recruit really wants to go to UT, anyway? 

 :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FairWarning said:

Pretty interesting story that I have been keeping an eye on.  I have a feeling the old money will lose out in the end.  What football recruit will want to go to a school that is considered racist?  

I tend to share your belief in that the students can make the administration's life pretty miserable if they stay committed.  On the other hand, I was surprised that the school seems to be currently taking the approach of "well if giving guided tours and seeing the fight song is traumatic, maybe being a guide isn't for you."  So, they are at the moment sending a signal that they don't plan on caving. 

This will be interesting in that I have seen people speculate that we are around a local maximum for wokeness and that it will start receding soon.  If that theory is true, you would expect to see high profile cases of attempted cancellations failing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Courtjester said:

So the big story from our local news comes to us from a 24 year old substitute teacher  (she wants to be referred to as a "guest teacher") who was subbing for a day in a history class. In the classroom there was a confederate flag on display. She complained to the powers that be and started a Change.org petition that already has 25k signatures calling for the banning of Confederate flags in classrooms. 

Her quote, " "Classrooms are meant to be a safe space for all students, and it cannot be a safe space if a modern-day symbol of hate is on display."

The District investigated and here are their findings: 

We learned the flag was displayed as part of an 8th grade American History from Revolution to Reconstruction course. Numerous flags were displayed as the class learned about periods in American history. At the close of the unit, the class removed the flags and examined each flag’s historical context. Specific to the Confederate Flag, the class also discussed what the battle flag signified and how today, in 2021, the flag is viewed as a symbol of hate. The flag, along with others, are no longer on display as the unit of study has concluded.

We believe our classrooms are spaces for safe, supported dialogue around historical and current events. We are grateful for the open conversations with all involved. These conversations will continue, and we will engage in further learning to push our district forward to make sure all in our school communities feel safe and supported."

Here is the Article

I just shake my head....

 

its so very frustrating that people feel the need to cause a mess without 1st finding out the reason it was there.

I thought the district response to the public was good, saying ti was part of a history lesson.  But then......

Quote

 

The email went on to say D20 has policies about flag displays, selection of instructional materials, and teaching controversial issues and it does not appear district policies were violated with the Confederate Flag being hung.

Gregory noted the district formed a DEI Task Force to conduct an equity audit of the district, and that this situation highlights the need for such a Task Force.

 

Why do you need a "Task force." You clearly aid it was part of a history lesson and was not there for any political statement. Case closed. You are teaching history. The last thing schools and the general public need are more "task forces" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/disney-problematic-princess-why-snow-083117952.html

 

“Disneyland’s new Snow White ride, which reopened this month after a year of Covid shutdown, faces criticism for its "non-consensual kiss" between Snow White and Prince Charming.”

“Kissing a woman … without confirmation or consent can be read as sexual violence,” she said. “Rather than the romantic dream story that is widely believed. [It is] rape.”

 

😐

 

Edited by Cowboysfan8
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dr_Zaius said:

I tend to share your belief in that the students can make the administration's life pretty miserable if they stay committed.  On the other hand, I was surprised that the school seems to be currently taking the approach of "well if giving guided tours and seeing the fight song is traumatic, maybe being a guide isn't for you."  So, they are at the moment sending a signal that they don't plan on caving. 

This will be interesting in that I have seen people speculate that we are around a local maximum for wokeness and that it will start receding soon.  If that theory is true, you would expect to see high profile cases of attempted cancellations failing.

Isn't Austin the most liberal city in Texas?  I think this will fester like  it did with SC Gamecocks and Mississippi with the flag.  Over time, this can only hurt Texas.  One reason I don't think this dies down is because of the new blood moving into the state from California.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2021 at 4:21 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

This is exactly, 100% right.  When a normal person encounters a situation like this -- a group of people freaking out over something really minor in the grand scheme of things -- your ordinary reaction is something like "Geeze, alright already, we'll get a different song."  Because really, aside from some alumni who care way too much, what normal person wants to get into a big knock-down drag-out fight over a school song?    

But the people instigating the freak-out tend to be inconsolable.  In many cases, they're literally just bullies.  Bullies don't go away when you hand over your lunch.  They get emboldened.  Then you find yourself in a situation where you can't refer to mothers as "mothers" and the normal people all look around wondering how that happened and how they got there.  

Great post Iván.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2021 at 2:39 PM, Cowboysfan8 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/disney-problematic-princess-why-snow-083117952.html

 

“Disneyland’s new Snow White ride, which reopened this month after a year of Covid shutdown, faces criticism for its "non-consensual kiss" between Snow White and Prince Charming.”

“Kissing a woman … without confirmation or consent can be read as sexual violence,” she said. “Rather than the romantic dream story that is widely believed. [It is] rape.”

 

😐

 

my standard answer to this has been:

Kissing a dead girl to wake her up: How dare you!!!!  

Plotting the murder of a teen by hiring a hitman to cut her heart out but then deciding to just poison her yourself, simply because she is prettier then you: Nah, we cool.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

History will note that Bob Baffert claiming "cancel culture" when he got caught cheating by doping his Kentucky Derby winning horse is when "cancel culture" officially jumped the shark.

Yes, a very real lament co-opted by the opportunists and hustlers. Quelle suprise!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

'Groundbreaking' Supreme Court case could await Facebook after Trump ban

 By Fox News Staff | Fox News

"Woke Inc." author Vivek Ramaswamy said Monday that former President Trump could have a potentially "groundbreaking legal theory," should he choose to take his Facebook ban to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: I think that this self-criticism was just a veneer, it’s a smokescreen designed to create this air of legitimacy around their decision when in fact they did exactly what Mark Zuckerberg wanted to. They reinforced the decision that Facebook made.  

President Trump should take this case—not to Facebook’s sham corporate Supreme Court—he should take it to the real U.S. Supreme Court. And I actually think he has a potentially groundbreaking legal theory. Facts are on his side, where these companies aren’t like normal private companies. They’re effectively doing the bidding of Democrats in Congress who have threatened them with regulation and reprisal if they don’t go out and censor content that they as Democrats don’t want to see and they give them Section 230 immunity and go out and do it.

So, that’s a combination of a stick and a carrot that turns this private action into really state-like action that’s governed by the First Amendment. Clarence Thomas threw down the gauntlet and said that he was interested in hearing the case in an opinion he wrote recently. I think Trump should take it all the way to the real U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

Yes, a very real lament co-opted by the opportunists and hustlers. Quelle suprise!

Well the point is, maybe it’s not a very real lament and never has been. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Well the point is, maybe it’s not a very real lament and never has been. 

Uh, and that would have been my rebuttal to that implied point. Just because something is co-opted doesn't mean the original lament wasn't a worthy one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

 

'Groundbreaking' Supreme Court case could await Facebook after Trump ban

 By Fox News Staff | Fox News

"Woke Inc." author Vivek Ramaswamy said Monday that former President Trump could have a potentially "groundbreaking legal theory," should he choose to take his Facebook ban to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: I think that this self-criticism was just a veneer, it’s a smokescreen designed to create this air of legitimacy around their decision when in fact they did exactly what Mark Zuckerberg wanted to. They reinforced the decision that Facebook made.  

President Trump should take this case—not to Facebook’s sham corporate Supreme Court—he should take it to the real U.S. Supreme Court. And I actually think he has a potentially groundbreaking legal theory. Facts are on his side, where these companies aren’t like normal private companies. They’re effectively doing the bidding of Democrats in Congress who have threatened them with regulation and reprisal if they don’t go out and censor content that they as Democrats don’t want to see and they give them Section 230 immunity and go out and do it.

So, that’s a combination of a stick and a carrot that turns this private action into really state-like action that’s governed by the First Amendment. Clarence Thomas threw down the gauntlet and said that he was interested in hearing the case in an opinion he wrote recently. I think Trump should take it all the way to the real U.S. Supreme Court.

So much :lol: in this, especially the 2nd bolded.  

As to the bolded, didn't they do the opposite of what he wants?  I guess if we put on our :tinfoilhat: we can start suggesting that he went through the trouble of hiring this crew just to actually secretly tell them what to do and how to rule.  FB set this up for oversight, and they basically told him that FB has to determine what to do with Trump in 6months.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

So much :lol: in this, especially the 2nd bolded.  

As to the bolded, didn't they do the opposite of what he wants?  I guess if we put on our :tinfoilhat: we can start suggesting that he went through the trouble of hiring this crew just to actually secretly tell them what to do and how to rule.  FB set this up for oversight, and they basically told him that FB has to determine what to do with Trump in 6months.   

 

The leftist love for censorship never ceases to amaze me.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yep, that's what I wrote in that post.  I love me some censorship!! 

The left used to at least have the ACLU wing who would champion free speech no matter what.  But now that is falling apart and even the ACLU is rationalizing attacks on free speech.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The left used to at least have the ACLU wing who would champion free speech no matter what.  But now that is falling apart and even the ACLU is rationalizing attacks on free speech.  

You and BR are like peas in a pod.   "the left" doesn't do these things any more than "the right" stormed the capital.   

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

You and BR are like peas in a pod.   "the left" doesn't do these things any more than "the right" stormed the capital.   

My mind automatically read this in Billy Crystal's voice...

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

You and BR are like peas in a pod.   "the left" doesn't do these things any more than "the right" stormed the capital.   

I appreciate the comparison!  jon's a good guy.  :thumbup:

You and Sho are like peas in a pod too!

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2021 at 2:39 PM, Cowboysfan8 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/disney-problematic-princess-why-snow-083117952.html

 

“Disneyland’s new Snow White ride, which reopened this month after a year of Covid shutdown, faces criticism for its "non-consensual kiss" between Snow White and Prince Charming.”

“Kissing a woman … without confirmation or consent can be read as sexual violence,” she said. “Rather than the romantic dream story that is widely believed. [It is] rape.”

 

😐

 

 

It's all good now.

Quote

We've never seen the movie and don't plan to," said the 3 people online, "but we are pleased Disney has chosen to do the right thing here."

 

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:

I figured the left would love to think being fired is the same thing as cancelled. Good grief.  

Trump is reprising The Apprentice but instead of "You're Fired" he's going with "You're Canceled"   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced "woke" is just a giant troll job...a giant fishing trip.  Someone makes some sort of outlandish claim just to see how many people they can hook and how much outrage they can create, just for the lulz.

And our right wing media falls for it, every time.  They can't get enough. They love it, because they are in on it.  They know full well how many eyeballs "woke" outrage will bring them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, moleculo said:

I'm convinced "woke" is just a giant troll job...a giant fishing trip.

Saying you are convinced reads like "I have no real basis for this opinion but feel its necessary to entrench in my political position and in order to fortify my mental defense of it I will declare "I am convinced!". 

Was there any data or a compelling argument you read, or you heard that Hannity was talking about it and that convinced you?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, djmich said:

Saying you are convinced reads like "I have no real basis for this opinion but feel its necessary to entrench in my political position and in order to fortify my mental defense of it I will declare "I am convinced!". 

Was there any data or a compelling argument you read, or you heard that Hannity was talking about it and that convinced you?

The implication behind the term “cancel culture” is that there’s a deliberate plan behind most of the anecdotes that are provided as examples of it- a plan by the Left to change our society in a sinister way, rather than individual, unconnected attempts to remove perceived injustices. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not him. (A burden, incidentally, which no one making this argument has come close to meeting, IMO.) 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

Saying you are convinced reads like "I have no real basis for this opinion but feel its necessary to entrench in my political position and in order to fortify my mental defense of it I will declare "I am convinced!". 

Was there any data or a compelling argument you read, or you heard that Hannity was talking about it and that convinced you?

That's a lot of interpretation on the basis of two words.  It kind of reads like, " I'm not even going to bother understanding the argument and instead I will just lob unjustified accusations of following Hannity"

The way I meant "I'm convinced" is this: I have formed my own strong opinion on the basis of observations and commentary. 

As always, you are more than free to disagree but please don't ever accuse me of parroting Hannity again.  That is as grave an insult as someone can lob.  I am deeply offended and demand that you edit your original post and promise to never do it again.

Link to post
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   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...