Cancelled

[TheDrake]

There's a lot about cancel culture these days. I'm interested in exploring some of the specific cases, and discussing whether the blowback for transgressions is wrong, overkill, or otherwise problematic. I got the idea from a recent article, so I will start there.

This isn't the first time the 38-year-old actress, who's played Cara Dune in the hit show on Disney Plus for two seasons, has been controversial on social media.

Back in November Star Wars fans called for her to to be fired after she put up several posts supporting Donald Trump.

She openly questioned whether vote counting during the US presidential election was fair, something President Donald Trump had said repeatedly.

The actor tweeted: "We need to clean up the election process so we are not left feeling the way we do today. Put laws in place that protect us against voter fraud."

She has also previously made fun of people who wear masks during the pandemic.

Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist.

She responded saying: "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I'm sorry, these people are not 'educators.' They are cowards and bullies."

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors … even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?" the post, which was shared from another account, read. It was made available by another social media user who captured a screenshot of the story.

Carano has come under fire before for controversial social media content. In November fans slammed her for being transphobic when she appeared to mock preferred pronouns by adding "beep/bop/boop" to her Twitter bio. She later removed the words and explained that "Mandalorian" co-star Pedro Pascal helped her understand why her words were deemed offensive.

[Fenring]

One thing that's evident to me is that if I was a talent agent or manager I would include training as a required condition of the contract. Not sensitivity training, but tactical training, so that all aspects of the performer's public persona could be controlled better. It doesn't take a genius to know that posting certain things will piss off people. And we don't even need to worry about right vs left, it's enough for show business that you shouldn't be pissing off large swathes of anyone, simply because you need popularity and for the public to like you to succeed in that kind of career. If politics pisses people off then you shouldn't be posting about politics under your own name if you want to be in the biz. That's my 2c about what she did wrong. Some of her particular arguments may have validity but social media is just the dumbest place to make random partisan posts if you're in a business where you need to curate your public identity.

It would be different if she kept her opinions to herself and people tracked down information she chose not to release, only to attack her with it. But if you make inflammatory posts I sort of feel like it's inevitable you are at minimum limited what your fan base is going to be like. It's much better if politics simply doesn't enter into the picture for an artist's contribution to the public life, unless their art is specifically about raising issues. So for writers, poets, even directors, you may need to create controversial content if you are literally trying to up-end sacred cows. For an actor...it doesn't serve much of a purpose.

[TheDrake]

I think that's a good point about controlling image as seen by the general public and therefore potential employers. My linked in and my Twitter are publicly accessible and there is a total absence of political thoughts there, including likes and retweets. My facebook is relatively controlled and private, ornery even more so. My instagram is publically accessible, and all it gets is pictures of meals that I've cooked for the most part.

No politician, entertainer, or athlete should be pushing out anything on social media without going through a publicist or a staffer. That's my opinion. Now, bear in mind, you can look at people who are adamant about other opinions, similarly unfettered. Witness Kathy Griffin, who was also cancelled.

Witness this statement by a priest:

I had a written list of the confirmed dates I was supposed to work for this broadcaster, had been involved with it for more than a decade, and had never even mentioned the issue of equal marriage on its television show. Yet I was still cancelled — dismissed by a conservative entity for having liberal views. And that has historically been the way. It is only now, when those on the left challenge more traditional ideas about race, sexuality, and politics, that we see such a strong reaction from alleged defenders of free speech. This is about more than just inconsistency or even hypocrisy. It’s about an unwillingness to empathize.

link

How many others have been targeted for boycott, including many athletes and entertainers, based on their liberal views? It seems a significant number. It just so happens that entertainers now and always have been skewed significantly progressive.

[Fenring]

My facebook is relatively controlled and private, ornery even more so.

I actually know someone who was a regular poster here in the past who told me he left the site specifically because he saw it as conceivable that someone could find a way to identify him and attribute any comments made here to him professionally. And since he wasn't willing to participate here under censored conditions, he left outright to protect himself.

[msquared]

Cancel culture is not new.  How many school districts have banned books because parents did not want their kids reading "that stuff".  It is only called that when it is your culture that someone wants to shut down.

[Fenring]

Cancel culture is not new.  How many school districts have banned books because parents did not want their kids reading "that stuff".  It is only called that when it is your culture that someone wants to shut down.

I think you are not discussing the same issue when you're bringing up literature selection in a school. That is, by and large, people wanting to curate their own culture. Whether that is in fact good for them is another matter. But cancel culture is where you are setting up consequences and curating someone who is possibly from a different culture, or else not generally in alignment with you on yours. If a bunch of Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives, whoever, want to choose which books should be read in their school, their household, their reading group, you could call that censorship insofar as they are at minimum making that choice for their kids, but generally these things are community self-governance. Now imagine how dumb it would be if a Mississippi school district told a school in Manhattan they shouldn't be reading certain books. You'd likely view that as ridiculous, but on a smaller scale that's what cancel culture is: telling someone not in your little clique that they are going to face negative consequences if they do or say things that go against your cultural standard.

[cherrypoptart]

"Fenring

I actually know someone who was a regular poster here in the past who told me he left the site specifically because he saw it as conceivable that someone could find a way to identify him and attribute any comments made here to him professionally. And since he wasn't willing to participate here under censored conditions, he left outright to protect himself."

He cancelled himself. I bet a lot of people are doing that. And of course that is the whole idea.

Stop people from putting unapproved thoughts out there because they are rightfully afraid of losing their jobs and having their livelihoods adversely affected or outright taken away and we eventually get conformity of public thought just the way the left wants it and then once all ungood thoughts stop showing up in public discourse the vast majority of people who usually don't have the capacity for original thought anyway just won't have those thoughts and if every now and then those types of ideas happen to come into their head they will see no support for it anywhere in public and instead will see that if it ever does stand out it will be like the nail that gets hammered. Everything is working as intended.

[rightleft22]

Can't remember where but I heard a argument that linked cancel culture thinking to the zero tolerance movement initiated in schools for bulling and the like.
A generation growing up under the banner of zero tolerance could explain the idea of judging a person as being the worst thing they ever did, no forgiveness, no quarter, your out. Which is not a very liberal view.

Its a riddle: When are liberals not liberals or conservatives not conservatives.

[TheDrake]

You think it is so one way?

Detective fired after supporting BLM

Fuentes said she received mixed reactions from her colleagues after posting the apology to her feed. Some said they are afraid to express support against police brutality after what happened to her.

“There’s a lot of officers who are afraid to speak up about this issue and don’t want to be targeted as well," one officer told MassLive under the condition of anonymity.

According to Boston.com, other officers have been fired for social media posts, including an officer in 2017 who posted a Facebook post in response to the violence during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.

[Fenring]

I wonder if it's a bit of a different issue for a police detective to be fired for supporting a group whose main point of advocacy recently was to defund the police. Actively campaigning online for your own organization to be defunded might be seen as sort of a no-no. Or at least I imagine it could be seen like that. Not that the firing was necessarily done in any kind of good spirit; it may be partisan hackery as you suggest.

[yossarian22c]

I wonder if it's a bit of a different issue for a police detective to be fired for supporting a group whose main point of advocacy recently was to defund the police.

I think the main point of advocacy was to quit killing handcuffed black men in the middle of the street. Some members of the group asked for defunding the police as a shorthand for take money from the police and give it to social services so the police aren't responding to as many mental health crises.

But go ahead and strawman it away. How about Colin Kaepernick? He deserve to be canceled for kneeling (what is typically considered a respectful gesture - see praying) during the national anthem.

I'm against this kind of things on both sides. But it is an astounding lack of perspective to compare the plight of Trump supporters to Jews in Germany during WW2.

I'm a little less sympathetic when the people are in the public and know it. But going after people with 100 twitter followers or who post on an internet backwater read by dozens for some perceived insult is more harmful to society than most of the speech that people get worked up over.

[TheDrake]

yos, I don't disagree. Delving into the account of an Amazon warehouse worker to destroy them over a relatively innocuous comment is a bit much. But I've also heard from personal acquaintances that they don't feel like they can mention they are atheists when their bosses are religious. I'd have to find something really egregious to even say something to someone in my workplace, let alone try to damage their standing or go so far as to get them fired. Now, if they stormed the capitol, that's another story. Or if they were identified shooting fireworks at people during a BLM protest...

Either way of those scenarios, I wouldn't go looking for it.

[TheDeamon]

One thing that's evident to me is that if I was a talent agent or manager I would include training as a required condition of the contract. Not sensitivity training, but tactical training, so that all aspects of the performer's public persona could be controlled better. It doesn't take a genius to know that posting certain things will piss off people. And we don't even need to worry about right vs left, it's enough for show business that you shouldn't be pissing off large swathes of anyone, simply because you need popularity and for the public to like you to succeed in that kind of career. If politics pisses people off then you shouldn't be posting about politics under your own name if you want to be in the biz. That's my 2c about what she did wrong. Some of her particular arguments may have validity but social media is just the dumbest place to make random partisan posts if you're in a business where you need to curate your public identity.

In her case, I think the acting career was just icing on the cake, and she didn't care what the outcome would be if she was "canceled" as her background in MMA gives her an avenue to pursue as a trainer if nothing else should everything fall apart on her. And nothing Disney can do will take away residual income for her on The Mandalorian. So long as she's smart with finances, she'll be completely fine.

In this respect, you're dealing with a (female) MMA fighter who came to where she is(was) by not taking #&@* from anyone and backing down. If she get brought down to the mat because of it, that's fine, she'll just get up and start over again.

But it funny that the Cancel Culture went after someone who was
1) Female
and
2) A Racial Minority
Which in theory, according to their own doctrines and beliefs, double-protected her. But supporting some conservative views and not bending the knee on their issues is grounds to try to erase her all the same.

[LetterRip]

I'm not sure why you think it funny - seems simply consistent, why should her race or gender matter?  Why shouldn't they judge her purely based on her behavior? Those who have suggested that minority status should give exemptions have always been so vanishingly few as to be irrelevant.  The fact that you believe they are or ever have been significant is what is funny.

[msquared]

It's almost like they were not hypocrits.

[Fenring]

But it funny that the Cancel Culture went after someone who was
1) Female
and
2) A Racial Minority

The general criterion was always in terms of whether you are speaking as oppressor or oppressed. Gender and race (according to that theory) are contributors to which classification you are, but I think the ideological purity trumps that and you automatically become oppressor if you take the other side. It's not really inconsistent in that sense.

It's almost like they were not hypocrits.

Well they may be, but I think not for the reason TheDeamon suggested. It is more or less impossible for the particular ideologies of the far-left to be flexible, since orthodoxy is one of the chief parameters of the current system of thought. Therefore it wouldn't occur to them that punching up or punching down, which are supposed to be functions of who has power over whom, need to be re-examined depending on context and who is the powerful majority in any given situation. That the punchers-up could become a powerful majority, at least in certain milieus, is not something the theory is capable of handling. So they may indeed be hypocrites for failing to recognize that in a Hollywood context a right-wing opinion is going to be part of a mostly powerless minority. In theory this is the sort of person who needs protecting from the majority - by those punching down - but it is inconceivable to some people that espousing and forcing a doctrine of goodness (in their opinion) could still be punching down when it's enforced on those without power. It's the same story as the church historically, which no doubt believed most of the time it was preventing harm and maintaining decency and truth by purging heretics. Now people look back and see the benchmark for punching down, but at the time they thought they were fighting the forces of darkness (at least much of the time). Funny how context and framing can flip and entire situation from 'fighting for the little guy' to at one point becoming the overlords if the movement is prevalent enough.

[TheDeamon]

They still believe they're the resistance rather than the power brokers. Or rather, agents of the power brokers.

News flash: When the President of the United States, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, McDonalds, Disney, Bank of America, Visa, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Coca-Cola, Nike, and numerous other Fortune 500 companies are actively supporting your side?

You're not the resistance.

[TheDrake]

Cancelled Parler moans about Apple refusing to relist their app with this scintillating defense:

''We've also explained our new feature which empowers individual users with the option to filter out personal attacks based on immutable and irrelevant characteristics such as race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion,'' Parler said, Breitbart reported.

So by default, their platform has no problem with personal attacks based on race and the other things? And they wonder why they aren't welcomed back?

[TheDeamon]

Cancelled Parler moans about Apple refusing to relist their app with this scintillating defense:

''We've also explained our new feature which empowers individual users with the option to filter out personal attacks based on immutable and irrelevant characteristics such as race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion,'' Parler said, Breitbart reported.

So by default, their platform has no problem with personal attacks based on race and the other things? And they wonder why they aren't welcomed back?

You either support free speech, or you don't.

Personal attacks are speech, not particularly good speech, but still speech.

It also is not illegal speech within the borders of the United States of America last I checked.

[NobleHunter]

Fortunately, being against Twitter's Terms of Service isn't the same thing as being illegal.

[TheDrake]

So Apple should allow everything that isn't illegal? They should just let it fly? Regardless of how many people get injured physically or emotionally as a result. Get Alex Jones his YouTube back so he can get his poisonous messages out there with a giant amplifier?

I'm glad I don't live in a world according to your design, Deamon. Apple refusing to host a platform that doesn't give two *censored*s about anything any of their users choose to share isn't an apocalypse waiting to happen. I suppose according to your rules, everybody on facebook should be free to post their dick pics in public forums, after all pornographic images aren't ILLEGAL! Guess what else isn't ILLEGAL? Decapitation videos posted by terrorists.

You like to position yourself, Deamon, as "speech is speech" and yet I wonder if you visualize what that would really look like. A steaming mess of racist propaganda, wahabbist doctrine, sexual content, not only in the far corners of the internet, but everywhere you look. Under your rules, facebook would have to allow the Proud Boys to buy ad space.

Unless you want to back down from your axiomatic "speech is speech" assertion.

[rightleft22]

Why is everything seem to be either or today? What happened to doing better as you learn better.
I don't understand anything.
The Cancel culture does not seem to fit into either a liberal or conservative ideal at least not as I understood those ideals. I don't know what it means to be liberal or conservative in todays world.

I don't think canceling is a new thing. I've done it but not as part of a movement, encouraging others to follow me.
Avoiding people or companies etc... has been done for personal reasons. Establishing my own boundaries if you will.

Is it a inevitability of ever expanding social media technology that no one understands? Everyone sharing everything and thinking, needing, their opinions about everything to matter and define the narrative?

I don't know so much energy waisted on the absurd

[TheDeamon]

I'm glad I don't live in a world according to your design, Deamon. Apple refusing to host a platform that doesn't give two *censored*s about anything any of their users choose to share isn't an apocalypse waiting to happen. I suppose according to your rules, everybody on facebook should be free to post their dick pics in public forums, after all pornographic images aren't ILLEGAL! Guess what else isn't ILLEGAL? Decapitation videos posted by terrorists.

I see you were careful to not mention Twitter in that. Where it is allowed for people to share dick pics.

And there are laws in place regarding pornographic imagery, so in the right context, that behavior can be illegal.

You like to position yourself, Deamon, as "speech is speech" and yet I wonder if you visualize what that would really look like. A steaming mess of racist propaganda, wahabbist doctrine, sexual content, not only in the far corners of the internet, but everywhere you look. Under your rules, facebook would have to allow the Proud Boys to buy ad space.

I respectfully disagree, we functioned reasonably well for centuries under very broad freedoms of speech in the United States. Yes, racist speech did predominate in many parts of the country for a time. But guess what? They fell out of favor and were pushed into the fringes of society, all without need to ban their speech.

It is only now, since about 2008, where considerable efforts have been made to ban that and other speech, that suddenly these views have suddenly become resurgent. It isn't the speech being allowed that is the problem. It is that the venues for properly addressing these issues have been shut down, ostensibly by the very same people who want to do away with the very problem they are making much worse through their actions.

Unless you want to back down from your axiomatic "speech is speech" assertion.

Speech is speech, the marketplace of ideas can operate a black market just as easily as any other market for goods or services. When you begin implementing ham-fisted controls on said markets, you PUSH ever increasing numbers of people into those black markets. And once you've pushed them into that kind of rabbit hole, all kinds of mayhem typically follows. Look at what Prohibition enabled in the United States when they tried to ban alcohol 100 years ago. This is exactly what you and your allies are doing right now, only it isn't about booze this time.

[rightleft22]

It is only now, since about 2008, where considerable efforts have been made to ban that and other speech, that suddenly these views have suddenly become resurgent. It isn't the speech being allowed that is the problem. It is that the venues for properly addressing these issues have been shut down, ostensibly by the very same people who want to do away with the very problem they are making much worse through their actions.

The birth of the new communication social media technologies has I think changed things. Never in the history of the world have people been "connected" in the ways available now, and its become clearer everyday that we don't know how to handle it. 
Every new method of communication from printing press forward has presented these issues. The difference now is the speed in the development and ease of interconnectivity.
We build it because we can and figure out how to manage the impact after the fact only were maturing quickly enough to handle change at the current rate. We are relaying on the technology that create the problem to solve it.  Computers creating better computers to create stuff and miniplate data in ways that people no longer fully understand.

We have no idea what the future holds as we replace (hand over) our ability to think and discern to our "smart phones" and computer designed algorithms intended to manipulate

[TheDeamon]

There isn't a technical fix to this, only a social one. There wasn't a technical fix to the advent of the printing press, only a social one. Big Tech isn't going to "fix it" all they can do is either make it worse by trying, or let it run its course.

[cherrypoptart]

Even if you're against cancel culture you wouldn't be a bad person if you felt that some people get their just deserts when they get cancelled by their own side of the political spectrum.

Marshall Mathers would be a good example.

And I'm pretty sure that offensiveness being your "whole schtick" isn't going to fly as a defense with the cancel culture people.

 https://news.yahoo.com/charlamagne-tha-god-thinks-attempts-191911825.html

"Eminem became a trending topic again recently after Gen Z TikTok users highlighted some of his more offensive lyrics in a back-and-forth debate. The rapper has had his fair share of controversies throughout his career, perhaps most notably for lyrics many have deemed misogynistic or homophobic, but Charlamagne tha God thinks any attempt to “cancel” Slim Shady won’t stick regardless of how people feel...

... They are just playing old Eminem lyrics and doing what outrage culture does. Trying to build a case against Eminem, But I’m going to tell you why that will never work; That’s Eminem’s whole schtick.”

The left's woke culture warrior-mad scientists have literally created their own Frankenstein's monster, and by literally of course I mean figuratively.

[LetterRip]

Eminem has always used controversial lyrics - that has often been their point - deliberately offensive to examine the underlying cultural issue.  He tends to do two styles - either hyper realistic with powerful visuals and emotional rawness (Lose Yourself, Hailie's Song) or deliberately offensive as satire or parody.  Since people generally enjoy his music because of this, the people offended were likely never fans in the first place.  I always find it funny when people who aren't interested in something talk about how they are boycotting something they had no intention of patronizing in the first place.

[cherrypoptart]

That's the whole point of cancel culture though now isn't it?

Anyone could always change the radio station or the tv channel if they didn't like something.

But that's not good enough.

Now if the woke crowd doesn't like something, they have to cancel it so thoroughly that nobody can enjoy it anymore, anywhere, anytime, ever.

Cancel culture says if I don't like what you're listening to then well of course I'm not going to listen to it but guess what's new? Now I'm going to make sure that you can't listen to it either.

[LetterRip]

'cancel culture' - only 'works' - if the audience, sponsorship, employer, or those otherwise in a relationship with the individual, agree that the individuals behavior is obnoxious enough to warrant reevaluating ones relationship with them.  Sometimes others will go - wow, you're right, this person or corporation has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that is very much not ok - I should reevaluate my relationship with them, or at the very least seek an explanation for this.  Other times, they will disagree with the claim, and others will simply not care.

If you have a job or contract with a company and they are looking for a reason to terminate that contract - engaging in behaviour that many people interpret as showing one to be racist, sexist, or otherwise someone who discriminates is likely to push the company to terminate the contract.

[Fenring]

'cancel culture' - only 'works' - if the audience, sponsorship, employer, or those otherwise in a relationship with the individual, agree that the individuals behavior is obnoxious enough to warrant reevaluating ones relationship with them.

I stopped reading your post here, because I think you need to seriously think through other reasons a sponsor, employer, or others would terminate the relationship other than other than that they agree the behavior is obnoxious. The main argument is to be found in those other reasons. In fact I would even go as far as to suggest that the scenario you are citing (where there is general agreement that the person is obnoxious) is in fact not cancel culture at all, but is just culture. Cancel culture has a different set of causes.

[DJQuag]

If some movie star came out in 1942 and said Hitler wasn't so bad, would we blame the studio holding their contract for letting them go? Of course not.

These days it's thankfully not (usually) on that level but, still.

Companies respond to the customer base. If the customer base has made it clear that they won't put up with a certain level of BS, I'm not going to blame the company for firing people who go beyond that level of BS.

It's not censorship. Those people still have the same level of ability, and more often then not beyond, to talk to and interact with society as you and I do.

Cancelling people IS free speech.

[Fenring]

Companies respond to the customer base. If the customer base has made it clear that they won't put up with a certain level of BS, I'm not going to blame

How many individuals twitter-flaming about someone constitutes "the customer base"? Do you think that, prior to making these types of decisions, they take to national polling to determine what percentage of their actual customer base have the same problem with the employee in question?

The better question would be to ask what is the minimum number of complainers it requires before a company panics and caves in to them.

[TheDeamon]

The pendulum is starting to change directions, and not in the direction leftists want it to.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/12/sarah-silverman-i-dont-want-to-be-associated-with-/

Liberal comedian Sarah Silverman said in a recent podcast that she’s had it with the “absolutist-ness” of the Democratic Party and no longer wants to be associated with it.

“It’s the absolutist-ness of the party I am in that is such a turnoff to me,” Ms. Silverman said in an Instagram video taken from her podcast Monday, Newsbusters first reported. “It’s so f—-ing elitist. You know, for something called ‘progressive,’ it allows for zero progress. It’s all or nothing.

“I think I don’t want to be associated with any party anymore,” she continued. “It comes with too much baggage. Every party, it comes with so much f—-ing baggage that no ideas can be taken at face value. And without ideas, what are we? Without a common truth, how can we talk about it? You know, Republicans might hear an idea that they would totally agree with, but if it comes from AOC, then they hate it. And of course, you know, to be honest, when I hear an idea that comes from a Republican, it’s suspect to me.

[TheDrake]

Says the woman who wore blackface in a sketch. I wonder if that could be why she's upset.

[rightleft22]

Says the woman who wore blackface in a sketch. I wonder if that could be why she's upset.

I guess because she had a past, that's it, she can only be her past.
What is the saying As we forgive we will be forgiven, as we treat others we will be treated. Are these Absolutists', either or, all or nothing, standards from both the right and the left the ones we want to live by and be judged by. Where is the room to grow and learn?

“I think I don’t want to be associated with any party anymore" I agree When conservatives aren't conservatives and liberals aren't liberals what are the parties asking us to join? I have no freaking idea.

[rightleft22]

maybe the problem isn't a political movement but a sociological one?

Being 'connected' by technology 24/7 and thinking that our opinions about everything matters, must matter, and must be shared. Add algorithms that amplify the problem of confirmation bias, either or generalizing - seeing the world as we are and not as it is., and anyone that does no conform to our thinking and opinion is dangiours to our sense of self.

If we only treat this as a political problem I can't see how were going to get past it.

[cherrypoptart]

Chuck Lorre is getting the treatment now too because he didn't cast a real Afghan actor to play an Afghan character as well as the whole concept of the show.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chuck-lorres-new-cbs-sitcom-slammed-for-handling-of-afghan-character

"Writer Rekha Shankar tweeted, "Can someone tell Chuck Lorre that 'what if a white person liked a brown person' is not a tv show concept."

Palestinian documentary filmmaker Saeed Taji Farouky (Tell Spring Not to Come) marveled, "This is a real TV show. Actually made by human people. On Planet Earth. In 2021."

And Broadway singer-actor Pia Glenn issued a series of critiques, leading with, "I remember hearing about this when it was in development & thinking NAH...surely someone will stop this from going into production. ... It truly is Chuck Lorre. Plus America's general disdain for comedy that's smart, cutting edge, & maybe not shockingly racist and/or otherwise offensive."

Glenn, among others, particularly singled out the fact that Awalmir isn't played by an Afghan actor (Kalyan was born in South Africa to an Indian South African family)."

[TheDrake]

Silverman has in large part been forgiven. She got bumped off one movie. Forgiving doesn't necessarily mean forgetting. She's been in six other films along with numerous other projects.

It is important to acknowledge the problems, and some you don't get to live down - especially if you want to be a celebrity.

Are certain individuals all or nothing? Sure. A whole party? Doesn't look like it, Joe Biden was accepted with open arms despite some real sketchy stuff by today's standards. Warren didn't get cancelled for claiming to be native american.

[TheDrake]

Chuck Lorre is getting the treatment now too because he didn't cast a real Afghan actor to play an Afghan character as well as the whole concept of the show.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chuck-lorres-new-cbs-sitcom-slammed-for-handling-of-afghan-character

"Writer Rekha Shankar tweeted, "Can someone tell Chuck Lorre that 'what if a white person liked a brown person' is not a tv show concept."

Palestinian documentary filmmaker Saeed Taji Farouky (Tell Spring Not to Come) marveled, "This is a real TV show. Actually made by human people. On Planet Earth. In 2021."

And Broadway singer-actor Pia Glenn issued a series of critiques, leading with, "I remember hearing about this when it was in development & thinking NAH...surely someone will stop this from going into production. ... It truly is Chuck Lorre. Plus America's general disdain for comedy that's smart, cutting edge, & maybe not shockingly racist and/or otherwise offensive."

Glenn, among others, particularly singled out the fact that Awalmir isn't played by an Afghan actor (Kalyan was born in South Africa to an Indian South African family)."

From the trailer, it is about what I expect from a network sitcom, relying on stereotypes for cheap laughs. Now, does that make it racist? I don't know, maybe not. I won't really know until I watch it, and I don't think I'm invested enough to watch any more of it. Does it matter if the actor is from Afghanistan? Probably not. But I suspect if that the only reason it was problematic was the actual depictions, and by then people were hunting for other problems. If you're going to to have caricatures like the one this guy seems to be, then its going to be an issue unless its an old white guy tripping over the ottoman and being the butt of your lazy jokes.

[Wayward Son]

And now the latest victim of cancel culture is, of course, Bob Baffert, whose horse Medina Spirit won the Kentucky Derby but failed his drug test (just like 29 of his other horses, including five in the past year alone).

“It did not happen, that’s the really seriously troubling part of it,” Baffert told Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino on Fox News Monday morning. “I’m hiring investigators, but sometimes you never find out.”

“These horses don’t live in a bubble,” Baffert added, alluding to the potential of Medina Spirit being tampered with. “People are touching them. You went from the derby, after the derby everybody is up there touching them. There are so many ways they horses could get contaminated.” ...

Each time it happens, Baffert and his lawyers point the blame elsewhere and the sport welcomes him back with open arms. But Churchill Downs moved swiftly on Sunday, banning Baffert and separating themselves from the disgraced trainer, despite him being one of the few names that transcends the sport.

“I know with Churchill Downs came out with that statement, that was pretty harsh,” Baffert said. “And I think they had to just – with all the noise going on, we live in a different world now. This America is different and it was like a cancel culture kind of thing so they are reviewing it.”

I suppose it is an example of "cancel culture" because, after all, the horse is brown. 

[msquared]

Oh I thought you were going to talk about the Republicans cancelling any Republican who does not support Trumps lies.

[Crunch]

So Apple should allow everything that isn't illegal? They should just let it fly? Regardless of how many people get injured physically or emotionally as a result. Get Alex Jones his YouTube back so he can get his poisonous messages out there with a giant amplifier?

I'm glad I don't live in a world according to your design, Deamon. Apple refusing to host a platform that doesn't give two *censored*s about anything any of their users choose to share isn't an apocalypse waiting to happen. I suppose according to your rules, everybody on facebook should be free to post their dick pics in public forums, after all pornographic images aren't ILLEGAL! Guess what else isn't ILLEGAL? Decapitation videos posted by terrorists.

You like to position yourself, Deamon, as "speech is speech" and yet I wonder if you visualize what that would really look like. A steaming mess of racist propaganda, wahabbist doctrine, sexual content, not only in the far corners of the internet, but everywhere you look. Under your rules, facebook would have to allow the Proud Boys to buy ad space.

Unless you want to back down from your axiomatic "speech is speech" assertion.

Throughout history, has it been the good guys or the bad guys that impose censorship? Who are the good guys that supported censorship and book banning?

[TheDrake]

Germans have banned Nazi propaganda and symbols, I'd call those the good guys. Pornographic stories that include children or incest are banned for the most part, except some literature. There are lots of other examples, Crunch, and you've already heard them and continue to assert "censorship is done by bad guys".

[msquared]

What does that make all of the parents who want to ban Harry Potter?  I agree, they are the bad dudes, so I guess Crunch agrees with me on that.

[Crunch]

Germans have banned Nazi propaganda and symbols, I'd call those the good guys. Pornographic stories that include children or incest are banned for the most part, except some literature. There are lots of other examples, Crunch, and you've already heard them and continue to assert "censorship is done by bad guys".

You know we're not talking about porn. That's quite the red herring. We're talking about political speech. And yes, censorship is done by bad people. It always has been, all throughout history.

[yossarian22c]

... We're talking about political speech. And yes, censorship is done by bad people. It always has been, all throughout history.

So the house Republicans are bad people for cancelling Liz Cheney?

[msquared]

And Dr Suess is political speach.

[Wayward Son]

You know we're not talking about porn. That's quite the red herring. We're talking about political speech.

So the only free speech covered by the Constitution is political speech? 

[TheDrake]

A publisher choosing not to publish something is editing, not censorship. You can publish just about any political manifesto you want if it doesn't promote violence or other illegal activity. You can still order any of Milo's books on amazon. Mein Kampf is political speech, would it be bad if it was removed from the high school library?

From ALA:

George by Alex Gino
Reasons: Challenged, banned, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content, conflicting with a religious viewpoint, and not reflecting “the values of our community”

That was the number 1 book that was challenged.

Here's number 6:

Something Happened in Our Town: A Child’s Story About Racial Injustice by Marianne Celano, Marietta Collins, and Ann Hazzard, illustrated by Jennifer Zivoin
Reasons: Challenged for “divisive language” and because it was thought to promote anti-police views

Number 10:

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas
Reasons: Challenged for profanity, and it was thought to promote an anti-police message



I wonder if those are making the list of conservative champions of unfettered speech?

[msquared]

Well the Republicans have cancelled Liz Cheney and for one reason only. She did not support the Big Lie Trump is spouting about election fraud.  That is it.  The Cult of Personality of Trump has claimed another victim.  They did not remove her from her position due to not following conservative ideal, but becuase she dared to say the Emporer had no clothes.

This is the day the Party died.