Senate Has Cancel Culture Gone Too Far?

It's true that what's known as cancelling now has always been around, but Vivec is right in that it's now got a new dimension because of social media. Faster. More intense!

Also politicians. With a woke agenda. Identity politics. I've seen it, it's real. The saddest part is that it comes from the people on the left. They're supposed to do leftie things. But instead they waste their time and agenda on woke-of-the-week business in order to get that minority vote. It's a real issue.

 

What is a "woke agenda"? In the US, where "woke" was coined, that phrase is used exclusively by fascists who usually blame George Soros in the same breath.

 

Woke is anything that threatens the status quo or doesn’t fit some fictional 1950s American Utopia.

The agenda part makes it a larger conspiracy. Something organized and shadowy that is calculated to destroy the status quo and destroy that fictionalized 1950s that conservatives are striving to rebuild. It can have leaders who work and plot together.

The agenda part is what makes it a fight for conservatives. It makes woke a united ‘them’’ as opposed to individual ‘thems’ to go against the conservative’s ‘us’

 

Let me say it again: in the half century I have been alive. The vast majority of "cancelling" of movies, television, music, books, comics, video games, RPGs, businesses, clothing, people, etc., have been done by conservatives.
And no, that hasn't changed.

Another reminder that Gina Carano was cancelled... by conservatives, twice, for taking a role they felt should have gone to a man, the second time in a movie made specifically for conservatives.

 

I agree that it's largely used by right wing celebrities to air out grievances at consequences for being racist. However I don't really see any other term to use when some random receptionist has an incident with a non-white customer and thousands of progressives write on twitter that said cashier should be fired, have his apartment taken away, and be raped in prison and then it turns out said receptionist wasn't even in the wrong.

 

I mean when left-wing parties spend their time and energy on singular popular cases of real or perceived wrongdoing, with little discernable impact, leaving less time to spend on basic issues like housing, food and creating actual social cohesiveness.

They're losing the plot.
At least over here.

 

over here we don't pretend to have left-wing parties.

 

wait til you read posts from the people who only post in the US politics thread!

 

We have it over here too. Everybody’s woke until you suggest putting up affordable housing in their neighborhood.

 

over here the Labour party is intent on canceling Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Okay, but here is the thing: the concerns that you and Vivec are calling out are not uniquely political. They are general traits about social interactions in humans. This includes the rush to judgment, the appeal of mob action, and the incentive to be cruel when we have the cover of anonymity. The social media platforms reward more florid insults and cruelty. The mechanism through which a person is labeled as an acceptable target is somewhat less important than the way these targets are treated. This mistreatment, as anakinsfan points out, has been present for a long time. And do you know what is permissive of it? Mocking the idea that one can be "too mean" on the internet. As Vivec has done. Which is not to say he can't have an opinion here, but it's ridiculous to take that attitude and then often scoff at complaints about tone in online interaction.

For instance, think about the "attack helicopter" story. It is exactly the same as the waitress story that he is taking so much offense at. Just as she really did identify people who were dine-and-dashing, writing a story called "I Identify as an Attack Helicopter" legitimately is something that people might object to. Regardless of what personal identity the author has. It is perfectly okay for people to criticize. Or even for lots of people to criticize strongly. At the same time, we can all agree that no one should be bullied to suicidality over a book. But what's the only difference here? Tone.

Ultimately, we've just come back to something completely apolitical and some of the discussants here have wanted to dodge. Maybe it's not great to cheer on people being awful to one another, and the results of that in an online environment are even worse than in-person.

 

The difference is not tone; it is the reward tone reaps you. "Ownage" is praised on a scale gentle rebute never is. It isn't the patient person who is liked more on social media; it is the bully.

 

Labour under Starmer is attempting to purge socialists-- I mean, anti-Semites like Corbyn because people like them have no place in a political party founded by, uh, socialists and unions.

 

Sure that's all true. But the consequence is not different than what I described. The decision to reward bullying is necessarily a choice to say that bullying isn't bad. That's not a political problem. It's not about "liberals." It's a more fundamental decision about how it's acceptable for people to interact with those they disagree with.

 

Look up what neurosciences have to say about social media today.

And then, be afraid, because they're talking about us.

 

Yeah, I don't disagree. Very clearly, there's a reason why people's social circles throughout all of history are not as large as the one's that the internet facilitates. It's not just because they didn't want to. It's that in many ways, it is deeply unhealthy for our psyche, even when what they are getting is positive reinforcement.

 

What do they say?

 

Who else tried to click it?

 

There's section 8 housing one block over in my neighborhood and I think all the extra land next to it should be dedicated to more (we've successfully fought against a shady car dealer and a huge storage chain going up in the neighborhood).

 

@Jabba-wocky is right, I could be a nicer person. I'm not, but I should be. however, the cases I'm bringing up were genuinely terrible cases. And the thing is, when it's just me being an Ender_Sai, I'm easy to ignore and dismiss. When it's thousands of comments on the internet about how everything bad ever should happen to you, it does drive people to dark places.

It's never "hey I disagree with you" when it comes to woke Twitter. It's always "you are a racist ****head who deserves to die" over small differences.

 

Is that unique to "woke" Twitter, though? I've seen it happen across multiple social media platforms, for all kinds of reasons. Including many that have no evident political/cultural context at all. Trying to make this mostly about "the left" or "woke people" or "liberals" or whatever really ignores the larger phenomenon.

 

Agreed.

The only thing about the left, in my experience, that may be unique but probably isn’t is that the left is quick to use the “I’m morally right and that means I’m good, so you’re not just wrong, you’re evil.” I don’t think it’s unique, necessarily, but the left uses it more.

Argue against any liberal viewpoint and it quickly escalates from “we’re having a disagreement” to “WELL YOURE TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE, YOU SCUM.”

Don’t agree to ban guns? You don’t care about children being killed.

You disagree on transissues? You hate transpeople, you’re transphobic, and you want them to die.

You disagree on abortion? You want women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen and want to strip them of their rights.

I’ve seen the right use this tactic too, especially on social media and when it comes to siding against a perceived moral transgression.