Skip to main content

What Cancel Culture is NOT

 



Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't.
It's not a boycott. 
It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service.
It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened.
Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you.
And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack.
So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the publisher who publishes JK Rowling and they take the lowest level employee, intern, the copy editor, the office help, and they say, "Do you realize that your publisher is evil. You have to make sure that your publisher fires JK Rowling otherwise you have to explain to us why you won't do it and we'll tell people and you might never be able to get a different job."
It would be like threatening the record label if they don't fire the Dixie Chicks. Or threatening the employees of the record label. Or threatening the brand new musician with their very first contract and telling them that they don't want to be associated with the Dixie Chicks and having a record with the same Label is Association and their career will be over before it starts.

A fellow quit his band just yesterday, it's been in the news, because he knew that if he stayed his bandmates would be the target of attacks, that their careers would be at risk for what HE said.

  • It used to be considered professional to be impartial when it came to your profession. It was considered professional to publish books of people you liked and people you didn't like, to do art work because it's a job even if the person who contracts your artwork isn't your favorite person. But that's no longer true. You can't say, I'm an artist I do art. They pay me so I do art that doesn't necessarily represent my opinions.  It's a job.

  • You can't have professional relationships. You have to have personal relationships instead. And if you refuse to make everything a personal relationship and endorsement, if you let just anybody license your music for their campaign rally, people will attack you. 

  • We used to understand that lawyers didn't need to agree with their clients but that everybody deserves to have good legal representation no matter who they were or what they did. That's also no longer true because lawyers will be attacked if they represent the wrong people.

  • People say "consequences", but what they mean is that if you don't actively fight for their cause in your workplace they will attack you in order to force you to enforce their opinions in your spaces. There is no neutrality. There is no professional or impersonal relationship. Every area of life is part of the battlefield.

  • Cancel culture is not a boycott. Cancel culture is not a bad review. Cancel culture not deciding to go to a different store. Cancel culture is not deciding to not listen to music, or a band, or an artist. It is not refusing to see a movie starring someone you don't like.   

  • That's not what cancel culture is.

    It is a CULTURE of using bullying tactics on secondary and tertiary targets, to create an atmosphere of threat to force social change.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goals

  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit