Cancel culture

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

I've seen people who are in favour of online "cancelling" sneer at "the marketplace of ideas" as a concept. 

I've also seen people who argue against "cancel culture" because they claim to be free speech advocates and support the marketplace of ideas. 

In my mind there is no difference between the two concepts. You spout opinions which are unpopular, you bear the cost. You spout popular opinions, you can benefit. That's a market mechanism. 

 

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, invergowrie arab said:

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

Of course there is. Contradiction and hypocrisy on both sides. 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

It seems like it would be much harder to be a kid now then when I was at school. 24/7 bullying, culture wars, social media, bleak future and if you live in the US some weirdo kid will inevitably come in with a machiney and shoot up the place.

 

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Of course there is. Contradiction and hypocrisy on both sides. 

 

What's the contradiction or hyprocisy in being in favour of a regulated market?

Your saying its hypocritical to be against a regulated market that banned chlorinated chicken because in a free market people would choose not to eat chlorinated chicken 

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

What's the contradiction or hyprocisy in being in favour of a regulated market?

Your saying its hypocritical to be against a regulated market that banned chlorinated chicken because in a free market people would choose not to eat chlorinated chicken 

It's not a question of whether there's regulation at all. It's a matter of degree. I think the current law and enforcement is round about right. 

That's because we've stopped prosecuting blasphemy and obscenity. 

That change is why we're now in a position where sexuality for example can be freely discussed. 

If people have homophobic or racist views it shouldn't be against the law for them to express those views. But people should absolutely feel free to shun them, sack them or call them all the c***s under the sun for expressing those views. 

I think the line we've drawn at banning incitement of violence, discrimination etc is about right. 

I don't trust a government to proscribe the sort of speech i'd like them to. Any restriction would open the door for further restriction on things like anti-patriotic or anti capitalist sentiment being expressed. 

I'm in favour of free speech and cancel culture and don't see them as opposing positions. 

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye, 'cancelling' should be down to the consumer, i.e. folk can put their material out and if folk don't like it, for whatever reason, said material won't be popular/won't make much (or any) money or not get viewers (potentially leading to platforms not picking up future stuff from someone).

So pretty much how things are now really.

The consumer doesn't actually have this power across most forms of media though, because mainstream content is published, distributed and placed at the front of an audience's attention by large, often multinational organisations prior to consumption. 

An actor for example can't just go on to Twitter and make a living - they need the co-operation of studios/writers/other performers to create a viable product. That gives the managerial class in creative industries like TV, film, the press etc. an enormous gatekeeping power to cancel bad apples (and rightly so) but also anyone else that doesn't fit the bill.

The internet has not actually democratised this process at all. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by vikingTON

[DA Baracus]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

The consumer doesn't actually have this power across most forms of media though, because mainstream content is published, distributed and placed at the front of an audience's attention by large, often multinational organisations prior to consumption. 

An actor for example can't just go on to Twitter and make a living - they need the co-operation of studios/writers/other performers to create a viable product. That gives the managerial class in creative industries like TV, film, the press etc. an enormous gatekeeping power to cancel bad apples (and rightly so) but also anyone else that doesn't fit the bill.

The internet has not actually democratised this process at all. 

Aye I see what you mean, but if, for example, loads of folk don't watch a Netflix show because some actor(s) said some shit then Netflix won't renew that series, or will write the character out. Like what happened with the show Kevin Spacey was in.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

Your first cohort are in favour of market regulation because they view some ideas as inherently harmful. They are also cynical about the existence of "free" markets given meritocracy is a myth and power imbalances are likely to be exacerbated in an unregulated system. 

I'm not sure there is any contradiction in the thought process of the first cohort.

The second cohort tend to deliberately misconstrue market regulation and the consequences of actions. 

 

While it's certainly true that a marketplace is inherently unequal and not in fact free at all (see above), that doesn't mean that ideas or opinions should be treated in the same way as defective or dangerous goods. 

We should set a much higher bar on regulating ideas and opinions because it is a fundamental part of human free will to create ideas and concepts - even moronic or obnoxious ideas and concepts - but is not a fundamental right to create a hopelessly unsafe car or phone charger that ends up electrocuting someone. Ideas are not a tangible product and so shouldn't be regulated with the equivalent of Trading Standards in every generation.

7 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

The Jimmy Carr joke absolutely should have been referred to the police.

I think there are a lot of comedians and celebrities out there who refuse to take any responsibility or ownership of their own words or the consequences of them and hide behind pissweak defences of what is essentially pandering to populism.

Next time a trans kid is getting the shit kicked out of them they should really explain Ricky Gervais is being ironic 

Well the comedian is far from the only one refusing to take responsibility in that analogy. On what basis does a Netflix show give someone a free pass to enact violence? 

The bar for inciting violence should be considered much, much higher than causing offence, because offence and violence are fundamentally different levels of response.

Edited July 1, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye I see what you mean, but if, for example, loads of folk don't watch a Netflix show because some actor(s) said some shit then Netflix won't renew that series, or will write the character out. Like what happened with the show Kevin Spacey was in.

But AFAIK the audience weren't given that choice, and Spacey was (understandably) written out of the show before the marketplace of ideas could possibly kick in. If the management class of producers view someone to be a significant risk to the project then you'll either be binned before the social media storm gets out of hand and/or will miss out on future opportunities.

There's an element of public pressure involved but it is the opposite of a 'media produces, consumers approve/reject' market dynamic. The managers are second guessing what they think the consumer wants them to do. 

[DA Baracus]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

But AFAIK the audience weren't given that choice, and Spacey was (understandably) written out of the show before the marketplace of ideas could possibly kick in. If the management class of producers view someone to be a significant risk to the project then you'll either be binned before the social media storm gets out of hand and/or will miss out on future opportunities.

There's an element of public pressure involved but it is the opposite of a 'media produces, consumers approve/reject' market dynamic. The managers are second guessing what they think the consumer wants them to do. 

I suppose it's more of a reactive or, more precisely, future 'cancelling' in terms of the consumer.

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I suppose it's more of a reactive or, more precisely, future 'cancelling' in terms of the consumer.

But a viewer can't actually 'future cancel' anything. They have to actually see a product and decide to consume/not consume it for your market choice argument to actually kick in. If it isn't actually available on the market (Kevin Spacey continuing in House of Cards), then it's not a viable choice. 

There were plenty of obnoxious morons like Roy Chubby Brown or Jim Davidson who objectively failed by most market tests - in their later years at least. They had to get to the market (and pass the managerial screening) to do so though.

The current issue is that because of the exaggerated feedback loop that social media provides about any topic, the managerial class that gatekeeps mainstream culture across film, TV, press etc. are increasingly risk-averse and liable to cancel anything that poses an uncontrollable risk. This is completely understandable from their point of view, but it leads to the reduction of mainstream views to a hopelessly narrow 'consensus' that most of the public don't fully buy into anyway. 

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

 

While it's certainly true that a marketplace is inherently unequal and not in fact free at all (see above), that doesn't mean that ideas or opinions should be treated in the same way as defective or dangerous goods. 

We should set a much higher bar on regulating ideas and opinions because it is a fundamental part of human free will to create ideas and concepts - even moronic or obnoxious ideas and concepts - but is not a fundamental right to create a hopelessly unsafe car or phone charger that ends up electrocuting someone. Ideas are not a tangible product and so shouldn't be regulated with the equivalent of Trading Standards in every generation.

Well the comedian is far from the only one refusing to take responsibility in that analogy. On what basis does a Netflix show give someone a free pass to enact violence? 

The bar for inciting violence should be considered much, much higher than causing offence, because offence and violence are fundamentally different levels of response.

I take your point completely I just don't think what should happen and what does happen always intersect 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

This thread should really be deleted

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Cancel the Cancel Thread?

Interesting. 

Rainier Wolfscastle would have something to say about this post. 

[ICTChris]

I see Jerry Sadiwitz has had his Fringe run cancelled. Not sure if someone complained but you’d have to question the sanity of someone who voluntarily goes to his gig and then complains about it. It’s like going to a garden centre and complaining they’ve got plants.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

I see Jerry Sadiwitz has had his Fringe run cancelled. Not sure if someone complained but you’d have to question the sanity of someone who voluntarily goes to his gig and then complains about it. It’s like going to a garden centre and complaining they’ve got plants.

Quote

The American-born Scottish stand-up, aged 60, is known for his controversial brand of black comedy.

But it didn’t go down well  with a number of visitors - despite prior warnings about “strong language and themes some may find distressing”.

One audience member said: “I was at the show. He called Rishi Sunak a ‘p***’; said the economy was awful because it is run by ‘blacks and women’.

“He got his penis out to a woman in the front row. The problem was not the audience - I knew he was an acquired taste. It was his indefensible content”.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9300034/jerry-sadowitz-edinburgh-fringe-show-axed/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=scottishsunfacebook&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1660403945

 

Seems he was only booked for 2 shows so it's just the one that's cancelled, rather than a long run.

Edited August 13, 2022 by welshbairn

[Guest]

Does scream that someone has gone there to be offended 

[BFTD]

13 minutes ago, Halbeath Raith Rover said:

Does scream that someone has gone there to be offended 

I dunno, there's no mention of complaints from the performer, venue, or polis.

If you're a cynic, you might say it reads like someone hoping to join the edgelord Netflix crew and having to ask to be cancelled by the venue in order to get the necessary publicity. What's the world coming to when you can't whip up some decent controversy by exposing yourself in public and throwing around racial abuse like an auld jake at Buchanan Street bus station?

[carpetmonster]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I see Jerry Sadiwitz has had his Fringe run cancelled. Not sure if someone complained but you’d have to question the sanity of someone who voluntarily goes to his gig and then complains about it. It’s like going to a garden centre and complaining they’ve got plants.

Devils advocate but I can see some folks being shocked by Sadowitz, even if they did go voluntarily. He’s obsessive about having anything posted to YouTube deleted, he doesn’t really do interviews and there’s very little content of his available outside of going to see him. Could be folks that had heard *of* him but didn’t have much of a scooby what they might be in for. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I dunno, there's no mention of complaints from the performer, venue, or polis.

If you're a cynic, you might say it reads like someone hoping to join the edgelord Netflix crew and having to ask to be cancelled by the venue in order to get the necessary publicity. What's the world coming to when you can't whip up some decent controversy by exposing yourself in public and throwing around racial abuse like an auld jake at Buchanan Street bus station?

The article mentions audience and staff complaints. You could be right but he has seemed to shun publicity in the past.