Cancel culture and the politics of offense

[sun rise]

I ran into two articles that illustrate the war over people being offended/traumatized by something and wanting it cancelled.

Conroe ISD trustee argues displays of racial inclusivity and pride in classrooms should be removed
One trustee says a child was traumatized by a poster showing different colored children holding hands

Missouri senior center cancels weekly Bible study after 'some residents were offended'​

Personally the all pervasive culture of cancel anything and everything because some people are offended by everything and anything has gone way way way too far.

 

[sun rise]

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think cancel culture as a broad concept needs to go. If when we take it away, then there's still a need for some elements of it, we can work on those elements. But as it is, I think it has grown way too broad and gotten out of control.

 

[SomeRandom]

So called “cancel culture” is really just the new generation’s version of boycotting.
I can agree that there should absolutely be limits, that people to a certain extent should take responsibility for their own mental health and excuse themselves if they feel upset by something.

Too often I see it used as a weapon, to excuse posting/saying offensive awful toxic crap and then crying victim when there’s pushback
“See??? They’re cancelling me!!!”
And I’ve seen it go the other direction, utilised to silence speech, books, general media and even social media posts.

As with all things, there is nuance and it’s easy to get lost in a sense of self righteousness when it comes to such topics

 

[Ella S.]

It's an inefficient praxis.

"Cancelling" something only works when you have total power. When you "cancel" something in a society that's divided, all you're doing is martyring it to whatever group approves of it. You're not actually getting rid of it.

The only times that censorship on such a scale has been effective (at creating the political change that the censors are wanting) are when totalitarian regimes deploy the entire might of a militarized state. Without that, you get the Streisand Effect and tend to stoke further conflict.

If you kick someone out of your coffee shop for expressing ideas that you disagree with, they'll go down the road to the one that will push them towards even more extreme ideas. Thus, our current internet echo-chambers.

It can work to keep those ideas out of particular spaces, though. I might not care so much if someone runs off to an echo-chamber that radicalizes them after I run them out of my space, because I might only care that they're gone from mine.

That's unsustainable long-term. Eventually, everyone you've kicked out is going to band together to come after you, because the conflict is already there. That's how you get wars and revolutions.

But there's probably no solution to that. Human history is one of conflict. No society lasts too long before it's ripped apart or conquered. Politics is an endless war.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So called “cancel culture” is really just the new generation’s version of boycotting.
I can agree that there should absolutely be limits, that people to a certain extent should take responsibility for their own mental health and excuse themselves if they feel upset by something.

Too often I see it used as a weapon, to excuse posting/saying offensive awful toxic crap and then crying victim when there’s pushback
“See??? They’re cancelling me!!!”
And I’ve seen it go the other direction, utilised to silence speech, books, general media and even social media posts.

As with all things, there is nuance and it’s easy to get lost in a sense of self righteousness when it comes to such topics

I feel that cancel culture also invites a 'mob-like mentality' in some social groups. When taken to extremes, I've seen people attacked rather than corrected just for saying a term that while not overly offensive, wasn't the Politically Correct usage.

Example of such a term: Calling a trans person "A transgender" rather than "A transgender person"

Whereas I consider it responsible to correct such a word usage, I've also seen groups that have outright cast ideas that the person is anti-trans based on that slip-up, even if the person is LGBT+ themselves.

 

[Stevicus]

I ran into two articles that illustrate the war over people being offended/traumatized by something and wanting it cancelled.

Conroe ISD trustee argues displays of racial inclusivity and pride in classrooms should be removed
One trustee says a child was traumatized by a poster showing different colored children holding hands

Missouri senior center cancels weekly Bible study after 'some residents were offended'​

Personally the all pervasive culture of cancel anything and everything because some people are offended by everything and anything has gone way way way too far.

It seems like a game of tit-for-tat is going on, where left-wing stuff gets cancelled on right-wing turf, and vice versa.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I gotta say, I don't like it any more. There may have been a time when genuine groups of activists carefully targeted powerful people who did or said abhorrent things. That was its golden age.

But these days, I fear it is a largely corporate and largely ingenuine practice. It's not that the idea of cancel culture is flawed per se. I think a lot of good has come from it.

The problem is: it's popular and influential.

If something EVER becomes popular and influential, it's over. Because that means hordes and hordes of vultures and fakes will come along and take it over. I think we are starting to see that process begin. It may have begun a year or two ago and it's just that right now it has become obvious to everybody.

One thing is for sure... most of the genuine activists are starting to move on and begin new projects.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I feel that cancel culture also invites a 'mob-like mentality' in some social groups. When taken to extremes, I've seen people attacked rather than corrected just for saying a term that while not overly offensive, wasn't the Politically Correct usage.

Example of such a term: Calling a trans person "A transgender" rather than "A transgender person"

Whereas I consider it responsible to correct such a word usage, I've also seen groups that have outright cast ideas that the person is anti-trans based on that slip-up, even if the person is LGBT+ themselves.

It's been my observation those sorts can be highly prone to being fast and loose with other things that may be crude, offensive amd even prejudiced against others but don't you dare target them because them and their stuff is all strictly off limits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Conroe ISD trustee argues displays of racial inclusivity and pride in classrooms should be removed
One trustee says a child was traumatized by a poster showing different colored children holding hands

It's disgusting people are that pathetic.

 

[sun rise]

I feel that cancel culture also invites a 'mob-like mentality' in some social groups. When taken to extremes, I've seen people attacked rather than corrected just for saying a term that while not overly offensive, wasn't the Politically Correct usage.

Example of such a term: Calling a trans person "A transgender" rather than "A transgender person"

Whereas I consider it responsible to correct such a word usage, I've also seen groups that have outright cast ideas that the person is anti-trans based on that slip-up, even if the person is LGBT+ themselves.

Being too easily triggered is part of the problem along with a very rigid idea of what is acceptable.

Decades ago, in the "John Birch Society" song we laughed about lyrics like these which illustrated extreme rigidity. Now we don't laugh.
"There's no one left but thee and me
and I'm not sure of thee"

 

[Ella S.]

Being too easily triggered is part of the problem along with a very rigid idea of what is acceptable.

Decades ago, in the "John Birch Society" song we laughed about lyrics like these which illustrated extreme rigidity. Now we don't laugh.
"There's no one left but thee and me
and I'm not sure of thee"

That kind of just sounds like victim blaming to me.

It reminds me of a specific serial child abuser who, when caught, said that it was all just a joke and people needed to lighten up. He said this after raping multiple infants. That was his idea of something we should all have a good laugh about.

I think it will be rather uncontroversial for me to say that, in my opinion, that case was certainly no laughing matter to the babies and the families that were affected. It was a rather serious one.

On a smaller note, I have plenty of anecdotes to share about abusers and schoolyard bullies who would, similarly, dismiss any complaints about their behavior and instead assert it was their victims' faults for being emotionally weak or unable to take a joke. "Hilarious" jokes like breaking their bones. Real comedians.

I have little sympathy for the idea that the problem is that the people getting hurt are "too sensitive." It comes across to me like an irresponsible cop-out.

Aside from that, I tend to believe that it is better to take things too seriously than too lightly, so we should err on the side of seriousness.

 

[SomeRandom]

That kind of just sounds like victim blaming to me.

It reminds me of a specific serial child abuser who, when caught, said that it was all just a joke and people needed to lighten up. He said this after raping multiple infants. That was his idea of something we should all have a good laugh about.

I think it will be rather uncontroversial for me to say that, in my opinion, that case was certainly no laughing matter to the babies and the families that were affected. It was a rather serious one.

On a smaller note, I have plenty of anecdotes to share about abusers and schoolyard bullies who would, similarly, dismiss any complaints about their behavior and instead assert it was their victims' faults for being emotionally weak or unable to take a joke. "Hilarious" jokes like breaking their bones. Real comedians.

I have little sympathy for the idea that the problem is that the people getting hurt are "too sensitive." It comes across to me like an irresponsible cop-out.

Aside from that, I tend to believe that it is better to take things too seriously than too lightly, so we should err on the side of seriousness.

I wan heavily entrenched in the “anti snowflake” crowd for quite a while.
Since left

I have to say, based on my observations both in hindsight and at the time, folks who espoused such talking points were “triggered” by a pin drop.
I guess the Americans would compare it to the Satanic Panic just updated?
I’m not sure. Not American and too young to remember that.
Just saying

 

[Ella S.]

I wan heavily entrenched in the “anti snowflake” crowd for quite a while.
Since left

I have to say, based on my observations both in hindsight and at the time, folks who espoused such talking points were “triggered” by a pin drop.
I guess the Americans would compare it to the Satanic Panic just updated?
I’m not sure. Not American and too young to remember that.
Just saying

I have seen sad cases of the opposite, where people in such a crowd are so dedicated to taking nothing seriously that they can't even take themselves or their own lives seriously. Everything becomes a joke to them. Any attempt to relate to them is deflected with humor.

They'll frame it as them having a good sense of humor and not taking life too seriously, but it's often a flimsy rationalization for repression or a way to emotionally distance themselves from who they are to avoid falling into self-hatred. If they ever show genuine humanity, it might be hidden discreetly in several layers of irony to the point that they themselves aren't even sure whether they're joking or not anymore.

Those are the kind of people that are the most susceptible to saying racial slurs as a joke. Then their next joke might be to say those same slurs directly to the people described by them. Eventually, it crosses some line, like spray-painting their neighbor's car with those slurs "as a joke."

Shocking people stops being funny the more you do it, so to keep making it funny you have to escalate to outright sadism. Now you're no longer laughing at people because their reaction is disproportionate, but because they're suffering and you aren't.

It's not a slippery slope from shock humor to joining a hate group, don't mistake me. But that unhealthy relationship with humor can be preyed upon by people that aren't actually joking. It turns broken people into weapons of hate, which often means those broken people cross some hard moral line that makes them "beyond saving" in the eyes of everyone else, cutting them off from anyone who might have been able to help them.

Nobody wins there. It's just tragic.

 

[sun rise]

My thought when starting the thread was embedded in the title "Politics of offense". Some people are pretending to be offended by something for political reasons.

On another note - it's good to avoid both extremes especially when pretense is involved. Pretending that there nothing worth taking seriously when deep inside it's the opposite is unhealthy. Taking correctable mistakes, for example, as deadly seriously is psychologically deadly. The trick and the problem is finding a balance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Like it or not, cancel culture truly is nothing more than the attempt to deny unalienable rights to others. "I don't like what you're saying, so I want you to stop saying it." "I don't like your choice of art, so I want it removed." "I don't like the political undertones of your music genre, so it should be banned." "I don't like the content of this sort of literature, so ban it!"

I am a very, very strong believer in people's rights, and I would never try to deny them. If I don't like something, there's nothing stopping me from walking away and minding my own business.

 

[PureX]

I ran into two articles that illustrate the war over people being offended/traumatized by something and wanting it cancelled.

Conroe ISD trustee argues displays of racial inclusivity and pride in classrooms should be removed
One trustee says a child was traumatized by a poster showing different colored children holding hands

Missouri senior center cancels weekly Bible study after 'some residents were offended'​

Personally the all pervasive culture of cancel anything and everything because some people are offended by everything and anything has gone way way way too far.

You have to look at who is responding to this stuff, and why. The average person doesn't care at all about the vast majority of these "offenses". And in the past any such complaint would simply be ignored as crackpot nonsense.

So what's changed?

Politics. A very small number of people can determine the outcome of a big election because our whole culture is so divided right down the middle and it's the crackpots that are wielding the deciding votes, and everyone else is now afraid of them. And it's not just in governmental politics, it's running a senior center politics, or church politics, or running a school, or even a small business.

One disgruntled mother writes a letter to the school board and the whole board is afraid of her. They might lose their next election and be off the board if they don't placate her. No mater how absurd her complaints might be. No one has the courage of their convictions, anymore, when to stand up for them might cause some actual hardship. We love our freedom right up until it might actually cost us something to keep it. Then we fold like paper tigers.

 

[icehorse]

Free speech is not absolute. That said, in this world run by oligarchs and kleptocrats, and warped by endless marketing, advertising, and propaganda, free speech is one of our most important ways of keeping the real monsters in check. They're still winning, no doubt, but they haven't won yet.

So of course, no one here thinks bullying is a good idea, but maintaining our free speech far, far, far outweighs minimizing bullying.

 

[Stevicus]

There's another current thread where they're discussing TV shows and movies from the past which wouldn't really be considered acceptable in today's political climate.

That's another aspect of "cancel culture" which is kind of interesting, as I recall that things were a bit more open in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, where you could "tell it like it is" and "let it all hang out." There were boycotts and protests obviously, but those were used in the context of fighting for reform and change in an intolerant society. They were opposing what was actually being done, and they were opposing actual policies of corporations, institutions, governments which were considered unjust.

But I recall that the dialogue was a bit more open, even if rather salty, which is reflected in the TV shows and movies from that era. But after a certain point, they started to clamp down on people saying stuff that didn't seem "politically correct." Some of the terminology also changed or was considered old-fashioned or offensive. Certain types of humor were no longer considered acceptable in polite company.

Of course, it's still allowed, thanks to the First Amendment, but the reception to it in today's culture is vastly different. That just goes to show that, when the rubber meets the road, "cancel culture" never really "cancels" anything. Whatever ideas someone is trying to cancel will never actually go away or disappear, and if anything, it calls greater attention to the ideas they want to go away and ends up stirring the pot even more.

What seems different now than it was back in the 70s is that there seems a greater sense of entrenchment. I think back in the day, people from different factions actually wanted to discuss their differences in good faith and reach some sort of mutual understanding. But over the years, it seems that the political factions have become more and more entrenched, with a certain "screw everybody else" attitude that makes any kind of rational, good faith discussion between people somewhat a lost cause.

 

[Callisto]

Like it or not, cancel culture truly is nothing more than the attempt to deny unalienable rights to others. "I don't like what you're saying, so I want you to stop saying it." "I don't like your choice of art, so I want it removed." "I don't like the political undertones of your music genre, so it should be banned." "I don't like the content of this sort of literature, so ban it!"

I am a very, very strong believer in people's rights, and I would never try to deny them. If I don't like something, there's nothing stopping me from walking away and minding my own business.

It used to be very common to see people say, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it". (The actual saying is older, from the early 1900s used to describe Voltaire's beliefs). And that wasn't too long ago people would default to it, it was a constant in the 1990s into the 2010s before this puerile wave of hypersensitive entitlement.