Cancel Culture Doesn't Excite

Post Reply New Topic

People expressing disapproval is free speech, not 'cancel culture'.

If a company feels inclined to respond to that criticism isn't that within their rights, generally speaking? I thought being responsive to the concerns of customers and potential customers was something that was required of businesses operating in the free market.

People complaining is free speech, but firing based on those complains is cancel culture. As for the business being effected by customers, a lot of cancel culture examples are not actual customers and the sales didn't go down. Only if the sales go down I say. A few people complaining on the internet doesn't count as sales going down. Usually those people aren't even buying the product in a lot of cancel culture examples. So only if those people are true customers and the sales are actually effected.

I think that is was distincts the difference between trivial and signficant. If business is not effected by it, then it's trivial, and no action should be taken as a result. So I guess that would be a legal precedent as to what constitutes cancel culture, is firing people over trivial matters, that one one cares about aside from a few people on the internet who are not customers.

Actually that's incorrect (its pretty simple so I'll repeat it again). It's organisational HR policy. I think you'll find any business that terminates somebody for expressing their opinion (as you claim) will be opening themselves for risk of unfair dismissal,

The examples of firing based on expressing comments/opinions are directly based on the nature of the comments compromising the company standards on ethical conduct. Companies that hire openly racist people like Amy Cooper or Gina Carano or Lea Michele risk ruining their brand and losing their client base.

Companies firing people over their political beliefs is known as free will employment.

But the complaint that what is going on today is no different than in the past with the exception whose ox is being gored is a partial truth and that has mostly to do with technology. Today offense archivists have the ability to dig up that offensive tweet you made in high school, or that racist costume you wore at that Halloween party as “joke”. Technology has also eroded the separation between home life and work life. Back then when you left your job a 5PM you left your job. Your boss for the most part did not have the ability or care what you did away from the office as long as you were productive in office.

Technology allows people to mobilize faster, and makes it much easier to apply relentless and varied pressure 24/7 then in the past.

Boycotts existed but they were more about what your company did such as aiding the Vietnam war effort or operating segregated bus systems.

Again this is a matter of degree, people did play the gotcha game during moral panics over communism, homosexuality, and satanism.

And it just so happens this increase in technology is occurring concurrently with the rise of marxist influenced woke ideologies. The marxian idea that every aspect of life is political is apt.

Oh okay, but what I mean is, when it comes to cancel culture when they fire someone even though their brand was not loosing any client. That is when it's trivial, and and it's just a few complains and nothing significant, but firing would make things worse, because then you have to rehire and rebuild. So I feel that maybe they should make a policy out of it, with rules that it has to be more than a few people on twitter complaining, a number of people that could actually matter instead.

Looks like we can count Chris Hedges as 'not a fan':

https://consortiumnews.com/2021/02/15/c ... es-to-die/

I feel like this makes whatever I was gonna say pretty redundant.

You are welcome to give me one example.

One thing I noticed about cancel culture is when you hear stories about celebrities being cancelled one thing most of them have in common is that pretty much 9 times out of 10, it was for something said on twitter. So are the chances of being cancelled a lot less likely if you stay off of twitter therefore?

Comedians should be largely exempt for cancellation over comedy routines or twitter posts if its part of their act/persona as they our modern equivalent to court jesters.

Beyond that, how often does it rarely extend beyond Twitter?

They say something on Twitter, it gets ratioed and they squeal about their freedom of speech being infringed upon when really nothing happened beyond other people disagreeing.

Definitely though, if you're prone to giving hot takes that might invite backlash, stay off of platforms that welcome that behaviour because eventually someone else's hot take might target you over yours and usually it's the mob agreeing with that other as*hole's hot take is what gets the first person in trouble.

And the reasons aren't always good, that's why Chrissy Teigen was able to get away with it for so long and get positive media coverage for being no different than a 4chan troll. It's not actually relevant if we stop letting it be relevant.

Shocking how she went after Stodden?

There's a bunch of examples who have come forward and most likely loads more who won't (possibly due to being less sympathetic people, or due to fear of further problems within the entertainment industry resulting from calling out a bully), they're only one single example of someone who in hindsight seems especially sympathetic.

Someone who has a lot of spats and even the minor ones escalate to dming people that they should kill themselves... makes me wonder how many people got messages like that. Even DJTJ doesn't deserve that (as a hypothetical example).

Well what I don't understand is, I was taught years ago, that it's illegal and unprofessional to fire someone based on their religious or political, or sexual beliefs, etc.

But now it's seen as the cool thing to do, especially in the celebrity world. Why did that change? For example, I work in the independent film business from time to time and I worked recently on a film project where the director was advised to only hire actors who were homosexual to play homosexual parts, to remain politically correct.

But if I were a movie director or producer, there is no way I would feel comfortable asking actors if they were gay, when hiring them for a job, and I would think that would be hugely unprofessional of me. But only hiring people based on their personal beliefs is the politically correct thing to do nowadays. Why did that go so bizarro, so to speak?

There was also film project me and some others in the community brainstormed, where there is an autistic character in the script, and I was advised that it would be best to get an autistic actor for the role, if I were to move forward withit. Again, hugely unprofessional and personal I feel to ask that when hiring someone for a job.

Curiously QAnon have been targeting her for some years
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... n-1143259/

It doesn't excuse her behaviour but I wonder if this isn't another Aruna Khilanani where Chrissy Teigan might have been sent over the edge by having to deal with right wing trolls.

If you work in the industry then how is this a surprise??

For example do you think a film project is set as a period piece in 17th century America or medieval Europe the movie producers would not be hiring many POC actors?

Why is that ok but hiring homosexual actors a problem when the script asks for a homosexual character??