[banana_maker]

Cancel culture is not really a thing, as much as comedians like to talk about it (on huge platforms like netflix).

People are speaking with the only thing companies give a damn about- money. They want people to be held accountable for things, and are actually willing to put money where their mouth is. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with free market capitalism.

It's not even really political, as people on both sides get "canceled"- I mean, occasionally get held accountable for their actions. There are dumb instances (like Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, Jeffrey Tambor) and others where people jump the gun, but overall I can't say it's really a bad thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions, end of story.

As the saying goes: if you see shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.

[FooBarBizBazz]

The phrase "get held accountable" is an amazing use of passive voice.

It's effectively the same as the transitive verb "to punish", but it avoids having a subject entirely.

The implicit subject becomes some universal morality, which we might personify as God. People who use it assert that they act on behalf of God -- or, perhaps, that they themselves are God. "Deus vult!"

It's very similar to what I've heard described as a "fact-shaped" phrase. For example: "Time's up." Here you transform the imperative sentence "Comply now!" into a declarative sentence. You make your own will sound like an irresistible law of nature.

A person who observes the frequent abuse of this rhetorical device might conclude that facts do not exist at all, but are merely expressions of Power. An alternative to that cynicism is to maintain belief in Fact, while recognizing "fact-shaped" rhetorical tricks for what they are.

Returning to the original topic: When we say "People need to be held accountable for their actions", we are really saying "It is good that people punish one another." That is probably still true. But now we see more honestly the interaction of multiple parties. And we can consider the structure of those interactions.

For example: Do we still get the good things that come from repeated games, when the punisher cannot themselves be punished?

[banana_maker]

"Returning to the original topic: When we say "People need to be held accountable for their actions", we are really saying "It is good that people punish one another." That is probably still true. But now we see more honestly the interaction of multiple parties. And we can consider the structure of those interactions."

While I don't disagree with making things more explicit, I believe the intent in the original phrasing was clear enough.

"Do we still get the good things that come from repeated games, when the punisher cannot themselves be punished?"

A lot of times, celebrities don't even get "canceled". They lie low for a bit, and come back. While it's true that sometimes the public is unfair and jumps the gun, the only thing we can do is be vocal about well... not jumping the gun on allegations.

While the populace at large can't get punished, the punishments are also much softer. Louis CK didn't go to jail- he just had his comedy career ended (rightly so). He's mostly free to do other things, especially around now that people are starting to forget. Which is also an issue of the populace at large- it has a bad memory for most people.

[bpodgursky]

I mean, you can assert that baselessly, or you could read literally anything about the prevalence of "cancellation" in both the private and public spheres, especially among gen-z cohorts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html

Maybe it hasn't affected you or your circle, by name, but it's ridiculous to assert it "isn't really a thing"

[banana_maker]

The court of public opinion has always existed.

People now realize that they can assert their opinions and hold people accountable, whereas in the past other people may have just shrugged and gone "well, that's just how it is".

In the case of the article you linked, the first example of "canceling" was someone walking out of a classroom after requesting a song to not be played. This is not unreasonable given the R.Kelly allegations and documentary.

The second example of "canceling" is literally just deciding to ignore someone, and make other people aware of it and reason behind it. How on earth is that a new phenomenon? She had a valid reason too!

The third example with James Charles is also not unreasonable, and by "canceled" they really mean "people got upset and didn't want to watch his videos anymore". Are you seriously going to argue that if I get upset with someone, I should continue to watch their videos? That's not canceling someone!

So I'm going to repeat it: Cancel "culture" is not really a thing. People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs. And good for it.

[bpodgursky]

If you are a fan of cancel culture, you're free to express that opinion.

But what you seem to be saying is "cancel culture exists, but is not a problem IMO", given that you quoted several instances of it existing, and literally said "People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs" (and thus, in their own words, cancel people).

I'm not sure what you are imagining as the strawman of "cancel culture" which you are asserting doesn't exist?

[banana_maker]

I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.

I do not think what people recently have been referring to as "cancel culture" exists. They are prescribing their own view onto what humans have been doing for hundreds of years. The primary difference is that people are now holding others accountable more than they did before. So maybe one could refer to this as a new "accountability culture".

But walking out of a room because you did not like the content is not a new phenomenon. Giving someone the cold shoulder because you don't like them or they did something to you, is not a new phenomenon. Choosing to not listen to artists because of their controversial life is not a new phenomenon.

To reiterate. For that second example, she decided that she didn't want to engage with him because he used racial slurs. This is not "canceling" someone- it is calling them out for unacceptable behavior. Nobody was forced into agreeing with her. So to call this as "canceling someone" is patently ridiculous. She's free to point out he uses racial slurs, and others are free to continue to engage or disengage. This is not "cancel culture"!

I did not quote several instances of "cancel culture". That article had several examples of people putting their foot down about their beliefs. Nothing new here.

[loveistheanswer]

>I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.

How can you be a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even when you disagree with them, while also being a fan of punishing people for being vocal about beliefs which you disagree with? (Assuming you're not a sadist)

[pm90]

> while also being a fan of punishing people for being vocal about beliefs which you disagree with? (Assuming you're not a sadist)

Is the difference between supporting someone's right to free speech while not being in agreement with everything they say, not clear to you?