The definition of cancel culture: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cancel-culture
No one complains when someone they don’t like gets into trouble for reasons that are obviously justified. The term “cancel culture” only gets invoked when someone on their side is in trouble for reasons they don’t agree with, in order to spin it into a persecution complex. But that’s all it is. And even the people who most loudly complain about “cancel culture” are always the first jump to cancel anyone on the opposing side - because they’re obviously always in the right, so it’s only “cancel culture” when the other side does it.
Even your dictionary link can’t clearly define an actual line, because there isn’t one.
I just call it old fashion ostracism. Its a cultural universal.
Why should we stop calling out asshole behaviour or letting people experience the consequences of their actions?
We shouldn’t, I agree we should call them out. But does cancel culture really achieve that, or does it just sort of ‘plaster’ over the issue by ignoring it, rather than addressing/fixing it (presuming it can be fixed)? And why not just call it out? Why do we have to turn our backs on them/their output and ignore, why does that become the consequence en masse? Are there no stronger consequences?
Because people saying “Hey, that’s a dick thing to do/say. don’t do that.” and then nothing else has zero consequences. its just another person that doesn’t like them.
I completely agree that saying those things isn’t effective, but does ignoring them really have a significantly higher effect? I guess what I’m asking is, are there no alternatives we could try that might be more effective?
Well, if they’re dickish enough they go to prison or get put on a list. Shunning is probably the oldest punishment in the book after Big Stick™. These days it just doesn’t guarantee the death of that person like it would have in the past.
That’s what I thought: people subject to it are evolving their methods against it, so is it really still that effective (then again, we still know of the name Herostratus, so was it ever that effective?)
Ignoring a problem never makes it go away, it only in trenches the problem. Look at the catholic church, ignoring sexual abuse hasn’t made the problem go away. People who do it get promoted over time allowing those below them to do the same thing.
Same thing with media personalities, or sporting stars. All the open secrets about drug use, partner assault, match fixing. None of those have gone away by not watching a show or match.
Well that’s kind of the point I was trying to make: if it’s not working as it should or as well as it ought to, shouldn’t we look to alternative consequences? (And I don’t necessarily mean to completely replace the concept, but maybe to complement it or work alongside it to further punish dickheads)?
Cancel culture is just boycotting wrapped in a demonizing term.
This ^^^
I’m honestly very surprised at how I’ve never seen anyone point this out in the millions of threads regarding the idea.
Well, you know what Shakespeare (should’ve) said: a shit by any other name would stink as fucked up
Do you not appreciate the power of the disgruntled and slighted consumer to be able to affect change with their voice? This is a sincere and genuine question. What exactly would a world with no boycotts look like? Probably the biblical Egypt or U.S. during slavery.
That’s not the point I was making. I’m all for boycotting (I think the Montgomery bus boycott was one of the most amazing events in history). The point I was making was people weaponise names to turn people against something: you call something a shit, and everyone becomes convinced they can smell it without thinking
Can you use a more clear example? I don’t know exactly what you mean, and I feel this conversation needs me to know exactly what you mean.
Define cancel culture.
Do you mean accountability, either socially or legally? Do you mean people complaining about someone and their behavior on the internet?
‘cancel culture’ is just a phrase like ‘woke’ is. No real definition behind it and only real use is to dogwhistle to others saying your ‘in the group’.
This is the definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cancel-culture
Cancel culture only exists because of group peer pressure to scrutinize those who they believe should be censored. To cancel it, is like trying to cancel a protest. They are still going to get around it, somehow and cancel who they can. There is no cancellation of it. It has been around for hundreds of years just with a different term.
But to specifically answer your question: yes it is quite literally hypocritical.
Thanks for the straightforward answer
That’s a pretty high skill level social media stunt, I don’t think you have the ability for it. There aren’t many who do.
I’m not trying to, I’m just curious what people’s opinions on the concept of cancelling cancel culture is.
Canceling is not a real thing. Next question.
Ok. Where did you learn to spell cancelling?
Both are correct.
Fair enough. Quirk of being British ig
Funny how conservatives are always griping that their voices are being stifled when their history is deeply rooted entwined with slavery, oppression, racism… have I missed anything?
