How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Crezth]

The most prominent public figure recently to complain of cancel culture has been billionaire JK Rowling, who yesterday successfully threatened a website with a legal suit to take down a piece of journalism about the matter, and complains daily with an enormous platform about how her rights to free speech are threatened by cancel culture. Threatened how, in what way? Impossible to know, but this is a very serious concern, apparently.

Once it becomes plausible for all of Rowling’s property to be forcibly transferred to Trans care houses and support groups, we’ll talk about the “threat” of cancel culture. Until then, it’s clear to me all the worry about it is just bourgeois narcissism, if not the classic case of people just trying to get Black folks and queers to be quiet.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Progressives haven't really prepared a response to this expect to repeatedly outline their own specific, non-colloquial use of terms like "racist", which has so far not been a winning effort, because most people do not actually care what specific weird re-interpretation of colloquial language a particular corner of academia and/or twitter has adopted amongst themselves. Until progressives are prepared to meet people on language which they are comfortable with, instead of expecting that others should assume the fractious and shifting jargon of the progressive middle class, you should expect these sorts of protests, in both good and bad faith.

Okay, just to clarify here, we're both Communists right?

I find this argument hard to parse coming from a Communist because the average Westerner's understanding of Communism is incredibly distorted. People in the west are taught that Communism is the most murderous ideology ever and that it caused a bunch of famines ect ect. Most people's eyes will glaze over when you talk about the means of production or class conciseness or the many other terms (well less so nowadays because they've been memed into the spotlight). By the logic of "meeting the people on the language which they are comfortable with", you would abandon Communism and find a new label that doesn't mean anything like IDK "Equalist". Because to most people, by advocating for Communism you are advocating for genocide and famine.

I presume you would find the idea of abandoning the correct definition of Communism absolutely absurd. Then why do you advocate for abandoning the actual correct definition of racism in favour of the definition pushed by centuries of propaganda designed by the same class (Capitalists) that lied to everyone about Communism? The idea that racism is solely the domain of KKK members and drunk grandparents on Christmas Eve is pushed by the same system that spreads lies about Leftism for the same reasons. And the idea is to educate the masses, not validate their misconceptions.

"there you go, bringing class into it again." "well that's it's all about. if only people would listen..."

You realise that class is directly tied to things such as gender, race and sexuality right? You can't meaningfully fight Capitalism without also fighting his brothers Patriarchy, White Supremacy, Heteronormativity et al.

I don't know if there is much we can do to "end cancel culture" anything expect wait for it to burn itself out. "Cancel culture" is a moral panic, and these things tend to burn themselves out when their zealots eventually go to far and prompt the reigning institution to bring them to heel. The Red Scare didn't end because of any push-back from its victims, but because McCarthy went after the army and that crossed a line. The more important concern is in limiting the damage it does on its way out, in ensuring that its proponents do not, in their credulous fervour, give away too much power to the state and to corporate entities, and as these are essentially civil and labour rights issues, I don't think they require any special program, just the same insistence that basic rights should not be given up under any rationale.

The comparison between the Red Scare and "Cancel Culture" is completely ludicrous. The Red Scare was led by U.S-government aligned Reactionaries explicitly to purge Communists and suspected Communists from the country. "Cancel Culture" is a nebulous entity that is poorly defined and is largely opposed by Reactionaries and Million/Billionaires. While there is a valid conversation to have about Liberals and Corporations attempting to co-opt anti-racism campaigns, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here by pretending that "Cancel Culture" is nothing but a tool for the "reigning institutions".

I am singling you out here a little, Traitorfish, because as an infrequent lurker on OT I think you generally are one of the better posters here and its frustrating to see you have such a bad take on this issue. Like seriously dude, look at the people who you are agreeing with. That at least should get you to reconsider your thoughts on this issue somewhat.

 

[stinkubus]

If we are talking about real politic and not the worker's revolution then a re-branding is PRECISELY what socialism/communism needs. The fact that you seem hip to the fact how heavily the US is propagandized should make it blindingly obvious why this is so.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

How do conservatives square that with their belief in free speech and the free market?

Well the definition of a conservative from my understanding is someone that want to maintain the status quo, keep the society from changing in any direction unlike reactionaries and progressives.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's very weird to see a supposed leftist think that "the progressives" believe in some kind of a great replacement for the white populace but that's your prerogative. Generally, most "progressives" (here I envisage the Bernie Sanders, non-communist/anarchist left, for the record, i.e, the social democrats/DSAers) see a need for a policy of redistribution of the wealth towards non-white people, as a salve to the stark inequality existing within the U.S. There is generally no concept of such an idea as you pose it. Indeed, even amongst the communists and anarchists, who wish to destroy the white supremacist institutions that have such a commanding grip over the United States, you will never find anything remotely close to that, unless you see the process of decolonization as the replacement of white people with Black/indigenous peoples, which is quite racist, so I'm just curious how in the world did you get such an idea in your head.

And I don't think it is actually that far out of step with the fundamental description of modern American race relations propounded by most progressives, that the problem is that the dominant institutions are staffed by white people who carry their racial biases into their work. The difference is that Diangelo offers the illusion that white people can address their racial biases through therapy and public shaming, where the progressive mainstream argues that white people need to be replaced with non-white people until some sufficient saturation is reached to dissolve the influence of white people's racial biases.

I am talking explicitly about the composition of elite institutions.

Okay, just to clarify here, we're both Communists right?

I find this argument hard to parse coming from a Communist because the average Westerner's understanding of Communism is incredibly distorted. People in the west are taught that Communism is the most murderous ideology ever and that it caused a bunch of famines ect ect. Most people's eyes will glaze over when you talk about the means of production or class conciseness or the many other terms (well less so nowadays because they've been memed into the spotlight). By the logic of "meeting the people on the language which they are comfortable with", you would abandon Communism and find a new label that doesn't mean anything like IDK "Equalist". Because to most people, by advocating for Communism you are advocating for genocide and famine.

I presume you would find the idea of abandoning the correct definition of Communism absolutely absurd. Then why do you advocate for abandoning the actual correct definition of racism in favour of the definition pushed by centuries of propaganda designed by the same class (Capitalists) that lied to everyone about Communism? The idea that racism is solely the domain of KKK members and drunk grandparents on Christmas Eve is pushed by the same system that spreads lies about Leftism for the same reasons. And the idea is to educate the masses, not validate their misconceptions.

What you are describing is two groups of people using the same word, Communism, and using that word to describe the same thing, the program of the Communist movement. What they disagree on is the content of that thing. The situation I am describing is one in which two groups of people are using the same word, racism, to describe two different things: racial prejudice, and institutionalised racial prejudice, quite possibly without actually disagreeing as to the content of either. It is a semantic disagreement before it is an ideological one.

The academic of "racism" is not prior to the popular use, it as an attempt to bestow the popular use with greater precision. In academic contexts, that is fine, academics do things like that all the time. But academic language has a habit of leaking in activist circles, and then into the commentariat, who deploy this language in non-academic contexts, and this leads to miscommunication. This is simply an empirical observation.

You realise that class is directly tied to things such as gender, race and sexuality right? You can't meaningfully fight Capitalism without also fighting his brothers Patriarchy, White Supremacy, Heteronormativity et al.

It was a Monty Python reference.

The comparison between the Red Scare and "Cancel Culture" is completely ludicrous.

My reference to the Red Scare was intended as an example of a moral panic with which most posters will be familiar, not as a direct analogy for "cancel culture".

 

[Lexicus]

in some kind of a great replacement for the white populace

What Tfish was describing was just standard representation theory....

 

[Estebonrober]

Thing is that the woke crowd seem to regard most non BAME people as racists
which means your former option seems to amount to sacking most white people.

That is hardly likely to endear them to support the Black Lives Matter movement,
regarding excessive black deaths at the hands of police in the USA.

It may motivate them to vote for people like Trump on emotional logic; if I am going
to be called a racist/sexist/transphobist no matter what, and If the choice is voting
for (a) those who call me that OR (b) for an out and out anti-woker; I'll vote for (b).

people have been saying this for years but that’s not how this works in reality. In reality this movement has slowly built up steam among every demographic. You are never going to change someone’s mind in one meme or one conversation, but as time goes on and the evidence is presented over and over again you can. Even when you started out calling them names.

 

[Estebonrober]

A hiking gear/clothing company I shop at "cancelled" one entire manufacturer because enough people complained about them. Why? Because they also manufacture bullets. But these guys make great gear! It upset a lot of people and some people have stopped shopping there as a result.

You can buy into complaints on twitter, which is full of morons.. or you can just ignore the noise and continue doing business *shrug*. Some subset of your clientele will always be loud morons, and those are the people who start yelling first. If you remember that this is a tiny minority it will make it easier to ignore them.

Yes, larger companies are afraid of ending up internet famous, when enough morons yell loud enough and it affects their bottom line. But that's how you're going to run a business? If enough people yell you change up your business plan and start firing people? That's your problem.

And is this really only a problem when you're a large company? I've seen small businesses taken down by "activists". I've also seen "activists" drive more business to small niche businesses, because us normal people didn't buy into the yelling and decided to support the business instead. So it can go both ways.

You can live your life the way you want or you can sit on twitter all day and see who's upset with you and live your life accordingly, attempting to insult nobody ever. Have fun with that

can I just ask why do so many seem set out to insult others and run businesses? It seems counterproductive

 

[Lexicus]

Like seriously dude, look at the people who you are agreeing with. That at least should get you to reconsider your thoughts on this issue somewhat.

Just because someone has doubts about "progressive" woke stuff, doesn't mean they agree with its right-wing critics.

 

[warpus]

can I just ask why do so many seem set out to insult others and run businesses? It seems counterproductive

Do you mean run or ruin? Sorry, don't understand your question.

If you're asking why people complain and ruin things, the young people of today are lost. A cause will make you feel like you're doing something with your life, even if you aren't. So.. some people just do all the causes and yell at things and then go home happy that they are actually leading meaningful lives. Even though they're not.

 

[Estebonrober]

Do you mean run or ruin? Sorry, don't understand your question.

If you're asking why people complain and ruin things, the young people of today are lost. A cause will make you feel like you're doing something with your life, even if you aren't. So.. some people just do all the causes and yell at things and then go home happy that they are actually leading meaningful lives. Even though they're not.

Oh this is an unfortunate response. I meant run, but your disdain for the “youth” of the day means I won’t have much ground to share.

 

[aelf]

Oh, looks like someone has gotten cancelled. Looks like he deserved it, though.

In any case, putting pressure on companies is legit free speech and consumer action, no? If that's part of cancel culture, then what? Are classical liberal notions of free speech and the free market actually wrong?

And if 'cancel culture' is destined to pass anyway, then can we stop making so much noise about it? It's getting really obnoxious.

Cancel culture is the notion that something someone or a group of people say that you don't like is deemed as hateful, so therefore the only way to get rid of cancel culture is to shutdown free speech, which is exactly what cancel culture is trying to achieve, once the right to offend is taken away, cancel culture has accomplished what it set out to achieve, only then will cancel culture cease to exist....that is until another group of "victims" emerges from the pits of absurdity that this toxic ideology crawled from.

Cancel culture is not interested or concerned at all with the outcomes of what will happen in the future as a result of their worldview and their actions taken is of little interest to them, it is the immediate feeling of moral superiority that they lust for.

What's interesting about this cancel culture movement is that they are apparently oppressed by whites, males, heterosexuals, Christians etc. but they can only write such hate against whites, males, heterosexuals, Christians etc. in countries that consist of exactly those same whites, males, heterosexuals and Christians, which in itself is a contradiction of the very thing they claim...then when people are actually being silenced for having an opinion they rejoice in joy for the very thing they claim to be fighting against...oppression.

So, in order to prevent the inevitable demise of free speech, you'd need to suppress free speech?

I think fascists would be proud of that argument.

 

[Crezth]

Oppressed groups should be grateful because white western males are a merciful master, not like those savage nonwhites, comin’ at you live from Modder_Mode. This is their country and Black and queer folks should be happy to get to live in it!

Really shouldn’t be surprising a thread about whinging about “cancel culture” is also turning up fresh western chauvinist takes. I can’t believe this is the only place on the Internet where the white man can speak his mind.

 

[warpus]

Oh this is an unfortunate response. I meant run, but your disdain for the “youth” of the day means I won’t have much ground to share.

I really thought you meant "ruin" haha. I have no disdain for the youth in general, but I'm getting older and as such am mandated to question the young people of today and their nonsense /s

Which businesses insult their customers on a regular basis? I know of that one place in Chicago that insults you as you stand in line ordering your hot dog. But I think they're doing quite well even though they call their customers wankers and worse

 

[Estebonrober]

I really thought you meant "ruin" haha. I have no disdain for the youth in general, but I'm getting older and as such am mandated to question the young people of today and their nonsense /s

Which businesses insult their customers on a regular basis? I know of that one place in Chicago that insults you as you stand in line ordering your hot dog. But I think they're doing quite well even though they call their customers wankers and worse

Well there is always Dicks Last Resort but I meant in the oblique sense. Why do businesses have to be on Twitter commenting of social movement stuff all the time and digging their own holes.

I kind of feel like if you do not know what to say or how to say it, silence is your friend. Most especially when you have thousands, millions, or even billions riding on your commentary.

 

[EnglishEdward]

people have been saying this for years but that’s not how this works in reality.

How do you think Donald Trump got elected?

In reality this movement has slowly built up steam among every demographic. You are never going to change someone’s mind in one meme or one conversation, but as time goes on and the evidence is presented over and over again you can. Even when you started out calling them names.

Calling people names isn't presenting evidence.

 

[warpus]

Well there is always Dicks Last Resort but I meant in the oblique sense. Why do businesses have to be on Twitter commenting of social movement stuff all the time and digging their own holes.

I kind of feel like if you do not know what to say or how to say it, silence is your friend. Most especially when you have thousands, millions, or even billions riding on your commentary.

I stay away from twitter, as that platform seems to be full of idiots. Plus studies have shown that the less social media you have in your life, the better. So I don't see any of the hate. I've taken a look once or twice, and it just seems to be idiots arguing with idiots, so I stay away.

Can you give me an example of what you're describing? Could be a case of the company's social media person being too daft to really understand the nuances of their job.. or.. well, who knows, depends on what was said, right?

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you think Donald Trump got elected?

Depressed voter turnout in the Mid-West. Trump won a number of key states by a smaller number of voters than Clinton lost from Obama, and most of those voters seem to have been young or minority voters, not strong constituencies for the Republican Party. There's really not a lot of evidence that it was some sort of white backlash.

People aren't abandoning the centre-left because they're tried of identity politics, but because they're frustrated with neoliberal economics. Identity politics is a tool which the centre-left can employ to retain voters, to give stakes to an election; if they abandoned identity politics and became pure technocrats, then they would fare even more badly than they already do. Clinton's campaign is if anything confirmation of this: despite some half-hearted feminist posturing, she ran as a pure technocrat, as the avatar of "good government", and was electorally punished for it. The same policies given a social justice-y framing may have brought out just enough reluctant young voters to secure a victory.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well there is always Dicks Last Resort but I meant in the oblique sense. Why do businesses have to be on Twitter commenting of social movement stuff all the time and digging their own holes.

I kind of feel like if you do not know what to say or how to say it, silence is your friend. Most especially when you have thousands, millions, or even billions riding on your commentary.

My take on it is that with a business being openly political within marketing, it opens itself to a risky business decision that while beneficial in the short term, in the long term, you’d end up alienating and/or pissing off your core consumer base (mostly repeat/loyal customers) and they move to the business’s competitors. Hence the term “get woke, go broke” from the more right leaning circles.

I agree with the statement on “silence is your fiend” in terms of not knowing what to say on political matters and hope that any marketing division within a company would understand that and apply that message when they’re managing their social media accounts (I know it’s oversimplying things, since I associate social media management within the larger umbrella of marketing and public relations. Since I know full well that companies may internal organizations would vary from one company to another and can eather be simple or complicated).

 

[Robert Can't]

Silence is definitely the friend of abusers in positions of power.

Pretend nothing is wrong, pretend that it doesn't affect your people, pretend there are no abusers, pretend the problems of the world will go away if we don't talk about them.
Don't pretend you aren't pretending.