This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Louis C.K. was trending on Twitter because his Madison Square Garden concert was sold out, which some on the left are interpreting to mean that cancel culture is not real, or that it does not hurt people's careers. (link: https://archive.is/ryKrI )
What does it mean to be sufficiently canceled? I think Louis C.K. qualifies as having been sufficiently cancelled. If you look at his Wikipedia page, his sexual misconduct scandal, in 2017, killed off his TV and movie career. His filmography abruptly ends in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K._filmography
Sure he's still able to sell out, but this reflects individual preferences for his comedy, not the approval of the media establishment, in which he is still damaged goods. Comedians are sorta like contractors in the sense that they have to hustle, not depend on a platform or the backing of a major media establishment. I think this is is what gives comedians an advantage over actors in regard to cancellation, because stand-up comedy can be inexpensively distributed at scale, such as digitally online, without needing the backing of an entire studio or publishing house.
The thing about the Louis CK incident is that it showed me how much power The NY Times has. Louis CK is a creepy weirdo. We knew that before 2017. Anyone who had ever listened to his comedy knew that he was a creepy weirdo. A third of his jokes were about him being a creepy weirdo. There were rumors floating around on the internet about him being a creepy weirdo in exactly the way described by the NYT article. No one cared. Then one day The NYT publishes a hit-piece about Louis CK being a creepy weirdo, and suddenly every respectable institution decides having a creepy weirdo around is NOT OKAY. The guy who had a stand up bit about wanting to go around in public shooting cum on everyone is kicked out of polite society because The NYT ran an article about him asking for consent to masturbate and then doing it.
I always assumed it was predetermined by multiple parties with leverage that CK was out. And then 'they' just executed 'their' hit as an excuse, taking advantage of convenient times.
That theory is evidenced by the fact that he was striking out a bit on his own prior to this more recent ad friendly comeback. Doing stand-up with even more crass jokes, hanging around outsiders like Shane Gillis and so on. Indicating that he was hanging out with a new crowd doing less cucked comedy(for his standards).
Considering the bottom barrel high school tier clique based social networks that seem to dominate the 'comedy crowd' in the US, and the rumors within that space that CK could be a socially deaf asshole that treated people with less clout than him with indignity, I'd wager CK managed to step on enough toes, or at least the wrong ones, and found himself with too few friends in higher places, and too many people who hated his guts.
I know this might sound a bit like far fetched fan fiction, but I'm always reminded of how Dane Cook managed to be treated like the worst comedian in the history of the universe whilst he was selling out tickets to his shows. Only because the 'comedy crowd' in the cities didn't like him. Presumably just because he coded red and wasn't doing the George Carlin 'nihilism' bit like most everyone else. Meaning that it doesn't necessarily take much to find yourself without any friends in the US comedy scene(gutter).
Wasn't he accused of stealing jokes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Cook#Accusations_of_plagiarism), which makes one a pariah amongst other comedians even if the general audience never hears about it/doesn't care? Seems like that's worse and more substantial than just "coded red."
People hated him and it had very little to do with stealing jokes. Much more the fact that he was extremely successful along with the reasons I gave prior. I don't think it says that in his Wikipedia article, but it's lacking all relevant context anyway so I don't think you are in a position to make the argument you are making if you are also lacking the relevant context.
To put things in perspective, I don't think you can look over any recent interviews or people talking about Dane Cook of the past without them mentioning how hated he was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link