What does 'cancel culture' mean to you?

[FTMF30]

This stems from a few posts. One about the disgust of Jodie Comer dating a Republican and comments stating that cancel culture is getting out of hand, dictating people's thoughts, opinions, preferences, etc.

There's also a post about Tescos giving funds to Mermaids and people boycotting them.

Personally, I thought cancel culture was more about the rise of people being quick to 'cancel' things via boycotting, not watching a certain TV show, unfollowing, etc.so (to me) is much more descriptive of the Tescos/Mermaids thing rather than Jodie Comer. With Jodie Comer, I just saw people commenting on their huge disapproval with no real intent on taking action (i.e 'cancelling') her.

When I look into definitions online, they are somewhat varied, so I'm just wondering, what does that term actually mean to people?

it's doxxing strangers on the internet and sending their private details out for the world to see

Surely that's just called doxxing?

I'd never heard the term until yesterday and tbh so far Im not convinced it actually means anything

It means bullying - no debate, just bullying.

This. It means whipping up a mob to attack anyone you disagree with. No discussion, no reasoning.

Especially when the target is a woman, the mob generally send absolutely vile abuse anonymously in private. Death threats, rape threats, graphic descriptions of planned torture, that kind of thing.

That is what "Cancel Culture" means to me.

It's another bullshit phrase used to whinge about the fact they don't like people disagreeing with their wholly unpalatable views.

What like Jodie Comer who is receiving death threads and demands for her to be sacked because the father of the man she is in a relationship with is a republican?

Or JK Rowling, who whether you agree with her or not surely doesn't deserve the photos of erect penises and demands that she choke on them being posted on Twitter threads of children's artwork inspired by her new book.

Or Baroness Nicholson who has been sacked from her position on The Booker Prize Panel - the award her deceased ex husband helped set up - because she expressed views that some people didn't agree with?

Yeah sure!

David Starkey is the most obvious recent “victim” of cancel culture. He’d always hovered on the edge of racism and then broadcast a statement which went way over the line at precisely the wrong moment. Sacked from about twelve jobs/honours in the course of 48 hours which has to be some kind of record, and cancel culture at its most effective.

the award her deceased ex husband helped set up - because she expressed views that some people didn't agree with

Calling a transwoman a 'weird creature'...

Having the rug swept from under you for daring to have different opinion from a snow flake.

the award her deceased ex husband helped set up - because she expressed views that some people didn't agree with

Bernard Manning was cancelled by many councils from performing at their venues - because some people didn't agree with his views.

Should he have been allowed to perform in them?

Munro Bergdorf? And then attempted to apologise and extend an invitation for them to meet and settle their differences through discussion, which was ignored. It was old fashioned language from an elderly woman - late seventies - who has on other occasions got the wrong end of the stick. A few examples of Munro's insults here, yet no one talking about cancelling them...

A few examples of Munro's insults here, yet no one talking about cancelling them

Wasn't she dropped by L'Oreal over a racism row?

www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/munroe-bergdorf-rehired-l-or-al-3-years-after-being-n1228376

Because she said something about racism on Twitter

Yes and now she's been reinstated. Second chances and back tracking and all that but not for anyone else seemingly.

Care to comment on Jodie Comer or JKR?

Yes and now she's been reinstated. Second chances and back tracking and all that but not for anyone else seemingly

So the 'cancel culture' is not just a thing of the Far Left but something that can happen to anyone if they say something that goes against what some others think - and Twitter / other social media can make it worse.

It's been a thing for ages - sexist comedians, Racist comedians. All cancelled because they are deemed as inappropriate.

I remember uproar about Dapper Laughs - and a campaign to get him kicked off TV shows etc because of his views on women.

@Howlat

I still do think that the term can sometimes be used hypocritically by all of us at times. I.e. when people say cancel culture is getting out of hand but they really mean is, someone is being publically shamed or punished for an opinion you agree with and you don't like it. I think we could all be guilty of that sometimes. We will obviously believe our opinion is right.

I disagree with this. I personally don't have a problem with people disagreeing or thinking differently about something. Maybe it's too different for us to find any common ground and we won't be friends, for example. But I wouldn't call for that person to be cancelled. I would reject their "cancelling" as much as someone I agreed with.

However, if people find themselves only agreeing when it's one-sides, then yes, they are hypocrites and it's probably a good moment for a bit of introspection and critical thinking.

The big problem here is that if you think like me, then when you make your voice heard (or try to) at the moment, there is always one side that will attack you for it. Because there's this "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality. It's not very nice experience however the actual problem is that your voice is simply not heard. This mentality frames the whole debate because a third opinion is wrong unless it's 100% in agreement.

The question is, how do we get the people who won't listen, and have never had to listen, to disagreement, to listen? How can we get them to understand that not agreeing 100% with something is not any kind of verbal violence against them. It's simply a different opinion.

Of course there is a line too. If someone is whipping people up to physically attack or physically endanger another group, then that's different. I've rarely seen that happen - although I certainly have noticed that if it's anything about attacking women it's "not serious". People who are not used to hearing opposing opinions and have not been taught how to tolerate them, appear to believe that an opinion that does not 100% support their own is a form of "literal violence". This is where cancel culture also comes into play and why it's so very important that children learn how to think critically as well as hear other opinions - and learn that they have no right not to be offended, therefore how to deal with taking offence and the people who elicit that in them.

@Howlat

I see where you're coming from. I would like to stress that I said that the term is sometimes used hypocritically rather than always.

I guess, like many things, I feel cancel culture has a spectrum. There are times when people should be publicly silenced (I stress publicly i.e. given a public platform rather than some attempt to forbid them to talk about it at all) because, actually, their views are certainly wrong and can be damaging to impressionable ears (e.g. paedophilia is merely a sexual preference). But then there are things, although quite controversial, may be just a difference of opinion and that should absolutely be debated.

I guess, when it comes to debate, it is very difficult to remain objective when it comes to certain subjects.

because, actually, their views are certainly wrong and can be damaging to impressionable ear

But then there are things, although quite controversial, may be just a difference of opinion and that should absolutely be debated

And of course, who gets to decide what views are 'certainly wrong' and what views are just a difference of opinion?

And companies and organisations have tough decisions to decide what kind of person and views they want to be seen to be aligned with as part of their brand - which is tough in an age of social media and pile ons.

So the 'cancel culture' is not just a thing of the Far Left but something that can happen to anyone if they say something that goes against what some others think - and Twitter / other social media can make it worse.

It mainly is just a thing of the far left though and has been weaponised to total toxicity by social media. We've been taught that other people's bad opinions make us "unsafe" or are "dangerous" when they are no such thing. Of course I am not talking about incitement to sexist/homophobic/racist behaviour here. Opposing opinions are necessary for us all to grow. Where do we go as a society if we all agree on everything, all the time and if you don't then you're punished, prevented from earning a living, shamed etc and others are permitted to utterly abuse you for your wrong think in far worse ways than the initial "transgression". I can't think of a better way to produce a frightened, suppressed society and fear turns very easily into anger and hate and then to violence.

Human nature means that a concept such as cancel culture will be misused and weaponised and used as a tool of revenge. It's dangerous and I genuinely don't see how people can justify it.

And of course, who gets to decide what views are 'certainly wrong' and what views are just a difference of opinion?

Indeed. Who? Young people at university, randoms on Twitter and other SM platforms at the moment and look how that is turning out.

A society of free speech is not and can never be a perfect society but it's a million times better and safer than the alternative. We have hate speech legislation, the meaning of which has been laid down, decided and punishable by law. An elected governing body decides this. It now seems it is not left to the law to decide anymore but to the individual, and a civilised society cannot operate in that way.

We've been taught that other people's bad opinions make us "unsafe" or are "dangerous" when they are no such thing. Of course I am not talking about incitement to sexist/homophobic/racist behaviour here. Opposing opinions are necessary for us all to grow

What do you think of the constant negative headlines, negative opinion articles etc that were present and are still present in the mainstream media towards minority groups - by those who do have a strong, prominent platform - and who have influenced the way people think and their attitudes towards such groups.

Opposing opinions are of course important. I do worry that some groups have prominent platforms, prominent media coverage and other groups have much less of a platform and less influence in shaping opinion.

We saw the headlines in papers such as The Express and The Sun towards Muslims, immigrants etc that meant that even though there was a debate, that debate was dominated by a certain narrative.

I find that as worrying as I find cancel culture.

To me it a phrase used by someone who doesn't like, "You're an offensive twat - fuck off!"

It’s a reminder to keep the fuck off Twitter. Twitter gives some a glimpse of power and that people actually care that you do not like x,y, or z.

What do you think of the constant negative headlines, negative opinion articles etc that were present and are still present in the mainstream media towards minority groups - by those who do have a strong, prominent platform - and who have influenced the way people think and their attitudes towards such groups.

I think I choose what I consume. I read media across the spectrum and form my views accordingly. I think the majority do just that and they must be allowed to and I think it goes both ways. We have right and left leaning media, plenty of it and the negativity flows from both sides. It doesn't really matter what my own political stance is, my argument is that I am entitled to choose it and not have my entire life destroyed because one side is more powerful than the other at the moment and a load of non elected randoms have decided to punish me.

my argument is that I am entitled to choose it and not have my entire life destroyed because one side is more powerful than the other at the moment and a load of non elected randoms have decided to punish me

There are people who have had their whole lives destroyed by the media - who have used their power and influence to punish them for 'doing something wrong' in the opinion of the media.

Those are the same media companies who nowadays complain about 'cancel culture ' - something they themselves have been doing for ages to people whose views / opinions / lifestyle just don't meet with their approval - or the approval of their readers.

Yeah but people brought down by media companies have the opportunity to sue and force a retraction and compensation where necessary. The media don't tend to expose or pile on in their thousands on the average member of Joe Public for saying something slightly risqué, or getting terminology wrong or some stupid ignorant nonsense they came out with at age 16 and forgot about on their Twitter feed.

I found this story concerning: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/

And this: www.edrants.com/when-is-a-karen-not-a-karen-the-cruelty-and-lies-of-karlos-dillard/

I don't think JK Rowling can be cancelled. I don't think billionaires can be cancelled. (To be clear, I'm not condoning the abusive behaviour, I'm just saying in this case I don't think it can possibly 'cancel' her in the way it can ordinary people.)

Remember that woman who got sacked mid air for her tweet whilst en route to South Africa.

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/pr-exec-fired-racist-tweet-aids-africa-apology

Social media can be a vicious place and doesn't forget your comments.

Hm. I don’t think it’s a particular issue, probably because I don’t use social media. I do feel that you’re not entitled to be liked by other people. So if you do suffer negative consequences as a result of whatever you’ve been peddling I’m probably not going to feel sorry for you. Less relevant if you’re a billionaire, you can probably get away with just about everything, so people can’t ‘cancel’ you. Who knows a bit of resistance might be good. Also people like Rowling probably have a tremendous amount of followers so I’m pretty certain they can use their platform in a way that suits their agenda.

Regardless of the whole ‘cancel culture’, you’re still able to get your message out. Racist bile/lies all over the place. Not every opinion is equally valid. Saying that I’m also not in favour of a cordon médiatique.