Cancel culture and the politics of offense

[Alien826]

It's disgusting people are that pathetic.

Honestly though, I find this difficult to believe. Traumatized by a picture of two people holding hands? Reading the article, it appears that the parents made this claim. I can believe that the parents could be so racist that they didn't want their child to see the picture, but I'll bet if you could get the child away from their parents and promised anonymity, you'd get something like "Hell no, my Dad didn't like it and I went along with it to keep the peace".

 

[Alien826]

To some extent, I blame the Internet for the current exaggeration of this effect. Years ago, if you had a beef with the School Board or whatever, you had to tramp around the town knocking on doors and getting people to sign petitions. Now, your message can be shown to hundreds with a couple of clicks.

Something else that may not be directly on topic, but it caught my eye. The other day I saw a video clip on the news from the Hawaii fires where some people in a car were surrounded by flames and desperately trying to find shelter. As I watched it, I wondered, what's that beeping noise? They were bleeping out cuss words. It seems that they thought their audience was OK with watching people in danger of being burned alive, but were too sensitive to hear a few words. "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on this planet".

 

[Alien826]

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

I wouldn't go that far. Bullying is very serious and I would hope that we can minimize it while maintaining our rights to free speech. We should be able to express our opinions without bullying. A good current example is the impending trial of Donald Trump. The judge has found it necessary to warn him to limit his speech to the extent that he doesn't threaten witnesses. "Hey, it's just speech and that's protected", say his lawyers. But I doubt many people would defend free speech to the extent where threatening witnesses is OK.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's another articule on it: MSN

 

[Father Heathen]

It's disgusting people are that pathetic.

What's also pathetic are those conservatives who would claim that they disagree, yet continue enable it with their silence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course conservatives would consider basic human decency to be an "ideology".

 

[icehorse]

I wouldn't go that far. Bullying is very serious and I would hope that we can minimize it while maintaining our rights to free speech. We should be able to express our opinions without bullying. A good current example is the impending trial of Donald Trump. The judge has found it necessary to warn him to limit his speech to the extent that he doesn't threaten witnesses. "Hey, it's just speech and that's protected", say his lawyers. But I doubt many people would defend free speech to the extent where threatening witnesses is OK.

Agreed, we should be able to express our opinions without bullying.

But a couple things have been happening:

- Many on the far left have taken to saying that "words are violence". And so they can claim bullying when in fact no bullying is occurring. We see this happening right here on RF. When someone challenges a deeply held idea, that can be seen as bullying. IMO, criticizing ideas is not bullying, but that opinion is no longer widely held

- This also happens of course when religious beliefs are criticized.

 

[Viker]

Here's another articule on it: MSN

How in the world could someone, rational, find offense in that poster? Their group is also responsible for banning dozens of books. They're called Mama Bears or something silly like that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

This reminds me of posts I've read from religious conservatives in my region who were so offended and calling for others not to visit Europe because they had traveled to Europe during Pride Month and seen rainbow decorations all around them.

Conversely, I've seen some liberal visitors to third-world countries express disgust at many of the people there and overlook that social and cultural problems have multifaceted causes that can't be boiled down to "my culture is just better!" or "these people are so uncivilized."

I think acquainting oneself with other cultures and perspectives can be a good way to overcome the need to "cancel" any viewpoint that one might find objectionable or offensive. In my opinion, "cancellation" is such a simplistic approach when one keeps in mind how vast and diverse the world is. Being sheltered from the vastness and diversity leads to ossification, not progress.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Honestly though, I find this difficult to believe. Traumatized by a picture of two people holding hands? Reading the article, it appears that the parents made this claim. I can believe that the parents could be so racist that they didn't want their child to see the picture, but I'll bet if you could get the child away from their parents and promised anonymity, you'd get something like "Hell no, my Dad didn't like it and I went along with it to keep the peace".

Yeah. I have no doubts it's the adults who are enraged and traumatized.

 

[Father Heathen]

How in the world could someone, rational, find offense in that poster? Their group is also responsible for banning dozens of books. They're called Mama Bears or something silly like that.

Because racists are less inclined to hide it nowadays. You can guess what events triggered that social shift.

 

[sun rise]

Many on the far left

That's exactly why I tried to make the thread more general. Someone can be troubled by the issue of trans women participating in certain sports without being lambasted for being anti-trans.

 

[Callisto]

"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on this planet".

"Very funny, Mr. Scott... Now beam up my clothes!"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

That would be kinda my take as well (although I grew up more in the 80s) but I was listening to a comedian talk about this topic the other day (Al Murray).
His view was that there are actually a wider array of topics you can safely talk about now, with many (not all) religions, sexuality, women's issues, etc, being available in ways they weren't in the 'more permissive' past.
It's more that censorship has moved away from adhering to social norms, and instead has become more like performance art.

It was an interesting take. I can see elements of it being true, too.

 

[YmirGF]

That would be kinda my take as well (although I grew up more in the 80s) but I was listening to a comedian talk about this topic the other day (Al Murray).
His view was that there are actually a wider array of topics you can safely talk about now, with many (not all) religions, sexuality, women's issues, etc, being available in ways they weren't in the 'more permissive' past.

And I would agree with him in that there is a vast array of topics available for discussion these days that would have been laughable 5 or 20 years ago. The only problem is that due to modern technology and social media, retribution for the wrong messaging can be both instantaneous and withering. So, yes, there is lots more to talk about but, of late, there are also a lot of things that can get one into hot water all too quickly.

It's more that censorship has moved away from adhering to social norms, and instead has become more like performance art.

It was an interesting take. I can see elements of it being true, too.

What an interesting way to put it. Weirdly, appearances have become very important, of late. We must be seen to be doing the right thing. The socialist version of keeping up with the Jones's of yesteryear? Keeping up with the Trotsky's?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And I would agree with him in that there is a vast array of topics available for discussion these days that would have been laughable 5 or 20 years ago. The only problem is that due to modern technology and social media, retribution for the wrong messaging can be both instantaneous and withering. So, yes, there is lots more to talk about but, of late, there are also a lot of things that can get one into hot water all too quickly.

What an interesting way to put it. Weirdly, appearances have become very important, of late. We must be seen to be doing the right thing. The socialist version of keeping up with the Jones's of yesteryear? Keeping up with the Trotsky's?

Yep...I have to admit, I wasn't sure where I landed on his points, but it was enough to get me thinking.

 

[Stevicus]

That would be kinda my take as well (although I grew up more in the 80s) but I was listening to a comedian talk about this topic the other day (Al Murray).
His view was that there are actually a wider array of topics you can safely talk about now, with many (not all) religions, sexuality, women's issues, etc, being available in ways they weren't in the 'more permissive' past.
It's more that censorship has moved away from adhering to social norms, and instead has become more like performance art.

It was an interesting take. I can see elements of it being true, too.

As I recall, one could talk about just about anything back in the 70s, including religions, sexuality, women's issues - all popular topics of the time. Television still followed certain standards, such as bleeping out swear words and not allowing nudity. But I would consider that to be censorship of form, not content.

Even in the 50s and 60s, however prudish and provincial they might seem, there were movies, books, and forms of music which could be considered groundbreaking and pushing the barriers. There were significant reforms, and society changed for the better precisely because people were willing to talk about these issues in good faith. In today's political climate, there doesn't appear to be the same level of willingness, and this may be why we run the risk of regression and moving backwards.