MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is the any upside to cancelling?

Is the any upside to cancelling?

posted 3 years ago by 123Guy (7841)
44 replies | jump to latest

If some one is breaking a law, gets caught, pays the price, and gets strung up by cancel opinion, that's one thing. They broke a law and got punished along with public humiliation via news sources and public chatter. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

If some one is not breaking the law but some social justice didn't like their actions, virals them out to public court, ruins their family, their career, there life from here on out, what is gained from this result?

Why does canceling exist? Because it can? Is there a point to crushing people outside the law? Is law not working like we want?

For example, guy gets caught having sex with his consensual girlfriend in his amazon van... no law is broken maybe just company rules. No one was in peril or danger. Van was parked, no one saw the sex, they had some human fun.
Should they be scoffed globally, fired, blacklisted and unrmployable now?

Love to hear perspectives on this. Canceling exists so there must be a reason for it.

[–] Mustang (5571) 3 years ago

Only the revolt that is already occurring. Cancel culture will end up cancelling itself.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

this works for me.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

cancelling russia feels right.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

hahaha yeah, but I think there are LAWS being broken for war.

I think anything driven around LAWS and LEGAL is not really cancel... just laws and legal

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 3 years ago

According to whom?

I'm anti-Cancel Culture, but let's try an "iron man" this for a sec.

I suppose, theoretically, there is room for a system of "shunning" that isn't legal, but would prevent distasteful people from being encouraged in distasteful activities. This would also weed out people who abuse power and make room in their occupations for people who would love a chance at that job to get that chance. Why give rewards and dividends to people who don't deserve them?

The thing is, I find Cancel Culture has no nuance; it's "scorched earth" for minor infractions. The targets are based on who social media hates, not who deserves it (quick example: Woody Allen is "cancelled" but the Clintons aren't). Basically, it's almost never fair and it's just random, fanatical destruction of people who disagree or have alternate viewpoints as often as trying to punish actual (social) evils.

As to why it exists, it's basically because it's part of the doctrines of a cult. I've listened to interviews with "ex-SJWs" and people who were involved with or studied/study Cancel Culture, and basically it operates like a cult or a creepy sub-culture in society where you get "points" (social standing) for "calling people out" or taking stands against "oppression", so basically there is a sub-culture where it's rewarded in that in-group.

One reason people hate this stuff is because it bleeds into "outgroup". Imagine your boss being a Jehovah's Witness, but basically keeping it to himself outside of a couple pamphlets offered to you. Now imagine he forces all of his employees at his Silicon Valley tech company to follow the JW codes and creeds.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

great break down, and I agree.

for your boss scenario, I would say, even in today's dehumanizing work work, just offering pamphlets goes to far IN OFFICE. (just an example). But lets say on his OWN TIME, he is on some legal corner or park, and offers to passers by (if that is legal, pretend it is, I don't know) and not actually bothering anyone, just offering. Someone snaps a pic, posts online with some caption "This clown is forcing his religion on everyone!!!" it spreads locally, and the company drops him for the bad attention it brought them. wtf? seriously, wtf?

Also, there might just be innocent sides where people think very little of the picture, but share it anyway, thinking it is funny to a friend, without WANTING to cancel anybody.... a social virus if you will, that spreds itself but NO IDEA to want to cancel someone.... in that case, WE may all be part of this problem with little things we dont but dont know how far things can build.

I don't have an answer to all this... just talking

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 3 years ago

I'm with you on the JW boss thing. Although I actually meant him to serve as a stand-in for the Cancel Culture people, not as a target. I meant that the Cancel Culture people are the equivalent of somebody having a particular ideology and not only bringing it to the office but making it mandatory for everybody else to participate. Actually, the better analogy might be to imagine your boss brings in a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses to restructure office policy around their religion because a bunch of JWs not associated with the company insisted on him doing that.

Basically I think it's a bunch of thought-crime and dictatorial totalitarianism mixed in with cults. And it drives me crazy that people are capitulating to it (kinda why I chose tech company for the setting of my scenario).

I do think a LOT of people involved in the movement think they're being really nice, good people who are taking a stand against unacceptable things. And sometimes they are. I don't mind "Cancel Harvey Weinstein!" because that guy should 100% not have power over people and I'm glad he's serving time.

It just crosses over into bullying, and I see a lot of the movement's leaders making weird power grabs (we DEMAND decision-making powers in your company/organization or we'll cancel you, too!)

I don't have an answer, either, other than maybe just being aware of it and standing up to it when and how you can.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

ah ha! I see what you meant now. yes. makes perfect sense.

i also agree the INTENT is to make things nicer for all... yes, great concept, but WHO is getting to decide what is nice or not? there's zero way to regulate that so we will all fail.

yes yes the weinstein is a great example, but I use him as actual LAWS were broken. for broken laws, yes cancel away. Criminals ARE rightfully judged by court of public opinion - for the reasons we make those laws. but someone who didnt break any laws. but if no laws were broken... i dont think cancelling ever fits.

I fear there is not any way to stand up to it, without being penalized by the culture for trying to. thats the vibe i feel from companies and also employees at those companies.

pretty sure this was all designed by an AI in hiding, to effectively control the masses before they take over. :)

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 3 years ago

I try to keep intent in mind, though, because it helps me to remember the humanity I'm dealing with, and not just start thinking of them like pod people. I do this partly because I dislike when that courtesy isn't extended by the cancel culture side. Have you ever heard that? It'd be something like, "It doesn't matter if you weren't trying to be racist, I'm offended, so you're racist." I don't want that done to me, so I try not to do it to other people.

It's a very good point you have where laws are the line between punishment and not.

Perhaps an exception? If you don't like the way somebody behaves, don't support them. For instance: Wal-Mart has HORRIBLE practices towards their employees, in how they do business generally - they just aren't good. Not that it makes much of a difference, but I try not to shop there. Most years I don't buy anything from W-M at all. I would encourage others to not support Wal-Mart, too.

Where I draw the line, though, is judging people who support Wal-Mart. I might be in a "soft boycott" but I'm not going to yell at people who do want to go to Wal-Mart. I think that's one of the ways cancel culture is different. It says, "I don't like it, you can't, either, and if you do, I'll go to war on you, too." Not, "I don't like it, you shouldn't; it's bad." One is taking a moral stand, the other is fanatical behaviour that allows for no kindness, mercy, or nuanced thinking/reasoning (or different thought processes, for that matter).

The AI doesn't need this. Think about how much social media and cell phones control 99% of the population. The AIs won, 123Guy, and they didn't need to pull any Skynet or Borg shenanigans at all.

[–] HAL9000 (935) 3 years ago

witch hunting and other medieval malpractice has creeped back into society, due to social media.
humanity has made lots of steps back in the 21st century. it will take a couple decades until were back on track.
if we survive that is

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

yeah, true! I think we were all supposed to be smarter than that now? instant information and clarity on the world from the information super highway!

Monty Python witch court: did you dress her up like this?
crowd: NO! No! no! NO! no! Yes. yes. a bit. a bit. She has got a wart!

[–] HAL9000 (935) 3 years ago

we are still as intelligent as the medieval people and even almost as the first humans.
information is just that, information. its useless. you need to process that information to become informed.
but nobody got time for that.
besides 99% humans are still emotionally driven apes

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

exactly! so, why are we so surprised when someone does something offensive and primal? screwing in a van, or speaking one's mind about this or that and not agreeing with me. I want us to remain unstable, passionate, kaotic humans. Because the opposite is ROBOTS

[–] HAL9000 (935) 3 years ago

well there is the educated well-balanced, well-behaved human.but you need a stable society and parenting to become that.

because what we now have are emotenally unstable "robots". driven only by headlines and products