independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Jon Stewart says cancel culture is made up.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/13/21 11:23am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Jon Stewart says cancel culture is made up.

He makes a good case here:

https://www.youtube.com/w...oKqrLGJU5s

Comedian David Feldman said it best--tell better jokes.


*

cANCEl Culture 'The truth...rince.org)


cANCEl Culture 'The truth doesn’t seem to matter'

*

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/13/21 12:30pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

He makes a good case here:

https://www.youtube.com/w...oKqrLGJU5s

Comedian David Feldman said it best--tell better jokes.

.

Of course it is. And ironically it is most often used by people that seek to "cancel" what others say or do that they are politically opposed to.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/13/21 12:46pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

It's definitely not made up. When you have popular, extremely talented, actors who are now out of work because they said or did something wrong or are accused, without proof, of doing something wrong then you know there's a problem.

Even people who haven't done anything and are not even accused of doing anything wrong can find their options for work drying up if they express an opinion that differs from what's "acceptable".

When a bunch of people get on Twitter and claim to be so offended by the actions or beliefs of another, so much so that the studio or network that was going to hire them decides to avoid the controversy and go with someone else, that's cancel culture.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/13/21 1:11pm

IanRG

EmmaMcG said:

It's definitely not made up. When you have popular, extremely talented, actors who are now out of work because they said or did something wrong or are accused, without proof, of doing something wrong then you know there's a problem. Even people who haven't done anything and are not even accused of doing anything wrong can find their options for work drying up if they express an opinion that differs from what's "acceptable". When a bunch of people get on Twitter and claim to be so offended by the actions or beliefs of another, so much so that the studio or network that was going to hire them decides to avoid the controversy and go with someone else, that's cancel culture.

.

And this is nothing new - It is not a new culture or a new process, just the ongoing reality that follows on from the school yard cliques, the gossip magazines, the social pages, propaganda against your opponent or the other side or country or Mccarthyism etc etc etc. All of these have harmed people who have done little or no wrong.

.

It is just the latest term for people seeking to cancel the opinion of others (by ironically accusing them of seeking to cancel others).

[Edited 10/13/21 13:16pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/13/21 2:20pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

IanRG said:



EmmaMcG said:


It's definitely not made up. When you have popular, extremely talented, actors who are now out of work because they said or did something wrong or are accused, without proof, of doing something wrong then you know there's a problem. Even people who haven't done anything and are not even accused of doing anything wrong can find their options for work drying up if they express an opinion that differs from what's "acceptable". When a bunch of people get on Twitter and claim to be so offended by the actions or beliefs of another, so much so that the studio or network that was going to hire them decides to avoid the controversy and go with someone else, that's cancel culture.

.


And this is nothing new - It is not a new culture or a new process, just the ongoing reality that follows on from the school yard cliques, the gossip magazines, the social pages, propaganda against your opponent or the other side or country or Mccarthyism etc etc etc. All of these have harmed people who have done little or no wrong.


.


It is just the latest term for people seeking to cancel the opinion of others (by ironically accusing them of seeking to cancel others).

[Edited 10/13/21 13:16pm]



Oh, of course. I know it's not a new thing. But it's definitely amplified by social media so there's MORE of it now than there would have been before. And people seem to be "cancelled" now for less. Just look at the reception to the Dave Chappelle thing on Netflix. If he delivers that exact same routine in the 80s or 90s it wouldn't even be an issue.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/13/21 3:29pm

IanRG

EmmaMcG said:

IanRG said:

.

And this is nothing new - It is not a new culture or a new process, just the ongoing reality that follows on from the school yard cliques, the gossip magazines, the social pages, propaganda against your opponent or the other side or country or Mccarthyism etc etc etc. All of these have harmed people who have done little or no wrong.

.

It is just the latest term for people seeking to cancel the opinion of others (by ironically accusing them of seeking to cancel others).

[Edited 10/13/21 13:16pm]

Oh, of course. I know it's not a new thing. But it's definitely amplified by social media so there's MORE of it now than there would have been before. And people seem to be "cancelled" now for less. Just look at the reception to the Dave Chappelle thing on Netflix. If he delivers that exact same routine in the 80s or 90s it wouldn't even be an issue.

.

Every technological change only creates a wider spread and wider knowledge - I don't think there is more, just that it can be discussed by more people and known by more. This works both ways: in a local area bringing down to size a known local is less likely to be subjected to dispassionate analysis and condemnation of the unjust "cancelling".

.

The triviality in why people have lost their public career or position goes back 2500 years with the first reference to cutting down tall poppies - this was lead to the first published reference of tall poppy syndrome in 1864.

.

The "issues" of the past were just different - Imagine the size of the "issue" if a US TV station in the 1980 showed a comedy act that pushed for legal acceptance of gender fluidity and marriage equality. Or, if in 2004 a singer ripped off a deliberately removable panel over his fellow singer's breast to show her breast where the nipple was obscured by strategically placed jewellery!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/14/21 9:07am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

EmmaMcG said:

IanRG said:

.

And this is nothing new - It is not a new culture or a new process, just the ongoing reality that follows on from the school yard cliques, the gossip magazines, the social pages, propaganda against your opponent or the other side or country or Mccarthyism etc etc etc. All of these have harmed people who have done little or no wrong.

.

It is just the latest term for people seeking to cancel the opinion of others (by ironically accusing them of seeking to cancel others).

[Edited 10/13/21 13:16pm]

Oh, of course. I know it's not a new thing. But it's definitely amplified by social media so there's MORE of it now than there would have been before. And people seem to be "cancelled" now for less. Just look at the reception to the Dave Chappelle thing on Netflix. If he delivers that exact same routine in the 80s or 90s it wouldn't even be an issue.

that's what I've been saying. It is very different in how its weaponized in a different way.

So as culture and societies change morph evolve demoralize etc terms and views are named inspected and discussed. It's just a different creature. It does have a lot to do with censorship, envy, sensitivity etc

#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
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/14/21 10:48am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

EmmaMcG said:

It's definitely not made up. When you have popular, extremely talented, actors who are now out of work because they said or did something wrong or are accused, without proof, of doing something wrong then you know there's a problem. Even people who haven't done anything and are not even accused of doing anything wrong can find their options for work drying up if they express an opinion that differs from what's "acceptable". When a bunch of people get on Twitter and claim to be so offended by the actions or beliefs of another, so much so that the studio or network that was going to hire them decides to avoid the controversy and go with someone else, that's cancel culture.


yeahthat


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/14/21 10:57am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Denying cancel culture exists is just another blind spot for those on the far left, and anyone else for that matter. They claim to be empathetic and on the side of the victim. But they create more victims with their pernicious actions. They're not the judiciary, and they don't make the law. Their behaviour indicates their mentality is a mob mentality. As an example, didn't J K Rowling get death threats for referring to trans people by an outdated and implied prejudice term?


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/14/21 11:25am

jjhunsecker

avatar

So-called “Cancel culture “ only exists if you let it
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/14/21 1:02pm

IanRG

OldFriends4Sale said:

EmmaMcG said:

IanRG said: Oh, of course. I know it's not a new thing. But it's definitely amplified by social media so there's MORE of it now than there would have been before. And people seem to be "cancelled" now for less. Just look at the reception to the Dave Chappelle thing on Netflix. If he delivers that exact same routine in the 80s or 90s it wouldn't even be an issue.

that's what I've been saying. It is very different in how its weaponized in a different way.

So as culture and societies change morph evolve demoralize etc terms and views are named inspected and discussed. It's just a different creature. It does have a lot to do with censorship, envy, sensitivity etc

.

The highlighted section I agree with. The rest not so much.

.

The objectives are the same as they have always been. The methods (other than the communcations technology) used by the influencers are the same as they always have been. The way it often relies on spin and emotion over facts is the same as it always has been. The way it can descend to threats is the same as it always has been. All that has changed is who is able to be an "influencer" and how many people they can reach.

.

The advantages of this over, say Mccarthyism, is the voices are less controlled by the politically powerful. Over the previous methods to hide and dismiss sexual abuse or real things in the Dirt File the advantage is that media and propaganda spin to hide this can be undermined by the people.

.

The disadvantages of the new methods is not that there is more, but that we can hear about it more - The spread of the influencer can be global without the need for the resources of media, political or other organisations. This allows those seeking to censor the opposition or those acting out of envy a wider spread.

.

It is not in the method, but in the audience that means this either does good or bad. If it exposes what needs to be exposed it is good. If it gives the unimportant or untrue things undue air it is bad. If it exposes evil it is good, if it cancels the innocent it is bad - this is in the hands of the audience in who they listen to, follow, tag, repost and how they act - just it always has been. The lies to sell the trashy gossip magazines have just moved - the undeserved impacts remain if the audience buys the lies.

[Edited 10/14/21 14:43pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/15/21 5:49am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

IanRG said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

that's what I've been saying. It is very different in how its weaponized in a different way.

So as culture and societies change morph evolve demoralize etc terms and views are named inspected and discussed. It's just a different creature. It does have a lot to do with censorship, envy, sensitivity etc

.

The highlighted section I agree with. The rest not so much.

.

The objectives are the same as they have always been. The methods (other than the communcations technology) used by the influencers are the same as they always have been. The way it often relies on spin and emotion over facts is the same as it always has been. The way it can descend to threats is the same as it always has been. All that has changed is who is able to be an "influencer" and how many people they can reach.

.

The advantages of this over, say Mccarthyism, is the voices are less controlled by the politically powerful. Over the previous methods to hide and dismiss sexual abuse or real things in the Dirt File the advantage is that media and propaganda spin to hide this can be undermined by the people.

.

The disadvantages of the new methods is not that there is more, but that we can hear about it more - The spread of the influencer can be global without the need for the resources of media, political or other organisations. This allows those seeking to censor the opposition or those acting out of envy a wider spread.

.

It is not in the method, but in the audience that means this either does good or bad. If it exposes what needs to be exposed it is good. If it gives the unimportant or untrue things undue air it is bad. If it exposes evil it is good, if it cancels the innocent it is bad - this is in the hands of the audience in who they listen to, follow, tag, repost and how they act - just it always has been. The lies to sell the trashy gossip magazines have just moved - the undeserved impacts remain if the audience buys the lies.

[Edited 10/14/21 14:43pm]

I don't know what there is to disagree about the fact that culture and society does change and morph. That view are named inspected and discussed. That is a simple fact.

.

The fact is, in 1911 there was no social media as we know it, the fact is, in 1985 we did not have Twitter, FB, Instgram, Snapchat, cell phones etc

.

These things are large parts of Cancel Culture.
These things when directed by (the highlighted parts) create cancel culture. And couple that with the increase in 'Reality Tv' where everyday people are putting themselves out there, it brings about a culture of fault finding, critiquing, self righteousness. it's macro aggressive.

In 1985, anything you had to say about a celeb, you simply said it to yourself or the people you were around. Unless you were one of those who went out of your way to write a letter and mail it to a magazine or a 'celeb address'. Most of us didn't and kept on living our lives.

In 2015 if a celeb shares a picture of their child, people now can and do click reply, tweet, post in direct ways the the celeb can see/read. And can and do make very invasive comments.
The hypocracy of cancel culture is that those attempting to cancel, tend to not be in a place where the rest of the world can know what mistakes they have made or what skeletons they have in their closets.
.
It is the Method & the Audience. Both have to exist for Cancel Culture.

#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
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/15/21 5:56am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

fortuneandserendipity said:

Denying cancel culture exists is just another blind spot for those on the far left, and anyone else for that matter. They claim to be empathetic and on the side of the victim. But they create more victims with their pernicious actions. They're not the judiciary, and they don't make the law. Their behaviour indicates their mentality is a mob mentality. As an example, didn't J K Rowling get death threats for referring to trans people by an outdated and implied prejudice term?


It definately is a mob mentality.

We had fan clubs in the 70s and 80s, but like our fandom it was intensly fun. But over time you saw people become even more obsesive and cult like. So for example you get Beyonce, and her cult following is called the Beehive. These people get ruthless. So there was a situation in 2019 where Jay Z and Beyonce were at a Bball game, there was a woman sitting next to Beyonce who was talking to Jay Z. The Beehive(having not been there nor knowing the relationship between the 3) went after the woman on twitter and some other social media. They threatened her, they attacked her, and Beyonce had to say something to let them know, they were misinterpreting the paparazzi photos.
.
The hypocracy of the self righteous cancel culture cultists is that they can say the most vile things, even threaten peoples lives, and never have to apologize. They have literally made people shut down their accounts.

.

I guess the extreme of cancel culture is when artists draw caricatures of Mohammed and get beheaded

#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
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/15/21 5:24pm

IanRG

OldFriends4Sale said:

IanRG said:

.

The highlighted section I agree with. The rest not so much.

.

The objectives are the same as they have always been. The methods (other than the communcations technology) used by the influencers are the same as they always have been. The way it often relies on spin and emotion over facts is the same as it always has been. The way it can descend to threats is the same as it always has been. All that has changed is who is able to be an "influencer" and how many people they can reach.

.

The advantages of this over, say Mccarthyism, is the voices are less controlled by the politically powerful. Over the previous methods to hide and dismiss sexual abuse or real things in the Dirt File the advantage is that media and propaganda spin to hide this can be undermined by the people.

.

The disadvantages of the new methods is not that there is more, but that we can hear about it more - The spread of the influencer can be global without the need for the resources of media, political or other organisations. This allows those seeking to censor the opposition or those acting out of envy a wider spread.

.

It is not in the method, but in the audience that means this either does good or bad. If it exposes what needs to be exposed it is good. If it gives the unimportant or untrue things undue air it is bad. If it exposes evil it is good, if it cancels the innocent it is bad - this is in the hands of the audience in who they listen to, follow, tag, repost and how they act - just it always has been. The lies to sell the trashy gossip magazines have just moved - the undeserved impacts remain if the audience buys the lies.

[Edited 10/14/21 14:43pm]

I don't know what there is to disagree about the fact that culture and society does change and morph. That view are named inspected and discussed. That is a simple fact.

.

The fact is, in 1911 there was no social media as we know it, the fact is, in 1985 we did not have Twitter, FB, Instgram, Snapchat, cell phones etc

.

These things are large parts of Cancel Culture.
These things when directed by (the highlighted parts) create cancel culture. And couple that with the increase in 'Reality Tv' where everyday people are putting themselves out there, it brings about a culture of fault finding, critiquing, self righteousness. it's macro aggressive.

In 1985, anything you had to say about a celeb, you simply said it to yourself or the people you were around. Unless you were one of those who went out of your way to write a letter and mail it to a magazine or a 'celeb address'. Most of us didn't and kept on living our lives.

In 2015 if a celeb shares a picture of their child, people now can and do click reply, tweet, post in direct ways the the celeb can see/read. And can and do make very invasive comments.
The hypocracy of cancel culture is that those attempting to cancel, tend to not be in a place where the rest of the world can know what mistakes they have made or what skeletons they have in their closets.
.
It is the Method & the Audience. Both have to exist for Cancel Culture.

.

There is no disagreement that culture and society change over time and I have stated time and time time again that the technology changes things as highlighted above.

.

What I don't agree with is that this has created a whole new culture because the objectives, incentives etc are just the same as they always have. The method has changed, just as it always changes. The audience is the same except with advance in technology we hear about it more just because we can hear about from more places.

.

Just as there is nothing new in what is happening today, there is nothing new in the need to enable the good and ignore the bullshit and irrelevant. The use of the term cancel culture to shutdown what others are saying rather than addressing what others are saying is also no different from when people used the term "tall poppy syndrome" from 1864 on address the same issues of envy, vondictiveness and a perverse enjoyment of seeing people in popular culture taken down by feigned, faux or completely blown out of the water anger and criticisms. So often terms like "cancel culture", "politically correct" and their ilk are just the current method of cancelling or politically dismissing the views of others.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/16/21 4:20pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

OldFriends4Sale said:

IanRG said:

.

The highlighted section I agree with. The rest not so much.

.

The objectives are the same as they have always been. The methods (other than the communcations technology) used by the influencers are the same as they always have been. The way it often relies on spin and emotion over facts is the same as it always has been. The way it can descend to threats is the same as it always has been. All that has changed is who is able to be an "influencer" and how many people they can reach.

.

The advantages of this over, say Mccarthyism, is the voices are less controlled by the politically powerful. Over the previous methods to hide and dismiss sexual abuse or real things in the Dirt File the advantage is that media and propaganda spin to hide this can be undermined by the people.

.

The disadvantages of the new methods is not that there is more, but that we can hear about it more - The spread of the influencer can be global without the need for the resources of media, political or other organisations. This allows those seeking to censor the opposition or those acting out of envy a wider spread.

.

It is not in the method, but in the audience that means this either does good or bad. If it exposes what needs to be exposed it is good. If it gives the unimportant or untrue things undue air it is bad. If it exposes evil it is good, if it cancels the innocent it is bad - this is in the hands of the audience in who they listen to, follow, tag, repost and how they act - just it always has been. The lies to sell the trashy gossip magazines have just moved - the undeserved impacts remain if the audience buys the lies.

[Edited 10/14/21 14:43pm]

I don't know what there is to disagree about the fact that culture and society does change and morph. That view are named inspected and discussed. That is a simple fact.

.

The fact is, in 1911 there was no social media as we know it, the fact is, in 1985 we did not have Twitter, FB, Instgram, Snapchat, cell phones etc

.

These things are large parts of Cancel Culture.
These things when directed by (the highlighted parts) create cancel culture. And couple that with the increase in 'Reality Tv' where everyday people are putting themselves out there, it brings about a culture of fault finding, critiquing, self righteousness. it's macro aggressive.

In 1985, anything you had to say about a celeb, you simply said it to yourself or the people you were around. Unless you were one of those who went out of your way to write a letter and mail it to a magazine or a 'celeb address'. Most of us didn't and kept on living our lives.

In 2015 if a celeb shares a picture of their child, people now can and do click reply, tweet, post in direct ways the the celeb can see/read. And can and do make very invasive comments.
The hypocracy of cancel culture is that those attempting to cancel, tend to not be in a place where the rest of the world can know what mistakes they have made or what skeletons they have in their closets.
.
It is the Method & the Audience. Both have to exist for Cancel Culture.



The simple fact of the matter is, everything changed with the advent of the internet and social media. Just go back to the early days of the second industrial revolution, late 19th century. The common person had no power to influence anything but his own work ethic, family life and that was about it.

Things changed a little, very gradually over the next 100 years, as mediums like talk radio, letters from readers put into newspaper or magazine print, became more commonplace, so common people could perhaps say then "Hey, I'm finally influencing shit". However, these processes have always remained strictly vetted, and the opinions given canvas are basically those selected to fit in with that radio, newspaper, or magazine's narrative.

Before the internet, your only opportunity to behave like an asshole was in your own social circle, or in joining a socio-political organization like the Ku Klux Klan. Furthermore, back then the Overton Window was narrower, meaning political parties were closer together ideologically, and likewise, radicals were smaller in number and had less of a voice. But social media changed all that. The playground bully now has ample opportunity to be an asshole at every turn and get away with it, impunity undiminished.

Cancel culture fuels this bullying as it allows groups to gang up on one person to try and cancel them. Look at recent case of Caroline Flack. Because of social media, she was effectively hounded into a state of suicide. If she hadn't used social media, she would have been able to get away from the glaring media spotlight, by virtue of having her own space and privacy as soon as she'd shut her front door.


^^
"The hypocrisy of cancel culture is that those attempting to cancel, tend not to be in a place where the rest of the world can know what mistakes they have made or what skeletons they have in their closets".

Exactly. And what I call the 'generalized Dunning-Kruger effect' (...human beings like to think they're better than they are), means they will have their own skeletons, whether they're aware of them or not. To quote the bible, "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye".



[Edited 10/16/21 17:27pm]

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Jon Stewart says cancel culture is made up.