independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > #CancelCulture stories
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 07/20/20 4:58pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

Alyssa Milano Slams Blackface Allegations, Says She Was Portraying Snooki From 'Jersey Shore'

Liz Calvario‍ 6/30/2020

ETOnline logoAlyssa Milano Slams Blackface Allegations, Says She Was Portraying Snooki From 'Jersey Shore'
Alyssa Milano wearing a blue dress© ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images

Alyssa Milano is setting the record straight. The former Charmed star came under fire after people accused her of wearing blackface in an old parody video that recently resurfaced. However, Milano, 47, took to Twitter on Tuesday to slam the allegations, explaining that she wasn't wearing blackface and was portraying Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi from Jersey Shore.

"Hey, a--holes. The below picture is me parodying Jersey Shore and Snookie’s tan. Snookie’s tan (she is a sweetheart by the way) is worthy of parodying as is Trump’s 'tan,'" she tweeted. "So go f--- yourselves with your smear campaign."

She also posted the link to the 2013 Funny or Die video, in which she undergoes a Snooki transformation and dons a darker complexion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us...3lOGtPFyyY


falloff lol lol lol

So, let me get this straight... black face is okay if it's a parody?!? OK, hypocrite.

Now THAT, is what it means to be a "Milano". lol

ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 07/20/20 5:12pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

I know trans people who transitioned 20 years ago, and they don't regret it. There'll always be people who think they might be trans and find out through hormone therapy that they are not trans. It's also not a lifestyle, it's not a choice to be trans. Those people are born that way, just like gay people are born that way.

I also never said people should force their opinion on JK Roling, I simply said that just like she's entitled to her opinion, people are entitled tell her to fuck off. Now her posting misinformation about hormone therapy is a whole different subject, it's not just her opinion here, it's dangerously stupid to spread this kind of propaganda.


Do you have evidence for any of this? Because in all the reading I've done on it, I've never seen that.

Anyway, the propaganda thing goes both ways. People being fed information about their children potentially being trans at a very young age is also misinformation that unfortunately some "well meaning" parents buy into.

Well it depends, if you only read blog entries from far right activists, then I could see why you've never seen that. Because real studies actually tend to show that. Unless there's something else going on (personality disorder, rape etc.) People who say they're trans, are trans and the only thing that can give them a normale life is transitioning. I know a whole lot transgenders and I'm explicitly talking about them, because like I said, there are cases of people who THINK they are trans, but have something else going on (personality disorders and other stuff) and that's why it's important to seek a therapist to find out if you are trans or not. And sometimes people find out while on hormones, that doesn't mean that being trans isn't a thing and everybody who takes hormones can stop and learn living in their assigned body, it just means that some people aren't trans. simple as that. I would highly suggest that you seek the dialogue with trans people and learn about their experience and you'll find out how much their lives improved when they transitioned. You couldn't make them learn to live in their assigned bodies, it would most likely end up with them commiting suicide, just like a gay person would probably commit suicide if they'd be forced to be straight.


Also, people aren't fed information that their kid might be trans, it's not like there's commercials on tv about that. it's just that if you're child consistently says they are a girl/boy, that maybe you should seek a therapist that check that out, it's basic education about the matter we're talking about. It could be a phase, but if the kid is persistent, it might be trans. Kids can express that actually really well. And they don't get the hormones right away either, they recieve hormone blockers when they hit puberty, it's no big deal at all.

here's an article that talks about how genes and evolution shape gender: https://theconversation.c...ity-108911

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."

Poppys, Shanon319, Number23, Kares. #lifttheban
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 07/21/20 3:23am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Image

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 07/21/20 5:44am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

djThunderfunk said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Alyssa Milano Slams Blackface Allegations, Says She Was Portraying Snooki From 'Jersey Shore'

Liz Calvario‍ 6/30/2020

ETOnline logoAlyssa Milano Slams Blackface Allegations, Says She Was Portraying Snooki From 'Jersey Shore'
Alyssa Milano wearing a blue dress© ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images

Alyssa Milano is setting the record straight. The former Charmed star came under fire after people accused her of wearing blackface in an old parody video that recently resurfaced. However, Milano, 47, took to Twitter on Tuesday to slam the allegations, explaining that she wasn't wearing blackface and was portraying Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi from Jersey Shore.

"Hey, a--holes. The below picture is me parodying Jersey Shore and Snookie’s tan. Snookie’s tan (she is a sweetheart by the way) is worthy of parodying as is Trump’s 'tan,'" she tweeted. "So go f--- yourselves with your smear campaign."

She also posted the link to the 2013 Funny or Die video, in which she undergoes a Snooki transformation and dons a darker complexion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us...3lOGtPFyyY


falloff lol lol lol

So, let me get this straight... black face is okay if it's a parody?!? OK, hypocrite.

Now THAT, is what it means to be a "Milano". lol

That isn't Black face though. Tanning and certain Italian cultures is what this is about. Guido culture etc. She was not mocking Black people. It had nothing to do with Black face.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 07/21/20 6:04am

djThunderfunk

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

djThunderfunk said:


falloff lol lol lol

So, let me get this straight... black face is okay if it's a parody?!? OK, hypocrite.

Now THAT, is what it means to be a "Milano". lol

That isn't Black face though. Tanning and certain Italian cultures is what this is about. Guido culture etc. She was not mocking Black people. It had nothing to do with Black face.


I dunno. That seems so arbitrary. Looks dark enough to be a bad idea to me.

ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 07/21/20 6:24am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

djThunderfunk said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

That isn't Black face though. Tanning and certain Italian cultures is what this is about. Guido culture etc. She was not mocking Black people. It had nothing to do with Black face.


I dunno. That seems so arbitrary. Looks dark enough to be a bad idea to me.

Well Italians/Sicilians in general have a large varying in skin tones. I have Italian friends who get darker naturally in the warm season, like as soon as Spring peaks it's head. But Guido culture, they 'tan', they get dark. It's the culture. It's not Black face. And Snooki isn't Black.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 07/21/20 6:44am

djThunderfunk

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

djThunderfunk said:


I dunno. That seems so arbitrary. Looks dark enough to be a bad idea to me.

Well Italians/Sicilians in general have a large varying in skin tones. I have Italian friends who get darker naturally in the warm season, like as soon as Spring peaks it's head. But Guido culture, they 'tan', they get dark. It's the culture. It's not Black face. And Snooki isn't Black.


OK. But it's still cultural appropriation. No? At the very least, it's NOT "woke". wink lol

ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 07/21/20 7:29am

poppys

OldFriends4Sale said:

President Obama Says It’s Time To ‘Get Over’ Cancel Culture

https://www.forbes.com/si...fe15c71617

Barack And Michelle Obama Speak At Obama Foundation Summit

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 07/21/20 8:28am

EmmaMcG

avatar

djThunderfunk said:



OldFriends4Sale said:




djThunderfunk said:




I dunno. That seems so arbitrary. Looks dark enough to be a bad idea to me.




Well Italians/Sicilians in general have a large varying in skin tones. I have Italian friends who get darker naturally in the warm season, like as soon as Spring peaks it's head. But Guido culture, they 'tan', they get dark. It's the culture. It's not Black face. And Snooki isn't Black.




OK. But it's still cultural appropriation. No? At the very least, it's NOT "woke". wink lol



How can a woman of Italian descent be guilty of appropriating Italian culture?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 07/21/20 8:36am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

djThunderfunk said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Well Italians/Sicilians in general have a large varying in skin tones. I have Italian friends who get darker naturally in the warm season, like as soon as Spring peaks it's head. But Guido culture, they 'tan', they get dark. It's the culture. It's not Black face. And Snooki isn't Black.


OK. But it's still cultural appropriation. No? At the very least, it's NOT "woke". wink lol

cultural appropriation from who? Tanning and using olive oil for it is as ancient as Turkish Greek Italian(Roman) Etruscan ethnic cultures. Who would they be culturally appropriating tanning from?

Beach life, bodybuilding etc. Mixed people tan too, people like Jada Pinkett, Beyonce, Meghan Markell tan.

.

I don't care for the whole 'woke' illusion lol Cosmetic beauty issues are a very different topic.

.

Now Beyonce is recently on fire for Blackface though

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 07/21/20 9:45am

djThunderfunk

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

djThunderfunk said:


OK. But it's still cultural appropriation. No? At the very least, it's NOT "woke". wink lol

cultural appropriation from who? Tanning and using olive oil for it is as ancient as Turkish Greek Italian(Roman) Etruscan ethnic cultures. Who would they be culturally appropriating tanning from?

Beach life, bodybuilding etc. Mixed people tan too, people like Jada Pinkett, Beyonce, Meghan Markell tan.

.

I don't care for the whole 'woke' illusion lol Cosmetic beauty issues are a very different topic.

.

Now Beyonce is recently on fire for Blackface though


Beyonce? What?!?

ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 07/21/20 10:05am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

djThunderfunk said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

cultural appropriation from who? Tanning and using olive oil for it is as ancient as Turkish Greek Italian(Roman) Etruscan ethnic cultures. Who would they be culturally appropriating tanning from?

Beach life, bodybuilding etc. Mixed people tan too, people like Jada Pinkett, Beyonce, Meghan Markell tan.

.

I don't care for the whole 'woke' illusion lol Cosmetic beauty issues are a very different topic.

.

Now Beyonce is recently on fire for Blackface though


Beyonce? What?!?

it's in Non Prince Music and More lol they are calling for her to redistrute her wealth lol

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 07/21/20 4:18pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

That isn't Black face though. Tanning and certain Italian cultures is what this is about. Guido culture etc. She was not mocking Black people. It had nothing to do with Black face.


I dunno. That seems so arbitrary. Looks dark enough to be a bad idea to me.


Not sure about blackface here but the pale pink lipstick in the middle sure is offensive lol

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 07/21/20 6:06pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Time to cancel Cancel Culture:

A high school teachder / coach in Michigan has been fired for tweeting "Donald Trump is our President."

https://freebeacon.com/ca...president/

ALL authoritarians are fascists, ALL fascists are evil.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 07/22/20 4:40am

PennyPurple

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:


Not sure about blackface here but the pale pink lipstick in the middle sure is offensive lol

True. lol I mean Snookie would never wear that shade. wink

U.S.A.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 07/22/20 6:38am

CherryMoon57

avatar

PennyPurple said:

CherryMoon57 said:


Not sure about blackface here but the pale pink lipstick in the middle sure is offensive lol

True. lol I mean Snookie would never wear that shade. wink

Oh yes, you're right! lol

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 07/22/20 12:55pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator


We are sleepwalking into segregation

Racial identity politics is fuelling a cruel, racist and segregationist outlook. It must be resisted.


https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/16/we-are-sleepwalking-into-segregation/?fbclid=IwAR28jUW6mChpQAI0wfIQ_fOVB51y14yJovbqnCTskpSVai9FeT76sA69Edg

Wokeness has turned the world upside down. Today it is those who think of themselves as anti-racist who are adopting segregationist views.

The woke policing of racial boundaries has been going on for some time and in plain sight, though it has faced little challenge. Initially, its most obvious expression in the mainstream was the policing of art and culture. Celebrities and artists were shamed and mocked for the sin of 'cultural appropriation'. The use of supposedly 'black' hairstyles, fashion, food and music by white people (and even certain non-whites) was denounced as a form of cultural theft. Those who strayed beyond their racial boundary were told: 'Stay in your lane.'

Now more nebulous ideas about 'whiteness' and 'white culture' have taken root in mainstream discussion and their boundaries are becoming sharper. Back in 2018, the Guardian tried and failed to define 'white culture' with any precision. 'If whiteness takes no shape, then the concrete structures that shaped it (and often benefit from it) remain invisible too', wrote data journalist Mona Chalabi. Sifting through the data, Chalabi discovered that white people like the arts, vegetables, alcohol and dairy products. Nonetheless, she was convinced this nebulous white culture was a force for ill, cannibalising all the other race-based cultures for its own ends.

But in the wake of the recent Black Lives Matter protests, the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) has put forward a far more definitive list of the 'aspects and assumptions of whiteness and white culture in the United States'. The list, published yesterday, could easily have been drawn up by a white supremacist. While some of the aspects of whiteness it highlights are fairly mundane, such as a lifestyle that prefers the nuclear family and follows Christianity, many of the inclusions are downright racist when you consider their opposites. For instance, if 'politeness', 'hard work' and 'objective, rational thinking' are hallmarks of 'whiteness', then what does that say about people who aren't white? Are we supposed to conclude that they are rude, lazy and irrational?

More significant is the underlying assumption – which is now widely held by our woke elites – that whites and non-whites should not only be held to different standards but are also expected to hold different, alien values. These unbridgeable divides are not based on old-school racist views of white supremacy, but on a profound pessimism about race relations. As the statue-toppling antics of BLM protesters illustrate, it is now common to view ethnic minorities as forever chained to the past horrors of slavery and colonialism (hence the need to destroy the past symbolically). Despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite all the concrete gains of past anti-racist movements, the woke narrative insists that nothing has really changed for people of colour.

'The woke are gaslighting us all'

This race fatalism has even led some 'anti-racists' to...

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 07/31/20 7:30am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Why are they going after ELLEN and her show now?

oh it's because she ended up sitting next to George Bush jr and said he was nice...

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 07/31/20 7:52am

CherryMoon57

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:


We are sleepwalking into segregation

Racial identity politics is fuelling a cruel, racist and segregationist outlook. It must be resisted.


https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/16/we-are-sleepwalking-into-segregation/?fbclid=IwAR28jUW6mChpQAI0wfIQ_fOVB51y14yJovbqnCTskpSVai9FeT76sA69Edg

Wokeness has turned the world upside down. Today it is those who think of themselves as anti-racist who are adopting segregationist views.

The woke policing of racial boundaries has been going on for some time and in plain sight, though it has faced little challenge. Initially, its most obvious expression in the mainstream was the policing of art and culture. Celebrities and artists were shamed and mocked for the sin of 'cultural appropriation'. The use of supposedly 'black' hairstyles, fashion, food and music by white people (and even certain non-whites) was denounced as a form of cultural theft. Those who strayed beyond their racial boundary were told: 'Stay in your lane.'

Now more nebulous ideas about 'whiteness' and 'white culture' have taken root in mainstream discussion and their boundaries are becoming sharper. Back in 2018, the Guardian tried and failed to define 'white culture' with any precision. 'If whiteness takes no shape, then the concrete structures that shaped it (and often benefit from it) remain invisible too', wrote data journalist Mona Chalabi. Sifting through the data, Chalabi discovered that white people like the arts, vegetables, alcohol and dairy products. Nonetheless, she was convinced this nebulous white culture was a force for ill, cannibalising all the other race-based cultures for its own ends.

But in the wake of the recent Black Lives Matter protests, the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) has put forward a far more definitive list of the 'aspects and assumptions of whiteness and white culture in the United States'. The list, published yesterday, could easily have been drawn up by a white supremacist. While some of the aspects of whiteness it highlights are fairly mundane, such as a lifestyle that prefers the nuclear family and follows Christianity, many of the inclusions are downright racist when you consider their opposites. For instance, if 'politeness', 'hard work' and 'objective, rational thinking' are hallmarks of 'whiteness', then what does that say about people who aren't white? Are we supposed to conclude that they are rude, lazy and irrational?

More significant is the underlying assumption – which is now widely held by our woke elites – that whites and non-whites should not only be held to different standards but are also expected to hold different, alien values. These unbridgeable divides are not based on old-school racist views of white supremacy, but on a profound pessimism about race relations. As the statue-toppling antics of BLM protesters illustrate, it is now common to view ethnic minorities as forever chained to the past horrors of slavery and colonialism (hence the need to destroy the past symbolically). Despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite all the concrete gains of past anti-racist movements, the woke narrative insists that nothing has really changed for people of colour.

'The woke are gaslighting us all'

This race fatalism has even led some 'anti-racists' to...


Great article. The conclusion sums it up well:

'The new politics of race may present itself as progressive and ‘anti-racist’, but it is anything but. It explicitly seeks to divide people by race. If we don’t take a stand against this, or don’t offer a universalist, colourblind alternative, then we will sleepwalk into further segregation.'


Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 08/02/20 8:51am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Bari Weiss rips cancel culture as 'social murder' on Bill Maher show

Joe Concha 23 hrs ago

The Hill logoBari Weiss rips cancel culture as 'social murder' on Bill Maher show

Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss likened cancel culture to "social murder" on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday night, arguing it isn't about criticism but "punishment."

"We're used to criticism. Criticism is kosher in the work that we do," said Weiss, who resigned from The New York Times last month in a public letter to publisher A.G. Sulzberger.

"Criticism is great. What cancel culture is about is not criticism. It is about punishment. It is about making a person radioactive. It is about taking away their job," Weiss told Maher. "The writer Jonathan Rauch [of The Atlantic] called it social murder. And I think that's right."

"It's not just about punishing the sinner. It's not just about punishing the person for being insufficiently pure. It's about this sort of secondary boycott of people who would deign to speak to that person or appear on a platform with that person," she added. "And we see just very obviously where that kind of politics gets us. If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict? It's violence."

Weiss has accused colleagues of creating a hostile work environment and bullying her.

She also said some Times reporters called her a Nazi and a racist.

"There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment and constructive discharge. I'm no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong," Weiss wrote in her letter.

At the time of her resignation, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told The Hill that the paper is "committed to fostering an environment of honest, searching and empathetic dialogue between colleagues, one where mutual respect is required of all."

A recent Politico survey on cancel culture showed a plurality of respondents think it has gone too far, with only 27 percent of voters believing it "had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society."

https://www.msn.com/en-us...d=msedgntp

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 08/02/20 10:21am

13cjk13

avatar

‘Cancel Culture’ Isn’t Real

mad dyke
mad dyke
Follow
Jul 1 · 6 min read
Image for post
Image for post

Every now and then, writers will pick up a word or phrase that’s being over-used on Twitter and try to position it like some kind of cultural phenomenon, hoping it will spark (divisive) conversation on social media and drive traffic to their site. Their editors encourage them to do this — to take whatever’s trending and offer some kind of commentary on it. Usually these phrases include alliteration, because people love that shit. The latest one I’ve been hearing about recently is “cancel culture,” and whether or not it’s “good” or “bad.” And just like Lucille Bluth, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it.

The reason I know “cancel culture” isn’t real is because “to cancel someone” isn’t an actual thing you can do. You’ll never hear any self-respecting adult say, “We can’t work with that person, I’m afraid they’ve been officially and formally cancelled.” They will usually say something along the lines of, “We can’t work with that person, they’ve been known to sexually assault people” or “they’re racist.” Which! Is! Fair!

Frighteningly, Merriam Webster has on their “words we’re watching” list. They informally define it as: “To cancel someone (usually a celebrity or other well-known figure) means to stop giving support to that person. The act of canceling could entail boycotting an actor’s movies or no longer reading or promoting a writer’s works. The reason for cancellation can vary, but it usually is due to the person in question having expressed an objectionable opinion, or having conducted themselves in a way that is unacceptable, so that continuing to patronize that person’s work leaves a bitter taste.”

So, “cancelling,” if I understand correctly, is choosing not to give your money to somebody who already has more money than they need because they behaved in a way that you (and presumably a lot of other people) consider unacceptable. Again, seems fair. Considering this person accumulated gross wealth because hordes of people “love” them, why shouldn’t they stop making stupid money now that nobody wants to see their pervy ass on the screen?

In most cases, the people “canceled” knew they were doing something wrong, but didn’t care because they were getting away with it. They’re generally people or organizations that have completely escaped consequences up until their “cancellation.” We’re forced to “cancel” people because the racist misogynistic society we were raised in doesn’t do anything to protect us.

Woody Allen isn’t in jail fore, the LEAST we can do is try to shame him into not making any more movies (which he still does!) Louis CK should’ve been fired the first time he whipped his dick out on set, but he wasn’t because of the sexist system that supported him. “Canceling” is marginalized people wielding their power for the first time in a system that’s rendered us powerless and you wonder why mass media has dubbed it “cancel culture” and asks if it’s bad??

Recently, I came across a post on Instagram saying that we need to “Cancel Cancel Culture” and my eyes started to bleed. The caption reads: “Obviously we look at things on a case by case basis, but we need to look at context, intent & room for change. If we want a better society, we need to let people learn and grow and dare I say it, learn from mistakes. Humans can be dumb, but cancelling gets us no where — learning does.”

First, I’m obsessed with the vague, sweeping statement: “cancelling gets us nowhere,” because they never define “cancelling” or “us” or elaborate on how it gets us “nowhere.” (Publicly calling people out has prevented predators from making millions, re-opened investigations, forced policy changes, etc.) The post goes on to suggest that instead of “cancelling,” we should give people the “benefit of the doubt” and ask ourselves if we’re more focused on “exposing someone” than “teaching them why they’re wrong.” We should make sure the person hasn’t made “an honest effort towards change” before formally “cancelling” them.

Except, most “cancellations” happen after the person has made it clear they’re not interested in changing. Typically, before someone is “cancelled,” aka called out in a public space, they’ve been taken aside one-on-one several times. A lot of companies that were forced to share for being racist had ignored complaints from individual Black employees for years. When they posted a in solidarity with Black people, those former employees flooded the comments to remind them they were not in fact on their side, and that’s when the company gave a shit. “Cancelling” is almost never anyone’s first attempt at justice.

When for her inadvertently racist comments about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo, instead of taking the opportunity to reflect and grow, she initially doubled down on them. It took even morepeople calling her out on Twitter for her to realize she wasn’t going to get out of this easily. She’d have to actually explain herself, and attempt to earn the money, visibility, and privilege that’s been freely handed to her thus far in her career.

There’s one element of “cancellation” I think we can all agree is bad, and that’s harassment, including death and rape threats. But people (particularly womxn) are harassed literally every day online and I don’t hear anybody talk about it except in the context of “cancel culture.” News outlets and social media platforms don’t want to broach the subject of online harassment because any type of meaningful regulation would mean less users and less money. So instead, we talk about shit like “cancel culture.” (They add “culture” to make it sound systemic, like people are leaving their homes and are at risk of randomly getting canceled, and it’s not a result of an individual’s actions.)

“Cancel culture” is similar to the The only people who ever brought this term up to me were Warren voters, and it was always when they were explaining to me why they wanted me to vote for Warren and not Bernie. I’d never heard these people discuss concern about harassment of women online or misogyny before. Even when I was receiving rape and death threats, they didn’t say anything. But for some reason, come election season, they’re in my face talking about “Bernie bros.”

Essentially, these buzz words creative divisive and utterly pointless conversations among people who pretty much agree on the same issues, thus distracting us from actually working toward any viable solutions. When it’s all done, the progressive party loses, the marginalized groups who are incessantly harassed online lose — but Twitter share holders win!

Talking about bullshit like “cancel culture,” and feeling sorry for celebrities who don’t get to own six compounds anymore, only diverts us from talking about real issues like systemic racism and misogyny. There are a lot of “cultures” we could be talking about: rape culture, diet/eating disorder culture, a toxic culture that allows people to be abused on the internet every day without consequence. But we will *not* waste another second talking about “cancel culture.”

Instead of railing against “cancel culture” or “Bernie bros” or other things you can’t actually define, focus on what it is you’re upset about. If you’re worried about misogyny, call out people in your life for being misogynistic. Do you not like that people are being harassed on social media? Come to their defense! Report trolls. Petition for Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to actually do something about the harassment that runs rampant on their platforms. If you’re worried about someone’s mental health, reach out to them.

The question shouldn’t be “cancel” or “reform,” because as we’ve established, canceling isn’t a real thing, it just means holding somebody accountable. When you hold somebody accountable for their actions, they are forced to look at themselves, and that leads to reform and growth. Often people steeped in the most privilege need to be checked publicly and repeatedly before they actually feel the need to change. (Generally once their bank account starts to feel it.)

The people being “cancelled” on social media are often people who could never actually be “cancelled” in real life. Louis CK still performs stand up and people still go to see him. Selena Gomez and Timothée Chalamet were happy to star in Woody Allen’s next film. Our president admitted to sexual assault and he was still elected. Joe Biden has also been accused of sexual assault and we’d be LUCKY if he won the presidency. Our whole fucking culture needs to be canceled!!!

But since we can’t do that, we’ll continue to publicly call out abusers, racists, and misogynists. Because unlike the white men in power — who are profiting off these cute “Should We Cancel Cancel Culture?” think pieces — our lives actually depend on it.

Mad Dyke

for queer womxn

Follow

213

1

mad dyke

WRITTEN BY

mad dyke

Follow

for queer womxn

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 08/02/20 10:22am

13cjk13

avatar

“Cancel culture” does not exist

A series of controversies have caused much outrage over “cancel culture”. But what does the phrase actually mean, and is it useful at all?

It’s a story that goes like this: there is a monster under the bed. It lurks in the shadows; sometimes it hides in the closet. You know it exists because you fear it – you wait for it. How could you be afraid of something that isn’t there?

It’s easy to attribute fears around “cancel culture” to paranoia. “Cancel culture” might be defined as a mob mentality, a series of mass movements seeking to end the careers of public figures whose thoughts or opinions deviate from a new set of left-wing norms. The concept derives from internet language: “you're cancelled” was a catchphrase created by teens who rescinded their support for problematic celebrities. Its opponents would say that “cancel culture” is a generational craving to nitpick famous people over minute infractions, and ruin their lives if they don't adhere to political correctness.

This discussion particularly intensified last week, after a group of prominent artists, writers, and journalists signed an open letter in the US monthly Harper’s Magazine. With signatories including Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie, this letter was a defence of “open debate” – something these public figures feared is becoming increasingly unavailable. “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted... it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” it reads. “Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.” The irony of several notable figures arguing that they have been "silenced" in a prominent American magazine was not lost on many readers. The letter-writers argued that established careers could today be “vaporised” simply for expressing the “wrong” views. Their fear is that we no longer have the right to disagree.

But is cancel culture a new name for an old phenomenon? For the better part of the last decade, we have given a label to something that has existed for the length of human history. Some might call it criticism, others might call it backlash. Regardless of what you call it, who holds power in these intellectual battles has always been the same.

“Cancel culture” could also be defined as a collective desire for those in positions of power to be held responsible for their perceived wrongdoings. Most of the time, this is when it is believed the actions or opinions in question oppress the marginalised, or put the safety of others at risk. When JK Rowling argues to restrict trans access to women’s safe spaces, her fans object because they sincerely believe such views make already vulnerable trans people more vulnerable; when longstanding sexual assault allegations re-emerge around Woody Allen, calls to boycott his films are led by the sincere belief that supporting him would invalidate the trauma of his accusers. The problem lies where it always has: disagreement of whether those actions are worthy of a reckoning or, as with sexual assault accusations, whether to believe the allegations at all.

The conversation about “cancel culture” is also inextricable from discussions about the internet. “Cancellation” rarely has real-world consequences: instead, it might result in names trending, take-down threads, and more replies to a tweet than likes. Social media has long been called “the great equaliser”, mostly in reference to Twitter, where everyone’s voice can be heard on the same stage. But even this is a falsehood: some people’s stages will always be bigger – reflecting the influence held in real life. Protestsand outcries happen online just as they do in real life - they just happen faster, as articles and posts are quickly shared. It is merely an expedited system of longstanding, historical forms of democratic organisation, be it boycotts of companies whose CEOs are homophobic or protests calling for the impeachments of presidents.

Social media has just given a new name to something that has existed for a long time. But the effects are arguably more minor than counterculture protests of the last century. The majority of those “cancelled”, like JK Rowling, Dave Chappelle, or Aziz Ansari, go on to experience continuing commercial success. Even those rare cases where a job is lost, it’s often that they never needed that job in the first place (when Ian Buruma left the New York Review of Books after a Twitter-storm over a controversial article he published as editor, he still maintained his professorship at Bard College, which he continues to hold today). In some cases, backlash becomes part of their brand – a fresh, new pivot that benefits their growing bottom line. The British actor Laurence Fox saw his career re-invigorated when he was “cancelled” following a Question Time appearance in January this year; both the comedians Dave Chappelle and Aziz Ansari completed popular tours hooked to their respective cancellations.

Social media is merely the natural next arena upon which old tropes are playing out – a new space for historical power structures to be solidified (the new newspaper opinion section, or the new town square). “It’s naive at best, and disingenuous at worst, to claim [underrepresented demographics] are the engine behind a new age of intolerant orthodoxy,” Nesrine Mallik wrote on the subject for the Guardian. “Furores about such changes in orthodoxy have been around for as long as there has been any sort of challenge to mainstream conventions by new entrants.”

Those who are the loudest critics of “cancel culture” are also some of the loudest defenders of “free speech” and “open debate”. The idea is that, thanks to “cancel culture”, people can no longer speak freely, and soon only pre-approved opinions will be allowed in the public domain. But has any of this actually happened? The radical left-wing opinions held by many young people on social media are increasingly popular, but those people rarely hold any real power. And crucially, they have little sway over who should be stripped of power and status. Those who study the alt-right would argue the Overton window has actually shifted in the opposite direction, allowing for more racist, homophobic and misogynistic views than was acceptable ten years before. Some who claim to have been cancelled cite the genuine, obsessive harassment they've received as proof of the phenomenon. Harassment is never acceptable. But the truth is that there is bad faith on every side of every argument. The volume of abuse someone receives on social media tends to correspond to the size of the platform they have (and often, regrettably, to their gender).

The few times we’ve seen people lose livelihoods in the “woke awakening” of the last few years have been for hardly defensible actions; Harvey Weinstein springs to mind, as well asthe alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos, who has reported links to white nationalists. When we see discussions around free speech they tend to be about those whose careers have gone largely unaffected (many of those are signatories on the Harper’s letter). Despite the supposedly devastating consequences of “cancel culture”, a man accused of sexual assault occupies the White House and Boris Johnson’s career has soared despite countless Islamaphobic statements.

The question we must sincerely ask is: who has actually been cancelled? Millionaire authors continue to watch their books enjoy commercial success and filmmakers remain critically acclaimed (while also sitting on net worths of millions). They may have generated controversy and even lost fans. But have these controversies dramatically affected their earnings? Their power? Fundamentally, has their free speech been taken away?

The right to free speech is not the right to have your unfiltered thoughts published without critique. It’s likely if you feel this way, you hold more power than most of the world. Social media can be intimidating when you have thousands of people disagreeing with you, and when this happens to non-famous people, it’s a different story. Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed (2015) has been cited extensively on this, with good reason, delving into the lives of people who were hounded out of jobs for small mistakes going viral. But even Ronson himself believes this doesn't apply to this debate. “‘Cancel culture’ has become such a vague, catch-all, hodgepodge phrase, encompassing wildly different people and situations. It's not useful at all,” he tweeted on 10 July. Cancellation implies a status, a pedestal from which you will be torn down; the public shaming of civilians isn't about free speech, but about how little power normal people have over their own narrative when they suddenly go viral on social media.

Cancellation, in the terms it is culturally viewed in, does not exist. Famous people with controversial opinions mostly get to carry on as they were; careers are not destroyed. As American journalist Jessica Valenti wrote earlier in July, “At the end of the day, ‘cancel culture’ is a term full of sound and fury, signifying nothing… facing consequences for what you say and do is not a free speech violation.” The powerful hold onto their power. The only real cost is having to listen to what others have to say.

This is not about a social issue, a culture war, or even an open letter. It’s about how, even with a louder voice online, a mass of powerless people remains no match for the voice of a powerful one. Dynamics may shift, but oppressed groups (such as trans and black people) remain the losers in this battle. The individuals and institutions who wield power remain the same.

So even if you fear the monster under the bed, it will never do you harm. It can’t, because it was never there in the first place. Repercussions rarely come for those in power. Why punch down, when you’ve already won?

Sarah Manavis is the New Statesman’s tech and digital culture writer. Sign up to her free weekly newsletter the Dress Down for the latest film, TV, art, theatre and book reviews.

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 08/02/20 10:26am

13cjk13

avatar

The Untold Truth about ‘Cancel Culture’

1*fM12RWm0px5aysgGOaAvSA.jpeg
Semíramis
Follow
Apr 10, 2019 · 5 min read

If you are an Internet user, chances are you have come across the idea that we live in a ‘cancel culture’ or ‘call out culture’.

All mighty Wikipedia defines ‘cancel culture’ as

the phenomenon of “cancelling” or no longer morally, financially, and/or digitally supporting people — usually celebrities — events, art works such as songs, films or TV shows, or things that many have deemed unacceptable or problematic.

‘Cancel culture’ is about re-thinking choices, and no longer spending money or time on materials or artists that have committed some kind of wrong, from abusing someone, to joking about pedophilia, or even being openly racist.

1*OOrMPOdU6LnJwRj3uiWk2A.jpeg
Photo by Nadine Shaabana on Unsplash

Those who strongly oppose ‘cancel culture’ suggest that we should empathize with people who make mistakes, educate them, and help them do better in the future. They think that, by withdrawing our support, we are only creating a more difficult experience, in which they won’t learn about their mishaps.

So who is in the right? ‘Cancel culture’ or ‘support everyone’?

Since there are three sides to every story, let’s analyze the three sides to this.

Cancel Culture Shouldn’t Be ‘A Thing’

Currently, those who seem to be in the minority, or at least are less visible on social media, are those who believe we shouldn’t live in a ‘cancel culture’.

I’ve seen some post about how certain people ‘don’t believe in cancel culture’, or articles about ‘cancelling cancel culture’, but they are not nearly as ubiquitous as the call-outs.

The argument in favor of ‘cancelling’ cancel culture relies on the fact that we shouldn’t be judges of other people’s morality. It is not uncommon to compare the Twitter masses to crowds bearing pitchforks, as if this new moral compass has reverted us back to medieval times.

Something that can be said for those who refuse cancel culture is that they are trying to implement a culture of forgiveness and growth. It’s not like call outs won’t happen anymore, it’s that what will matter most is what happens after them. They say the best apology is changed behavior, and detractors of cancel culture seem to strongly believe this.

1*M8SL5xsBtEAd_y5vp2ZZGg.jpeg
Photo by Felix Koutchinski on Unsplash

However, what this side is failing to address is a something quite relevant: what they are often defending is male and/or white privilege.

There will be more on that later.

Let’s see the other side.

#Cancelled

This hashtag, which originated in Black Twitter around 2015, has been used to point fingers to numerous problematic people and products during the recent past.

After the reckoning of the #metoo movement, it has often revolved around abuse, but it has also dealt with prominent topics such as racism, or queerbaiting.

However, not all outrages are created equal, and some ‘cancellations’ have had better fortune than others. A well-known example of cancel culture is the dropping of the Roseanne revival after star Roseanne Barr made some racist comments on Twitter. Other include the firing of James Gunn from directing the Guardians of the Galaxy movies; or most recently, the calls for cancellation of Liam Neeson last project, after he gave a very controversial interview.

On the other hand, there several examples of cancel culture not affecting its subjects, such as Kanye West or Ariana Grande. The former was #cancelled after he said ‘slavery was a choice’, but his album was still topping the Billboard that year. As for the latter, even though she has endured several call outs for cultural appropriation, and most recently, queerbaiting, but, at the moment, she’s going strong.

So, wherein lies the third side of the story, namely, the truth?

The Truth: Privilege

A very often untold truth about the world is that we have always lived in somewhat of a ‘cancel culture’.

Let me explain.

Before black Twitter users started cancelling morally wrong behaviors, culture and media had long been practicing the complete erasure of certain people and ideas. The only difference is that they weren’t erased because they were racists, or homophobes, or abusers, or rapists.

Quite the contrary, the people who were erased were often minorities, their only fault was to be black, or female, or trans, or gay, or all of the above. Their contributions didn’t matter because they, as a person, couldn’t matter. They weren’t allowed to take space; they were, to all intend and purposes, cancelled. Let me give you some examples.

Alice Ball found a cure for leprosy. That had to count for something, didn’t it? It didn’t. She was a chemist who developed a treatment that would be used for two decades. But since she was also a black woman, her contribution remained untold.

Alan Turing invented one of the core concepts of computer science, and his work saved millions of people during World War II. However, he led a very complicated life, due to the fact that he was gay, and was even convicted for it. His contributions were obscured by who he was, and he’s nowhere near as famous as other mathematicians.

Vera Rubin did some incredibly groundbreaking work, surrounding the topic of dark matter, which basically created a whole new field in Astrophysics. However, she was never awarded the Nobel Prize, and I would be willing to bet most people haven’t heard about her. She’s not part of the cult of ‘hyped’ physicist like Einstein, or Oppenheimer. She’s left out of the ‘boy’s club’. She was erased because she was a woman.

Ball, Rubin and Turing all contributed to the advance of science and the improvement of humankind. However, who they were meant they could be easily erased, and their jaw-dropping stories could be replaces by other similar accounts that had been achieved by white men.

Cancel culture, however, does not erase people for who they are, but for what they do. Cancel culture actually tries to defend the minorities that have had to endured years of being enslaved, abused, and erased.

Cancel culture is actually the minorities, the oppressed, reclaiming their power and fighting back.

Most often than not, the ‘victims’ of cancel culture are people who are enacting some kind of privilege. They are mostly men, even though there are a few women. They are also predominantly white.

Those who are privileged and find themselves occupying center positions take advantage of that to make jokes, marginalize, or even abused those in the margins. Even worse, they use all of these to exploit people and make a profit.

When we call them out we are not marginalizing them, we are just revoking their privilege. We are trying for them to empathize with us, as people of color, as women, as LGBTI people.

We are not calling for pitchforks; we are calling for empathy. After all, we have been enduring erasure for centuries, and with much less reason.

136

2

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 08/03/20 4:57am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

13cjk13, I cleaned up your two posts. Always look over your posts after you post them to make sure extra stuff isn't included. I left the first as is so you know what I'm talking about. Always try to clean up any visual noise.

S3:E10 Black America In Crisis

BLM activist Tamika Mallory

"Cancel culture is a little dangerous I've been cancelled If you don't cancelled you ain't really poppin It's a space that is a little difficult to manuever because you have to leave people room to make mistakes"

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 08/03/20 8:16am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator



Americans Are Self-Censoring at Record Rates

The percentage of Americans afraid to share their political views has tripled.

Jul 31 57

By James L. Gibson and Joseph L. Sutherland

Dictators around the world muzzle debate. Autocratic governments label dissent as treasonous. The voice of the people is rarely heard.

The hallmark of a liberal democracy, by contrast, is that the people are allowed to assert their views and preferences even if the government, or the majority of their compatriots, don't like it. They get to protest, to criticize, even to scream or holler or swear—and, on occasion, to listen and change their minds. But this dialogue, which is so central to our system of government, requires two essential ingredients: a willingness to put up with disagreeable views on the part of some and the confidence to express their opinions without fear of retribution on the part of others.

The most obvious threat to freedom of speech comes from the state: Citizens will only feel safe to criticize their president, for example, if they enjoy protections for their free speech and know that judges won't do the bidding of the government. But as social scientists and political philosophers have long recognized, social pressures can be just as effective in making citizens afraid of expressing unpopular opinions: The more they fear getting fired from their job or publicly being branded as a "thought criminal," the more likely they are to self-censor.

This is why it is so important to measure how free the citizen of democratic countries actually feel to express their views. Is it true, as some have argued, that the current cultural climate has made Americans more reluctant to speak their mind than in the past? Or do we live in a golden age for rollicking debate in which, as others have responded, a far greater number of people feel empowered to join the conversation?

In the 1950s, many social scientists worried...

https://www.persuasion.co...M-VcP54SzU

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 08/03/20 10:19am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator




Acting could soon be a hate crime

Performers in Scotland could be punished for playing 'offensive' roles under a new hate-crime law.

spiked

28th July 2020

.

Topics Free Speech Politics UK

Scotland's new hate-crime bill could result in actors being punished for portraying offensive characters. The SNP's disdain for free speech is not even limited to real people.

The bill is intended to prevent harm to potential victims of hate crime. But it would criminalise anything deemed likely to 'stir up hatred' against people on the basis of their age, religion, gender identity or other protected characteristics – even if it is an actor pretending to be racist, transphobic or bigoted for the purposes of a play.

UK hate speech legislation is embedded in the 2003 Communications Act (section 127). Speech that is "grossly offensive" can be prosecuted if posted online.

Scotland's new hate crime bill takes this further. Now even the performance of a play can be criminalised.

.

Truly sinister. pic.twitter.com/TNUiGsfzNa

— andrewdoyle_com (@andrewdoyle_com) May 12, 2020

Even the Scottish wing of the Labour Party – hardly a reliable friend of free speech – has criticised the bill.

.

It is not clear who gets to decide what is likely to stir up hatred, or how that hatred is defined. This ambiguity has led the Law Society of Scotland to express its concern that 'even an actor's performance, which might well be deemed insulting or offensive, could result in a criminal conviction under the terms of the bill'.

We can all think of plays which feature racist or homophobic characters, often presented in a negative light. If such performances are made a legal issue, just imagine how much material could be censored – and how many actors could potentially face criminal charges.

It is hard to believe it is necessary to defend the freedom of actors and writers to produce offensive content. Absurdly, this bill would undermine the entire point of acting – to convincingly portray someone other than yourself. If actors' performances are seen to be reflections of their own views, it will kill the performing arts.

This is a new low for censorship in Britain.

.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/28/acting-could-soon-be-a-hate-crime/?fbclid=IwAR1TL-KRU_IYw9OjDPEfh-AACpdW-UOcVlMfFPWDKMti5-dZaJoFmoai8_4

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 08/04/20 8:49am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator




"This idea of purity and you're never compromised

and you're always politically woke and all that stuff,

you should get over that quickly,"

he said.

"The world is messy.

There are ambiguities.

People who do really good stuff have flaws."

.

President Obama on Tuesday called out what he called "woke" culture in a speech at the third annual Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago, saying that even "people who do really good stuff have flaws."

The former president encouraged the audience to "get over" the concept that "you're always politically woke."

Obama continued by saying calling out other people on social media for not being "woke" is "not activism" and "not bringing about change."

"There is this sense sometimes of the way of me making change is for me to be as judgmental about other people, and that's enough,"

he said.

"Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because 'man, you see how woke I was I called you out,'" he added.

https://thehill.com/blogs...4.facebook

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 08/04/20 9:10am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator




What Barack Obama gets exactly right about our toxic 'cancel' culture

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

.

Obama went on to note that he is bothered by a trend he sees "among young people particularly on college campuses" where "there is this sense that 'the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people and that's enough.'" Added Obama: "That's not activism. That's not bringing about change. if all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far. That's easy to do."

It would be easy to see Obama's comments as a shot at President Donald Trump. Because, well, Trump's entire presidency is about sending tweets and casting stones.

.

But I think Obama is up to something much more complex -- and important here. The rise of "cancel" culture -- particularly on the left and particularly on social media -- is one of the defining hallmarks of our culture in the post-Obama presidency. Say something wrong, tweet something people disagree with, express an opinion that is surprising or contradicts the established view people have of you, and the demands for you to be fired, de-friended or otherwise driven from the realms of men quickly follow.

.

The goal of many of these cancel culture acolytes appears to be simply to move from outrage to outrage -- pointing fingers and yelling "here is the bad person. RIGHT HERE." Left unsaid -- but without question present in the underpinnings of this worldview -- is that there are only good people (aka people who agree with me on all things) and bad people (those who don't agree with me on everything.) There is no gray area. It's black or it's white.

.

The point Obama is making is that politics -- and life -- are rarely that cut and dry. No one, including you, is all good or all bad. "People who do really good stuff have flaws."

.

This is especially true when it comes to the political realm and the 2020 campaign. At the moment, the fight within the Democratic Party is between the liberal, "no compromise" wing (represented by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders) and the establishment, pragmatic wing (represented by Obama's former Vice President Joe Biden.)

.

Biden started the 2020 race using his ability to get deals done as his calling card. As Politico's Michael Grunwald wrote in a Biden profile April:

"Now that Biden is running to unseat President Donald Trump, he's touting himself as a true master of the art of the deal, a son of a car salesman who knows how to get to yes, a relentless consensus-builder who can work across the aisle to bring Americans together."

.

But as the campaign has worn on, Biden has been forced to scale back that call to compromise -- faced with a Democratic electorate (or at least a vocal portion of the party base) that wants to see Democrats as the white knights and Republicans as the evil dragon. No more and no less.

.

To be clear: What Obama is advocating for isn't that people change their beliefs. Instead, he is reminding us all of our common humanity, that we have much more in common than politicians and partisans would like us to believe. Seeing people as less like cardboard cutouts and more like, well, people, would do us (and our politics) a world of good.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/what-barack-obama-gets-exactly-right-about-our-toxic-cancel-culture/ar-AAJA1qV?ocid=msn360

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 08/04/20 9:13am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The history of America is a long litany of canceling the left. We are the run over roadkill of the planet earth.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 08/04/20 9:32am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

2freaky4church1 said:

The history of America is a long litany of canceling the left. We are the run over roadkill of the planet earth.

lol cancel culture is not really like that

there are so many avenues of it now in this world lived out in social media and micro managing celebrities socialites and social media presences

Too many people live their lives throught the 1 eyed god or social media channels watching everyone else while not really doing 'you'.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > #CancelCulture stories