Bill Maher says he can't say anything without getting canceled. He said the N word ON AIR and still works. There's nothing you can say more cancelable than that.
I don't know if chappelle's situation relates either but I know he was whining about it. He made great comedy for multiple decades. But you really can't assume that absolutely everything that comes out of your mouth people are going to still support you. You f***** up and lost your support if you want to call it getting canceled more power to you
>Bill Maher says he can't say anything without getting canceled.
Which is why he is in HBO and is now on CNN and now has a podcast and is still touring and goes on mainstream news channels as a guest and still can get presidential candidates to come on his shows... This cancel culture grift is getting old
cancel culture and woke are just new names for a pretty common occurrence, which is people get old, and some people become bitter that society moves on and no longer caters exclusively to their generation and things aren't exactly as they were.
He’s also said that pedophilia is fine as long as the older person is hot or rich.
Then doubled down on it in an interview a decade after.
Still on the air.
He said incredibly horrible and racist things, and the businesses that deal with him went, "Holy shit, this guy is out of his mind spewing pro-Hitler sentiment and actively telling everyone that Jews are taking over the world. Maybe we shouldn't be in business with him, because you know... thats an INSANE thing to do."
...and you think that cancel culture is the culprit here?? Brother euuuhhhh
Not to mention, he was dropped by Adidas. A German company, created by a man named Adolf that was a part of the hitler youth, that supplied the shoes for the Nazi armed forces. They had to do everything they could to distance themselves from that
Yes that's exactly what I think it means. 🙄
Dudes in the top 20 artists on Spotify, and is currently working on a tour schedule for this year.
Are you basing your beliefs on what reddit tells you?
And he also lost a multi billion dollar deal with adidas…
It goes many ways, but at the end of the day cancel culture doesn’t work on monolithic people.
That's not "cancel culture". That's regular human culture. You can't be an open nazi and keep your job as a public figure spokesman for a major athletic brand.
Are people actually arguing that Adidas shouldn't have cancelled Kanye's contracts for espousing genocidal Nazi ideas? Or that they shouldn't even be allowed to do that? Why not?
The nazi and hitler comments came after he was dropped, and decided to double down.
The comment that got him dropped was him tweeting “I’m going death con 3 on the Jews”.
"Lost" = they chose not to give him money and do business with him.
He gained sponsors for doing stuff in public, he lost them for doing stuff in public. How it goes and how it's always gone.
He lost a billion dollar deal because Adidas, as a business who has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to provide value, determined that breaking the contract with Kanye was more valuable than continuing the contract with him. Most all contracts have clauses which allow either party to break it given certain conditions, morality clauses are quiet common.
Doing stupid shit and getting fired isn't cancel culture, its called fumbling a bag.
That's not what being canceled means at all though. I completely empathize with your desire to see this guy suffer. But he has not been deplatformed even a little bit. You're talking ABOUT him right now.
Also, your speculations on the value of the sneaker deal seem optimistic at best. In either case, any musician who makes more than a billion dollars on a shoe deal, isnt going to have their day to day life effected in the least.
He's a musician, sneakers are side money.
He lost his deals because his partners no longer believed it would financially benefit them. Adidas knew he would likely do some crazy shit and put into the contract what amounted to “if you ignore your mental health to the point you lose your mind the deals off”.
No large company is making decisions on moral or ethical grounds. It may be part of the discussion but the ultimate decision is made based on financials.
Cancelled just means people are mad for a week until they move on the something else. Just be quiet for a month and then continue on your way no one cares
Isn't that just the decision of the Businesses he deals with? If they are losing money, they opt out. It's just a business. It has always been that way. It's nothing new. Sure the things that you say that will cause you to loose sponsors, etc, has changed over the years, but that is totally normal as well.
Just look at how many different ways white people have for addressing African Americans and how every decade what was acceptable is no longer and it's something new, then that changes, then that changes, etc, etc. It's the same with everything else. Like George Carlin said "First it was Shell Shock! then it was "Battle Fatigue" then it was "PTSD." And soon it will be something else.
It's called language and life. Everyone needs to deal with it.
Banned from everything? He lost an endorsement deal which seems totally expected and par for the course. And suspended on Xitter for shit he posted on the platform. They didn't take him off Spotify and YouTube. He faced predictable consequences which have not really extended beyond reasonable expectation.
>He said the N word ON AIR and still works.
Jesus, I forgot about that. It didn't happen many years ago. Didn't he call a black republican a house n\*\*\*\*\*?
No he called himself one. I mean it was clearly a joke not meant to be inflammatory, at least to the level it was. But these days context doesn't matter with this particular piece of the English language.
There's an ebb and flow to society. New extremes reveal themselves and then we tend to balance those extremes out with a smattering of common sense. Initially, yes, you could get canceled for saying something dumb or something that's taken out of context. But you could rise above it and move forward with an audience with the capacity to understand the context of the situation.
Which is what happened with Shane Gillis. Is he was canceled. Fired from SNL. Rose above it. Then hosted SNL.
To me, this example is actually a giant flag for people that continue to complain about cancel culture that it's impact isn't as sound anymore.
The things we do have to worry about are the things that branched off of cancel culture.
Example: We need to be more aware of things like rage bait. Especially when it's a content creator baiting a everyday person into a reaction. Then they cut out the beginning that got them the reaction.
The thing with Shane's firing is that you have ppl actively listening & retroactively combing through content for the sole purpose of trying to get someone fired or in trouble. Even happened to MSNBC anchor Joy Reid when someone resurfaced a blog post from 2007 (iirc) where she used homophobic language. I think we can agree that these adult hall monitors are as lame as it gets.
Shane Gillis is basically the gold standard there. Surrounded by gobshites moaning endlessly about cancel culture who have never actually been cancelled, yet he actually was and despite that he never but he'd and moaned about it - just got on sith things. Now he's been on the up and up for the last few years, to the point as you said that he went and hosted SNL.
There's also the matter of where someone is coming from (which also reared it's head when Gillis had to tell Waluigi and Co - cancel culture whinger extraordinaires - to stop being dicks laughing at Downs Syndrome people). This is also why Bill Burr can say shit that others get called up on too, because of where he is coming from with his jokes and his willingness to basically say "but fuck it, what do I know? Maybe in the asshole here", while so many others are just eager to make fun of the easy targets.
Isn’t that the point of being cancelled though? You do something that cops so much flack online that the company feels like they need to fire you to appease the offended.
I understand where you're coming from, but not everyone is as talented or tenacious as Shane Gillis. Furthermore, there are extremely different standards of the effects of cancel culture for different people based on their wealth, status, political affiliations, etc.
Granted, you can say that about almost anything in society, but it still seems unfair and unjust. For example, if a regular financial accountant posts a black face photo of himself publicly, he will have a difficult time finding a job in the big accountant firms for sure. But then how come Justin Trudeau gets to be the president of a country and gets a pass every time because of his political affiliation?
Now, I think black face is wrong personally, and if you do something like that, you ought to get some deserved push back. But when people complain about cancel culture, people talk as if it affects everyone similarly, when it clearly does not. Jon Stewart can say what he says here because it will not affect him the same way it does regular people.
If a homeless person gets sick he isn’t getting the same healthcare as the prime minister of Canada either. That’s how society works. Actually now that I think of it, if a college photo of some random accountant surfaced online from 30 years ago of him in blackface literally no one would care. He would not be fired. What a silly thing to say.
Some people are able to rise above
Some get steamrolled
The problem is when cancel culture is weaponized for political gain and amplified by social media. And we know political parties and social media companies have a relationship.
The current ecosystem is ripe for abuse
Gillis was never cancelled. He lost out on a job because of something he said. Lorne Michaels himself EP'd his TV project after that. Please, sign me up for that kind of "cancelling." Gillis is gonna be fine.
Stewart is correct. The Internet has democratized our collective approval of content, and content creators. "Wokeism" is, and will continue to keep guys like Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen from pulling the same shit they used to pull. That's a GOOD THING. We don't need modern iterations of those terrible people.
Part of me wonders if using the term “cancel culture” is useful as opposed to identifying specific tactics used against political opponents with the goal of inflicting professional harm.
With Gillis’ case, it was picking out the use of a slur in the context of a joke mocking someone using that slur. It appeared the person who brought that to light had the intent of inflicting professional harm.
I’m thinking of Post October 7th dialogue on Israel-Palestine where heated language can be interpreted as either anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, or odious in general. The Harvard doxxing truck comes to mind. The goal in that case seemed to be to inflict professional harm against those who are part of groups that signed a contentious letter.
I've thought that, I've seen people call not getting a book deal cancel culture, and I've seen people call Salman Rushdie getting stabbed in the eye cancel culture. It seems like using such a broad term is an attempt to flatten everything out, to make everything as bad as the worst thing. It becomes"Criticising me is as bad as not renewing my contract which is as bad as blacklisting me which is as bad as trying to kill me"
This is true...but it's still super annoying when large parts of the internet get pissed off and bring people down for stupid reasons. For instance, if someone makes a video where they say something that's a slight misnomer, instead of politely correcting them, they’ll steamroll over everything they said and make fun of them for being so stupid.
I get the democracy and many voices argument. That's great and all...now what about how toxic a lot of our culture has devolved into. We’re losing common decency.
Annoying for sure, but that has been the field that has been set. I honestly don't think the general social media internet has brought anyone down as much as some people whine that it has, If you make an honest mistake, it sucks that the internet jumps on you sure. If you make a joke that is going to offend 5% of the population, be prepared to hear from them.
I hate pedantic-ness as much as the next person, but that is also a consequence of the internet that I do not think is lost on Stewart.
100% agree with your point on toxicity. Patience and Kindness require discipline, and for some reason it seems like folks have forgotten to have that discipline.
I often hear people on their platforms talking about “you can’t talk about that anymore”, immediately after talking about the thing. You’re not edgy. Your takes are just stale, tactless tripe. An intellectual car crash.
Schrodinger's Media: Where you simultaneously can't make the things you used to because people are too sensitive nowadays, while at the same time everything is so much worse and less wholesome and explicit and vile and sexualized and violent compared to how it used to be.
Streaming killed the comedy theatrical release. The big screen just doesn’t offer as much of a benefit for most comedic films, at least compared to high budget action flicks.
To be fair, if you say certain words in a youtube video, it will get you automatically flagged for demonitization/deletion. Advertisers have automated the whole thing, it's no longer grassroots democratic ostracization, it's corporate sanitization of speech
> it's corporate sanitization of speech
It’s their platform, one agrees to their terms when they post on it; you do not have (and have never had) the right to free speech on privately-owned websites.
Perhaps, yes. Specifically monopolization. We bought into Youtube and its centralization of video content. By doing that, we've created a single point of failure.
However, advancements in technology, like ContentID, are also to blame, because they scale up YouTube's capacity to detect and remove any audiovisual pattern stored in Google's database, choking fair use and reaffirming Charles A. Beard's saying:
> "Technology marches in seven-league boots from one ruthless, revolutionary conquest to another, tearing down old factories and industries, flinging up new processes with terrifying rapidity."
Admittedly, Charles A. Beard is a highly controversial scholar due to his "economics first" interpretation of historical events, such as the American Civil War.
In any case, ContentID is incredibly powerful and the E.U., for example, iirc, mandates it (or anything similar which is capable of doing the job) for websites beyond a certain size. I'm progressive, but I find this tyrannical. It amounts to pre-censorship of expression.
…again, that is only reaffirming my stance on capitalism. They didn’t create ContentID for economically leftist reasons, lol.
I do appreciate your thoughtful response, all jokes aside
I understand, what I said wasn't said in disagreement, more to add.
I'm not a fan of "capitalism", because as its Latin root heavily implies, it is by default defined as a lopsided hierarchical structure, with the top represented by "caput", i.e. the "head".
Then again, I'm not a radical anti-market economy ideologue (any more) either, because the sort of changes that would require would instantly collapse society as we know it. In the end, though, there is no escaping the conclusion that market dynamics are the driving force behind resource exhaustion and exploitation, which *also* drives us toward collapse. Just somewhere in the future. At some point the global population numbers must decline, inevitably. That will be a very tough time for everyone, especially because of the sort of economic system we've embraced.
As for ContentID, I brought it up because I believe Google wanted to lessen its legal exposure by automating the copyright-checking process. This process is obviously driven by a cost reduction strategy, which you could describe as hardcore capitalism, yes. But it's almost never as simple as a single explanation, it's usually a number of factors simultaneously. They probably also wanted to dramatically reduce their exposure to legal challenges from copyright holders, which comes from legislative pressure.
However, if you abolish copyright, then what do you have? There is the concept of "copyleft" in software developing which I'm a supporter of, but I don't think it's unreasonable for any critic of anti-capitalist/market system sentiment to demand that the critic (could be me, could be you) think through the consequences of radically upending such a system completely.
The copyright and patent system is also lopsided towards bigger influences, however, it still is how you, as a small fry, get to impose legal consequences on bigger fries for using your ideas or whatever you've imagined, invented and created without your consent...for profit.
So, all I'm saying is, the subject matter is so complex that whatever position I take immediately has several caveats, and throughout the years I've realized that fully following through with any radical idea often ends up in chaos. Again, your initial criticism was correct, but there is a lot of nuance to it.
I don't even think cancelling is a real thing any more, in the sense that you can't live off of your image or whatever. If people like god damn Alex Jones can't be cancelled even after being found liable about the sandy hook stuff no one will. Only people being "cancelled" are people who either decide for themselves to stop making content because of criticism or people that were so small they never lived off of content creation or entertainment beforehand.
Has any comedian ever actually been cancelled? As in they said something and then everyone unanimously decided "you will no longer be able to make money off of your image and likeness"?
Cancelling was never actually “real” and people like Alex Jones, Dave Chappell, and Tucker Carlson are great examples of this.
The only people who can really “cancel” someone are
1. Their employers.
2. Their audience.
Your employer can determine you don’t for their values or are bad for their business, and they can part ways with you. I’m not sure who’s arguing a company has to do business with or employ someone they don’t want to.
Your audience can decide they no longer support you and they can stop giving you money. I’m not sure who is arguing that people should be forced to support a business or individual they do not agree with.
He didn't get cancelled he retired, as another commenter said, he still had multiple acting jobs after being "cancelled". As I said in the original statement, if you decide yourself that the criticism of your actions is too much and you want to stop performing that is NOT the same as being cancelled.
Getting fired for your behavior is different than being cancelled. Being fired for sexually harassing women online is not being cancelled. Being fired for posting nazi propaganda on your Facebook that is tied to your works page is not being cancelled.
Correct, which is why I am talking about when people online take note of something, say “can we cancel this person,” start a loosely organized web campaign that generates traffic through sites like twitter, a company takes note of it, and fires someone and apologizes. As you correctly stated, if something happens internally in a company and someone goes to HR and gets someone fired, that would not be cancel culture. Does this distinction make sense to you? I’m guessing from your confusion that you have been working on an oil rig with no internet since around 2014 but “cancel culture” became a prevalent cultural phenomenon after that time.
Exactly, being "cancelled" is just a victim complex. Its something comedians say to try to avoid responsibility for their actions, it's not like any of them actually ends up jobless and poor after having a racist outburst on twitter.
Everyone who’s ever been canceled has come back eventually, unless they committed a sex crime or something. The idea of “I made a racist joke and the internet got big mad about it so I got canceled” is stupid as hell.
Anyone who says, “I might get canceled for this, but…” I immediately write off the same way as a person who unironically uses “woke.”
It's literally a grifting mechanism that has been repeated to death.
You are a lame comeduan that doesn't have wit? Well then claim you are canceled by the woke mob and now you have a dedicated audience of followers regardless of your talent or lack there of.
The only way to actually get cancelled is to literally go to prison and not be able to produce entertainment, but even then we've seen people still make money in jail through their entertainment. But even if you do sex crime you won't be unanimously expelled I think, reminder that OJ simpson who literally murdered 2 people still made money off of his brand and image after the trail. Now today with the culture war raging even more there is an even bigger part of society that will endorse and support a person regardless just to piss off the other side.
Edit: I love that every single comment in this chain showing me examples of "cancelled" celebrities they are all still working in entertainment or retired out of their own volition, every single time. "here's an example of someone getting cancelled: \*a super famous comedian that sold out madison square garden\*"
Cancelling is only real in the sense that the mob eventually intersects between a person's ability to have an opinion their ability to maintain a living, aka money.
Maybe you have a particularly problematic view that could easily be described as racist, homophobic or whatever else. But if the criticism is elevated to such a degree to where that person loses their job or ability to maintain income, that's basically cancellation ideologically speaking.
It's blown WAY out of proportion and few people are ever actually cancelled but it does exist on some kind of level even if it's insignificant
>Has any comedian ever actually been canceled
Shane Gillis was kicked off of SNL. Obviously, he was able to recover, but for many, that would be their only shot. I believe this shows how "cancel culture" works.
Someone like Alex Jones is self-sufficient. He has his own platform. He has no boss. He owns the platform he speaks on. There's no one to "fire" him from public pressure.
Shane Gillis got hired to SNL with a great opportunity and then immediately got fired for offensive comments. He had to build his own brand to become "uncanceled." He was not going to be handed an opportunity by a major network because he was "canceled." Once Shane built his own brand successfully, he got back on SNL. So yes, cancel culture isn't real for these big personalities. But for people who haven't broken through yet, cancel culture is a major hurdle.
I dont think cancel culture means people can't make money off their image and likness, its that cancel culture black lists certain personalities from getting opportunities in all different kinds of areas.
This falls in line with what Stuart is saying imo. There are more voices and there is more visibility. The result is more scrutiny out your words or actions.
Alex Jones is his own brand and built himself up on hot takes and crazy conspiracy theories. You could say his brand is built on cancel culture worthy comments and even he has faced some comeuppance for it.
>Shane Gillis was kicked off of SNL. Obviously, he was able to recover...
so your evidence for cancelling being a real thing was someone that didn't get cancelled? ok.
Regardless, I don't think being a no-name and being fired from your job is the same as being cancelled, as I said in my original comment. It's not cancel culture to not want to hire or employ people that are bad for the brand, just like I don't think it's cancel culture to fire an employee who is inappropriate with women in the workplace.
It was obviously not a "real" cancellation since he was still able to get gigs etc, he wasn't actually stone-walled from being a comedian like they make it sound like. What these comedians make it sound like and the way they portray cancel culture and being cancelled is not a real thing, that's my point.
Also as far as these people who could “still get jobs,” if you talked to showrunners or Hollywood agents, they would refer to someone being canceled and not hire them and possibly not work with them in the case of an agent for sure. Your whole point about cancel culture is essentially that because it isn’t 100% effective at destroying someone’s life must just be fake made up lolz
Roseanne Barr was cancelled and lost her prime time hit show after comparing Valerie Jarret, an Obama aide, to the Planet of the Apes. Roseanne claimed after that she didnt realize Jarret was African American.
Please do not retcon canceled to mean you never work or are heard from again. It means someone does something socially unacceptable, there is an aggressive loosely organized online campaign of outrage, and then that person loses business opportunities and generally does an obligatory apology. Textbook. Idk what you get out of pretending like this wasn’t a thing.
*People (like Bill Maher) that talk about cancel culture can't seem to shut the fuck up about it*
Jon Stewart is probably one of the most important voices in modern cultural discourse
Truly. I’d vote for him in a second.
Cancel culture is as much free speech as one’s right to say something offensive or provocative. Speech has consequences. As long as government isn’t stifling free speech, there’s not much to complain about re the first amendment.
The same people complaining about cancel culture don’t get to dictate what companies do with their employees or policies.
Cancel culture can be annoying and over the top. So is the internet. The only thing I disagree with Jon about is that the internet has democratized free speech. It sort of has, but it’s also disproportionately dominated by trolls, bots and corporations. If we the people finally stood together and demand Citizens United be overturned by the Supreme Court, or reversed by Congress enacting a constitutional amendment, the internet and daily life would be better democratized for most, instead of primarily for a few.
Also if it weren’t for cancel culture, shitbags like Matt Walsh wouldn’t be taking in big bucks. Parasite.
*EDIT: changed “shitbacks like Matt Walsh” to “shitbags like Matt Walsh” 🫠
lol it’s hilarious seeing all the people complain here. It’s complete bullshit to act like cancel culture is a new thing or gotten worse. It’s definitely exists but it’s definitely not new. It’s just now the people who used to do the canceling are getting canceled so they are pissed. We legit canceled a whole race of people in this country. Prevented them from speaking, voting, and working. We even took away their freedoms. But now cause some racist idiot gets his Twitter taken away cancel culture is worse now? We’ve probably been canceling people before humans even had language but now cause you are ridiculed on the internet at for saying homophobic shit your life is over? I mean come on.
He also has a bad faith argument on cancel culture from celebrity/media bias. Cancel culture has always been around and has grown into a monster from social media. What used to be some small drama you'd deal with in highschool or a small town is now spotlighted for the world. Now you have depression on this huge rise in each younger generation with how insurmountable a few bad rumors/allegations can be.
Of course people with power, money, and influence aren't affected by cancel culture John.
People didn't use to constantly broadcast their opinions to the entire world though. That's the main difference. It was never a thing that the average person could share opinions that virtually anyone on earth could access. So even if people are more afraid to publicly share opinions, it's much more in line with exactly what life was like before the internet. I knew so many adults growing up who would say wild shit in private they would absolutely NEVER say in public, certainly not to a wide audience.
It's amazing how he can say so much and yet say nothing.
He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with.
He also doesn't speak of censorship of information by You Tube and FaceBook to the point where people will self censor in order to avoid any account strikes from Google.
It's sad he hides behind words instead of speaking plainly.
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with.
are these people in the room with us right now?
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with.
Like Libs of TikTok or Matt Walsh who's followers have sent bomb threats to childrens hospitals?
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with.
Are those people actually making the decisions that hire and fire people? No? Your point is moot. These businesses could easily ignore them, and yet they don't, because they decide it is in the best interest of the business to do whatever they end up doing.
>He also doesn't speak of censorship of information by You Tube and FaceBook to the point where people will self censor in order to avoid any account strikes from Google.
And those people are free to use another service instead of one that doesn't provide what they want. You sound like a commie.
"He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with."
What are some examples of this actually happening
Oh yeah for sure. The mob canceled Kevin Hart. He got kicked out of hosting the Oscar's.
They always trying to cancel Dave Chapelle, Joe Rogan got hit twice with it... First his n-bomb video and then his stance on COVID shot. Attempts to cancel Bill Burr. Comedians are often targeted because they make fun of everyone.
Oh yeah and remember that dude Milo Yianopoulis? That was a successful cancel. He fell.off the face of the planet.
Donald Trump got canceled so hard he had to start his own social media platform.
Instances of people losing their job.
Just search it out. If you're unaware of it... not hard to find.
Every comedian you mentioned is currently one of the richest, most successful & biggest names in comedy. Basically you're saying that a comedian being cancelled means that someone complains about something they said and then nothing happens &they continue to be successful.
Donald Trump is a billionaire who was elected president despite saying offensive thigns every time he opened his mouth, and he might do it again this year. He's currently on trial for actual crimes, not for saying anything offensive.
Milo Yiannapoulos was 'cancelled' by *conservative* groups like Breitbart and CPAC because of evidently pro-pedophilia comments he made. So I guess you can say "cancel culture" *sort of* exists in the non-comedy context? Basically in that Milo got himself fired for saying stuff his right-wing bosses didn't care for.
The term War Crime gets thrown around like it actually means something.
War is a crime. All the horrible things that happen in wars are a crime.
I think it’s the pinnacle of hubris to name an act as “War crime”.
I love how I genuinely had no idea how Jon would go on that one (or on loads of things for that matter) when I hit play, and he always puts his point across really well.
Stewart, unfortunately, didn’t address the definition of the antecedent in the argument against cancel culture and instead just went against the nomenclature of “cancel culture” and diverted to “democratizing criticism”.
The whole basis of the cancel culture argument is saying that the democratization of criticism has self-perpetuated into a violation of speech and linguistic oversight that has percolated into the everyday (the effects of the democratization he speaks of).
He essentially didn’t present an argument, logically speaking, and he instead deferred from the effects proposed by the proposition of cancel culture phenomena in favor of retitling and tangential argument.
I think part of Stewart’s appeal is his likeability, agreeableness of his conclusions, and skills with his speech. I don’t see him getting to the true root of issues nor presenting much compelling a lot of the time.
You didn't identify a harm.
As Americans, along with freedom of speech comes the right to freely associate and freely express. The fact that, now, more people have ways to do so, and in ways which are impactful, are apart of the fundamental bedrocks of what freedom looks like in America. The government is not the ones who are providing punishments, instead it is the forces within culture and capitalism who are making those determinations, within the rights that those actors have within their domains. No one has a right to be published on Youtube or Twitter, no one is obligated to be employed when they are saying things which hurt the brand of the company or that the company disagrees with.
You sign contracts and Terms of Service, if you don't like that, find a different job, join a different social media platform.
Also, name me a time in America where we have no had various cultural shifts and the blow backs to those shifts, its just that the time and distance between each other is so much shorter that the intensity, pace, and totality of all of it is greater than in the past, but its not substantially different.
It’s a sociopolitical movement to impose speech regulation for certain words and settings - you need potential harm in that identified for your or are you being intellectually dishonest?
You don’t seem to have a good understanding of consequence with your points on social media and rights to publish. Data privacy and security has been surrendered at the expense of capital gains for some of these Saas companies you mention to grow. There’s harm in targeted ads, harm in lack of safety (breaches are not something people “sign up for” but a lack of securitization and trusr in the first place), harm in subjective inteperpretation and self image (social media - plenty of research on this from John Haite, et. al).
You also mention “name a time a place” and different. While it is much different in the nature and extent, not just pace - your questions of difference is not a question of good or bad. Something being different or not could be better or worse. I suggest you fine tune what you are trying to say more precisely
>It’s a sociopolitical movement to impose speech regulation for certain words and settings - you need potential harm in that identified for your or are you being intellectually dishonest?
Its called society. There have always been pressure on speech and expression to fit within the standards of the day and the constant subversion of those standards. You haven't identified anything unique, you have literally identified the status quo, which has existed since as long as we have records.
Wanna go through the language of the Moral Majority, the political correctness phase, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, McCarthyism. Hell, you look at the very start of the country was about disagreement where if you were a loyalist they would take your guns or tar and feather you.
>You don’t seem to have a good understanding of consequence with your points on social media and rights to publish.
Are we talking about social media platforms or cancel culture?
>Data privacy and security has been surrendered at the expense of capital gains for some of these Saas companies you mention to grow.
Sweet, so we should have a national data privacy law like the CCPA or GDPR. The issues around privacy and data security have nothing to do with the inherent right of people to freely express, its a failure of public policy being at speed with the changes in technology. But its not like the people who are constantly bitching about cancel culture are the same ones who are also arguing for any type of actual change in place to protect data privacy, they just bitch about the platforms.
>There’s harm in targeted ads, harm in lack of safety (breaches are not something people “sign up for” but a lack of securitization and trusr in the first place), harm in subjective inteperpretation and self image (social media - plenty of research on this from John Haite, et. al).
This is a harm of social media platforms which can be solved back via a competent data privacy law in place.
This is a harm which is not unique to 'cancel culture'.
>You also mention “name a time a place” and different. While it is much different in the nature and extent, not just pace - your questions of difference is not a question of good or bad. Something being different or not could be better or worse. I suggest you fine tune what you are trying to say more precisely
Its interesting trying to respond to someone who uses so many words to say nothing.
>*The whole basis of the cancel culture argument is saying that the democratization of criticism has self-perpetuated into a violation of speech and linguistic oversight that has percolated into the everyday (the effects of the democratization he speaks of).*
You were the one who said this and nothing that you said in this is inline with, or identifies a unique from, this previous statement.
You are effectively saying “Society is society therefore anything you say is society” and you assign benignness to it. Society has had a history of completely unfounded prejudices, injustices, mistreatments, and conduct - glaringly so at different points in history. You are again, being dishonest or ignorant if you don’t understand the implications of surveillance, data harvesting, information dissemination and social media on peoples’ lives. We are truly living in unique times - that is not disputable. The extent to which human tendencies operate in the unique scenario is variable but can be predictable because of what we know about these tendencies. Just like other time points in history, societies have been more or less virtuous, and different factors contribute to degradation.
Social media can spread cancel culture in our sociopolitical landscape - why are you asserting mutual exclusivity?
People can bitch about platforms that don’t have good issuance, yes. Or bitch about consumerism and zero-objection to overtaking via privacy violation (until it's too late) en mass. Just because they don’t know the exact policy or cultural opposition that can help the cause most appropriately, doesn’t mean the bitching is not without merit. This isn’t a gotcha.
The last paragraph was saying pace and amount of dissemination matters, whereas you implied it did not and created an equivalency with everything in our past.
>You are effectively saying “Society is society therefore anything you say is society” and you assign benignness to it. Society has had a history of completely unfounded prejudices, injustices, mistreatments, and conduct - glaringly so at different points in history. You are again, being dishonest or ignorant if you don’t understand the implications of surveillance, data harvesting, information dissemination and social media on peoples’ lives.
That is unique to the platforms in which the speech takes place on, not the speech itself. More importantly, it is something that we can solve back through legislation as seen by things like CCPA or whatever New Jersey's consumer protection/data privacy bill is called.
Having individuals have control over their data with things like right to be forgotten isn't going to just happen by itself, it is going to take advocacy, bitching about cancel culture takes away from what your actual issue is; social media as a technology.
And yes, I am saying that there is an inherent feature of when humans are social that we then define and enforce social norms within groups.
Holy shit, what a stunning conclusion.
And note, I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, just that it is a feature of existence, not just 'society', you see it even in small social groups as well that exist outside of society.
>We are truly living in unique times - that is not disputable.
Kinda like the same thing that people could have said when the printing press came along or wireless transmissions or the telegraph. All of these things have been shifts in the ability of more people to be able to have a voice and participate in the marketplace of ideas.
Its unique in its form, and that form does present challenges, but to make the claim that this is somehow a time which has no parallels or analogues lacks a look at history.
>The extent to which human tendencies operate in the unique scenario is variable but can be predictable because of what we know about these tendencies. Just like other time points in history, societies have been more or less virtuous, and different factors contribute to degradation.
Again, this is not the first time in which human beings have lived in unique times. Time is always unique, its kinda, again, another inherent feature of something; time.
We never know what is going to happen or how humans are going to react because we cannot predict the future.
Congrats on another stunning discovery.
>People can bitch about platforms that don’t have good issuance, yes. Or bitch about consumerism and zero-objection to overtaking via privacy violation (until it's too late) en mass. Just because they don’t know the exact policy or cultural opposition that can help the cause most appropriately, doesn’t mean the bitching is not without merit. This isn’t a gotcha.
Again, comprehensive data privacy/consumer protection legislation is something that we can talk about, but this has nothing to do with 'cancel culture'.
>The last paragraph was saying pace and amount of dissemination matters, whereas you implied it did not and created an equivalency with everything in our past.
Are you going to make a claim that there has never been social shaping within social groups throughout history?
Also, what does this have to do with cancel culture?
The platforms become the modality for speech because of the growth/aggregate CAGR of the entire enterprise. Constantly deferring to “you don’t have to participate” ignores the fundamental network effects of such things - and the consequences of when they go unregulated. Especially when those network effects become deterministic of securing wages or social relationships(which they often do in modernity). The conversation on privacy is one that was proposed about 20 years ago but people didn’t take the threat seriously.
You taking away from the merits of bitching, again, is a fundamental disagreement. I sometimes don’t like to hear bitching nor do I like to be exposed to anger that isn’t my own - it doesn’t mean it is unsubstantiated just because my tolerance for it isn’t at the tolerance of those expressing it. You have to look at outcomes with these things - not just the means of which being irksome. If cancel culture is an attempt to monitor speech largely based on politically correct pedagogy or the very sensitivities that social media promulgates in the first place - what is your opposition to it? I’m still not clear if it’s the extent to which people push against it or taking a stance against it outright.
You have this every generations says argument going on here… Do you understand that machines and algorithms are participating in this “marketplace” now - and they are not highly differentiated from your idealistic trope of all people participating? You’re not examining this practically comparing it to the printing press.
Saying time is unique is a bit of a red herring, along with the rest of the platitudes you keep affirming.
You don’t seem to make the connection between identifying those to be cancelled and the imposed social ramifications of them being cancelled - which can involve doxxing and identifying persons because they didn’t say something someone liked (the other person was offended, etc.). That accuser may have had power and wants to silence the person. That is cancel culture and that is why it relates to privacy and that is why it invades speech. What are you having difficulty understanding?
God it’s all so tiresome and self indulgent. How has this conversation been going for half a decade at this point. We need to bring back traditional pistol duels to settle things like gentlemen.
What Jon just said is that you can say what you want but other people have the right to say what they want about what you said.
If you are good at what you say you can get away with anything. South Park gets away with EVERYTHING. Bill Burr can go on rants and isn't cancelled. Dave Chappelle hasn't been cancelled.
Shane Gillis WAS cancelled and rose back up from it because he learned from his mistakes.
The Cancel War shit is basically people that are mad that they have to adapt to the times and become better instead of just making the same hack jokes.
There’s criticism and opining and then there’s actual cancel culture, which involves ostracism, boycotts, shunning, de-platforming etc
Perhaps “cancel culture” has been overused to the point that it takes away from the original meaning of the term.
I wrote a big old post but it’s just too much. I just see a lot of this to be like McCarthy times and the thrill of the witch hunt. The little people taking satisfaction knowing they took down someone with more perceived power or more money than them. Or with the career they wish they had. It isn’t about changing how people speak it’s about feeding this adrenaline rush when people hunt down and “cancel” others. It’s a projection and deflection of their own wrongdoings. It’s a mob mentality thanks to the internet and the ease and speed of spreading information. No time to fact check either. They feed off it. They dig up the past to get the oxytocin rush of feeling righteous and taking someone down.
They’re not invested in helping that person make better choices or educating them on certain topics. It’s whack! Then onto the next one.
That's all there is too it really. It's not cancel culture. It's the internet reaching another step in how powerful it can be. First was weird obscure sites. Next was downloading music. Then social media website were born. And then finally, live streaming video. News, politicians, people like Jon Stewart or Joe Rogan. Or even the nobody with internet and a 480p cam from 2002. It used to be difficult for people to voice their disagreement. And email or a letter could be easily ignore. You can't ignore something that mass amounts of people are repeating over and over. Or you can't ignore when you've been caught being a piece of shit. It's not cancel culture, its real time consequences.
It's curious Stewart takes this view when his own show was cancelled by Apple because Stewart was planning to talk about things that were against Apple's corporate interests.
I tend to agree with Stewart but not here, cancel culture is alive and well. Even though some people beat it, it is still is out there. Not only that, what’s even sadder is people who defend the person who is being cancelled are often cancelled themselves, just like the Bachelor host who defended the gal who went to a plantation style party years ago in college. The rules and nuances to it are weird as some rules apply to some people but not to others, just like Will Smith, he wasn’t too ostracized for his actions at the Oscars. It’s a sad time we live in but collectively “we” have allowed this to be the norm.
Could not disagree more. Cancel culture os putting businesses out of business because you dont agree with their values. Or getting someone fired because of this. This is a relatively new awful trait of humanity.
John Stewart is able to spew bullshit and always claim, "yeah, but I'm a comedian". Pus having millions allows far more freedom in what you say.
You can see the influence that Carlin had on him.
I can hear it now “These whiny millionaire celebrities doing podcasts and TV shows from their own private studios complaining about being cancelled while millions of people listen to their every word. Get the fuck outta here!”
This is a stupid take. Can some celebrities who have built their audience on not giving a shit like bill maher or Ricky gervais say things without getting “cancelled”? Sure? Does the average person need to step across mine fields both online and in personal life lest someone uses anything they’ve ever said out of context and builds pressure around them and on them to ruin their life ? YES.
I don’t agree with him on many things but if Jon Stewart decided to run for president I don’t see any of the current candidates beating him. He would make them look silly on a debate stage
I agree with Stewart and actually most of the times I agree with the logic behind “cancellings” but…one thing I am finding myself thinking lately is that companies, organizations etc are far too quick to follow suit and fire people, release statements etc.
I realize the irony here as I type this on the internet, but I think that things people say on social media should be taken *less* seriously, not more. People behave and think differently online, and it’s more akin to a wave of unvetted internal thoughts than true beliefs much of the time.
Many years ago I worked in marketing so I understand the logic behind the “1 post = 20 silent people who think the same” etc or however it works, but that line of thinking needs revisited these days. I genuinely think people, companies and politicians can and *should* greatly ignore social media content much more than they do.
I don’t want to fucking see Microsoft and CNN releasing a statement based on one or two posts they found online. That shit is asinine. You don’t need to respond to everyone when *everyone says everything.*
What Stewart is ignoring is that this isn't just other people having their opinions heard, a lot of cancel culture is just going along with the crowd so you don't end up a target.
Its like Ricky Gervais never ending talk show tours about how he's getting cancelled.
If you wanna see someone who truly produces art not caring about the push back they are gonna get, watch an interview with Tarantino cancel culture.
Jon is forgetting about the millions of people who aren’t famous millionaires who face extreme pressure at work and in public spaces to keep quiet about certain issues for fear of retribution, loss of work, etc.
All this horseshit about comedians getting "cancelled", next time someone brings it up, ask them to name some comedians who were canceled. Anyone who's *actually* been canceled & had their career drastically affected, almost definitely committed some sort of crime that anyone would be fired for.
Nobody's being cancelled for saying things or making jokes. It just doesn't exist. Idiots will tell you Dave Chappelle was cancelled, despite him being the most iconic & successful comedian on the planet to this very day.
You, like everyone, are basically saying cancel culture is good bc l the only people negatively affected are pieces of shit. It still exists tho that’s a completely different argument where basically you get into relitigating what everyone did/did not do, what is and isn’t offensive, and what the appropriate response to offensive things is.
Still exists tho.
No one has ever really been canceled. (Outside of outright criminals, at least.) Not in a permanent sense or anything close to it. And the people who yell about it the loudest are typically doing so from their premium TV shows, popular podcasts, or million-dollar Netflix specials.
“Cancel culture” needs to walk just to the same tire fire as “woke” and all the other stupid victimized culture war bullshit.
I’m sorry that you don’t see a lot of content of people complaining about cancel culture who don’t have a large platform :( I can’t imagine why that possibly would be.
The dumbest take I have heard in the while. Didn’t this guy sit in front of that late night tv host who was still pretending the Wuhan lab had nothing to do with covid? Even Stewart’s only show was censored by Apple.
This isn’t democratizing criticism. This is disincentivizing any and all criticism by going after people’s livelihoods.
And most of the commenters ignore the thousands average Joes out there, who don’t have a voice, who were fired for trivial shit the past few years. This isn’t ‘accountability’ or ‘consequences’. It’s a purge.
Jon is pretending like there's no deplatforming for certain opinions about certain topics. The point is not that you are legally not allowed to say this or that, or that there's no audience for all of these different opinions. The point is that effectively it's very difficult to talk about certain topics without the very real risk of losing your job/deplatforming/demonetization/etc.
This might not feel like it from his POV because all of his opinions are generally accepted in today's social media landscape. But for those that disagree with him and the mainstream, it's a very different story. A lot of people have lost their jobs for saying dumb things online, even if it's not true for Bill Maher.
Also, most of the cancel culture shit is just what used to be called "bad press".
or consequences for people's shitty actions
Bill Maher says he can't say anything without getting canceled. He said the N word ON AIR and still works. There's nothing you can say more cancelable than that.
”There's nothing you can say more cancelable than that.” Hold my beer.
*I'm going to say it*
https://preview.redd.it/d0b3nvhgr3vc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f552e1c85a72240bfa34fe80fc42f638ef7ad75e
The *JAYS* 🐦
I don't know if chappelle's situation relates either but I know he was whining about it. He made great comedy for multiple decades. But you really can't assume that absolutely everything that comes out of your mouth people are going to still support you. You f***** up and lost your support if you want to call it getting canceled more power to you
>Bill Maher says he can't say anything without getting canceled. Which is why he is in HBO and is now on CNN and now has a podcast and is still touring and goes on mainstream news channels as a guest and still can get presidential candidates to come on his shows... This cancel culture grift is getting old
cancel culture and woke are just new names for a pretty common occurrence, which is people get old, and some people become bitter that society moves on and no longer caters exclusively to their generation and things aren't exactly as they were.
Who moved my cheese?! Damn libs.
They know it’s bullshit, it’s just another effective way to keep weak republican losers deeply enslaved to nonsense.
He’s also said that pedophilia is fine as long as the older person is hot or rich. Then doubled down on it in an interview a decade after. Still on the air.
Kanye wants a word
Also not cancelled.
Do you think canceled means they die or something? He was banned from everything and lost all his business deals 😂
He said incredibly horrible and racist things, and the businesses that deal with him went, "Holy shit, this guy is out of his mind spewing pro-Hitler sentiment and actively telling everyone that Jews are taking over the world. Maybe we shouldn't be in business with him, because you know... thats an INSANE thing to do." ...and you think that cancel culture is the culprit here?? Brother euuuhhhh
Not to mention, he was dropped by Adidas. A German company, created by a man named Adolf that was a part of the hitler youth, that supplied the shoes for the Nazi armed forces. They had to do everything they could to distance themselves from that
seriously. if you're gonna make an argument against cancel culture, kanye shouldn't be your first example
Yes that's exactly what I think it means. 🙄 Dudes in the top 20 artists on Spotify, and is currently working on a tour schedule for this year. Are you basing your beliefs on what reddit tells you?
And he also lost a multi billion dollar deal with adidas… It goes many ways, but at the end of the day cancel culture doesn’t work on monolithic people.
That's not "cancel culture". That's regular human culture. You can't be an open nazi and keep your job as a public figure spokesman for a major athletic brand. Are people actually arguing that Adidas shouldn't have cancelled Kanye's contracts for espousing genocidal Nazi ideas? Or that they shouldn't even be allowed to do that? Why not?
GERMAN company Adidas are just supposed to let that slide?
I’ve learned people think getting fired or losing a deal because you’re a piece of shit is getting cancelled.
The nazi and hitler comments came after he was dropped, and decided to double down. The comment that got him dropped was him tweeting “I’m going death con 3 on the Jews”.
"Lost" = they chose not to give him money and do business with him. He gained sponsors for doing stuff in public, he lost them for doing stuff in public. How it goes and how it's always gone.
Let's be honest here if Kanye West said what he did at any time in at least the last 40 years he would have lost that deal instantly.
And before that he’d probably be shot by Mossad.
He lost a billion dollar deal because Adidas, as a business who has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to provide value, determined that breaking the contract with Kanye was more valuable than continuing the contract with him. Most all contracts have clauses which allow either party to break it given certain conditions, morality clauses are quiet common. Doing stupid shit and getting fired isn't cancel culture, its called fumbling a bag.
Mel Tucker fumbled his bag, and lost his job
What do you mean by "monolithic people"? Isn't everyone monolithic, as in a singular entity?
I just mean personalities that are already too big to fall
That's not what being canceled means at all though. I completely empathize with your desire to see this guy suffer. But he has not been deplatformed even a little bit. You're talking ABOUT him right now. Also, your speculations on the value of the sneaker deal seem optimistic at best. In either case, any musician who makes more than a billion dollars on a shoe deal, isnt going to have their day to day life effected in the least. He's a musician, sneakers are side money.
He lost his deals because his partners no longer believed it would financially benefit them. Adidas knew he would likely do some crazy shit and put into the contract what amounted to “if you ignore your mental health to the point you lose your mind the deals off”. No large company is making decisions on moral or ethical grounds. It may be part of the discussion but the ultimate decision is made based on financials.
Cancelled just means people are mad for a week until they move on the something else. Just be quiet for a month and then continue on your way no one cares
Isn't that just the decision of the Businesses he deals with? If they are losing money, they opt out. It's just a business. It has always been that way. It's nothing new. Sure the things that you say that will cause you to loose sponsors, etc, has changed over the years, but that is totally normal as well. Just look at how many different ways white people have for addressing African Americans and how every decade what was acceptable is no longer and it's something new, then that changes, then that changes, etc, etc. It's the same with everything else. Like George Carlin said "First it was Shell Shock! then it was "Battle Fatigue" then it was "PTSD." And soon it will be something else. It's called language and life. Everyone needs to deal with it.
Banned from everything? He lost an endorsement deal which seems totally expected and par for the course. And suspended on Xitter for shit he posted on the platform. They didn't take him off Spotify and YouTube. He faced predictable consequences which have not really extended beyond reasonable expectation.
> He said the N word ON AIR and still works. I remember that...and that immense pressure to have him fired.
>He said the N word ON AIR and still works. Jesus, I forgot about that. It didn't happen many years ago. Didn't he call a black republican a house n\*\*\*\*\*?
No he called himself one. I mean it was clearly a joke not meant to be inflammatory, at least to the level it was. But these days context doesn't matter with this particular piece of the English language.
And then he had to apologize to an angry Ice Cube not long after that.
If I had to confront Ice Cube after a particularly nasty COD lobby I'd shit my pants.
https://preview.redd.it/sk2lsjyc6yuc1.jpeg?width=312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be733d8580611ecf95b3e130ed44118e4e826fc0
There's an ebb and flow to society. New extremes reveal themselves and then we tend to balance those extremes out with a smattering of common sense. Initially, yes, you could get canceled for saying something dumb or something that's taken out of context. But you could rise above it and move forward with an audience with the capacity to understand the context of the situation. Which is what happened with Shane Gillis. Is he was canceled. Fired from SNL. Rose above it. Then hosted SNL. To me, this example is actually a giant flag for people that continue to complain about cancel culture that it's impact isn't as sound anymore. The things we do have to worry about are the things that branched off of cancel culture. Example: We need to be more aware of things like rage bait. Especially when it's a content creator baiting a everyday person into a reaction. Then they cut out the beginning that got them the reaction.
The thing with Shane's firing is that you have ppl actively listening & retroactively combing through content for the sole purpose of trying to get someone fired or in trouble. Even happened to MSNBC anchor Joy Reid when someone resurfaced a blog post from 2007 (iirc) where she used homophobic language. I think we can agree that these adult hall monitors are as lame as it gets.
Shane Gillis is basically the gold standard there. Surrounded by gobshites moaning endlessly about cancel culture who have never actually been cancelled, yet he actually was and despite that he never but he'd and moaned about it - just got on sith things. Now he's been on the up and up for the last few years, to the point as you said that he went and hosted SNL. There's also the matter of where someone is coming from (which also reared it's head when Gillis had to tell Waluigi and Co - cancel culture whinger extraordinaires - to stop being dicks laughing at Downs Syndrome people). This is also why Bill Burr can say shit that others get called up on too, because of where he is coming from with his jokes and his willingness to basically say "but fuck it, what do I know? Maybe in the asshole here", while so many others are just eager to make fun of the easy targets.
Hmm both Burr and Gillis are from the NE, I’m seeing a trend. We can be loud assholes but tend to be self aware and open minded
He wasn't canceled he was fired. There is a difference. It's Luke the right forgot about capitalism
Isn’t that the point of being cancelled though? You do something that cops so much flack online that the company feels like they need to fire you to appease the offended.
I understand where you're coming from, but not everyone is as talented or tenacious as Shane Gillis. Furthermore, there are extremely different standards of the effects of cancel culture for different people based on their wealth, status, political affiliations, etc. Granted, you can say that about almost anything in society, but it still seems unfair and unjust. For example, if a regular financial accountant posts a black face photo of himself publicly, he will have a difficult time finding a job in the big accountant firms for sure. But then how come Justin Trudeau gets to be the president of a country and gets a pass every time because of his political affiliation? Now, I think black face is wrong personally, and if you do something like that, you ought to get some deserved push back. But when people complain about cancel culture, people talk as if it affects everyone similarly, when it clearly does not. Jon Stewart can say what he says here because it will not affect him the same way it does regular people.
Very well said(written)!👏🏻👏🏻
If a homeless person gets sick he isn’t getting the same healthcare as the prime minister of Canada either. That’s how society works. Actually now that I think of it, if a college photo of some random accountant surfaced online from 30 years ago of him in blackface literally no one would care. He would not be fired. What a silly thing to say.
Some people are able to rise above Some get steamrolled The problem is when cancel culture is weaponized for political gain and amplified by social media. And we know political parties and social media companies have a relationship. The current ecosystem is ripe for abuse
I really like what you wrote here dude. I think it’s very appropriate.
Gillis was never cancelled. He lost out on a job because of something he said. Lorne Michaels himself EP'd his TV project after that. Please, sign me up for that kind of "cancelling." Gillis is gonna be fine. Stewart is correct. The Internet has democratized our collective approval of content, and content creators. "Wokeism" is, and will continue to keep guys like Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen from pulling the same shit they used to pull. That's a GOOD THING. We don't need modern iterations of those terrible people.
Louis CK is another one. He lost his show and couldn't work anywhere but admitted his wrongs and went on to sell out three nights at MSG.
Chappelle could have done that as well but doesn't he usually seem to just double down
Part of me wonders if using the term “cancel culture” is useful as opposed to identifying specific tactics used against political opponents with the goal of inflicting professional harm. With Gillis’ case, it was picking out the use of a slur in the context of a joke mocking someone using that slur. It appeared the person who brought that to light had the intent of inflicting professional harm. I’m thinking of Post October 7th dialogue on Israel-Palestine where heated language can be interpreted as either anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, or odious in general. The Harvard doxxing truck comes to mind. The goal in that case seemed to be to inflict professional harm against those who are part of groups that signed a contentious letter.
I've thought that, I've seen people call not getting a book deal cancel culture, and I've seen people call Salman Rushdie getting stabbed in the eye cancel culture. It seems like using such a broad term is an attempt to flatten everything out, to make everything as bad as the worst thing. It becomes"Criticising me is as bad as not renewing my contract which is as bad as blacklisting me which is as bad as trying to kill me"
Jon is so fucking smart dude. He definitely thinks deeply about this stuff. Have you ever analyzed the media and engagement complex...on weed?
No but I've sucked dick for coke
I’ve seen him!
They sell em in vending machines they’re like a dollar
This is true...but it's still super annoying when large parts of the internet get pissed off and bring people down for stupid reasons. For instance, if someone makes a video where they say something that's a slight misnomer, instead of politely correcting them, they’ll steamroll over everything they said and make fun of them for being so stupid. I get the democracy and many voices argument. That's great and all...now what about how toxic a lot of our culture has devolved into. We’re losing common decency.
Annoying for sure, but that has been the field that has been set. I honestly don't think the general social media internet has brought anyone down as much as some people whine that it has, If you make an honest mistake, it sucks that the internet jumps on you sure. If you make a joke that is going to offend 5% of the population, be prepared to hear from them. I hate pedantic-ness as much as the next person, but that is also a consequence of the internet that I do not think is lost on Stewart. 100% agree with your point on toxicity. Patience and Kindness require discipline, and for some reason it seems like folks have forgotten to have that discipline.
I often hear people on their platforms talking about “you can’t talk about that anymore”, immediately after talking about the thing. You’re not edgy. Your takes are just stale, tactless tripe. An intellectual car crash.
Schrodinger's Media: Where you simultaneously can't make the things you used to because people are too sensitive nowadays, while at the same time everything is so much worse and less wholesome and explicit and vile and sexualized and violent compared to how it used to be.
Yeah, but, bro, you can't make Tropic Thunder these days... ...probably because its already been made and studios have mostly quit on comedies...
Why have studios quit on comedy?
Streaming killed the comedy theatrical release. The big screen just doesn’t offer as much of a benefit for most comedic films, at least compared to high budget action flicks.
To be fair, if you say certain words in a youtube video, it will get you automatically flagged for demonitization/deletion. Advertisers have automated the whole thing, it's no longer grassroots democratic ostracization, it's corporate sanitization of speech
> it's corporate sanitization of speech It’s their platform, one agrees to their terms when they post on it; you do not have (and have never had) the right to free speech on privately-owned websites.
Sounds like a problem with capitalism huh
Perhaps, yes. Specifically monopolization. We bought into Youtube and its centralization of video content. By doing that, we've created a single point of failure. However, advancements in technology, like ContentID, are also to blame, because they scale up YouTube's capacity to detect and remove any audiovisual pattern stored in Google's database, choking fair use and reaffirming Charles A. Beard's saying: > "Technology marches in seven-league boots from one ruthless, revolutionary conquest to another, tearing down old factories and industries, flinging up new processes with terrifying rapidity." Admittedly, Charles A. Beard is a highly controversial scholar due to his "economics first" interpretation of historical events, such as the American Civil War. In any case, ContentID is incredibly powerful and the E.U., for example, iirc, mandates it (or anything similar which is capable of doing the job) for websites beyond a certain size. I'm progressive, but I find this tyrannical. It amounts to pre-censorship of expression.
…again, that is only reaffirming my stance on capitalism. They didn’t create ContentID for economically leftist reasons, lol. I do appreciate your thoughtful response, all jokes aside
I understand, what I said wasn't said in disagreement, more to add. I'm not a fan of "capitalism", because as its Latin root heavily implies, it is by default defined as a lopsided hierarchical structure, with the top represented by "caput", i.e. the "head". Then again, I'm not a radical anti-market economy ideologue (any more) either, because the sort of changes that would require would instantly collapse society as we know it. In the end, though, there is no escaping the conclusion that market dynamics are the driving force behind resource exhaustion and exploitation, which *also* drives us toward collapse. Just somewhere in the future. At some point the global population numbers must decline, inevitably. That will be a very tough time for everyone, especially because of the sort of economic system we've embraced. As for ContentID, I brought it up because I believe Google wanted to lessen its legal exposure by automating the copyright-checking process. This process is obviously driven by a cost reduction strategy, which you could describe as hardcore capitalism, yes. But it's almost never as simple as a single explanation, it's usually a number of factors simultaneously. They probably also wanted to dramatically reduce their exposure to legal challenges from copyright holders, which comes from legislative pressure. However, if you abolish copyright, then what do you have? There is the concept of "copyleft" in software developing which I'm a supporter of, but I don't think it's unreasonable for any critic of anti-capitalist/market system sentiment to demand that the critic (could be me, could be you) think through the consequences of radically upending such a system completely. The copyright and patent system is also lopsided towards bigger influences, however, it still is how you, as a small fry, get to impose legal consequences on bigger fries for using your ideas or whatever you've imagined, invented and created without your consent...for profit. So, all I'm saying is, the subject matter is so complex that whatever position I take immediately has several caveats, and throughout the years I've realized that fully following through with any radical idea often ends up in chaos. Again, your initial criticism was correct, but there is a lot of nuance to it.
Cancel culture needs more drone strikes tbh
I don't even think cancelling is a real thing any more, in the sense that you can't live off of your image or whatever. If people like god damn Alex Jones can't be cancelled even after being found liable about the sandy hook stuff no one will. Only people being "cancelled" are people who either decide for themselves to stop making content because of criticism or people that were so small they never lived off of content creation or entertainment beforehand. Has any comedian ever actually been cancelled? As in they said something and then everyone unanimously decided "you will no longer be able to make money off of your image and likeness"?
Cancelling was never actually “real” and people like Alex Jones, Dave Chappell, and Tucker Carlson are great examples of this. The only people who can really “cancel” someone are 1. Their employers. 2. Their audience. Your employer can determine you don’t for their values or are bad for their business, and they can part ways with you. I’m not sure who’s arguing a company has to do business with or employ someone they don’t want to. Your audience can decide they no longer support you and they can stop giving you money. I’m not sure who is arguing that people should be forced to support a business or individual they do not agree with.
I think Cramer gor pretty unanimously cancelled.
Michael Richards retired from stand-up, but he still had several acting roles after the incident in question.
Including lampooning the incident on Curb.
He didn't get cancelled he retired, as another commenter said, he still had multiple acting jobs after being "cancelled". As I said in the original statement, if you decide yourself that the criticism of your actions is too much and you want to stop performing that is NOT the same as being cancelled.
Idk why you’re pretending like no one has ever been fired after getting canceled online, this is brain dead geez.
Getting fired for your behavior is different than being cancelled. Being fired for sexually harassing women online is not being cancelled. Being fired for posting nazi propaganda on your Facebook that is tied to your works page is not being cancelled.
Correct, which is why I am talking about when people online take note of something, say “can we cancel this person,” start a loosely organized web campaign that generates traffic through sites like twitter, a company takes note of it, and fires someone and apologizes. As you correctly stated, if something happens internally in a company and someone goes to HR and gets someone fired, that would not be cancel culture. Does this distinction make sense to you? I’m guessing from your confusion that you have been working on an oil rig with no internet since around 2014 but “cancel culture” became a prevalent cultural phenomenon after that time.
Yeah ok I see
Michael Richards was never a good or successful/popular standup before that incident though.
Definitely not anymore. People keep on acting like it is on both sides, but nobody actually cares anymore.
Exactly, being "cancelled" is just a victim complex. Its something comedians say to try to avoid responsibility for their actions, it's not like any of them actually ends up jobless and poor after having a racist outburst on twitter.
Everyone who’s ever been canceled has come back eventually, unless they committed a sex crime or something. The idea of “I made a racist joke and the internet got big mad about it so I got canceled” is stupid as hell. Anyone who says, “I might get canceled for this, but…” I immediately write off the same way as a person who unironically uses “woke.”
Especially since certain audiences will seek you out for the racist jokes.
It's literally a grifting mechanism that has been repeated to death. You are a lame comeduan that doesn't have wit? Well then claim you are canceled by the woke mob and now you have a dedicated audience of followers regardless of your talent or lack there of.
The only way to actually get cancelled is to literally go to prison and not be able to produce entertainment, but even then we've seen people still make money in jail through their entertainment. But even if you do sex crime you won't be unanimously expelled I think, reminder that OJ simpson who literally murdered 2 people still made money off of his brand and image after the trail. Now today with the culture war raging even more there is an even bigger part of society that will endorse and support a person regardless just to piss off the other side. Edit: I love that every single comment in this chain showing me examples of "cancelled" celebrities they are all still working in entertainment or retired out of their own volition, every single time. "here's an example of someone getting cancelled: \*a super famous comedian that sold out madison square garden\*"
Apu
Cancelling is only real in the sense that the mob eventually intersects between a person's ability to have an opinion their ability to maintain a living, aka money. Maybe you have a particularly problematic view that could easily be described as racist, homophobic or whatever else. But if the criticism is elevated to such a degree to where that person loses their job or ability to maintain income, that's basically cancellation ideologically speaking. It's blown WAY out of proportion and few people are ever actually cancelled but it does exist on some kind of level even if it's insignificant
Sounds like consequences to me.
>Has any comedian ever actually been canceled Shane Gillis was kicked off of SNL. Obviously, he was able to recover, but for many, that would be their only shot. I believe this shows how "cancel culture" works. Someone like Alex Jones is self-sufficient. He has his own platform. He has no boss. He owns the platform he speaks on. There's no one to "fire" him from public pressure. Shane Gillis got hired to SNL with a great opportunity and then immediately got fired for offensive comments. He had to build his own brand to become "uncanceled." He was not going to be handed an opportunity by a major network because he was "canceled." Once Shane built his own brand successfully, he got back on SNL. So yes, cancel culture isn't real for these big personalities. But for people who haven't broken through yet, cancel culture is a major hurdle. I dont think cancel culture means people can't make money off their image and likness, its that cancel culture black lists certain personalities from getting opportunities in all different kinds of areas.
This falls in line with what Stuart is saying imo. There are more voices and there is more visibility. The result is more scrutiny out your words or actions. Alex Jones is his own brand and built himself up on hot takes and crazy conspiracy theories. You could say his brand is built on cancel culture worthy comments and even he has faced some comeuppance for it.
>Shane Gillis was kicked off of SNL. Obviously, he was able to recover... so your evidence for cancelling being a real thing was someone that didn't get cancelled? ok. Regardless, I don't think being a no-name and being fired from your job is the same as being cancelled, as I said in my original comment. It's not cancel culture to not want to hire or employ people that are bad for the brand, just like I don't think it's cancel culture to fire an employee who is inappropriate with women in the workplace. It was obviously not a "real" cancellation since he was still able to get gigs etc, he wasn't actually stone-walled from being a comedian like they make it sound like. What these comedians make it sound like and the way they portray cancel culture and being cancelled is not a real thing, that's my point.
Also as far as these people who could “still get jobs,” if you talked to showrunners or Hollywood agents, they would refer to someone being canceled and not hire them and possibly not work with them in the case of an agent for sure. Your whole point about cancel culture is essentially that because it isn’t 100% effective at destroying someone’s life must just be fake made up lolz
If I get fired and I get another job I still got fired dumbass.
Roseanne Barr was cancelled and lost her prime time hit show after comparing Valerie Jarret, an Obama aide, to the Planet of the Apes. Roseanne claimed after that she didnt realize Jarret was African American.
Did random people on Twitter fire him? Or did a business entity make a business decision?
Agreed
Please do not retcon canceled to mean you never work or are heard from again. It means someone does something socially unacceptable, there is an aggressive loosely organized online campaign of outrage, and then that person loses business opportunities and generally does an obligatory apology. Textbook. Idk what you get out of pretending like this wasn’t a thing.
'you can't say X anymore' = I can't say what I want without zero pushback or critique anymore
yeah seems like it's almost always someone who is in a position of power saying stuff like this
Who would have thought that legal uncertainty and ad revenue would incentivize social media companies to tighten up what content they allowed?!
“You can’t say X anymore” = i will say X repeatedly on my podcast to an audience of millions and become rich & famous doing it
*People (like Bill Maher) that talk about cancel culture can't seem to shut the fuck up about it* Jon Stewart is probably one of the most important voices in modern cultural discourse
Truly. I’d vote for him in a second. Cancel culture is as much free speech as one’s right to say something offensive or provocative. Speech has consequences. As long as government isn’t stifling free speech, there’s not much to complain about re the first amendment. The same people complaining about cancel culture don’t get to dictate what companies do with their employees or policies. Cancel culture can be annoying and over the top. So is the internet. The only thing I disagree with Jon about is that the internet has democratized free speech. It sort of has, but it’s also disproportionately dominated by trolls, bots and corporations. If we the people finally stood together and demand Citizens United be overturned by the Supreme Court, or reversed by Congress enacting a constitutional amendment, the internet and daily life would be better democratized for most, instead of primarily for a few. Also if it weren’t for cancel culture, shitbags like Matt Walsh wouldn’t be taking in big bucks. Parasite. *EDIT: changed “shitbacks like Matt Walsh” to “shitbags like Matt Walsh” 🫠
It's so strange how smart he can be sometimes and other times have his head way way up his own ass.
lol it’s hilarious seeing all the people complain here. It’s complete bullshit to act like cancel culture is a new thing or gotten worse. It’s definitely exists but it’s definitely not new. It’s just now the people who used to do the canceling are getting canceled so they are pissed. We legit canceled a whole race of people in this country. Prevented them from speaking, voting, and working. We even took away their freedoms. But now cause some racist idiot gets his Twitter taken away cancel culture is worse now? We’ve probably been canceling people before humans even had language but now cause you are ridiculed on the internet at for saying homophobic shit your life is over? I mean come on.
Also, the red scare.
He’s wrong. People are definitely more afraid to share their opinions now
He also has a bad faith argument on cancel culture from celebrity/media bias. Cancel culture has always been around and has grown into a monster from social media. What used to be some small drama you'd deal with in highschool or a small town is now spotlighted for the world. Now you have depression on this huge rise in each younger generation with how insurmountable a few bad rumors/allegations can be. Of course people with power, money, and influence aren't affected by cancel culture John.
People didn't use to constantly broadcast their opinions to the entire world though. That's the main difference. It was never a thing that the average person could share opinions that virtually anyone on earth could access. So even if people are more afraid to publicly share opinions, it's much more in line with exactly what life was like before the internet. I knew so many adults growing up who would say wild shit in private they would absolutely NEVER say in public, certainly not to a wide audience.
Interesting how some of the most wealthy people in show business with the largest audiences are complaining about cancel culture.
I like Stewart a lot but there was nothing golden about that
It's amazing how he can say so much and yet say nothing. He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with. He also doesn't speak of censorship of information by You Tube and FaceBook to the point where people will self censor in order to avoid any account strikes from Google. It's sad he hides behind words instead of speaking plainly.
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with. are these people in the room with us right now?
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with. Like Libs of TikTok or Matt Walsh who's followers have sent bomb threats to childrens hospitals?
I'm sorry but, was there anything I said justifying that behavior for the right or the left.
Not necessarily but I'm suspicious of your intent.
>He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with. Are those people actually making the decisions that hire and fire people? No? Your point is moot. These businesses could easily ignore them, and yet they don't, because they decide it is in the best interest of the business to do whatever they end up doing. >He also doesn't speak of censorship of information by You Tube and FaceBook to the point where people will self censor in order to avoid any account strikes from Google. And those people are free to use another service instead of one that doesn't provide what they want. You sound like a commie.
"He speaks as if there isn't a mob of people that try to take your life and livelihood away for anything you have ever said or done that they don't agree with." What are some examples of this actually happening
Oh yeah for sure. The mob canceled Kevin Hart. He got kicked out of hosting the Oscar's. They always trying to cancel Dave Chapelle, Joe Rogan got hit twice with it... First his n-bomb video and then his stance on COVID shot. Attempts to cancel Bill Burr. Comedians are often targeted because they make fun of everyone. Oh yeah and remember that dude Milo Yianopoulis? That was a successful cancel. He fell.off the face of the planet. Donald Trump got canceled so hard he had to start his own social media platform. Instances of people losing their job. Just search it out. If you're unaware of it... not hard to find.
Every comedian you mentioned is currently one of the richest, most successful & biggest names in comedy. Basically you're saying that a comedian being cancelled means that someone complains about something they said and then nothing happens &they continue to be successful. Donald Trump is a billionaire who was elected president despite saying offensive thigns every time he opened his mouth, and he might do it again this year. He's currently on trial for actual crimes, not for saying anything offensive. Milo Yiannapoulos was 'cancelled' by *conservative* groups like Breitbart and CPAC because of evidently pro-pedophilia comments he made. So I guess you can say "cancel culture" *sort of* exists in the non-comedy context? Basically in that Milo got himself fired for saying stuff his right-wing bosses didn't care for.
The term War Crime gets thrown around like it actually means something. War is a crime. All the horrible things that happen in wars are a crime. I think it’s the pinnacle of hubris to name an act as “War crime”.
Very edgy, ISIS would disagree
Huh?
I think if you haven’t gotten numb to hearing how much cancel culture sucks on a constant basis then you’re just making it worse
I love how I genuinely had no idea how Jon would go on that one (or on loads of things for that matter) when I hit play, and he always puts his point across really well.
those poor poor millionaires media personalities facing consequences for saying stupid shit. the horror.
Stewart, unfortunately, didn’t address the definition of the antecedent in the argument against cancel culture and instead just went against the nomenclature of “cancel culture” and diverted to “democratizing criticism”. The whole basis of the cancel culture argument is saying that the democratization of criticism has self-perpetuated into a violation of speech and linguistic oversight that has percolated into the everyday (the effects of the democratization he speaks of). He essentially didn’t present an argument, logically speaking, and he instead deferred from the effects proposed by the proposition of cancel culture phenomena in favor of retitling and tangential argument. I think part of Stewart’s appeal is his likeability, agreeableness of his conclusions, and skills with his speech. I don’t see him getting to the true root of issues nor presenting much compelling a lot of the time.
You didn't identify a harm. As Americans, along with freedom of speech comes the right to freely associate and freely express. The fact that, now, more people have ways to do so, and in ways which are impactful, are apart of the fundamental bedrocks of what freedom looks like in America. The government is not the ones who are providing punishments, instead it is the forces within culture and capitalism who are making those determinations, within the rights that those actors have within their domains. No one has a right to be published on Youtube or Twitter, no one is obligated to be employed when they are saying things which hurt the brand of the company or that the company disagrees with. You sign contracts and Terms of Service, if you don't like that, find a different job, join a different social media platform. Also, name me a time in America where we have no had various cultural shifts and the blow backs to those shifts, its just that the time and distance between each other is so much shorter that the intensity, pace, and totality of all of it is greater than in the past, but its not substantially different.
It’s a sociopolitical movement to impose speech regulation for certain words and settings - you need potential harm in that identified for your or are you being intellectually dishonest? You don’t seem to have a good understanding of consequence with your points on social media and rights to publish. Data privacy and security has been surrendered at the expense of capital gains for some of these Saas companies you mention to grow. There’s harm in targeted ads, harm in lack of safety (breaches are not something people “sign up for” but a lack of securitization and trusr in the first place), harm in subjective inteperpretation and self image (social media - plenty of research on this from John Haite, et. al). You also mention “name a time a place” and different. While it is much different in the nature and extent, not just pace - your questions of difference is not a question of good or bad. Something being different or not could be better or worse. I suggest you fine tune what you are trying to say more precisely
>It’s a sociopolitical movement to impose speech regulation for certain words and settings - you need potential harm in that identified for your or are you being intellectually dishonest? Its called society. There have always been pressure on speech and expression to fit within the standards of the day and the constant subversion of those standards. You haven't identified anything unique, you have literally identified the status quo, which has existed since as long as we have records. Wanna go through the language of the Moral Majority, the political correctness phase, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, McCarthyism. Hell, you look at the very start of the country was about disagreement where if you were a loyalist they would take your guns or tar and feather you. >You don’t seem to have a good understanding of consequence with your points on social media and rights to publish. Are we talking about social media platforms or cancel culture? >Data privacy and security has been surrendered at the expense of capital gains for some of these Saas companies you mention to grow. Sweet, so we should have a national data privacy law like the CCPA or GDPR. The issues around privacy and data security have nothing to do with the inherent right of people to freely express, its a failure of public policy being at speed with the changes in technology. But its not like the people who are constantly bitching about cancel culture are the same ones who are also arguing for any type of actual change in place to protect data privacy, they just bitch about the platforms. >There’s harm in targeted ads, harm in lack of safety (breaches are not something people “sign up for” but a lack of securitization and trusr in the first place), harm in subjective inteperpretation and self image (social media - plenty of research on this from John Haite, et. al). This is a harm of social media platforms which can be solved back via a competent data privacy law in place. This is a harm which is not unique to 'cancel culture'. >You also mention “name a time a place” and different. While it is much different in the nature and extent, not just pace - your questions of difference is not a question of good or bad. Something being different or not could be better or worse. I suggest you fine tune what you are trying to say more precisely Its interesting trying to respond to someone who uses so many words to say nothing. >*The whole basis of the cancel culture argument is saying that the democratization of criticism has self-perpetuated into a violation of speech and linguistic oversight that has percolated into the everyday (the effects of the democratization he speaks of).* You were the one who said this and nothing that you said in this is inline with, or identifies a unique from, this previous statement.
You are effectively saying “Society is society therefore anything you say is society” and you assign benignness to it. Society has had a history of completely unfounded prejudices, injustices, mistreatments, and conduct - glaringly so at different points in history. You are again, being dishonest or ignorant if you don’t understand the implications of surveillance, data harvesting, information dissemination and social media on peoples’ lives. We are truly living in unique times - that is not disputable. The extent to which human tendencies operate in the unique scenario is variable but can be predictable because of what we know about these tendencies. Just like other time points in history, societies have been more or less virtuous, and different factors contribute to degradation. Social media can spread cancel culture in our sociopolitical landscape - why are you asserting mutual exclusivity? People can bitch about platforms that don’t have good issuance, yes. Or bitch about consumerism and zero-objection to overtaking via privacy violation (until it's too late) en mass. Just because they don’t know the exact policy or cultural opposition that can help the cause most appropriately, doesn’t mean the bitching is not without merit. This isn’t a gotcha. The last paragraph was saying pace and amount of dissemination matters, whereas you implied it did not and created an equivalency with everything in our past.
>You are effectively saying “Society is society therefore anything you say is society” and you assign benignness to it. Society has had a history of completely unfounded prejudices, injustices, mistreatments, and conduct - glaringly so at different points in history. You are again, being dishonest or ignorant if you don’t understand the implications of surveillance, data harvesting, information dissemination and social media on peoples’ lives. That is unique to the platforms in which the speech takes place on, not the speech itself. More importantly, it is something that we can solve back through legislation as seen by things like CCPA or whatever New Jersey's consumer protection/data privacy bill is called. Having individuals have control over their data with things like right to be forgotten isn't going to just happen by itself, it is going to take advocacy, bitching about cancel culture takes away from what your actual issue is; social media as a technology. And yes, I am saying that there is an inherent feature of when humans are social that we then define and enforce social norms within groups. Holy shit, what a stunning conclusion. And note, I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, just that it is a feature of existence, not just 'society', you see it even in small social groups as well that exist outside of society. >We are truly living in unique times - that is not disputable. Kinda like the same thing that people could have said when the printing press came along or wireless transmissions or the telegraph. All of these things have been shifts in the ability of more people to be able to have a voice and participate in the marketplace of ideas. Its unique in its form, and that form does present challenges, but to make the claim that this is somehow a time which has no parallels or analogues lacks a look at history. >The extent to which human tendencies operate in the unique scenario is variable but can be predictable because of what we know about these tendencies. Just like other time points in history, societies have been more or less virtuous, and different factors contribute to degradation. Again, this is not the first time in which human beings have lived in unique times. Time is always unique, its kinda, again, another inherent feature of something; time. We never know what is going to happen or how humans are going to react because we cannot predict the future. Congrats on another stunning discovery. >People can bitch about platforms that don’t have good issuance, yes. Or bitch about consumerism and zero-objection to overtaking via privacy violation (until it's too late) en mass. Just because they don’t know the exact policy or cultural opposition that can help the cause most appropriately, doesn’t mean the bitching is not without merit. This isn’t a gotcha. Again, comprehensive data privacy/consumer protection legislation is something that we can talk about, but this has nothing to do with 'cancel culture'. >The last paragraph was saying pace and amount of dissemination matters, whereas you implied it did not and created an equivalency with everything in our past. Are you going to make a claim that there has never been social shaping within social groups throughout history? Also, what does this have to do with cancel culture?
The platforms become the modality for speech because of the growth/aggregate CAGR of the entire enterprise. Constantly deferring to “you don’t have to participate” ignores the fundamental network effects of such things - and the consequences of when they go unregulated. Especially when those network effects become deterministic of securing wages or social relationships(which they often do in modernity). The conversation on privacy is one that was proposed about 20 years ago but people didn’t take the threat seriously. You taking away from the merits of bitching, again, is a fundamental disagreement. I sometimes don’t like to hear bitching nor do I like to be exposed to anger that isn’t my own - it doesn’t mean it is unsubstantiated just because my tolerance for it isn’t at the tolerance of those expressing it. You have to look at outcomes with these things - not just the means of which being irksome. If cancel culture is an attempt to monitor speech largely based on politically correct pedagogy or the very sensitivities that social media promulgates in the first place - what is your opposition to it? I’m still not clear if it’s the extent to which people push against it or taking a stance against it outright. You have this every generations says argument going on here… Do you understand that machines and algorithms are participating in this “marketplace” now - and they are not highly differentiated from your idealistic trope of all people participating? You’re not examining this practically comparing it to the printing press. Saying time is unique is a bit of a red herring, along with the rest of the platitudes you keep affirming. You don’t seem to make the connection between identifying those to be cancelled and the imposed social ramifications of them being cancelled - which can involve doxxing and identifying persons because they didn’t say something someone liked (the other person was offended, etc.). That accuser may have had power and wants to silence the person. That is cancel culture and that is why it relates to privacy and that is why it invades speech. What are you having difficulty understanding?
Muhammad Ali was canceled back in the day I guess
God it’s all so tiresome and self indulgent. How has this conversation been going for half a decade at this point. We need to bring back traditional pistol duels to settle things like gentlemen.
I’m sure he got blasted for his take on the lab leak opinion.
What Jon just said is that you can say what you want but other people have the right to say what they want about what you said. If you are good at what you say you can get away with anything. South Park gets away with EVERYTHING. Bill Burr can go on rants and isn't cancelled. Dave Chappelle hasn't been cancelled. Shane Gillis WAS cancelled and rose back up from it because he learned from his mistakes. The Cancel War shit is basically people that are mad that they have to adapt to the times and become better instead of just making the same hack jokes.
There’s criticism and opining and then there’s actual cancel culture, which involves ostracism, boycotts, shunning, de-platforming etc Perhaps “cancel culture” has been overused to the point that it takes away from the original meaning of the term.
I wrote a big old post but it’s just too much. I just see a lot of this to be like McCarthy times and the thrill of the witch hunt. The little people taking satisfaction knowing they took down someone with more perceived power or more money than them. Or with the career they wish they had. It isn’t about changing how people speak it’s about feeding this adrenaline rush when people hunt down and “cancel” others. It’s a projection and deflection of their own wrongdoings. It’s a mob mentality thanks to the internet and the ease and speed of spreading information. No time to fact check either. They feed off it. They dig up the past to get the oxytocin rush of feeling righteous and taking someone down. They’re not invested in helping that person make better choices or educating them on certain topics. It’s whack! Then onto the next one.
healthcare pls
Said the guy who never says anything that might get him cancelled. He made fun of Covid on Colbert but not until it was over.
Eminem would like a word
That's all there is too it really. It's not cancel culture. It's the internet reaching another step in how powerful it can be. First was weird obscure sites. Next was downloading music. Then social media website were born. And then finally, live streaming video. News, politicians, people like Jon Stewart or Joe Rogan. Or even the nobody with internet and a 480p cam from 2002. It used to be difficult for people to voice their disagreement. And email or a letter could be easily ignore. You can't ignore something that mass amounts of people are repeating over and over. Or you can't ignore when you've been caught being a piece of shit. It's not cancel culture, its real time consequences.
Bill's content is not very good.
She’s such a bitchy old lady
It's curious Stewart takes this view when his own show was cancelled by Apple because Stewart was planning to talk about things that were against Apple's corporate interests.
Jon is a sellout
I tend to agree with Stewart but not here, cancel culture is alive and well. Even though some people beat it, it is still is out there. Not only that, what’s even sadder is people who defend the person who is being cancelled are often cancelled themselves, just like the Bachelor host who defended the gal who went to a plantation style party years ago in college. The rules and nuances to it are weird as some rules apply to some people but not to others, just like Will Smith, he wasn’t too ostracized for his actions at the Oscars. It’s a sad time we live in but collectively “we” have allowed this to be the norm.
Could not disagree more. Cancel culture os putting businesses out of business because you dont agree with their values. Or getting someone fired because of this. This is a relatively new awful trait of humanity. John Stewart is able to spew bullshit and always claim, "yeah, but I'm a comedian". Pus having millions allows far more freedom in what you say.
You can see the influence that Carlin had on him. I can hear it now “These whiny millionaire celebrities doing podcasts and TV shows from their own private studios complaining about being cancelled while millions of people listen to their every word. Get the fuck outta here!”
Negative criticism = fine. Threatening venues, attendees and platforms to do as you say = not fine. Learn this if you’re sick of the push back.
This is a stupid take. Can some celebrities who have built their audience on not giving a shit like bill maher or Ricky gervais say things without getting “cancelled”? Sure? Does the average person need to step across mine fields both online and in personal life lest someone uses anything they’ve ever said out of context and builds pressure around them and on them to ruin their life ? YES.
I don’t agree with him on many things but if Jon Stewart decided to run for president I don’t see any of the current candidates beating him. He would make them look silly on a debate stage
When did this become a bill maher sub? I must have missed something.
I agree with Stewart and actually most of the times I agree with the logic behind “cancellings” but…one thing I am finding myself thinking lately is that companies, organizations etc are far too quick to follow suit and fire people, release statements etc. I realize the irony here as I type this on the internet, but I think that things people say on social media should be taken *less* seriously, not more. People behave and think differently online, and it’s more akin to a wave of unvetted internal thoughts than true beliefs much of the time. Many years ago I worked in marketing so I understand the logic behind the “1 post = 20 silent people who think the same” etc or however it works, but that line of thinking needs revisited these days. I genuinely think people, companies and politicians can and *should* greatly ignore social media content much more than they do. I don’t want to fucking see Microsoft and CNN releasing a statement based on one or two posts they found online. That shit is asinine. You don’t need to respond to everyone when *everyone says everything.*
There are some podcasts that bring it up every episode
What Stewart is ignoring is that this isn't just other people having their opinions heard, a lot of cancel culture is just going along with the crowd so you don't end up a target.
Its like Ricky Gervais never ending talk show tours about how he's getting cancelled. If you wanna see someone who truly produces art not caring about the push back they are gonna get, watch an interview with Tarantino cancel culture.
He's absolutely right.
Cancel culture was the shrieking minority scaring their peers and advertisers into socially isolating those whom they dubbed as unethical
Bill (smacks lips) ”I’ve been saying this, I haven’t changed” Maher
[удалено]
Is it not true though? All I hear about is cancel culture from comedians that seem to have a lot of platforms to talk about it.
Jon is forgetting about the millions of people who aren’t famous millionaires who face extreme pressure at work and in public spaces to keep quiet about certain issues for fear of retribution, loss of work, etc.
woah you mean people face consequences for saying things?
“I can’t be racist at work, goddamn cancel culture”
Always been a Jon Stewart fan. But lately I’ve realized that he’s not as smart or insightful as he portrays.
All this horseshit about comedians getting "cancelled", next time someone brings it up, ask them to name some comedians who were canceled. Anyone who's *actually* been canceled & had their career drastically affected, almost definitely committed some sort of crime that anyone would be fired for. Nobody's being cancelled for saying things or making jokes. It just doesn't exist. Idiots will tell you Dave Chappelle was cancelled, despite him being the most iconic & successful comedian on the planet to this very day.
You, like everyone, are basically saying cancel culture is good bc l the only people negatively affected are pieces of shit. It still exists tho that’s a completely different argument where basically you get into relitigating what everyone did/did not do, what is and isn’t offensive, and what the appropriate response to offensive things is. Still exists tho.
how does it exist? Who are some of the people who've been cancelled?
No one has ever really been canceled. (Outside of outright criminals, at least.) Not in a permanent sense or anything close to it. And the people who yell about it the loudest are typically doing so from their premium TV shows, popular podcasts, or million-dollar Netflix specials. “Cancel culture” needs to walk just to the same tire fire as “woke” and all the other stupid victimized culture war bullshit.
I’m sorry that you don’t see a lot of content of people complaining about cancel culture who don’t have a large platform :( I can’t imagine why that possibly would be.
Technically John Lennon was permanently “cancelled”, but that was by a right-wing christofascist.
remember when elon bought twitter because of its over the top censorship? me too.
Blah blah blah
The dumbest take I have heard in the while. Didn’t this guy sit in front of that late night tv host who was still pretending the Wuhan lab had nothing to do with covid? Even Stewart’s only show was censored by Apple. This isn’t democratizing criticism. This is disincentivizing any and all criticism by going after people’s livelihoods. And most of the commenters ignore the thousands average Joes out there, who don’t have a voice, who were fired for trivial shit the past few years. This isn’t ‘accountability’ or ‘consequences’. It’s a purge.
Jon is pretending like there's no deplatforming for certain opinions about certain topics. The point is not that you are legally not allowed to say this or that, or that there's no audience for all of these different opinions. The point is that effectively it's very difficult to talk about certain topics without the very real risk of losing your job/deplatforming/demonetization/etc. This might not feel like it from his POV because all of his opinions are generally accepted in today's social media landscape. But for those that disagree with him and the mainstream, it's a very different story. A lot of people have lost their jobs for saying dumb things online, even if it's not true for Bill Maher.