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.
Culture is the key term here. Cancel culture is not defined or refuted by one particular instance, any more than Italian culture can be represented by a meatball.
Anyway, Louis CK is 'MeToo', not 'cancel culture', even if they are overlapping circles.
Celebrities receiving backlash for sexual misconduct is a fringe, non-central part of cancel culture. Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby etc. are kind of part of this culture if you squint? mostly they are sex pests exposed in a period of changing social mores. Aziz Ansari straddles the line.
I'd call these things more typical, in descending order:
when a normal person's social media post or video, gets coordinated attention, to pressure real world consequences like being fire (see Bodega bro, or some random kid loses a college scholarship because they sung along to rap)
when an internet personality (large or small) is deplatformed, throttled, demonitized for holding or espousing views within the real-word overton window.
when a celebrity is pressured to disassociate with an unpopular person(s), ideology, or organization.
when a past offense of a celebrity is inorganically dug up and used to pressure a public groveling.
when an organization is pressured to cuts ties with or deplatforms an person holding an unpopular ideology (see cancelled speaking engagements).
when organizations, events, or physical objects are shut down, destroyed, renamed or removed.
And none of these things really has much to do with the eternal endurance of the cancellation, some expectation of being infinitely a persona non-grata across all demographics, or even the success of the campaign. Louis was thoroughly 'punished' by the culture and industry, and a years-later comeback is a non-sequitur objection anyway.
A bit off topic perhaps, but let me just say that Aziz's me-tooing was the most ridiculous of all. He clearly stated what he wanted to do and stopped when he felt she was uncomfortable. He proactively questioned her about her comfort. He then sent her away when she said she wasn't comfortable.
What I really learned from that debacle is that Aziz is a gentleman.
I honestly thing the Ansari Incident was a turning point for Me Too—as in, that’s when it jumped the shark. For the briefest of recaps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Ansari#Allegation_of_sexual_misconduct
I am woke. I am rather sensitive to lack of consent. But…girl, “Grace”, if you think that a date like that is the “worst night of my life”, then oh sweet summer child. That is nothing. He was a tad too forceful about wanting sex, and he chose a wine you don’t prefer. If you think that’s awful, if you think that’s misconduct by a man, oh my, we have such sights to show you.
Such vapid, trivializing stories like that made Me Too look like a tempest in a teapot, or a flake in a snow globe. That is the most comically candy-ass incident, that is nothing, nothing compared to what lurks out there in the dark, and what preys on truly disadvantaged women.
In online movie discussion circles, I've learned that the current "woke" ethic is that the old notion that a woman's resolve can be broken down by persistence is 'rape culture.' This is why the iconic scene of one of the most beloved romantic comedies of my youth, Say Anything, has been re-evaluated as stalker apologia. Not only does Lloyd not take "no" for an answer initially, but he has the temerity to attempt a grand romantic gesture rather than accepting her half-hearted refusals. This makes him "creepy."
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