What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The “Woke” thread (5 Viewers)

General Malaise said:
The drunk real estate bro in LA who verbally harassed an Asian female on camera and called her all sorts of repugnant names on - including an ethnic slur - lost his job as a result.  Seems like a good thing to me but maybe others will defend him here? I dunno. 

Link: https://heavy.com/news/michael-mike-dalcin/
Click to expand...
I think this post represents the disconnect.  

I think virtually everyone agrees on these instances.  There's no place for this sort of behavior, and I can't imagine many companies want to have this person representing them.  This isn't what I think of when I say "cancel culture."  This is justified.  

On the flip side, I live in Kentucky.  An hour or so from where I live there was a school superintendent who wore black face to a party 20 years ago.  He even told the school board that the photo existed and acknowledged it was a mistake prior to taking the job.  

The photo gets out.  Students in the county march out.  The NAACP goes to town.  Everyone is demanding his resignation.  There was a picture of a student with a sign reading "No place for Blackface."

The superintendent and does a statement.  Says that he was ignorant and his ignorance caused hurt, and he's sorry and that's not who he is.  He agrees there is no place for black face.  And again, this is TWENTY years ago.  But it lingered for months and I'm not sure if it's still up in the air or not.  

That to me is cancel culture.  Rather than having a conversation with someone about things they did wrong 20 years ago and asking what's in their heart--you want them terminated.  Rather than giving them a chance to denounce their own mistakes from 20 years ago--let's cut them out.  

 
Don't worry folks, NYT is making sure we all say the right words.

Unfettered conversations are taking place on Clubhouse, an invitation-only app that lets people gather in audio chatrooms. The platform has exploded in popularity, despite grappling with concerns over harassment, misinformation and privacy.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1361450276750848000?s=20

Unfettered conversations are happening...the horror!!

 
Cancelling is little more than boycotting, which is a perfectly legitimate and effective exercise of socio-economic pressure.

Where it crosses into blackballing (now there's a word i might as well use before it's sent to the same fallacy graveyard as "#####rdly") is in its use as an act of power instead of an act against power.

My sense of its origins have cancelling coming most directly from black people cashiering the careers of famous white people for expressions of sentiments deemed racist. As in the McCarthy Era, showbiz sponsors proved allergic to scandal of this kind and media had consolidated to very few companies controlling the great body of entertainment, making this a very powerful tactic. Were i a black person at the turn of this century, i would have preferred my race's use of new public sympathy & political capital on something like reparations, but most evidence has the glee of making Kramer a pariah or slapping the n-word out Paula Dean's mouth more satisfying.

As soon as the art became more punitive than corrective, post-modern academics and HR culture latched onto it and have worked it for more than it's worth.

It ended my career in gaming a decade ago. I was swing-shift supervisor in a poker room, traditionally the #2 spot and the one the Poker Room Mgr has to keep an eye on. However, i was already old and had no ambitions, so there was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, i was more experienced and talented at administration than either my boss or day shift counterpart, a competent & conscientious supervisor whose only flaw was a halting use of the English language. I already had good relationships with the Sandia tribe which owned the casino because i'd written a lot of their codes of procedure. Thought i was doing my best work with both bosses and bossees when i was charged with being racially and sexually insensitive on the job. The only charge was overshadowing my Vietnamese female colleague at meetings. I won my case (HR reeeeally wanted to put me through sensitivity training but it would have cost them a lawsuit they weren't ready for) and resigned - life's too short - as soon as my personnel record was cleared.

I don't think i'd win my case today. That makes me sad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
As soon as the art became more punitive than corrective, post-modern academics and HR culture latched onto it and have worked it for more than it's worth.
Click to expand...
Read some fascinating stuff the other month by someone who had seen this phenomenon develop within HR offices (to avoid being sued under the EEOC, the politicization of which is probably an entire other subject for another day) and corporate culture writ large by intoning that corporations are just looking, in general, for excuses to fire workers with any time on the job. Why not be on the side of the just for once and fire the malcontents while at the same time improving their bottom line? This way, they can target those who are more senior and generally unwilling to abide corporate machinations and grey brushstrokes and reduce salary, too. The author was essentially arguing that these things undertaken by HR had moved from benefiting the corporate lawsuit slush fund to improving the corporate bottom line in methodology and practice. It's also a way of keeping people in line in the office and subservient to bosses and HR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Read some fascinating stuff the other month by someone who had seen this phenomenon develop within HR offices (to avoid being sued under the EEOC, the politicization of which is probably an entire other subject for another day) and corporate culture writ large by intoning that corporations are just looking, in general, for excuses to fire workers with any time on the job. Why not be on the side of the just for once and fire the malcontents. This way, they can target those who are more senior and generally unwilling to abide corporate machinations and grey brushstrokes and reduce salary, too. The author was essentially arguing that these things undertaken by HR had moved from benefiting the corporate lawsuit slush fund to improving the corporate bottom line in methodology and practice. It's also a way of keeping people in line in the office and subservient to bosses and HR.
Click to expand...
atomization is quickly proving more deadly than atomics

 
Lots of those on the right, including some in this forum, have used "woke" as a perjorative.  Using it as a perjorative to describe "those nutty liberals" for being too sensitive is absolutely the most frequent use I see.

Lots of those on the right, including some in the forum, have decried "cancel culture" almost reflexively, regardless of a specific situation.  I guarantee you can find all sorts of posts in this forum labeling Twitter's suspension of Donald Trump as cancel culture, or Amazon's removal of Parler as cancel culture, even though neither of those things is anything like what normal people think of as cancel culture.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "the right" and its victim complex regarding cancel culture are just as "bad" as overbroad cancel culture itself.

That said, cancel culture isn't really new.  It's been around for ages, just not specifically called cancel culture.  What is new is the technology that allows interactions to easily be recorded, posted publicly, and go "viral" within days.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
I think this post represents the disconnect.  

I think virtually everyone agrees on these instances.  There's no place for this sort of behavior, and I can't imagine many companies want to have this person representing them.  This isn't what I think of when I say "cancel culture."  This is justified.  

On the flip side, I live in Kentucky.  An hour or so from where I live there was a school superintendent who wore black face to a party 20 years ago.  He even told the school board that the photo existed and acknowledged it was a mistake prior to taking the job.  

The photo gets out.  Students in the county march out.  The NAACP goes to town.  Everyone is demanding his resignation.  There was a picture of a student with a sign reading "No place for Blackface."

The superintendent and does a statement.  Says that he was ignorant and his ignorance caused hurt, and he's sorry and that's not who he is.  He agrees there is no place for black face.  And again, this is TWENTY years ago.  But it lingered for months and I'm not sure if it's still up in the air or not.  

That to me is cancel culture.  Rather than having a conversation with someone about things they did wrong 20 years ago and asking what's in their heart--you want them terminated.  Rather than giving them a chance to denounce their own mistakes from 20 years ago--let's cut them out.  
Click to expand...
It is a disconnect and one not easily solved.  You're effectively saying "if I agree it's not cancel culture but if I think it goes too far than it is cancel culture" in a no true Scotsman sense.  If everyone has a different line where the "cancelling" is/was appropriate, then how do we define what "cancel culture" is or isn't?

 
Rich Conway said:
Lots of those on the right, including some in this forum, have used "woke" as a perjorative.  Using it as a perjorative to describe "those nutty liberals" for being too sensitive is absolutely the most frequent use I see.

Lots of those on the right, including some in the forum, have decried "cancel culture" almost reflexively, regardless of a specific situation.  I guarantee you can find all sorts of posts in this forum labeling Twitter's suspension of Donald Trump as cancel culture, or Amazon's removal of Parler as cancel culture, even though neither of things is anything like what normal people think of as cancel culture.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "the right" and its victim complex regarding cancel culture are just as "bad" as overbroad cancel culture itself.

That said, cancel culture isn't really new.  It's been around for ages, just not specifically called cancel culture.  What is new is the technology that allows interactions to easily be recorded, posted publicly, and go "viral" within days.
Click to expand...
You seem to spend a fair amount of time telling us what "normal people" do...Can I get access to that newsletter?

 
jm192 said:
I think this post represents the disconnect.  

I think virtually everyone agrees on these instances.  There's no place for this sort of behavior, and I can't imagine many companies want to have this person representing them.  This isn't what I think of when I say "cancel culture."  This is justified.  

On the flip side, I live in Kentucky.  An hour or so from where I live there was a school superintendent who wore black face to a party 20 years ago.  He even told the school board that the photo existed and acknowledged it was a mistake prior to taking the job.  

The photo gets out.  Students in the county march out.  The NAACP goes to town.  Everyone is demanding his resignation.  There was a picture of a student with a sign reading "No place for Blackface."

The superintendent and does a statement.  Says that he was ignorant and his ignorance caused hurt, and he's sorry and that's not who he is.  He agrees there is no place for black face.  And again, this is TWENTY years ago.  But it lingered for months and I'm not sure if it's still up in the air or not.  

That to me is cancel culture.  Rather than having a conversation with someone about things they did wrong 20 years ago and asking what's in their heart--you want them terminated.  Rather than giving them a chance to denounce their own mistakes from 20 years ago--let's cut them out.  
Click to expand...
That's a bummer for that school superintendent.  

Some decent people probably withstood some damage that was excessive.  And that's going to happen with any movement.  It doesn't make the movement invalid.  

A whole bunch of people are facing consequences for their terrible behavior.  Not too many of them got religion till they got caught.  Then a typed up apology on Instagram should be enough for everyone.  

Same with the #MeToo movement, there will always be people focusing on any collateral damage, conveniently ignoring the massive damage that spawned the movement in the first place.  

 
massraider said:
A whole bunch of people are facing consequences for their terrible behavior.  Not too many of them got religion till they got caught.  Then a typed up apology on Instagram should be enough for everyone.  

Same with the #MeToo movement, there will always be people focusing on any collateral damage, conveniently ignoring the massive damage that spawned the movement in the first place.  
Click to expand...
See, this is where I really don't like the comparison to #metoo.  Sexually harassing or assaulting a coworker is terrible.  Wearing blackface 20 years ago isn't.  One does actual, tangible harm to another human being.  The other is just violating a taboo that we made up, and in the case described above exacting punishment retroactively.  These aren't even in the same universe of things that we should be worried about.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
See, this is where I really don't like the comparison to #metoo.  Sexually harassing or assaulting a coworker is terrible.  Wearing blackface 20 years ago isn't.  One does actual, tangible harm to another human being.  The other is just violating a taboo that we made up, and in the case described above exacting punishment retroactively.  These aren't even in the same universe of things that we should be worried about.
Click to expand...
I would say that chasing down good people who did one silly thing decades ago hasn't really been the focus of the movement.  

But there are certainly a lot of people trying to make it look that way, isn't there?

Anyway, my comparison was more to point out that both movements have a vocal group of people that are not remotely interested in focusing on bad behavior that spawned the movement, but terribly concerned that some decent people may suffer consequences they didn't deserve.  

 
massraider said:
I would say that chasing down good people who did one silly thing decades ago hasn't really been the focus of the movement.  

But there are certainly a lot of people trying to make it look that way, isn't there?

Anyway, my comparison was more to point out that both movements have a vocal group of people that are not remotely interested in focusing on bad behavior that spawned the movement, but terribly concerned that some decent people may suffer consequences they didn't deserve.  
Click to expand...
You talking about metoo here or the cancel culture "movement"?

 
Just heard them on WJR Detroit  talking about how Rush was too big for the "Cancel Culture".   How they failed to get him cancelled and eventually stopped even trying.

For decades they tried to get his show cancelled, tried to pressure sponsers to leave his show so it would fail. 

 Problem was Rush had the biggest listening audience in the world. There was not a better show for ads.

The sponsers that left had their spots filled instantly by new sponsers and more.   Rush turned down sponsers because there was not any ad time left on his show.

 
Da Guru said:
Just heard them on WJR Detroit  talking about how Rush was too big for the "Cancel Culture".   How they failed to get him cancelled and eventually stopped even trying.

For decades they tried to get his show cancelled, tried to pressure sponsers to leave his show so it would fail. 

 Problem was Rush had the biggest listening audience in the world. There was not a better show for ads.

The sponsers that left had their spots filled instantly by new sponsers and more.   Rush turned down sponsers because there was not any ad time left on his show.
Click to expand...
Howard Stern as well

 
parasaurolophus said:
You talking about metoo here or the cancel culture "movement"?
Click to expand...
I think there are loads of similarities.  

Cancel culture is much easier to find example of people that don't deserve the trouble they are facing.  Because all some overzealous crank needs to do is find an old tweet or photo, and then hopefully go viral.  #Metoo required a woman to say she had been sexually assaulted, which is a tough thing to say, and you are changing your life by entering that fray.  

With the #Metoo movement, the nation was like 5 minutes into the movement, and we had VERY concerned guys imagining thousands of women making up sexual assault allegations in order to punish men they knew.  

It was always the same vibe:  Hey, that sucks that Bill Cosby has been serially raping women for decades, but i can imagine a scenario where a woman might make a false accusation, so I just dunno about this whole #Metoo thing......

I think there is more danger with cancel culture.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
See, this is where I really don't like the comparison to #metoo.  Sexually harassing or assaulting a coworker is terrible.  Wearing blackface 20 years ago isn't.  One does actual, tangible harm to another human being.  The other is just violating a taboo that we made up, and in the case described above exacting punishment retroactively.  These aren't even in the same universe of things that we should be worried about.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, and agree - sexual assault <> harmful words.   I think what I was getting at was that some things got a little toward the far end like microaggressions and gestures at work, but people might be equating those more in the cancel culture umbrella than metoo.  

 
massraider said:
I think there are loads of similarities.  

Cancel culture is much easier to find example of people that don't deserve the trouble they are facing.  Because all some overzealous crank needs to do is find an old tweet or photo, and then hopefully go viral.  #Metoo required a woman to say she had been sexually assaulted, which is a tough thing to say, and you are changing your life by entering that fray.  

With the #Metoo movement, the nation was like 5 minutes into the movement, and we had VERY concerned guys imagining thousands of women making up sexual assault allegations in order to punish men they knew.  

It was always the same vibe:  Hey, that sucks that Bill Cosby has been serially raping women for decades, but i can imagine a scenario where a woman might make a false accusation, so I just dunno about this whole #Metoo thing......
Click to expand...
Yes, vibes and putting yourself in the position of the potentially falsely accused is a great way to look at it. Anybody been falsely gossiped about or known someone clearly falsely gossiped about in this way by a woman before? I have. I found out through friends. It was nearly impossible to clear a name because you don't know who the gossip came from, who it was told to, and how diffuse it had spread. It's one of the worst feelings in the world when you're innocent of the gossip and it follows you. And very hard to undo serious damage to your reputation. You can't even face your accuser because you don't know who it is and it's a nigh-impossible subject to address. How to begin? "Did you hear that people think I was stalking that woman or at least inappropriate with her?"

#metoo and its presumption of blame can rot in hell for all I care. At least there's generally a name behind a Twitter mob. But mixed with switching presumptions and burdens of proving guilt and the ease in which these things are believed, bad actors can spread gasoline on a cigarette and start a wildfire in seconds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
Just heard them on WJR Detroit  talking about how Rush was too big for the "Cancel Culture".   How they failed to get him cancelled and eventually stopped even trying.

For decades they tried to get his show cancelled, tried to pressure sponsers to leave his show so it would fail. 

 Problem was Rush had the biggest listening audience in the world. There was not a better show for ads.

The sponsers that left had their spots filled instantly by new sponsers and more.   Rush turned down sponsers because there was not any ad time left on his show.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. And consider the implications: Rush was too big for so called “cancel culture” because he had too many listeners. Which illustrates my earlier point that, so long as government isn’t involved, censorship doesn’t exist. Because the public decides what is and what is not popular, and no private entity or entities, no matter how large, can control that. 

 
timschochet said:
I agree with this. And consider the implications: Rush was too big for so called “cancel culture” because he had too many listeners. Which illustrates my earlier point that, so long as government isn’t involved, censorship doesn’t exist. Because the public decides what is and what is not popular, and no private entity or entities, no matter how large, can control that. 
Click to expand...


I agree but Rush is an anomaly in that catagory.  Bill O`Rielly had the #1 rated cable news program and was cancelled in a couple days.

 
Da Guru said:
Just heard them on WJR Detroit  talking about how Rush was too big for the "Cancel Culture".   How they failed to get him cancelled and eventually stopped even trying.
Click to expand...


supermike80 said:
Howard Stern as well
Click to expand...
both are radio, and niche radio at that (turns out niche markets can be 50mil big w satellite, and a loyal, fervent market makes for great ad targeting and can be a richer format for top acts). Rush Limbaugh werent getting no sitcom, werent taking his views to "neutral" platforms. Stern coud have his own network if he wanted, but he aint spending serious time on anyone else's because those networks have a ph balance to maintain. Michael Richards could have worked as many, even more, comedy clubs after his race-baiting, but he was a media figure, so then he wasnt because no network wanted to be pointed at for presenting him. OReilly, Rose play grabass, they no longer a lookface for their networks. Louis CK dont get a sho no mo  is all, cuz he cant be the face for anything but frottage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
I agree but Rush is an anomaly in that catagory.  Bill O`Rielly had the #1 rated cable news program and was cancelled in a couple days.
Click to expand...
O’Reilly was fired, not cancelled. If there was a public demand for him after it was learned what he did he could have found another venue for it. 

 
I think in the end it's how disposable you are to your audience. Does anybody really miss O'Reilly's shouting over his guests and his right-center politics that adulated such controversials as Washington and Lincoln? Does anybody miss Louis CK's brand of warmed-over existential atheism angst?

No. They're the zeitgeist and easily replaceable. Limbaugh and Stern, on the other hand, are pioneers that remain(ed) singular. Is that because they're radio, or because they get three hours a day to flesh out a personality and alter ego? I wonder if they aren't just more indispensable to their audience than simply products of the radio format.

 
timschochet said:
O’Reilly was fired, not cancelled. If there was a public demand for him after it was learned what he did he could have found another venue for it. 
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was the multiple sexual harassment and assault lawsuits that did him in.

 
rockaction said:
I think in the end it's how disposable you are to your audience. Does anybody really miss O'Reilly's shouting over his guests and his right-center politics that adulated such controversials as Washington and Lincoln? Does anybody miss Louis CK's brand of warmed-over existential atheism angst?

No. They're the zeitgeist and easily replaceable. Limbaugh and Stern, on the other hand, are pioneers that remain(ed) singular. Is that because they're radio, or because they get three hours a day to flesh out a personality and alter ego? I wonder if they aren't just more indispensable to their audience than simply products of the radio format.
Click to expand...
But again it proves my point (I think anyhow.) There’s no cancelling going on. “woke” liberals don’t have the power to cancel anyone; they can’t stop popularity. That’s why these terms are false . 

 
I would think that true conservatives would be on board with me on this issue, because what I am doing here is defending the power of capitalism. You can’t stop it. What the public wants they get. That’s why the war on drugs has never succeeded. 
 

Extreme leftists can write all the op-Ed’s they want suggesting that we remove this guy from the culture or that guy. They have no power. The buying public makes that decision. 

 
timschochet said:
I would think that true conservatives would be on board with me on this issue, because what I am doing here is defending the power of capitalism.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is great.  Freedom of speech is also great.  They're not incompatible -- on the contrary, they're both pillars of (classical, western, small-l) liberalism.  Also, I've already addressed the point about O'Reilly and Limbaugh.  

IvanKaramazov said:
2) Public figures like Rush Limbaugh don't get to complain about cancel culture when their whole shtick is whipping up outrage.  (I don't know if Limbaugh has ever actually complained about this, and I don't care.  Just using him as an example).  
Click to expand...
 
timschochet said:
I would think that true conservatives would be on board with me on this issue, because what I am doing here is defending the power of capitalism. You can’t stop it. What the public wants they get. That’s why the war on drugs has never succeeded. 
 

Extreme leftists can write all the op-Ed’s they want suggesting that we remove this guy from the culture or that guy. They have no power. The buying public makes that decision. 
Click to expand...
If you are talking about these examples of someone hugely in the public eye, maybe.  I don't think that is what most people are nervous about.  

I don't think capitalism has anything to do with a teacher losing a job over a comment, or other examples like that, especially if we admit a lot of times its not the majority that want the change- people are just reacting to the loud minority who get worked up.  

 
timschochet said:
O’Reilly was fired, not cancelled. If there was a public demand for him after it was learned what he did he could have found another venue for it. 
Click to expand...
He was fired because sponsors were pressured to pull out of ads on his show, thus the cancel culture.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
@timschochet Here's an example of Ted talk so you know what people are talking about.  There are thousands of these on all sorts of topics -- this one gets at the issue at hand.
Click to expand...
That story makes me want to puke.  This kind of thing is way to commonplace.

"'Somebody HIV-positive should rape this ##### and then we'll find out if her skin color protects her from AIDS.' And that person got a free pass. Nobody went after that person. We were all so excited about destroying Justine, and our shaming brains are so simple-minded, that we couldn't also handle destroying somebody who was inappropriately destroying Justine."

Cancel culture is an angry mob of vigilantes.  That's exactly what it is and what needs to be stopped.

 
djmich said:
Not sure why but I feel like I'm owed Tim's thoughts on this Ted talk.  😀
Click to expand...
I don't know. He's got a list of the top songs of 1981 to do in the FFA. I don't want those people to feel cheated. Even though he -- ahem -- took out this thread, too.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
@timschochet Here's an example of Ted talk so you know what people are talking about.  There are thousands of these on all sorts of topics -- this one gets at the issue at hand.
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is totally unrelated but jumped into this thread late and saw this post. Granted, I didn’t read/listen to the full 17 minutes but it appears the Ted Talk is all about Justine Sacco.

This is kind of the perfect example of how overblown ‘cancel culture’ is IMO. Justine Sacco has not been cancelled whatsoever. After she made those comments, she worked as the Director of Communications at FanDuel for 3+ years and is currently the CCO at Match. I promise you those are very well paying jobs and not roles I would expect someone who was ‘cancelled’ to have.

And FWIW, I’m not saying cancel culture isn’t a thing. I’ve seen examples where people were completely unjustifiably fired or trashed on for something they had done in the past (JM’s story in this thread was a great example of actual cancel culture). It just seems like the word is thrown out there all the time and some people continue to use it in cases where accountability was actually needed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucsfan5493 said:
Sorry if this is totally unrelated but jumped into this thread late and saw this post. Granted, I didn’t read/listen to the full 17 minutes but it appears the Ted Talk is all about Justine Sacco.

This is kind of the perfect example of how overblown ‘cancel culture’ is IMO. Justine Sacco has not been cancelled whatsoever. After she made those comments, she worked as the Director of Communications at FanDuel for 3+ years and is currently the CCO at Match.
Click to expand...
You understand that getting subjected to a social media dogpile isn't literally the same thing as being executed, right?

"But she's still alive and has a job" isn't a defense of what happened to her.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You understand that getting subjected to a social media dogpile isn't literally the same thing as being executed, right?

"But she's still alive and has a job" isn't a defense of what happened to her.
Click to expand...
Hey, did you hear about the kid that was wrongly accused and beaten to a pulp by the cops...he became a cause celebre, healed up fine and had a go fund me created to help with a scholarship.

Perfect example of how policy brutality is overblown.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You understand that getting subjected to a social media dogpile isn't literally the same thing as being executed, right?

"But she's still alive and has a job" isn't a defense of what happened to her.
Click to expand...
This I completely agree with. There needs to be much more accountability and punishment when it comes to online harassment. People cross the line far too often and the fact that they can continue to get away with it without facing any consequences is absurd.

 
djmich said:
Hey, did you hear about the kid that was wrongly accused and beaten to a pulp by the cops...he became a cause celebre, healed up fine and had a go fund me created to help with a scholarship.

Perfect example of how policy brutality is overblown.
Click to expand...
As I said in my post below, those people online harassing her are garbage and need to be held accountable.

Maybe I’ve just been misinterpreting but it’s always seemed to me people hated cancel culture because it was costing people their jobs, and livelihood, not because people were sending mean tweets. To me, that part of cancel culture is way overblown. Ironically, I’d say the online harassment part is the one that isn’t talked about anywhere near enough.

 
Bucsfan5493 said:
As I said in my post below, those people online harassing her are garbage and need to be held accountable.

Maybe I’ve just been misinterpreting but it’s always seemed to me people hated cancel culture because it was costing people their jobs, and livelihood, not because people were sending mean tweets. To me, that part of cancel culture is way overblown. Ironically, I’d say the online harassment part is the one that isn’t talked about anywhere near enough.
Click to expand...
Yes when people aren’t focused on having to tell Tim that saying Hannity is an ####### is not cancel culture...some of the conversation has been about online harassment.

I had brought up earlier that the impact on kids is enormous and nobody really talks about it.

 
djmich said:
Yes when people aren’t focused on having to tell Tim that saying Hannity is an ####### is not cancel culture...some of the conversation has been about online harassment.

I had brought up earlier that the impact on kids is enormous and nobody really talks about it.
Click to expand...
Yep, that’s my thing with online harassment. It goes so far beyond just cancel culture. As you mentioned, the impact social media harassment has on the mentality of children is astronomical. And yet there is currently ZERO accountability for it so why would people stop?

 
Bucsfan5493 said:
As I said in my post below, those people online harassing her are garbage and need to be held accountable.

Maybe I’ve just been misinterpreting but it’s always seemed to me people hated cancel culture because it was costing people their jobs, and livelihood, not because people were sending mean tweets. To me, that part of cancel culture is way overblown. Ironically, I’d say the online harassment part is the one that isn’t talked about anywhere near enough.
Click to expand...
It's both, but IMO the vast majority of times it shouldn't instantly cost people their jobs either.   I don't care that 3 years later they have a job - people shouldn't get fired and maybe have to uproot their lives for a stupid tweet.  

I consider 'cancel culture' as the piling on of people without context and consequence to the people who post nastier stuff than what they are mad about (ie Justine getting tweets about getting raped to give her AIDS?), and the go-to of having them fired. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
It's both, but IMO the vast majority of times it shouldn't instantly cost people their jobs either.   I don't care that 3 years later they have a job - people shouldn't get fired and maybe have to uproot their lives for a stupid tweet.  

I consider 'cancel culture' as the piling on of people without context and consequence to the people who post nastier stuff than what they are mad about (ie Justine getting tweets about getting raped to give her AIDS?), and the go-to of having them fired. 
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation IMO. I think some comments and actions are bad enough to warrant an immediate firing. There’s also some instances where I feel like no punishment is needed as long as the person genuinely seems to be sorry and working on educating themselves on the topic.

I think that’s one part of cancel culture and I definitely agree it’s an area that needs to be addressed. But again, that is an issue that goes way beyond just cancel culture. You hear about and see athletes get death threats all the time on social media. Online harassment in general just needs to be addressed more IMO.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED "The Trouble With Socialism Is That Eventually You Run Out Of Other People's Money." (4/22/22 21:05PST)
2 3
Replies
138
Views
3K
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
T
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
350
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Hypothetical: Does Japan's Birth Rate Crisis Justify The Permanent Banning Of All Their Abortions? (6/22/22 00:50 PST)
Replies
4
Views
492
Zigg
Z

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top