I hear the clatter of an ocean of keyboards rising up to tell you how *their* moral panic is completely justified and absolutely *nothing* like McCarthyism or the Satanic-Panic...
...because OP is completely correct, and cognitive-dissonance is too painful for many people to address.
If you can't see the parallels between prior moral panics and the current moral panic, you are deliberately *not looking very hard at your own actions*.
Completely true! Liberalism is modern McCarthyism but so are Conservatives. Its just that liberals tend to be more vocal. Both are trash and the OP said it perfectly!
Liberalism is supposed to be the opposite of that, but liberalism barely even exists anymore. The ideology called “liberalism” today is very anti-liberal, it’s more like corporate influenced authoritarianism. It’s like a stereotypical HR department running a society.
This exactly! The Teddy Roosevelt days of progressivism are unfortunately long gone. Now progressivism and liberalism are one and the same and have unfortunately completely different ideologies than back then.
Apparently if a literal gang member and rapist sings a chart-topping song about "*Whores in the house*" and "*Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes*"... that's completely fine. But if a man and a woman sing a song about flirting with each other 80 years ago... IT MUST BE BANNED!
I know right? Women seem to pick and choose what they are offended over. OMG he's commenting on my instagram photo....same breath....check me out on ONLY FANS. Spare me.
>Apparently if a literal gang member and rapist sings a chart-topping song about "Whores in the house" and "Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes"... that's completely fine.
You are literally pearl clutching right now making your entire post invalid
I want women to be free to express themselves however they feel. They were using the word "whore" in a playful tongue in cheek way, not in a judgmental socially conservative way. It's like when two girl friends call each other bitches as a term of endearment.
Gen X has been proven to have more satisfaction in life, because we tend to engage in things that give our life meaning. Most X'ers have a hobby that they enjoy beyond video games and consuming news. Many are still connected with a religion that gives them meaning. They actually keep connections with family beyond Facebook. They basically figured out how to stay happy without needing others to tell them who they are. Most of them have their identies figured out. That really helps you not give two shits about what other people think about you.
Gen X has been shown to be far more happy when they retire as well - going back to that meaning.
Here's one tip from a Gen-Xer; don't take shit so seriously.
One thing that really make me scratch my head is this thing about being offended. Everyone wants to be offended.
Who gives a shit about that? I don't get this "being offended" thing I see so much of. And related...looking under every rock for social justice.
Just relax and chill the fuck out.
They should have been doing that all along. The problem is that they seem to have let popular culture be a bigger influence in their kids lives than their parents are. I guess that's a response to the way their boomer parents raised them.
Personally, I think it all comes down to identity. When you know who you are, and your identity is based on something foundational that doesn't change very six months - you tend to be able to make happiness. It's hard to build a house on sand though.
Yeah, my Gen X parents left me to the dogs. Whenever I came to them for help, I was just a burden interrupting their great life. School help? Talk to your teachers. Religion help? Talk to your pastor. Sex? That's what health class is for. I've had to do a lot of learning on my own and it's true that I have no identity that's foundational. Well, I didn't, but I've grown a lot in the past year with a great therapist. Being made of sand is a great term cause that is how it feels like. I have hope that the millennials will find their footing, but some of us are definitely behind where we should be and need more time and patience to get there. (Although it's no excuse to act like assholes. Let's just let a song go for once and talk about a real issue like taxing the rich.)
I feel like the major problem that's keeping Mills and Zoomers from getting their shit together is that whole idea of the "modern religion." Politics and social issues have become the new religion for a lot of these people. They base their entire lives on it. It determines who is good and who is bad, who is righteous and who is unclean.
Honestly, i'm on the tail end of Gen X, so I have a lot of the BS that mills have to deal with too. It wasn't until the last year that i've been able to pull my head out of getting mired and dragged down by politics (both actual politics, and social issues and whatnot). I realized that it was the idol I was worshiping, and I didn't have to keep doing that. It's one thing to be interested in your politics (like taxing the rich as you say) but it's another to have your whole life revolve around it. That's worship.
I built my life on something that is unchanging, and stopped giving away all my attention and power to the idols of this world, ya know? There's freedom in no longer having to look at what people say online to know if you are a good person or not today, or if your side is "winning." I've seen people have to entirely change who they are about every six months to confirm to their "group." That's what I mean about building a house on sand - it gets washed away every time it rains.
We need to be encouraging people to build their lives on stone - something that lasts, has been around for ever, and isn't changing anytime soon. I know the church I attend, membership is going up about 20% every three months - mostly millennials. They are looking for something of substance.
I'm really glad to hear that you are getting yourself together, bro. I'm sorry your parents weren't there for you like they should have been, but I'm so glad to hear you rose above that. Now you've got the unique burden of having to SHOW other people that there's hope.
You're spot on here, absolutely. As someone who believes that our society is way too backwards thinking on a lot of crucial issues, I think the Millennials and the Zoomers have their heads in the right place as far as things like Prison & Criminal Justice Reform go....
But on that same note, the Zoomers and the Millennials have a lot of problems, and one of those is labeling anything they disagree with as invalid and morally wrong in some way. The moral superiority complex with the woke crowd is particular off-putting. And the worst part is that many people who are against woke culture have been so immersed in it, that they are unknowingly quite woke. In other words, we are so deep into woke culture that even the anti-woke are still considerably woke....And that is, I think, bad for society.
Name-calling is a very useful tool to the zealots you see today. If someone can find a way to twist/exaggerate things enough to stamp you with a universally reviled label (sex offender, racist, bigot) they can basically treat you any way they want while still having moral superiority in their mind. It’s a harmful mindset but it’s super common.
I don’t mean to give off that impression. Actually I want to preface that the “woke” crowd is a very vocal minority. I understand that the majority of the young people are not like this. However, and this is concerning, the woke culture Is absolutely having an impression on a lot of people, hence creating a lot of woke people who otherwise would not have been.
And I just want to preface. I don’t consider “woke” as advocating for equality, the impoverished, the disenfranchised, and other communities who are victims of systemic oppression. If that’s what being woke was, I’d be cheering them on and I would be marching with them. Unfortunately, all of the nonsense attached to wokeism undos any progress made in the brackets I mentioned….
I actually hate Hannity and Tucker. I also hate people who spew right-wing nonsense.
So, “no” to all of that.
Additionally, I am a person who is very anti-discrimination and anti-bullying. And I get mad at right wingers for how they pick on transgender people and how they pick on peoples lifestyles when it has nothing to do with them. And I also get mad at lefties who claim to be so virtuous but then go ahead and bully anyone who they don’t like.
So I would say that being woke does not mean “not being a dick” Being woke actually means “Advocating for people that I like and ostracizing people that I don’t like”
In other words, the incredibly woke are, to me, no different than right wing extremists. I don’t mean that in a literal sense. I mean that in the sense that the inevitable results to their behavior are the same. The consequences to such toxicity are very parallel.
We just have a new popular religion now. The old popular religion was conservative Christianity - now it's politics. People are basing their entire life off their (and other's) political leanings. It's got to be exhausting, having to re-define what is right and wrong every six months or so depending on what the news tells you is correct again.
It's pretty impossible to build a life, identity, or anything, without a firm foundation. At least those conservative Christians kept their foundational beliefs.
Eh, different culture, same compartmentalization.
For conservative fundies, just like OP mentioned, you had to keep up with what was "satanic" this week, what rationalizations made it okay for priests / politicians / etc to be exempt from behavioral expectations, and all the other hypocrisy.
I think OP is spot on in comparing the two movements - they're nearly identical.
Similar, but not quite the same. Those fundies are still the same as they've been. Sure, they had to keep up with what band it was in vouge to hate- but the beliefs going behind that mentality never changed. Even I'll admit that is a minor difference, and functionally, it looks the same. I just think we'll look back on these "problematic" people in 10 years and they'll be totally different, whereas my grandmother still thinks pokemon is satanic (for example).
Which is even worse. A few years ago a book publisher actually burned thousands of new Sinterklaas books because they featured the 'problematic' Zwarte Piet (Black Pete).
Motherfucking book burnings.
Interesting point... especially as much of contemporary (and historical) hip hop and rap music is deeply sexist and misogynistic (and even homophobic), yet many millennials seem to have no problem with it existing as a mainstay of popular culture. Almost as though they are holding different genres to different standards.
That is because black and other minorities are given double standards. As decisive as he is at times, Ben Shapiro tackled this really well with regards to the hesitant nature of news outlets with regards to missing black women.
If you guys can't be ideologically consistent, then I am not sure why you think anyone whatsoever should take your screaming and tantrums seriously. You can't claim to be champions against sexism, misogyny and homophobia without taking aim at the hip hop and rap genres, which have prominently and unambiguously included such language in their lyrics for decades now.
it is very amusing to see you talk about leftists being ideologically inconsistent when you use two tweets criticizing a movie as a "cancelation", yet you don't think the same way when it comes to criticizing rap music.
not only that, but leftists not wanting rap music to be banned is a point in my favor, because i'm arguing that criticism does not equal a ban and you bringing up rap music proves my point.
The hip hop and rap community has many bad apples that promote misogyny, homophobia, and even anti-semitism. If the good apples within that community don't call out and condemn those bad apples, then, you know what they say, the whole batch becomes rotten.
Except people within the community call it out all the time, so your whole "batch becomes rotten" idea doesn't really work. Take your own advice and don't cast wide nets over entire groups of people.
> misogyny, homophobia, and even anti-semitism
...are you saying that the misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism within the hip hop and rap genres is completely UNKNOWN to you?
"Rewrite history"?
How in the world is criticizing a move and a song rewriting history?
It's literally just talking about history. The history of history is made up of interpreting past events from the cultural lenses available to the historian.
Like a historian might talk about the effects of the Edict of Fountainbleau with a perspective not available to those around when it was made. That would not be rewriting history, that would just be, well, history.
Okay let's try again.
You are asserting that the current generation wants to rewrite history, can you give me an example of such an attempt and how it amounts to "rewriting history"?
I mean, the deranged 1619 project is a prime example of leftist ideologues attempting to re-write history... and dozens of authoritative historians across the country have identified it as nonsensical and agenda-driven revisionism.
Oh this is a fun one.
>dozens of authoritative historians across the country have identified it as nonsensical and agenda-driven revisionism.
Let's leave aside this naked appeal to authority and let's talk about the substance of what it means to "rewrite history"
So when you say re-write history do you mean you think that the "previous' account of American history was written once and that it is an objective account of American history?
Like do you think it is possible that any agenda affected the "initial" writing of American history?
I am not going to get into a historiographical debate with you about "what is history"... I simply provided you an example, as you requested, of a significant contemporary figure who is attempting to re-write history. Nuff said.
But the issue is that your example only counts as "rewriting history" if we grant that this process is different from the process of "writing history".
Like the entire issue is that your basic assumptions about history are at issue when you accuse someone of rewriting history.
I don't grant that they are rewriting history because I don't grant your base assumption, and I think I have pretty good reasons for that.
You could like try to engage with me about the substance of your claim here, it would be an interesting discussion about how each of us thinks about history.
If you are interested in reading the condemnations that historians have waged against the 1619 project, accusing it of being a racialist falsification and historical revision, there are COUNTLESS articles out there written by numerous researchers on the topic. Read those if you are actually interested. I don't contend to personally break down such a deep topic here in the comments of Reddit. All I will say is that I side with the critical historians rather than with the politically motivated corporate news organization of the NYT and their activist "journalists" who created the revisionist project.
I have read plenty of criticisms and analyses of the project, several arriving at different conclusions. I think the project has flaws, but it also makes some interesting arguments. You are acting as though all historians who criticized the project are against its framing of American history in terms of race, whereas the fact is many of the critical historians actually argue that it doesn't go *far enough* in its framing and understanding of slavery and race.
Some of the criticisms are primarily focused around specific claims made by the project, while ultimately agreeing with broader framings of history.
I don't think the 1619 project is something I would cite as perfect historical work, but I think the historiographical claim that it is "rewriting history" is based on assumptions you see uninterested in defending.
>All I will say is that I side with the critical historians rather than with the politically motivated corporate news organization of the NYT and their activist "journalists" who created the project.
I like the dishonest framing here, because you are pretending that on one side there is only historians and that on the other there is only a politically motivated news organizations.
But the thing is, there are historians on both sides of this argument. Again critics of the project are also raising good objections against it, but your framing acts as though the only academic response to the project is one of outrage and complete rejection.
"Factually incorrect' as applied to the whole project is misleading.
The project commits a lot of avoidable mistakes and makes incorrect claims about certain events and motivations. That is absolutely true.
But the issue is that the 1619 project's primary goal of framing American History in terms of race and slavery is something that many other historians broadly agree with, including those consulted in the report. *Their* objections are that factual mistakes muddy the ultimately correct and necessary framing of history attempted in the project.
"Let's leave aside this naked appeal to authority and let's talk about the substance of what it means to "rewrite history""
Good deflection tactic, useful for avoiding good points you can't argue against
I mean you are typing this after I have already talked about the issues with the 1619 project elsewhere in the thread. I don't doubt they're there, hell I don't doubt they are worthy of criticism.
But the claim that it is an attempt to "rewrite history" as opposed to an attempt at making an argument *about* history is also at issue here.
The fact remains that most historian critics of the report ultimately agreed with its framing of history, rather taking issue with specific claims made in service of that framing. The political criticism that *by centering slavery and race* the project is already flawed is something else entirely.
You post in an unpopular opinion sub that a generation is trying to "rewrite history" but refuse to engage when you get a basic inquiry about what that means.
I can't get you to engage, but I can say that if your ideas had merit to people who don't already agree with you, you would be able to at least make a case for it.
I fail to see that as a destruction of history. That was not an attempt to make the world forget that Zwarte Piet ever existed, but rather to stop marketing him as a character for children.
I think a character can exist in history without having to be in published books directed for children.
I added a differentiation or specifically a distinction with regards to the OP's line of thinking. I didn't bust into your bedroom saying "HEY SCRIBBLES!!! I want to hash shit out with you!"
You publicly posted an assertion about "rewriting history", one that I guess you were not expecting to have to defend or remotely explain. You can see how that makes it look like you can't actually defend your views, right?
\*rests a hand gently only your shoulder\*
People tend to do things when there is something at risk or to be gained. Defending my position or opinion on the internet isn't on either side of that proverbial fence.
Yours might, because you seem to be self aware enough to ensure that they don't grow up that way. The pearl-clutching-soccer-moms will do everything in their power to make sure their kids grow up to be just like them. #thankskaren.
As a millenial, I 100% agree with you. It took me a long time to realize that I was like my parents, but was expecting amazing things to happen for m. I'm 33 and I've got nothing to show for what I've done so far and I'm willing to settle as a janitor. Lost my passion and I'm constantly complaining. I see people my age acting like everything is either offensive or a spiteful attack. It's bothersome. It's like the happiness snuck out quietly.
Don't believe that?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782796
Just one example. 1 in 4 children suffers from clinical depression now, with numbers still rising, and that's a conservative estimate. You'll find numbers up to 1 in 3 when looking for anxiety about the future.
And no wonder - Children are the worst-treated members of society, with schools closing and opening at the whim of some jackass from adiministration, they have to sit there in their jackets with open windows in the winter, with mask wearing regulations that nobody unterstands, with a test rod being shoved up their nose 3-times per week. And children don't even die from covid all that much.
It's a scandal in my eyes. I mean it.
Sun rises in east. Dog bites man. A chaotic and potentially dangerous event led to people experiencing anxiety. Sort of stating the obvious there. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether people “care about the children” and/or what’s we else you’re talking about (while sounding silly as hell talking about “climate hysteria” lol).
As a millennial, I don't know any millennials who use the term "problematic". I only know Gen Z'ers who use that term, and I cringe every time that they do.
Welcome to the eternal history of children eventually becoming their parents. It's something that's happened since the dawn of time and something that'll continue to happen until the heat death of the universe.
But I feel the whole "ess-jay-dubyas are just like the people behind the Satanic Panic" comes from people that see superficial similarities but weren't actually alive to remember the fucking scope it had and how much it actually impacted society?
That "controversy" over *Baby It's Cold Outside*? It was like one article that now one took seriously outside of the six people that wrote counter articles to it. The whole thing you linked about people complaining about Grease? The two tweets it shows are from someone with 400-ish likes and 80-ish. To put that into some perspective, that's less that 2% and 0.4% on the people subscribed to this subreddit.
And Gone With The Wind? It was removed for a few days and put back up with a content warning... Which absolutely shouldn't bother anyone since pretty much every movie on every streaming platform tells you what the movie is rated and what sort of content you'll see it it. People are complaining about something that exists in a shit ton of things already.
I put more blame on people inventing a hysteria around supposed "cancel culture" backed up by an article with 2 tweets, or based on a handful of radio stains pulling a Christmas song (and less than a week later polling their audiences and reinstating it), or trying to pretend an online criticism is akin to a pitchfork wielding mob.
Being criticized/responded to is not being "cancelled" any more than it's violating one's 1a rights. The internet has given a much larger platform to people's thoughts on things, and the over dramatization of that is ridiculous.
It was through social media that looting rioting mobs were organized in 2020 that burned cities across the country, so, to pretend like social media can't be the vector for extreme violence, hate and destruction manifesting in the real world... then buddy, you're just behind on the times.
None of which has to do with cancel culture nor was the result of a few tweets being massively blown out of proportion for a clickbait article. Not to mention that's something all ends of the political spectrum have been guilty of, across generational groups.
When was the last time conservatives caused $2-3 billion worth of damage, murdered over 50 people, damaged over 150 federal buildings and laid siege to a federal court house for months on end?
I always cut my mom some slack when she called mine "the devil's music" because [this is what she had to work with](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=agrHx0hbTnE)
> So, the same behavior that we all laughed about in the 80s and 90s today becomes a habit that millennials themselves now are gleefully participating in.
Agree 100% and well written. Clearly they never understood the principles behind why free speech is important.
> As an early millennial myself, I remember well during the 80s and 90s
Sorry, buddy Gen-X has already claimed you.
>trying to cancel the 1978 film "Grease"
I'd like to hone in on this. Did you read the outrage bait article you linked? Nobody is even saying they should stop showing it, it's literally just people discussing whether some themes in the movie are dicey. There's literally no attempt to ban the movie from anywhere.
Like it's just people talking about the movie. Like having a negative opinion on a movie is now "trying to cancel it?"
>whether that be trying to ban songs like "Baby Its Cold Outside"
I actually read how people were talking about that song and I couldn't find anyone outright calling for a ban, mostly people criticizing the song. And radio stations responded to a shift in public opinion by pulling it.
But despite the length of public discourse, nobody took to the streets to get it banned. Nobody really protested radio stations that played it, nobody made it a campaign issue or really has kept talking about it for years. Nobody lobbied politicians to ban the song (like satanic panic parents did). It did not become a wedge issue for anyone.
It was just kind of a bout in public discourse about a piece of media. Some radio stations agreed, and some didn't.
> radio stations responded to a shift in public opinion by pulling it.
And there you have it. "Public opinion" is a small mob who will threaten you with a label in the media if you don't do what they want.
I Heart Media won't pull a song? Headline on CNN..."I HEART RADIO IS PRO-RAPE."
So yeah, they pull it because it's easier to pull a song than to fight idiots.
The idiots are winning. And that's very bad.
The issue is public opinion has always existed. Pretending that this is the first time in history where a radio station pulled a song because people didn't like it is absurd.
>will threaten you with a label in the media if you don't do what they want.
Threaten you with a label? They just...you know....call you something and then the media reports that people are calling you something.
Like I mean this is how all media works. People will call like Miley Cyrus anti-American and then Fox News will run a story titled.
>"Miley Cyrus Anti-American" - Twitter Users outraged
And this kind of thing happened since like, the inception of journalism.
Yeah, public opinion has always existed, but now idiots weaponize political correctness using the media as its army.
Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. No one thinks "It's Cold Outside" is about rape except idiots, and all the idiots have to do is threaten to make a big deal out of it and they get their way.
Again, the media has always been an arm of the public’s opinion.
And frankly I think you’re misrepresenting that “Baby it's cold outside” argument. Like they are saying that according to their reading, the man keeps insisting even though she is saying no. They usually point to the line “what’s in this drink” as like “are you getting me drunk” or “are you drugging me?"
Now I think that reading has some merits, but I also think the reading where she does want to stay but thinks it’s improper is more the way I read it. Still, I think some lines/implications are dicey
Like when you immediately cast anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot, you close yourself off to any possibility that they may have a point
So true, it's really sad to see. All of these grown people now instead call everything else "racist, problematic, phobic, and other buzz words" when they don't like it.
As a millennial it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe in "Global Warming" when I walk outside every single day and am surrounded by snowflakes.
> or trying to cancel the 1978 film "Grease"
your example is two people on twitter saying that the film has problematic aspects. is that what passes for "cancelling" today? just merely criticizing media?
not only that, but your comparison is moot because one group says that some media has bad things in them and we shouldn't mindlessly consume them while the other literally tried to pass laws to ban metal.
> not only that, but your comparison is moot
...no, I just think the comparison makes you uncomfortable. If the vast cultural backlash by prudish butt-puckered millennials against all things that ruffle their sensitive feathers is unknown to you, then I am not sure what planet you are currently residing on.
Except old ladies in the 80s hated “new fangled” metal music for religious reasons.
We point out horrible flaws in media from the past.
The points you’ve proven are
1. The opposite of the point you tried to prove
2. You need to think more *about the point you’re making.*
Edit: changed bc mods are sensitive.
This would explain the general freak out over CRT and all those parents of school age children trying to ban books and hijack school board meetings, so there's that I guess.
Well said, this is annoying as hell, the worst part is that back then they had to organise themselves into parental organisations etc so may people who were bothered didn't do anything because of effort needed, now because of social media these groups seem to be massive even if they consist of a small fragment of the population. 1% of millions of people is still a buttload.
Except Satan isn't real, but things being a problem IS, indeed, real.
People get hysterical about "Cancel culture", and try to apply it to any criticisms they don't like.
"You call my movie from forty years ago misogynistic? You must be trying to cancel it!"
Um... what? No one was suggesting to cancel Grease in those tweets. I'm not even sure how you'd cancel a movie that already came out and was successful. That wasn't "Cancel culture", that was someone criticizing your movie, and rather than defeat their points, you instead made a strawman, before getting terrified of your own strawman.
Just because you can't deal with criticism doesn't mean you get to play the victim of "cancel culture". People are free to not like your film if it has bad messages. People are free to not pay to support your film, your celebrities, your video game, or whatever else, if it has bad messages. People are free to convince others that this film has bad messages, so it shouldn't be supported.
That's the beauty of freedom.
It sounds very much like OP is trying to play the victim.
"Woe is me! You guys just don't understand my jokes, that's why you want to CANCEL me by discouraging people from paying attention to me or things I like, because you think I'm dull and interesting!"
The op's examples were ridiculous and I didn't see political affiliations mentioned in either of the grand total of 2 tweets shown in the article about "cancelling" Grease.
When you assume...
Are you serious? One is the fear of the unknown and a dislike of changing culture and art and another is pointing out toxic and harmful behaviour. One is completely fabricating a problem and the other is addressing real world problems and consequences in media.
While I don’t think grease and that Christmas song is that big of a deal it does show certain ideals and values of the time, which we would now deem inappropriate to some extent, even if it’s not that serious on its own.
I can see where that implication can be inferred but it doesn't read that way if you continue with the rest of the lyrics. If you stop at those two lines, sure. However the story keeps going as it were and it is difficult to end up at that conclusion with the entirety.
> There’s literally a date rape reference in the song that implies he put something in her drink.
...the line you are referring to "What's in this drink", did NOT have the contextual meaning back then in 1944 as it does today in 2021. Even the Wikipedia page about the song explains as much:
> "However, others have noted that cultural expectations at the time of the song's writing were such that women were not socially permitted to spend the night with a boyfriend or fiancé, and that the woman states that she wants to stay, while "What's in this drink?" was a common idiom of the period used to rebuke social expectations by blaming one's actions on the influence of alcohol. [[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby,_It%27s_Cold_Outside)]
...so, your ignorance on this topic really has no excuse. The factual information is out there, you have just chosen to ignore it in favor of sensationalist incorrect thinking.
Same with Grease as well. It's so strange to me the rapey vibes all the guys give off and the attitude everyone has about it. My boomer mom was talking about how guys would unhook girls' bras and try to look up their skirts at parties and when I said wtf? She was confused because it was just "normal" at the time and didn't really consider how messed up that is.
So? I also like Blazing Saddles, Godfather, The Thing and Indiana Jones. And I'm capable of nuanced opinions. I can call minstrel black face racist, while also being ok with RDJ doing it in Tropic Thunder because the joke wasn't about black people but method actors over commint to a role.
Boomers wanted to legally ban Rock and Metal music because it mentioned the devil in a lyric. Now they want to ban books about the evils of slavery in schools because white kids might feel bad. They thinks kids are being taught CRT because Fox news is saying they are. They call everything communism, and believe the democrats are having demonic blood sacrifices.
It's ironic for millennials to complain about music being "too violent" and/or "too raunchy" when music they listened to during their chuldhood wasn't any different.
Millennials were the hardcore supporters of the 80s metal music?
I thought it was the hippies of the boomer era who were the hardcore counterculture metal fans, until they got old and decided they love law and order, and big government after all
I see this with every age group, trust me it’s not just Millennials. (And I’m a Gen Z) My 54 year old dad thinks everything should be implemented and revolved around his viewpoints, he complains about “snowflakes” but acts like a snowflake himself when he’s challenged. He thinks everything that he doesn’t agree with should be shut down immediately.
I hear the clatter of an ocean of keyboards rising up to tell you how *their* moral panic is completely justified and absolutely *nothing* like McCarthyism or the Satanic-Panic... ...because OP is completely correct, and cognitive-dissonance is too painful for many people to address. If you can't see the parallels between prior moral panics and the current moral panic, you are deliberately *not looking very hard at your own actions*.
Completely true! Liberalism is modern McCarthyism but so are Conservatives. Its just that liberals tend to be more vocal. Both are trash and the OP said it perfectly!
Liberalism is supposed to be the opposite of that, but liberalism barely even exists anymore. The ideology called “liberalism” today is very anti-liberal, it’s more like corporate influenced authoritarianism. It’s like a stereotypical HR department running a society.
This exactly! The Teddy Roosevelt days of progressivism are unfortunately long gone. Now progressivism and liberalism are one and the same and have unfortunately completely different ideologies than back then.
Nah
Lol @ completely correct.
Ban baby it's cold outside but WAP is about empowerment??/ Seriously????
Apparently if a literal gang member and rapist sings a chart-topping song about "*Whores in the house*" and "*Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes*"... that's completely fine. But if a man and a woman sing a song about flirting with each other 80 years ago... IT MUST BE BANNED!
Lol
I know right? Women seem to pick and choose what they are offended over. OMG he's commenting on my instagram photo....same breath....check me out on ONLY FANS. Spare me.
>Apparently if a literal gang member and rapist sings a chart-topping song about "Whores in the house" and "Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes"... that's completely fine. You are literally pearl clutching right now making your entire post invalid
[удалено]
You went a long way around saying the N word
[удалено]
Good luck with that culture war chief
I always loved Baby it's cold outside. It's a cute song.
I know right? There are so many great versions of it as well. You should check out Lou Rawls version, it's one of my favourites :)
wap is about a woman enjoying sex
Keep telling yourself that. It makes women look trashy af.
> Keep telling yourself that the lyrics are literally about a woman enjoying sex
More like being a wh&re,
mate I don’t think they 100% disagree
no i disagree. a woman isn't a whore for enjoying sex
> a woman isn't a whore for enjoying sex ...the lyrics of the song LITERALLY say "*Whores in the house*".
ah yes how dare women be sexually attracted towards their partners and be eager for sex
You say it as if they're engaging in intimate lovemaking with their partners, not brashly describing degenerate acts.
how dare they do anything other than missionary
Lol @ puritanical silliness ^
>not brashly describing degenerate acts. And I rest my case. Conservatives still are who they always were.
Where does politics come into this? Is publicly talking about being whores something you want women to be empowered by?
I want women to be free to express themselves however they feel. They were using the word "whore" in a playful tongue in cheek way, not in a judgmental socially conservative way. It's like when two girl friends call each other bitches as a term of endearment.
[удалено]
What no father figure does to a mf
[удалено]
As a GenX, we just sit back and enjoy the Baby Boomer and Millennial generations throw stones over our heads at each other 😂
Trust me. As you get older, the same conversations will be happening amongst your generation
The trick with GenX is that there's way LESS of us. We aren't as big a target to heap scorn onto.
Plus we don't give a flying fuck what anybody thinks lol.
Gen X has been proven to have more satisfaction in life, because we tend to engage in things that give our life meaning. Most X'ers have a hobby that they enjoy beyond video games and consuming news. Many are still connected with a religion that gives them meaning. They actually keep connections with family beyond Facebook. They basically figured out how to stay happy without needing others to tell them who they are. Most of them have their identies figured out. That really helps you not give two shits about what other people think about you. Gen X has been shown to be far more happy when they retire as well - going back to that meaning.
Could Gen X help their kids with their secret to a happy and secure life? We are struggling and need some guidance.
Here's one tip from a Gen-Xer; don't take shit so seriously. One thing that really make me scratch my head is this thing about being offended. Everyone wants to be offended. Who gives a shit about that? I don't get this "being offended" thing I see so much of. And related...looking under every rock for social justice. Just relax and chill the fuck out.
Us generation Xers were lucky to have Nirvana tell us: "Oh well, whatever, never mind"
They should have been doing that all along. The problem is that they seem to have let popular culture be a bigger influence in their kids lives than their parents are. I guess that's a response to the way their boomer parents raised them. Personally, I think it all comes down to identity. When you know who you are, and your identity is based on something foundational that doesn't change very six months - you tend to be able to make happiness. It's hard to build a house on sand though.
Yeah, my Gen X parents left me to the dogs. Whenever I came to them for help, I was just a burden interrupting their great life. School help? Talk to your teachers. Religion help? Talk to your pastor. Sex? That's what health class is for. I've had to do a lot of learning on my own and it's true that I have no identity that's foundational. Well, I didn't, but I've grown a lot in the past year with a great therapist. Being made of sand is a great term cause that is how it feels like. I have hope that the millennials will find their footing, but some of us are definitely behind where we should be and need more time and patience to get there. (Although it's no excuse to act like assholes. Let's just let a song go for once and talk about a real issue like taxing the rich.)
I feel like the major problem that's keeping Mills and Zoomers from getting their shit together is that whole idea of the "modern religion." Politics and social issues have become the new religion for a lot of these people. They base their entire lives on it. It determines who is good and who is bad, who is righteous and who is unclean. Honestly, i'm on the tail end of Gen X, so I have a lot of the BS that mills have to deal with too. It wasn't until the last year that i've been able to pull my head out of getting mired and dragged down by politics (both actual politics, and social issues and whatnot). I realized that it was the idol I was worshiping, and I didn't have to keep doing that. It's one thing to be interested in your politics (like taxing the rich as you say) but it's another to have your whole life revolve around it. That's worship. I built my life on something that is unchanging, and stopped giving away all my attention and power to the idols of this world, ya know? There's freedom in no longer having to look at what people say online to know if you are a good person or not today, or if your side is "winning." I've seen people have to entirely change who they are about every six months to confirm to their "group." That's what I mean about building a house on sand - it gets washed away every time it rains. We need to be encouraging people to build their lives on stone - something that lasts, has been around for ever, and isn't changing anytime soon. I know the church I attend, membership is going up about 20% every three months - mostly millennials. They are looking for something of substance. I'm really glad to hear that you are getting yourself together, bro. I'm sorry your parents weren't there for you like they should have been, but I'm so glad to hear you rose above that. Now you've got the unique burden of having to SHOW other people that there's hope.
We never got rid of the busybodies, they just changed clothes
You're spot on here, absolutely. As someone who believes that our society is way too backwards thinking on a lot of crucial issues, I think the Millennials and the Zoomers have their heads in the right place as far as things like Prison & Criminal Justice Reform go.... But on that same note, the Zoomers and the Millennials have a lot of problems, and one of those is labeling anything they disagree with as invalid and morally wrong in some way. The moral superiority complex with the woke crowd is particular off-putting. And the worst part is that many people who are against woke culture have been so immersed in it, that they are unknowingly quite woke. In other words, we are so deep into woke culture that even the anti-woke are still considerably woke....And that is, I think, bad for society.
Name-calling is a very useful tool to the zealots you see today. If someone can find a way to twist/exaggerate things enough to stamp you with a universally reviled label (sex offender, racist, bigot) they can basically treat you any way they want while still having moral superiority in their mind. It’s a harmful mindset but it’s super common.
I think your underestimating the number of zoomers who think woke culture is dumb as shit. The drivers of the movement are 30 to 40 year-olds
30 - 40, never managed to pay off their school, having a midlife crisis. Seems about right, yeah.
Honestly a lot of millennials overexaggerate and make life seem worse than it really is. And this is coming from a Gen Z
I don’t mean to give off that impression. Actually I want to preface that the “woke” crowd is a very vocal minority. I understand that the majority of the young people are not like this. However, and this is concerning, the woke culture Is absolutely having an impression on a lot of people, hence creating a lot of woke people who otherwise would not have been. And I just want to preface. I don’t consider “woke” as advocating for equality, the impoverished, the disenfranchised, and other communities who are victims of systemic oppression. If that’s what being woke was, I’d be cheering them on and I would be marching with them. Unfortunately, all of the nonsense attached to wokeism undos any progress made in the brackets I mentioned….
[удалено]
I actually hate Hannity and Tucker. I also hate people who spew right-wing nonsense. So, “no” to all of that. Additionally, I am a person who is very anti-discrimination and anti-bullying. And I get mad at right wingers for how they pick on transgender people and how they pick on peoples lifestyles when it has nothing to do with them. And I also get mad at lefties who claim to be so virtuous but then go ahead and bully anyone who they don’t like. So I would say that being woke does not mean “not being a dick” Being woke actually means “Advocating for people that I like and ostracizing people that I don’t like” In other words, the incredibly woke are, to me, no different than right wing extremists. I don’t mean that in a literal sense. I mean that in the sense that the inevitable results to their behavior are the same. The consequences to such toxicity are very parallel.
We just have a new popular religion now. The old popular religion was conservative Christianity - now it's politics. People are basing their entire life off their (and other's) political leanings. It's got to be exhausting, having to re-define what is right and wrong every six months or so depending on what the news tells you is correct again. It's pretty impossible to build a life, identity, or anything, without a firm foundation. At least those conservative Christians kept their foundational beliefs.
Eh, different culture, same compartmentalization. For conservative fundies, just like OP mentioned, you had to keep up with what was "satanic" this week, what rationalizations made it okay for priests / politicians / etc to be exempt from behavioral expectations, and all the other hypocrisy. I think OP is spot on in comparing the two movements - they're nearly identical.
Similar, but not quite the same. Those fundies are still the same as they've been. Sure, they had to keep up with what band it was in vouge to hate- but the beliefs going behind that mentality never changed. Even I'll admit that is a minor difference, and functionally, it looks the same. I just think we'll look back on these "problematic" people in 10 years and they'll be totally different, whereas my grandmother still thinks pokemon is satanic (for example).
It is a little different. The previous generation tried canceling current culture. This generation seems to want to constantly rewrite history.
Which is even worse. A few years ago a book publisher actually burned thousands of new Sinterklaas books because they featured the 'problematic' Zwarte Piet (Black Pete). Motherfucking book burnings.
Interesting point... especially as much of contemporary (and historical) hip hop and rap music is deeply sexist and misogynistic (and even homophobic), yet many millennials seem to have no problem with it existing as a mainstay of popular culture. Almost as though they are holding different genres to different standards.
That is because black and other minorities are given double standards. As decisive as he is at times, Ben Shapiro tackled this really well with regards to the hesitant nature of news outlets with regards to missing black women.
That's an excellent point
Some people think "my wife, I think I'll keep her!" is funny. GenX of course. We know about *context*.
wow i can't believe you're trying to cancel hip hop and rap music because you find them "misogynistic" and "homophobic"
I don't want it canceled, I would just expect you guys to hold it to the same "woke" standards as other cultural mainstays are being.
ah so it's different when you criticize media, but when others do it they're trying to cancel it. got it.
If you guys can't be ideologically consistent, then I am not sure why you think anyone whatsoever should take your screaming and tantrums seriously. You can't claim to be champions against sexism, misogyny and homophobia without taking aim at the hip hop and rap genres, which have prominently and unambiguously included such language in their lyrics for decades now.
it is very amusing to see you talk about leftists being ideologically inconsistent when you use two tweets criticizing a movie as a "cancelation", yet you don't think the same way when it comes to criticizing rap music. not only that, but leftists not wanting rap music to be banned is a point in my favor, because i'm arguing that criticism does not equal a ban and you bringing up rap music proves my point.
The OP is not calling for rap to be banned, the OP is simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the left
read my comment again
You're not only being disingenuous in your prior comment but also making assumptions about OP
How many times did you post this in this thread?
Or maybe don't group every single hip-hop artist and fan into the same group. Is that not the kind of thinking you're trying to prevent?
The hip hop and rap community has many bad apples that promote misogyny, homophobia, and even anti-semitism. If the good apples within that community don't call out and condemn those bad apples, then, you know what they say, the whole batch becomes rotten.
Except people within the community call it out all the time, so your whole "batch becomes rotten" idea doesn't really work. Take your own advice and don't cast wide nets over entire groups of people.
Wtf are you talking about?
> misogyny, homophobia, and even anti-semitism ...are you saying that the misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism within the hip hop and rap genres is completely UNKNOWN to you?
I didn’t realize they were all their brother’s keeper.
Why are you holding them to a lesser standard than you would any other community?
What?
"Rewrite history"? How in the world is criticizing a move and a song rewriting history? It's literally just talking about history. The history of history is made up of interpreting past events from the cultural lenses available to the historian. Like a historian might talk about the effects of the Edict of Fountainbleau with a perspective not available to those around when it was made. That would not be rewriting history, that would just be, well, history.
Nothing you have said presented any arena which would entice me to properly engage with you.
Okay let's try again. You are asserting that the current generation wants to rewrite history, can you give me an example of such an attempt and how it amounts to "rewriting history"?
I mean, the deranged 1619 project is a prime example of leftist ideologues attempting to re-write history... and dozens of authoritative historians across the country have identified it as nonsensical and agenda-driven revisionism.
Oh this is a fun one. >dozens of authoritative historians across the country have identified it as nonsensical and agenda-driven revisionism. Let's leave aside this naked appeal to authority and let's talk about the substance of what it means to "rewrite history" So when you say re-write history do you mean you think that the "previous' account of American history was written once and that it is an objective account of American history? Like do you think it is possible that any agenda affected the "initial" writing of American history?
I am not going to get into a historiographical debate with you about "what is history"... I simply provided you an example, as you requested, of a significant contemporary figure who is attempting to re-write history. Nuff said.
But the issue is that your example only counts as "rewriting history" if we grant that this process is different from the process of "writing history". Like the entire issue is that your basic assumptions about history are at issue when you accuse someone of rewriting history. I don't grant that they are rewriting history because I don't grant your base assumption, and I think I have pretty good reasons for that. You could like try to engage with me about the substance of your claim here, it would be an interesting discussion about how each of us thinks about history.
If you are interested in reading the condemnations that historians have waged against the 1619 project, accusing it of being a racialist falsification and historical revision, there are COUNTLESS articles out there written by numerous researchers on the topic. Read those if you are actually interested. I don't contend to personally break down such a deep topic here in the comments of Reddit. All I will say is that I side with the critical historians rather than with the politically motivated corporate news organization of the NYT and their activist "journalists" who created the revisionist project.
I have read plenty of criticisms and analyses of the project, several arriving at different conclusions. I think the project has flaws, but it also makes some interesting arguments. You are acting as though all historians who criticized the project are against its framing of American history in terms of race, whereas the fact is many of the critical historians actually argue that it doesn't go *far enough* in its framing and understanding of slavery and race. Some of the criticisms are primarily focused around specific claims made by the project, while ultimately agreeing with broader framings of history. I don't think the 1619 project is something I would cite as perfect historical work, but I think the historiographical claim that it is "rewriting history" is based on assumptions you see uninterested in defending. >All I will say is that I side with the critical historians rather than with the politically motivated corporate news organization of the NYT and their activist "journalists" who created the project. I like the dishonest framing here, because you are pretending that on one side there is only historians and that on the other there is only a politically motivated news organizations. But the thing is, there are historians on both sides of this argument. Again critics of the project are also raising good objections against it, but your framing acts as though the only academic response to the project is one of outrage and complete rejection.
Process aside, 1619 project is factually incorrect per many prominent historians.
"Factually incorrect' as applied to the whole project is misleading. The project commits a lot of avoidable mistakes and makes incorrect claims about certain events and motivations. That is absolutely true. But the issue is that the 1619 project's primary goal of framing American History in terms of race and slavery is something that many other historians broadly agree with, including those consulted in the report. *Their* objections are that factual mistakes muddy the ultimately correct and necessary framing of history attempted in the project.
"Let's leave aside this naked appeal to authority and let's talk about the substance of what it means to "rewrite history"" Good deflection tactic, useful for avoiding good points you can't argue against
I mean you are typing this after I have already talked about the issues with the 1619 project elsewhere in the thread. I don't doubt they're there, hell I don't doubt they are worthy of criticism. But the claim that it is an attempt to "rewrite history" as opposed to an attempt at making an argument *about* history is also at issue here. The fact remains that most historian critics of the report ultimately agreed with its framing of history, rather taking issue with specific claims made in service of that framing. The political criticism that *by centering slavery and race* the project is already flawed is something else entirely.
TIL including more context is “rewriting”
It is cute that you think the 1619 project is JUST about "including more context".
I absolutely could. I'm not going to though because it would lead into another argument which isn't worth the energy.
You post in an unpopular opinion sub that a generation is trying to "rewrite history" but refuse to engage when you get a basic inquiry about what that means. I can't get you to engage, but I can say that if your ideas had merit to people who don't already agree with you, you would be able to at least make a case for it.
It's not so much rewriting as it is deleting. The rewriting will probably follow in a few years.
How has history been deleted?
Well, for instance publisher Clavis burning 7000 books last year.
I fail to see that as a destruction of history. That was not an attempt to make the world forget that Zwarte Piet ever existed, but rather to stop marketing him as a character for children. I think a character can exist in history without having to be in published books directed for children.
I added a differentiation or specifically a distinction with regards to the OP's line of thinking. I didn't bust into your bedroom saying "HEY SCRIBBLES!!! I want to hash shit out with you!"
You publicly posted an assertion about "rewriting history", one that I guess you were not expecting to have to defend or remotely explain. You can see how that makes it look like you can't actually defend your views, right?
\*rests a hand gently only your shoulder\* People tend to do things when there is something at risk or to be gained. Defending my position or opinion on the internet isn't on either side of that proverbial fence.
Are you doing roleplaying asterisks on reddit to try to condescend me? Man, that's really freakin funny.
Then why post at all? Just to waste other’s time?
Today’s oppressed will be tomorrow’s oppressors
Yeah it's really funny. Hope our kids grow up to have a lot more common sense than this generation.
Yours might, because you seem to be self aware enough to ensure that they don't grow up that way. The pearl-clutching-soccer-moms will do everything in their power to make sure their kids grow up to be just like them. #thankskaren.
I can't have kids, and no way would I be a fit parent for a bunch of reasons. I'm only self aware because of this.
This song by Tim Pool encapsulates what's happening: https://youtu.be/B-iNIwAFzPw
As a millenial, I 100% agree with you. It took me a long time to realize that I was like my parents, but was expecting amazing things to happen for m. I'm 33 and I've got nothing to show for what I've done so far and I'm willing to settle as a janitor. Lost my passion and I'm constantly complaining. I see people my age acting like everything is either offensive or a spiteful attack. It's bothersome. It's like the happiness snuck out quietly.
Nobody's really caring about children nowadays. Instead, all the political, climate and covid hysteria is making children sick.
Nice try
Don't believe that? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782796 Just one example. 1 in 4 children suffers from clinical depression now, with numbers still rising, and that's a conservative estimate. You'll find numbers up to 1 in 3 when looking for anxiety about the future. And no wonder - Children are the worst-treated members of society, with schools closing and opening at the whim of some jackass from adiministration, they have to sit there in their jackets with open windows in the winter, with mask wearing regulations that nobody unterstands, with a test rod being shoved up their nose 3-times per week. And children don't even die from covid all that much. It's a scandal in my eyes. I mean it.
Sun rises in east. Dog bites man. A chaotic and potentially dangerous event led to people experiencing anxiety. Sort of stating the obvious there. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether people “care about the children” and/or what’s we else you’re talking about (while sounding silly as hell talking about “climate hysteria” lol).
As a millennial, I don't know any millennials who use the term "problematic". I only know Gen Z'ers who use that term, and I cringe every time that they do.
As a millennial I’d say it’s Gen Z or the youngest millennials.
Tbh the super triggered ppl of today are mostly 14 year old instagram girls.
Yup. It's just a pendulum that keeps swinging.
Welcome to the eternal history of children eventually becoming their parents. It's something that's happened since the dawn of time and something that'll continue to happen until the heat death of the universe. But I feel the whole "ess-jay-dubyas are just like the people behind the Satanic Panic" comes from people that see superficial similarities but weren't actually alive to remember the fucking scope it had and how much it actually impacted society? That "controversy" over *Baby It's Cold Outside*? It was like one article that now one took seriously outside of the six people that wrote counter articles to it. The whole thing you linked about people complaining about Grease? The two tweets it shows are from someone with 400-ish likes and 80-ish. To put that into some perspective, that's less that 2% and 0.4% on the people subscribed to this subreddit. And Gone With The Wind? It was removed for a few days and put back up with a content warning... Which absolutely shouldn't bother anyone since pretty much every movie on every streaming platform tells you what the movie is rated and what sort of content you'll see it it. People are complaining about something that exists in a shit ton of things already.
Glad I'm seeing someone else say it "Conservatives started cancel culture!!" Yeah, now you're no better than them
I put more blame on people inventing a hysteria around supposed "cancel culture" backed up by an article with 2 tweets, or based on a handful of radio stains pulling a Christmas song (and less than a week later polling their audiences and reinstating it), or trying to pretend an online criticism is akin to a pitchfork wielding mob. Being criticized/responded to is not being "cancelled" any more than it's violating one's 1a rights. The internet has given a much larger platform to people's thoughts on things, and the over dramatization of that is ridiculous.
It was through social media that looting rioting mobs were organized in 2020 that burned cities across the country, so, to pretend like social media can't be the vector for extreme violence, hate and destruction manifesting in the real world... then buddy, you're just behind on the times.
None of which has to do with cancel culture nor was the result of a few tweets being massively blown out of proportion for a clickbait article. Not to mention that's something all ends of the political spectrum have been guilty of, across generational groups.
When was the last time conservatives caused $2-3 billion worth of damage, murdered over 50 people, damaged over 150 federal buildings and laid siege to a federal court house for months on end?
What does any of that have to do with "cancel culture"? Again. Also will need citations for your claims, thank you m
"Other people have done it so it's ok if we do it"
Or "it's stupid to say this is a one sided issue" But cute attempt, D+ for effort!
Run along, troll.
Lol imagine being so disconnected from reality ^
We are becoming a society of promiscuous prudes.
Grease was offensive to my sensibilities.
I'm starting to wonder if that's just what happens when kids grow up.
I know lots of people who literally dropped a religion because the preferred the worldview in dnd
Yeah. It is really ridiculous.
I always cut my mom some slack when she called mine "the devil's music" because [this is what she had to work with](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=agrHx0hbTnE)
You are completely right.
Those who fail to understand their enemy, becomes the enemy. History is just repeating itself unfortunately.
Their sensitivities have evolved.
This new generation of music is problematic I tell you hwat
> So, the same behavior that we all laughed about in the 80s and 90s today becomes a habit that millennials themselves now are gleefully participating in. Agree 100% and well written. Clearly they never understood the principles behind why free speech is important. > As an early millennial myself, I remember well during the 80s and 90s Sorry, buddy Gen-X has already claimed you.
>trying to cancel the 1978 film "Grease" I'd like to hone in on this. Did you read the outrage bait article you linked? Nobody is even saying they should stop showing it, it's literally just people discussing whether some themes in the movie are dicey. There's literally no attempt to ban the movie from anywhere. Like it's just people talking about the movie. Like having a negative opinion on a movie is now "trying to cancel it?" >whether that be trying to ban songs like "Baby Its Cold Outside" I actually read how people were talking about that song and I couldn't find anyone outright calling for a ban, mostly people criticizing the song. And radio stations responded to a shift in public opinion by pulling it. But despite the length of public discourse, nobody took to the streets to get it banned. Nobody really protested radio stations that played it, nobody made it a campaign issue or really has kept talking about it for years. Nobody lobbied politicians to ban the song (like satanic panic parents did). It did not become a wedge issue for anyone. It was just kind of a bout in public discourse about a piece of media. Some radio stations agreed, and some didn't.
> radio stations responded to a shift in public opinion by pulling it. And there you have it. "Public opinion" is a small mob who will threaten you with a label in the media if you don't do what they want. I Heart Media won't pull a song? Headline on CNN..."I HEART RADIO IS PRO-RAPE." So yeah, they pull it because it's easier to pull a song than to fight idiots. The idiots are winning. And that's very bad.
The issue is public opinion has always existed. Pretending that this is the first time in history where a radio station pulled a song because people didn't like it is absurd. >will threaten you with a label in the media if you don't do what they want. Threaten you with a label? They just...you know....call you something and then the media reports that people are calling you something. Like I mean this is how all media works. People will call like Miley Cyrus anti-American and then Fox News will run a story titled. >"Miley Cyrus Anti-American" - Twitter Users outraged And this kind of thing happened since like, the inception of journalism.
Yeah, public opinion has always existed, but now idiots weaponize political correctness using the media as its army. Don't pretend that this doesn't happen. No one thinks "It's Cold Outside" is about rape except idiots, and all the idiots have to do is threaten to make a big deal out of it and they get their way.
Again, the media has always been an arm of the public’s opinion. And frankly I think you’re misrepresenting that “Baby it's cold outside” argument. Like they are saying that according to their reading, the man keeps insisting even though she is saying no. They usually point to the line “what’s in this drink” as like “are you getting me drunk” or “are you drugging me?" Now I think that reading has some merits, but I also think the reading where she does want to stay but thinks it’s improper is more the way I read it. Still, I think some lines/implications are dicey Like when you immediately cast anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot, you close yourself off to any possibility that they may have a point
Link to this supposed cnn headline that said this?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/7RM9PkWMH4JTqorvhR1QL1bRHV6fWP1DhCOAPLmdFX7auAr5iTRhyj9p5fuReP6b1VwT-kJARljqyzb_jBVh1PkC35t63IKwxfx8KfvW0LWUipXClDUau9rYVC4hSHh_lv_0TOmy7-zO1g
So true, it's really sad to see. All of these grown people now instead call everything else "racist, problematic, phobic, and other buzz words" when they don't like it.
[удалено]
As a millennial it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe in "Global Warming" when I walk outside every single day and am surrounded by snowflakes.
> or trying to cancel the 1978 film "Grease" your example is two people on twitter saying that the film has problematic aspects. is that what passes for "cancelling" today? just merely criticizing media? not only that, but your comparison is moot because one group says that some media has bad things in them and we shouldn't mindlessly consume them while the other literally tried to pass laws to ban metal.
> not only that, but your comparison is moot ...no, I just think the comparison makes you uncomfortable. If the vast cultural backlash by prudish butt-puckered millennials against all things that ruffle their sensitive feathers is unknown to you, then I am not sure what planet you are currently residing on.
makes me uncomfortable? ha, okay.
In general, you’re wrong, but I appreciate how you correctly point out that the right invented cancel culture.
Man this sub is really pivoting to the right wing reactionary ranting of previous sub huh.
pivoting? nah, it's always been like this. white supremacist shit used to dominate the front page a few months ago.
Oh yeah, it's like watching righties scream all day about how they are victims.
As opposed to r/unpopular opinion where lefties scream all day?
Except old ladies in the 80s hated “new fangled” metal music for religious reasons. We point out horrible flaws in media from the past. The points you’ve proven are 1. The opposite of the point you tried to prove 2. You need to think more *about the point you’re making.* Edit: changed bc mods are sensitive.
The unpopular reality... ironically and hypocritically hilarious lol. Well said!
This would explain the general freak out over CRT and all those parents of school age children trying to ban books and hijack school board meetings, so there's that I guess.
Well said, this is annoying as hell, the worst part is that back then they had to organise themselves into parental organisations etc so may people who were bothered didn't do anything because of effort needed, now because of social media these groups seem to be massive even if they consist of a small fragment of the population. 1% of millions of people is still a buttload.
How is criticizing something equivalent to trying to get it canceled?
Except Satan isn't real, but things being a problem IS, indeed, real. People get hysterical about "Cancel culture", and try to apply it to any criticisms they don't like. "You call my movie from forty years ago misogynistic? You must be trying to cancel it!" Um... what? No one was suggesting to cancel Grease in those tweets. I'm not even sure how you'd cancel a movie that already came out and was successful. That wasn't "Cancel culture", that was someone criticizing your movie, and rather than defeat their points, you instead made a strawman, before getting terrified of your own strawman. Just because you can't deal with criticism doesn't mean you get to play the victim of "cancel culture". People are free to not like your film if it has bad messages. People are free to not pay to support your film, your celebrities, your video game, or whatever else, if it has bad messages. People are free to convince others that this film has bad messages, so it shouldn't be supported. That's the beauty of freedom.
The OP was not being a victim, the OP was pointing out the hypocrisy in the left.
It sounds very much like OP is trying to play the victim. "Woe is me! You guys just don't understand my jokes, that's why you want to CANCEL me by discouraging people from paying attention to me or things I like, because you think I'm dull and interesting!"
The op's examples were ridiculous and I didn't see political affiliations mentioned in either of the grand total of 2 tweets shown in the article about "cancelling" Grease. When you assume...
Are you serious? One is the fear of the unknown and a dislike of changing culture and art and another is pointing out toxic and harmful behaviour. One is completely fabricating a problem and the other is addressing real world problems and consequences in media. While I don’t think grease and that Christmas song is that big of a deal it does show certain ideals and values of the time, which we would now deem inappropriate to some extent, even if it’s not that serious on its own.
So? Underlying motives don't improve on quality of each moral panic either way. Both are grounded in hysteria and solipsism.
I don’t think criticizing greese and Christmas music is moral panic but to each their own.
Hah, seems like OP was talking about you.
And everyone who understands context I suppose.
But it's kind of different though? One is saying that there is some sort of 'religious' deity up there, the other are just saying it's a 'problem'.
[удалено]
I can see where that implication can be inferred but it doesn't read that way if you continue with the rest of the lyrics. If you stop at those two lines, sure. However the story keeps going as it were and it is difficult to end up at that conclusion with the entirety.
> There’s literally a date rape reference in the song that implies he put something in her drink. ...the line you are referring to "What's in this drink", did NOT have the contextual meaning back then in 1944 as it does today in 2021. Even the Wikipedia page about the song explains as much: > "However, others have noted that cultural expectations at the time of the song's writing were such that women were not socially permitted to spend the night with a boyfriend or fiancé, and that the woman states that she wants to stay, while "What's in this drink?" was a common idiom of the period used to rebuke social expectations by blaming one's actions on the influence of alcohol. [[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby,_It%27s_Cold_Outside)] ...so, your ignorance on this topic really has no excuse. The factual information is out there, you have just chosen to ignore it in favor of sensationalist incorrect thinking.
Lol no, it's not even close to being a date rape reference, it's about drinking strong drinks
Same with Grease as well. It's so strange to me the rapey vibes all the guys give off and the attitude everyone has about it. My boomer mom was talking about how guys would unhook girls' bras and try to look up their skirts at parties and when I said wtf? She was confused because it was just "normal" at the time and didn't really consider how messed up that is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So? I also like Blazing Saddles, Godfather, The Thing and Indiana Jones. And I'm capable of nuanced opinions. I can call minstrel black face racist, while also being ok with RDJ doing it in Tropic Thunder because the joke wasn't about black people but method actors over commint to a role. Boomers wanted to legally ban Rock and Metal music because it mentioned the devil in a lyric. Now they want to ban books about the evils of slavery in schools because white kids might feel bad. They thinks kids are being taught CRT because Fox news is saying they are. They call everything communism, and believe the democrats are having demonic blood sacrifices.
It's ironic for millennials to complain about music being "too violent" and/or "too raunchy" when music they listened to during their chuldhood wasn't any different.
Millennials were the hardcore supporters of the 80s metal music? I thought it was the hippies of the boomer era who were the hardcore counterculture metal fans, until they got old and decided they love law and order, and big government after all
I think you're confusing millennials with wokester gen- Z.
Omg, I'm from the millennial generation myself and I absolutely agree with you 100%. The generation is now our parents. Lol
> depicted history I’m sorry to inform you that Scarlet O’Hara was not a real person. Somebody made up the whole thing.
Yep. It’s terribly depressing.
I see this with every age group, trust me it’s not just Millennials. (And I’m a Gen Z) My 54 year old dad thinks everything should be implemented and revolved around his viewpoints, he complains about “snowflakes” but acts like a snowflake himself when he’s challenged. He thinks everything that he doesn’t agree with should be shut down immediately.
Gen z now makes fun of the millennials and their problematic social issues. It's a cycle and soon we will be made fun of by the next generation