Jump to content

List of Cancel Culture victims.


17thfabn

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So you demand that if some transgressions escape public scrutiny, then all should be permitted?

 

I've demanded nothing, that's your construct, I merely corrected your recollection of what transpired.  And by the way, which transgressions did I suggest should escape public scrutiny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, nitflegal said:

My one piece of pushback is that Amazon is so dominant in bookselling that the ripple effects from their decisions are massive. ... you start the writing process knowing that you will only be able to sell to a quarter of the potential public at best and your publisher will realize it as well.

It's true, but it also applies to shifts in public taste. Try writing Aramaic poetry and be as succssful as top of the line thriller authors. Are we complaining about Aramaic poetry being the victim of Cancel Culture?

Are we not seeing small, admittedly, publishing houses that cater to minority opinion markets (including nutty conspiracy "non-fiction" fiction)? There's at least two or three of these on the German market alone cranking out productions that no "respectable" publisher would touch with a ten feet pole, a colorful mixup of The Corona Lie, the impending Euro crash, Neonazi publications, and less controversial but rather obscure books. So the circulation is reduced, yes, but it's not as if the book itself can't be acquired.

Would your local drugstore, selling the most common brands of toothpaste except Colgate for no apparent reason, be guilty of Cancel Culture? And if they gave a reason that you didn't like, would that then be a case of Cancel Culture? If if you like the reason, is it then a legitimate boycott, voting with your wallet?

"Cancel Culture" is a rather fuzzy term. It seems obvious what it means, until you start trying to define it ("I recognize it when I see it"...).

Is it something that only leftists do (clearly not)?

Is it only Cancel Culture if a reason is given, and how plausible should that reason be (short of the admission that they don't sell Colgate toothpaste because they hate their guts, hate 'em, hate that face of the current CEO, that they'd happily sacrifice all their money in a short sell if only that would guarantee the ruin of the Colgate corporation)?

Or is it only Cancel Culture if you don't like the reason they give? Particularly in contrast to the noble activists who don't want people to buy X because they are made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? Is any boycott automatically the flip side of Cancel Culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Are we not seeing small, admittedly, publishing houses that cater to minority opinion markets (including nutty conspiracy "non-fiction" fiction)? There's at least two or three of these on the German market alone cranking out productions that no "respectable" publisher would touch with a ten feet pole, a colorful mixup of The Corona Lie, the impending Euro crash, Neonazi publications, and less controversial but rather obscure books. So the circulation is reduced, yes, but it's not as if the book itself can't be acquired.

 

What do you call it when the Chinese government tells a foreign publishing house what can and cannot be printed?  Further demanding that all unsold books printed with unfavorable words shall be recalled and shredded?  I ask you because apparently the publishing house in question is the Carlsen Publishing House of Germany, and the book which was banned, but not burned (only shredded) was a children's picture book about the Chinese Corona Virus.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

What do you call it when the Chinese government tells a foreign publishing house what can and cannot be printed?

Coercion, possibly. Or an "attempt to influence" if you want to be particularly euphemistic (or neutral) in your choicer of words. Look, I'm not saying that there is no problem or that it doesn't exist. I just have trouble with the definition of "Cancel Culture" specifically. It's not a neutral phrase either. But it's the publishing house's decision whether they want to sell their products on the Chinese market. They could just as well tell the Chinese commie bastards to stuff it. If you make yourself highly dependent on a certain market, you're creating a vulnerability. But that's not a specific issue of Communist China. Any newspaper and TV show in the US, even in the 1960s, was under pressure from the companies that advertised there and would think twice if they made the health hazards of smoking a feature in their show or publication. That's how Big Tobacco managed to manipulate public opinion well into the 1990s.

 

50 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

I ask you because apparently the publishing house in question is the Carlsen Publishing House of Germany, and the book which was banned, but not burned (only shredded) was a children's picture book about the Chinese Corona Virus.

Not the example that I had in mind, although, yes, it's a recent case. I suppose Spanish Ambassadors all over the world in the last 100 years loved reading about the "Spanish Flu" when it probably originated from US pig farmers in Iowa. The difference is, Spain never had as much economic leverage as China today. You're critical of Chinese influence? So am I. All I'm saying is that "Cancel Culture" is an ill-defined phrase that entirely depends on your perspective. If you don't like it, you call it CC. If you support it, it's "voting with my wallet". If you don't like it, it's the internet mob reacting to fake outrage. If you do, it's "clever activists leveraging the power of social media".

Rebel scum, or Freedom Fighters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

To accept the cancellation of one is to accept the cancellation of all.  I will argue that Pepe' Le Pew, if you dislike his attitude, is in the same boat as Larry Flint.  If you can adovcate for free speech in that case, you have to defend Pepe', too.  Cancellation is indeed the book burning of the 21st Century, the suppression of ideas.  I personally find quite a few ideas reprehensible and repulsive, but I refuse to condone suppressing them lest I find my own ideas suppressed next.

As for God and the false, so-called gods:  believe as you wish.  Just be prepared to accept the consequences.

If Flynt had decided to stop publishing porn, would that have been cancelling?  If Warner Bros. thinks Pepe LePew no longer positively reflects on their brand, is that really cancel culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As he noted it is a slippery slope, and to add to that, there is a lot of meaning in the timing of such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, R011 said:

If Flynt had decided to stop publishing porn, would that have been cancelling?  If Warner Bros. thinks Pepe LePew no longer positively reflects on their brand, is that really cancel culture?

GM announced in January that they would stop making internal combustion vehicles in 2035. Are they doing it because they think electric vehicles are better... Or because they see the writing on the (regulatory) wall?

 

Edited by Mikel2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess one guide for  whether a mascot or character change is warranted or political correctness gone mad is whether the offence inherent in the thing has to be explained.  Few people, for instance, were aware of or interested in the racial implications of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. The racial tropes that underlay them were far enough in the past that modern consumers had no idea there might have been an issue when the brands were begun..  Apparently,whitewashing the products to remove the Black faces is better.  Some African American commenters have expressed dissatisfaction at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then there are actions forced by lies.  For the last century or so in New England, sprinkles for ice cream, especially chocolate ones, were known as Jimmies.  Apparently, this is a  brand name of a leading sprinkle maker.  In recent years, a rumour spread that Jimmies was a reference to Jim Crow because chocolate is brown.  The origin of the name is unclear, most likely they were named for an employee, and there no record of it being associated with race until the 21st century.  Interestingly, Snopes acknowledges this, yet classes the claim as unproven rather than false.

The company has renamed the product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I suppose Spanish Ambassadors all over the world in the last 100 years loved reading about the "Spanish Flu" when it probably originated from US pig farmers in Iowa.

You will be wrong. Another example, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, R011 said:

If Flynt had decided to stop publishing porn, would that have been cancelling?  If Warner Bros. thinks Pepe LePew no longer positively reflects on their brand, is that really cancel culture?

All in context, wouldn't you think?  If Larry Flynt decided to stop publishing porn because he attended a "Come to Jesus" meeting and figured he could make money another way.  No, not cancel culture.  If Larry Flynt was constantly under pressure by lawfare, being shot, his family being targeted for harassment, having the IRS and other agencies constantly investigating him, the media constantly outside his domicile giving out the exact location and phone numbers so that others could easily harass him into shutting down his porn publishing.  I'd call that cancel culture.  All of that happened to Larry Flynt, he weathered the storm because he stood staunchly in his wheelchair against the storm and, this is significant, there were still other brave souls and judges that said yes, you may not like what Larry Flynt publishes but he has the freedom and right to do so.

Warner Bros. on the other hand, has pre-emptively caved to the cancel culture.  One person writes one article about a cartoon skunk and Warner Bros. literally sees the writing on the wall.  Why did they cave so easily and quickly, because they'd rather "burn" one of their characters than have their entire cast burned.  The joke is on them, however, give an inch, they'll take a mile.  Warner Bros. may think they're now safe but definitions of what is "acceptable" constantly change and thus, WB will inevitably see their cast of characters canceled one by one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, R011 said:

I guess one guide for  whether a mascot or character change is warranted or political correctness gone mad is whether the offence inherent in the thing has to be explained.  Few people, for instance, were aware of or interested in the racial implications of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. The racial tropes that underlay them were far enough in the past that modern consumers had no idea there might have been an issue when the brands were begun..  Apparently,whitewashing the products to remove the Black faces is better.  Some African American commenters have expressed dissatisfaction at that.

What racial stereotype?  Different than Betty Crocker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

...One person writes one article about a cartoon skunk and Warner Bros. literally sees the writing on the wall...

I have seen it in my marketing job and it is always internal PR and legal department that together come with "worst case scenarios". And then risk aware board listen to it. In a certain big international company, you can not go up or down the stairs if you are not using handles. Just risk-aware department turned up the 11. Heels over 5cm are forbidden, due the fall risk. You can not wear certain kind of clothing due the... some risk (we are talking about straight office jobs here, not production floor). You can not bring own coffee mug because... risk. Coffee machine produces junk at some lukewarm temperature, because... someone might get burnt. In the climate of harassment and perceived insults it is quite logical that such companies will take "less risk" way. And while that might be "normal" in some other times, it is clearly influenced by the whole "cultural climate", and hence falls under the "cancel culture".

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2021 at 8:22 PM, R011 said:

Pepe LePew was funny back in the forties, even the seventies.  He just makes people uncomfortable now as his entire schtick was forcing himself on an unwilling female. 

I think the humor is that she has acquired a stripe giving confusing signals to him. Which is basically a form of self depricating humor. What's next Rodney Dangerfield get's cancelled? 

On 3/9/2021 at 8:22 PM, R011 said:

Nor is he especially popular in China, which seems to be the biggest consideration for Hollywood today.  I can see why the character would be retired.

Some types of Humor in the west don't translate. I don't suppose it's because they find skunk appetizing? 

On 3/9/2021 at 8:22 PM, R011 said:

There have been cancelling much more egregious than that of a cartoon skunk.  I'm still pissed about Gina Carano.

Oh, by far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So you demand that if some transgressions escape public scrutiny, then all should be permitted?

No, he's saying that this issue is being ignored because it's a democrat. It bloody well should have been exposed no matter who did it. Trump didn't do stupid shit like this. 

 

23 hours ago, Ssnake said:

There's imbalance in reporting, boo hoo. Deal with it.

There's an imbalance in the accountability is more the issue. 

23 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Cuomos failed strategy has been discussed here on TankNet since at least May 2020, along with the lack of reporting by most of the press corps. I haven't heard anyone here defending that decision as a good one. I found it horrific back then, and my opinion hasn't changed.

John Ringo, in one of his sci-fi books on the Posleen invasion postulated the idea of unerground shelters for the US population. They restricted ownership of arms (ie you showed up to help defend and your guns were taken) and at the same time, criminals were freely admitted. So you had what was in effect, underground shelters RUN by criminal gangs because everyone had a right to shelter in the Sub-Urbs. And then because everyone was undarmed, when the posleen did land and DId try to take the shelters, they were easily harvested food for them. 

Cuomo MANDATING That covid-positive patients be sent to shelters is as predictably deadly as mandating that hospitals save money by sharing needles among patients (with HIV and other disease positive patients). It's murderous bad policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

"Cancel Culture" is a rather fuzzy term. It seems obvious what it means, until you start trying to define it ("I recognize it when I see it"...).

 

For people it's the same as excommunication by another name. For ideas and media, it's heterodoxy and heretical teachings also by another name. 

Not nebulous at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, even without that needless diversion into science-fiction literary history we all here agree, for almost a year now, that it was a bad decision and that the press did, overall, a poor job reporting it. That's not to say that it went entirely unreported, just not enough for your taste and possibly not by the right newspapers and cable networks.

 

"Excommunication" on the other hand was a well-defined process with regulation and offcial, documented decisions. So, still nebulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sunday said:

You will be wrong. Another example, please.

Seriously. We should all try to be less white. Because...you know...whiteness is evil. 

The left is flogging that crap around in major corporations and we're supposed to believe in what they feel is about making folks not feel bad because of some 50 year old cartoon? 

FEEL THE UNITY or else. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Yes, even without that needless diversion into science-fiction literary history we all here agree, for almost a year now, that it was a bad decision and that the press did, overall, a poor job reporting it. That's not to say that it went entirely unreported, just not enough for your taste and possibly not by the right newspapers and cable networks.

It was a characterization fo absurd policy that government would do. And now we have a bloody example of it. That it's not exactly reported isn't the issue. It's that it was allowed and that no one on the left seems to consider it to be terribly bad policy. That it in fact isn't being driven as grounds for criminal negligence is the point. That it didn't stop as soon as it was reported is a big issue too. 

Meanwhile we have folks on the left making advertisements about how republicans are going to push grandma off a cliff in her wheel chair. 
 

Quote

 

"Excommunication" on the other hand was a well-defined process with regulation and offcial, documented decisions. So, still nebulous.

Being fired from your job for using the word Niggardly is a very well defined process. Someone clutches at some pearls because they don't understand english and were offended. That makes the news cycle. Your company decides something must be done. You get shoved into some meetings where you're shocked to find out what's going on, you go before HR, they fill out some paperwork, you get a box put your stuff in it and security walks you out the door. Then there's a media campaign where lefty talking heads explain how you sinned and everyone on the left sagely curses your name and demand that no one give you a job. 

NOT NEBULOUS at all., 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nebulous in the sense that it's up to every corporation and their internal regulations whether or not a perceived transgression justifies them firing you. What gets you fired in a liberal tech megacorp will probably not even raise an eyebrow among lumber cutting troglodytes, or in similar blue collar/small company environments where people still have a sense of appropriate responses. Now, you can have laws to protect employees against being fired for such frivolous reasons, such as we have in Europe for the most part. Up until recently however, these laws to protect employees against spurious decisions from management were considered by the US contingent here as another outgrowth of "typical Euro socialism" whereas the admirable US practice of hire and fire was a sign of a healthy, capitalist economy.

You can't have it both ways.

If you give companies the freedom to fire any of their employees for any reason, they will do so, and sometimes for reasons you don't like and which you find absurd, unjust, bigoted, and/or ignorant. Or you want regulation as to require material damage done to the company by said employee before he could be terminated, something that might even subject to litigation in court, possibly combined with a mandatory note of six months so that there's enough time to seek relief in court - but then you're pretty much exactly where Germany is with its rather strict limits for companies under which circumstances they may fire someone.

I'm not saying that firing someone for using a word like "niggardly" is an adequate reaction. It would not be uncommon however if there were other issues not reported, and this was the perfect excuse to let him go because they wanted to get rid of him anyway and just needed some pretext. But nothing that you wrote has helped me to answer the questions I raised above, here they are again for your convenience. Maybe you could help me answer them first before we move on to the next topic, rather than skipping all over the place.

On 3/10/2021 at 11:47 PM, Ssnake said:

All I'm saying is that "Cancel Culture" is an ill-defined phrase that entirely depends on your perspective. If you don't like it, you call it CC. If you support it, it's "voting with my wallet". If you don't like it, it's the internet mob reacting to fake outrage. If you do, it's "clever activists leveraging the power of social media".

Rebel scum, or Freedom Fighters?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2021 at 9:42 PM, Ssnake said:

Would your local drugstore, selling the most common brands of toothpaste except Colgate for no apparent reason, be guilty of Cancel Culture? And if they gave a reason that you didn't like, would that then be a case of Cancel Culture? If if you like the reason, is it then a legitimate boycott, voting with your wallet?

"Cancel Culture" is a rather fuzzy term. It seems obvious what it means, until you start trying to define it ("I recognize it when I see it"...).

Is it something that only leftists do (clearly not)?

Is it only Cancel Culture if a reason is given, and how plausible should that reason be (short of the admission that they don't sell Colgate toothpaste because they hate their guts, hate 'em, hate that face of the current CEO, that they'd happily sacrifice all their money in a short sell if only that would guarantee the ruin of the Colgate corporation)?

Or is it only Cancel Culture if you don't like the reason they give? Particularly in contrast to the noble activists who don't want people to buy X because they are made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? Is any boycott automatically the flip side of Cancel Culture?

Another set of questions that nobody bothered to respond to. We can't have a meaningful debate about Cancel Culture if we can't even define what it's supposed to mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It is nebulous in the sense that it's up to every corporation and their internal regulations whether or not a perceived transgression justifies them firing you.

Then excommunication was just as nebulous as every church bishopric was different, who had the ear of the pope or bishop and who had what sort of axe to grind. Also what sort of papal indulgences you could pay. 

12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

What gets you fired in a liberal tech megacorp will probably not even raise an eyebrow among lumber cutting troglodytes, or in similar blue collar/small company environments where people still have a sense of appropriate responses.

Depends on who's baleful eye of religous dogma is turned upon whom. 

12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Now, you can have laws to protect employees against being fired for such frivolous reasons, such as we have in Europe for the most part.

I don't think this is working the way you think it's supposed to work. 
 

12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Up until recently however, these laws to protect employees against spurious decisions from management were considered by the US contingent here as another outgrowth of "typical Euro socialism" whereas the admirable US practice of hire and fire was a sign of a healthy, capitalist economy.

You can't have it both ways.

Clearly if Cuomo isn't going to get charged for sending people to die in nursing homes, yes, you CAN. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

 Up until recently however, these laws to protect employees against spurious decisions from management were considered by the US contingent here as another outgrowth of "typical Euro socialism" whereas the admirable US practice of hire and fire was a sign of a healthy, capitalist economy.

You missed your true calling, stuffing strawmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DKTanker said:

What racial stereotype?  Different than Betty Crocker?

The racial stereotype of the Black domestic servant addressed by a patronizing title.  As I noted, it's a stereotype that's been obsolete so long it needs to be explained to modern people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

I think the humor is that she has acquired a stripe giving confusing signals to him. Which is basically a form of self depricating humor. What's next Rodney Dangerfield get's cancelled? 

Some types of Humor in the west don't translate. I don't suppose it's because they find skunk appetizing? 

Oh, by far. 

In Pepe's case, he's chasing a female who isn't just rejecting his interest, but clearly afraid of him.  Given the way he grabs her and starts kissing, one has to sympathize.  This was funny a generation or two ago, but has unfortunate implications now and makes modern audiences uncomfortable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...