Cancel culture IRL

[Stout]

Certainly. That doesn’t render every claim he makes automatically true.

Again, I have to laugh that this is the hill you want to die on.

Nice dodge

I'll go with a lifetime's worth of experience saying that cancel culture exists and is having a negative effect on young authors over some cockamamie faith based argument that cancel culture doesn't exist, YMMV.

You might try presenting evidence that Kazuo Ishiguro didn't actually say what he said or was, at least, taken out of context because this flailing around approach isn't really working.

 

[johnny karate]

Nice dodge

I'll go with a lifetime's worth of experience saying that cancel culture exists and is having a negative effect on young authors over some cockamamie faith based argument that cancel culture doesn't exist, YMMV.

You might try presenting evidence that Kazuo Ishiguro didn't actually say what he said or was, at least, taken out of context because this flailing around approach isn't really working.

Yeah, let me get right on proving a negative for you because that’s exactly how this works.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Heh. Disney has some historical reasons of its own for not encouraging mentions of Hitler and Nazis around them.

Yeah, their sensitivity on this issue is not for nothing.

 

[johnny karate]

At this point, cancel culture seems to mean: things that I am upset were discontinued.

Often, the things that were discontinued were offensive. Those upset with the canceling seem to desire that those who were offended by the discontinued thing should just get over the offense rather than demand that the thing be discontinued.

Perhaps the people upset by the “cancelling” of their racist syrup bottles and terrible actors in Star Wars should also take a few lessons on getting over it.

 

[Cavemonster]

That's one way of looking at it but what Kazuo Ishiguro is talking about is.



It's not really things that might meet with public disapproval that are the thrust of his message but the genetic makeup of the authors themselves.

I don't think the idea that one's identity influences how your words may be taken is a new concept in publishing either.

Your article includes a reference to J.K. Rowling, who decided to publish using initials rather than her real name because she felt that writing what she did under a clearly female name would not meet with success.

I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to guess that for much of publishing history, being a black writer would hurt your ability to be published and read in a number of markets and genres.

I'm looking at this from the perspective that:

!) The publishing industry as a whole has always gatekept on a number of arbitrary points including the confluence of identity and content

2) Consumers of literature and critics have always done the same.

3) Authors, with the exception of a tiny few end up making McDonald wages amounts or worse when it's all said and done, and that includes many "Bestselling authors". I don't think of publishing books as a livelihood issue for authors on much of a meaningful scale.

4) Old school book publishing is a dying field.

5) The best authors generally showed boldness and wrote their truth despite what society would think of it or how it fit into the current fashion of publishers. If individual authors lack the courage to write true and good works because they're afraid people might say mean things on Twitter, they're not cut out for the field. Yes, it takes a thick skin, always has.

 

[Stout]

Yeah, let me get right on proving a negative for you because that’s exactly how this works.

Still nothing to refute the contents of the article then ? Pity. You could always try the "logical fallacy" approach, sometimes that works.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's nothing to refute because nobody is saying anything.

"Sometimes people don't like other people's opinions and react to it, but when it happens to me I give it a scary name and treat it as a bigger deal."

What's there to prove, not prove, or discuss?

 

[Stout]

I don't think the idea that one's identity influences how your words may be taken is a new concept in publishing either.

Your article includes a reference to J.K. Rowling, who decided to publish using initials rather than her real name because she felt that writing what she did under a clearly female name would not meet with success.

I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to guess that for much of publishing history, being a black writer would hurt your ability to be published and read in a number of markets and genres.

I'm looking at this from the perspective that:

!) The publishing industry as a whole has always gatekept on a number of arbitrary points including the confluence of identity and content

2) Consumers of literature and critics have always done the same.

3) Authors, with the exception of a tiny few end up making McDonald wages amounts or worse when it's all said and done, and that includes many "Bestselling authors". I don't think of publishing books as a livelihood issue for authors on much of a meaningful scale.

4) Old school book publishing is a dying field.

5) The best authors generally showed boldness and wrote their truth despite what society would think of it or how it fit into the current fashion of publishers. If individual authors lack the courage to write true and good works because they're afraid people might say mean things on Twitter, they're not cut out for the field. Yes, it takes a thick skin, always has.

Pretty hard to argue with any of that however I don't feel that the newest round of gatekeeping is any sort of an improvement. If anything, it looks like the status quo with some new language wrapped around it.

 

[Thermal]

There's nothing to refute because nobody is saying anything.

"Sometimes people don't like other people's opinions and react to it, but when it happens to me I give it a scary name and treat it as a bigger deal."

What's there to prove, not prove, or discuss?

How about discussing how you blast racist charictures and then use "OH LORDY LORDY" when ridiculing others, while from the other side of your mouth, accuse others of having hypocritical double standards? That might be fun.

 

[Darat]

One would think that a Nobel prize winning author would have a tad bit more insight into and familiarity with the current state of the publishing industry than your average laypreson. No ?

No. His authority is as an author.

What do you want done about it ? If you're happy with only certain beople being able to write certain things from certain viewpoints then so be it. Artistic expression be dammed, this is your slot and don't you dare stray out of it.

Cancel culture is, literally, in the title of the article.

Since it is something that has obviously been niggling you have you not thought what you want done about your problem?

So again - what do you want to happen to solve your problem? (If of course the author you quoted can substantiate his assertions and there is a problem to be solved or addressed.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

How about discussing how you blast racist charictures and then use "OH LORDY LORDY" when ridiculing others, while from the other side of your mouth, accuse others of having hypocritical double standards? That might be fun.

"HA! You're hypocritical about how you talk about hypocrisy! I WIN! I WIN!"

Man you will literally discuss anything but the actual topic. It's hilarious. You think anything someone else in the discussion does wrong is a point for you.

I really, literally hope that one day you get arrested for a crime and your entire defense is pointing out that the bailiff is double parked over and over and pitching a hissy fit when you still get thrown in jail because the court system is being hypocritical.

 

[Cavemonster]

Pretty hard to argue with any of that however I don't feel that the newest round of gatekeeping is any sort of an improvement. If anything, it looks like the status quo with some new language wrapped around it.

I think at it's core, most published fiction for most of history in Western countries has been white dudes writing about their own experience or writing about other people's lives and cultures in a way that with some frequency misrepresented and disempowered other folks.

There is in general, a push towards more representation in a number of ways, and that includes making space for more people whose identities have been underrepresented, and being critical when people who are generally part of a majority group might perpetuate stereotypes or otherwise misappropriate.

I don't think that's a terrible starting motivation. I'd call it better than whatever core motivation was at the root of racist and sexist gatekeeping for most of publishing history.

Does this motivation manifest in ways that are counterproductive, overreach etc? Absolutely. I think everyone in this thread agrees that there are some considerable number of people on social media who enjoy the adrenaline of a good dogpiling more than they deeply understand the issue and whether a call out ultimately serves the values they're after.

 

[johnny karate]

Still nothing to refute the contents of the article then ? Pity. You could always try the "logical fallacy" approach, sometimes that works.

The moment you provide evidence of the claim, I’ll get right on disproving the claim.

Absent that, disproving random things people read in tabloids isn’t something I bother with.

 

[Thermal]

"HA! You're hypocritical about how you talk about hypocrisy! I WIN! I WIN!"

Man you will literally discuss anything but the actual topic. It's hilarious. You think anything someone else in the discussion does wrong is a point for you.

I really, literally hope that one day you get arrested for a crime and your entire defense is pointing out that the bailiff is double parked.

No, you accused me directly of hypocritically employing a double standard, yet when challenged, you predictably went crickets. Thought I'd help you out by showing you what real racist hypocrisy looks like.

The topic at hand, I'm still not clear on. Everyone seems to have their own spin. Mob disenfranchisement? Probably fine. The only issue is how quickly bad information moves around on social media. Googling an accused's name will surely bring up pages of slamming. A retraction later will likely be buried 20 pages back, so the end result will likely be immortalizing the rumor, not the fact.

Cancelling because of factual/demonstrable issues? Been around forever, no issue. My take on CC, as we use it, is more of a wildcat negative name association. Not so good.

 

[Darat]

I think at it's core, most published fiction for most of history in Western countries has been white dudes writing about their own experience or writing about other people's lives and cultures in a way that with some frequency misrepresented and disempowered other folks.

There is in general, a push towards more representation in a number of ways, and that includes making space for more people whose identities have been underrepresented, and being critical when people who are generally part of a majority group might perpetuate stereotypes or otherwise misappropriate.

I don't think that's a terrible starting motivation. I'd call it better than whatever core motivation was at the root of racist and sexist gatekeeping for most of publishing history.

Does this motivation manifest in ways that are counterproductive, overreach etc? Absolutely. I think everyone in this thread agrees that there are some considerable number of people on social media who enjoy the adrenaline of a good dogpiling more than they deeply understand the issue and whether a call out ultimately serves the values they're after.

Well put.

 

[sarge]

Perhaps the people upset by the “cancelling” of their racist syrup bottles and terrible actors in Star Wars should also take a few lessons on getting over it.

This week (it is Tuesday here) I have heard:

“Confederate flags didn’t mean anything but pride my whole life. Now suddenly some liberal thinks they are racist so we all have to think they are racist”

“ You don’t have the authority to make me take down my Blue Lives Matter flag unless you make the guy across the street take down his US Flag. They mean the same thing”

“How can you ban Gone with the Wind (I didn’t know that was a thing) but allow 12 years a slave? They are basically the same thing. Liberals are such hypocrites”

 

[Darat]

Yeah this is the “both sides are the same”. The idea that if a R and a D both did something wrong it somehow “cancels” it out. The fact that one killed a child in cold blood and one got a speeding ticket is a silly detail we don’t need to know - they both did a BAD THING!

 

[johnny karate]

No, you accused me directly of hypocritically employing a double standard, yet when challenged, you predictably went crickets.

Here’s you lamenting the the threat of “mobs” as a component of “cancel culture”. Here’s you doing it again. And again.

Here’s you reacting to an actual mob violently storming the U.S. Capitol:

I'm sure. We'll, I have some floor tile to set. I'll check back later to see how the protestors were swept aside like yesterday's garbage.

I have faith in the strength of this Nation to deal with feces flingers. They might be allowed to prance around a bit. We can sweep up later.

Seems like that might be a double standard.

 

[sarge]

Yeah this is the “both sides are the same”. The idea that if a R and a D both did something wrong it somehow “cancels” it out. The fact that one killed a child in cold blood and one got a speeding ticket is a silly detail we don’t need to know - they both did a BAD THING!

The closest I have ever gotten an American to admit that ‘their’ elected official erred was to have them say ‘well, what about when xxxxx did yyyy when he was President” in response to some criticism I made of ‘their’ guy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah this is the “both sides are the same”. The idea that if a R and a D both did something wrong it somehow “cancels” it out. The fact that one killed a child in cold blood and one got a speeding ticket is a silly detail we don’t need to know - they both did a BAD THING!

That child shouldn't have been speeding.