Senate Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far?

In case it's being adressed to my previous comment, I didn't compare "canceling" and murder someone. I was addressing Vivec's point 3) earlier, unless I wasn't clear enough in my sentence, or I might have missed a point here..

 

I think I misinterpretted your post a bit SE Saga, although my point stands.

As to Vivec's post... He is absolutely right that there are MANY people who act like minorities don't have a right to exist. Lots. Not just some rare psychopaths, as you put it.

For instance, in most places in the USA, it's still perfectly legal to send a gay teen off to a boot camp to try to make them not gay. This is literally an attempt at gay erasure. And its legality is supported by MOST of the Republican party. Not just a few people.

Similarly, the whole notion of "get out of MY country, you dirty brown person" is a statement of the notion that those folks don't deserve to exist in this country. And again, this is a common position, not an out there one.

You could find many such examples for every single minority group.

This is not a minority view. Or a few psychopaths as you say

 

After the original colonization of American land, nobody but natives has a right to say that their racial group owns the United States. All other ethnicities have as much claim as the whites who came second.

 

I'm going to start with this part of your post and move on to the other parts.

No, debate and discussions are not for the "sane and reasonable people." Debate and discussions are for those who don't have anything at stake. Debate and discussions are for those who are privileged, for those who have free time, for those who, after debate and discussion are over, can go back to living their life. Debate and discussions are not for those who are impoverished, underprivileged, oppressed, or marginalized.

For a lot of people who want to "debate and discuss" the rights of, say, a gay person to not be fired for their sexuality, for a trans person to use the correct bathroom, for a refugee to be in this country, etc, this is an academic exercise. For the "we need to have a conversation about x" crowd, whose lives will not change whatsoever based on how that conversation goes. After they debate, say, a trans woman online about her right to call herself a woman, they log out and continue their lives unhindered by the debate, because they have no material stake in the outcome. Meanwhile, the person they debating has to continue dealing with the repercussions of a society that doesn't believe in her right to exist as she is.

These people who the "debate me" crowd wants to debate know that the debate is the stalling tactic. The second the debate me crowd gets into power, rights get taken away without any debate whatsoever.

Very easily. JK Rowling is the most recent large controversy, so I'll stick with her. Rowling and other Terfs do not believe that trans women should have the right to go out and live their lives as women. That's existence. Some outright believe they should be killed. Others simply believe they should be forced to stay their assigned gender at birth. But all agree that they shouldn't have the right to express their gender.

 

I'm sorry that you felt the need to defend your own racial views, as I certainly didn't mean to imply you were racist. I also was sloppy in my usage of terminologies specific to the history of the UK. But I do want to zero in on this critical point here. You seemed--and still, to some extent, seem--to be rebutting the ideas I raised in my original post simply by noting that Hollywood's output is American. I agree that is a short-coming, but it has very little to do with what I was saying.

The United States purports to be a "melting pot" where the contributions of many different cultures and traditions are valued equally. But in fact, this exercise shows why there is reason to doubt that. The output from Hollywood is not broadly representative of American demographics. It is overwhelmingly preferenced towards what I'll hazard callin a broadly British orientation. We valorize what they valorize, re-enact their heroes, et cetera. African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and other groups--even other European descended nationalities--would find different figures interesting, stress sometimes different points of culture, and assign different meanings. Those viewpoints are relatively ignored, even though the society claims to welcome them. Therein is a problematic tension.

So, yes, I wish Hollywood was less American. But I also wish that "American" meant something less decidedly white. Your point does not and should not counter mine.

 

I'll confess I'm a little drunk but it's late in my day (albeit mid-afternoon, but I've been up since four); so I'll try and be concise and hopefully reasonably coherent.

I was initially triggered because you said Anglo-Saxon culture (or words to that effect) were overrepresented. I was thoroughly confused by this, which is why I responded with examples of Anglo-Saxon culture I rarely, if ever have seen at all.

I'll admit my humour is very dry (I'm British originally), and doesn't always come across on the Boards- judging by someone else's observation of my last post to you, and their attempts at satire which came off as pretty ******, and not remotely funny, even if that were their intent. I let it go, because I just didn't care enough to respond.

FTR, Anglo-Saxon is not the same as English, or British, culture. I say this, because I've met plenty of Americans who routinely make this mistake, much to my annoyance. Check out any text in Anglo-Saxon/Old English and see if you can understand it. Those were very different days... FTR, I'd love to see a production where all of the actors spoke in Old English; that would be amazing. And it would open up a lot of eyes, because this is a world most people barely understand.

FTR, I am not English, and perhaps I don't even have a drop of English blood- my mother spoke fluent Irish; but anyways I digress.

I have many American friends- there is a large American refugee community here in Cairns - and many online, but I must confess I get triggered sometimes by a certain type of American (and I'd like to think you are not this type), who likes to lecture others. I've reconciled with the fact that many Americans are very opinionated, irrespective of knowledge base, but equally I know I have some very opinionated American friends, so I take the rough with the smooth; and for the most part I get on fine with Americans. But it can be challenging sometimes.

I grew up in a culture that was so multi-cultural, that I always found English people a novelty whenever they came into my sphere- at least before I started going to work. London is like that. I find many discussions on MC strange, because to me that was the norm throughout my childhood, but seems novel to some others, even if they are sympathetic. When I moved to a village in Kent, I could begin to see things from their perspective; i.e, that of people who are used to being part of a dominant culture.

This sadly doesn't change my view of Hollywood, but be that as it may. Of those films I have watched and loved, many aren't even in the English language. There is such a rich tradition of film making that isn't Hollywood, so I have no qualms about seeing it burn to the ground. In other words, you don't need to see Hollywood films to engage with films make for or by other cultures. There's a ton of great films out there that have nothing to do with the English-speaking world; and even more literature. You can drown in the latter.

So perhaps we are simply viewing the same issues, and broadly agreeing, on them; which is all the more strange, because too often the latency of online interactions can lead to misunderstandings, or arguments over nuance, or perceived slights, between parties that are more or less singing from the same song sheet.

Right, more wine methinks.

 

Holy crap, why do the Boards play up like this so often. Double post...

 

That'll be drunk user error.

 

They seem to have difficulty with the Witching Hour.

 

There's some kind of server backup or refresh that happens at midnight PST and causes a hiccup, which unfortunately is smack in the middle of the morning/afternoon for those of us on other continents.

 

Shocking.

 

EDIT window being over...

We've just had a cancelled dentist in Lyon. Which had to do with a Zyklon B canister tattoed on her forearm and a Totenkopf insignia tattoed at the place it would have been on a uniform collar. She got caught by an Antifa group based in Lyon, and promptly got fired by the chain employing her.

 

I'm reading the words, it's a perfectly clear post but so messed up in what it covers - what's wrong with that person? On second thoughts, let's not explore it.

 

That sign font is a heavy hint.

 

Just FYI, in re: Americans and Anglo-Saxons...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestants

This is where you may have heard "WASPs"...

 

I thought WASP stood for 'we are sexual perverts'. Pretty much amounts to the same thing.

 

That's what those in the business call a unique selling point.

 

I am a White Anglo Saxxon Protestant, and fail to see what's wrong with being a sexual pervert.

 

I do think we have a lot of points in alignment. But while I'll say that I'm quite familiar with alternatives for representation in film and literature--indeed, it would be hard for me to cite examples of the stories Hollywood hasn't told if I didn't have this knowledge--I don't think that's quite acceptable. Ultimately, I am only critiquing "Hollywood" insofar as it is representative of American culture. From that framework, one really shouldn't be simultaneously proposing to people that they are included, but also that they should look elsewhere if they want anything represntative of/of interest to themselves.

 

"We fed a bot 1000 hours of scholarly articles about cancel culture and American history and this is what it spat out!"

 

Now I’m going address this specific point regarding debates and discussion.

I largely disagree with those points. Debates and discussions are a way for a civilized society to solve its problems through peaceful means rather than using inflammatory ways or violence, which further deepens alienation and divisions, and, at the end, destroy social fabric and cohesion. History is a very good demonstration that using force, rather than dialogue, has never solved problems and creates further divisions and alienation.

I can give you the example of Quebec when it came to discussing the space of religion for each ethno-cultural groups here when a controversy started in 2007: a public commission was created and was supervised by both a sociologist and a philosopher, and everyone, every citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, religious belief, societal class or education, were welcomed to participate, publicly express themselves and present a memory for consultation. The consultation went in many different cities in the province and took place for many months. Since religion and cultural differences, the idea of the separation between religion and the state, the different values that each culture and ethno-group have, especially in a multy-cultural society in which different cultures have different values, are very sensitive topics for each person living in such a diverse society that has opened itself to the world, there couldn’t be more peaceful means to solve differences than publicly discussing it, and proposing recommendations and compromises. Now, I would admit that it took a decade after this public commission, which has published a 300 pages long public report with dozens of recommendations, with many failed attempts and different elected government during this time period in order to put into place some rules and a law regarding secularism, which frustrated many who were awaiting clear rules.

However, unlike what you’re saying, or what you’re assuming, even if it took a long time to see some kind of result after months of debate and public discussion, nobody’s right in their private space was taken away (people still have the right to have their own values and practice their religious beliefs, but have to respect other people’s values and religion in the public space), and this whole process of open public discussion wasn’t just reserved to those who are privileged, or to those who have free time, since everyone, every citizens were encouraged and invited to get involved into the process.

Now, I don’t know how you, on the American side, you try to solve your differences. But your comment reinforces into me the feeling and the idea that Americans only solve their differences through violence and divisions, especially when looking back at your history, since you seem to even reject the idea of debates and discussions. Or maybe you should take other examples on how other societies elsewhere, like ours, solve their differences, rather than just focusing within your own borders.

And don’t tell me that discussions “are only for privileged ones”. To hell with that! I don’t know who put into you those ideas into your mind, but if you’re going to discuss and confront me, don’t use somebody else’s words or conception of the world. I’m having a discussion with you here , not because “I’m privileged” according to you, I chose to counter your arguments through this discussion and forum because it is way better than solving our differences through divisive or violent means (I’m not going to run straight to your door and have a saber fight with you simply because I disagree with you, which would be really ridiculous). If you’re going to judge each people according to “their privileges” (I don’t know what the hell you mean by that, or what kind of privilege you’re talking about) when they are discussing with you, you’re just closing yourself and your mind to others by shutting off any dialogue with others who are different from you and, at the end, you’re just living in your own little bubble or echo chamber, since you’re judging others even before talking to someone different from you.

I agree than many subjects, like the rights of gay people as you mentioned earlier, are subjects that should have long been solved and shouldn’t be reopened. In those cases, rules and laws guaranteeing rights should be reinforced. Otherwise, what’s the alternative according to you? The use of force?

If that is so, then I must be on his enemies list because "I'm privileged" to talk and have a discussion with him. But ironically, isn't he also "privileged" since he has the same access as me to this forum?