This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[Metaphor]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

Ask Conor Daily what he did to get his NASCAR sponsorship pulled.

If you think she withdrew from the role because she found the argument compelling, then what the fuck is the thread all about? Please take some time to figure out exactly what you are outraged about and how it pertains to Halle Berry declining this role, and then get back to us.

I have reserved judgment on what Berry actually thinks, because I don't know. as Bomb#20 has pointed out, the kinds of answers you get under duress are different to the kinds of answers you get when you are not.

 

[Metaphor]

You keep talking about "the Woke" as though they are all of one mind and pursuing a single political project (the conspiracy) that is operant in at the very least the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia (the international aspect). What am I confused about here?

Pursuing a single political project is not a conspiracy. There are Christians all over the globe; they do not form a conspiracy.

Yes, conservatives and liberals exist, but it would be just as fricking insane to say that you, Berry, and Rowling, are all being persecuted by "The Liberal", or that you are one of "The Fascist" whom they are targeting.

You are very hung up on how specifically people to whom critical social justice is central are branded. Call them SJWs if you want, though I'm guessing that's a noun you won't like either.

 

[Politesse]

You keep talking about "the Woke" as though they are all of one mind and pursuing a single political project (the conspiracy) that is operant in at the very least the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia (the international aspect). What am I confused about here?

Pursuing a single political project is not a conspiracy. There are Christians all over the globe; they do not form a conspiracy.

Yes, conservatives and liberals exist, but it would be just as fricking insane to say that you, Berry, and Rowling, are all being persecuted by "The Liberal", or that you are one of "The Fascist" whom they are targeting.

You are very hung up on how specifically people to whom critical social justice is central are branded. Call them SJWs if you want, though I'm guessing that's a noun you won't like either.

Yes, what label you put on your imaginary foes is pretty irrelevant to me.

 

[ronburgundy]

It should be obvious to you that that is not what "cancelling" means in this context.

It is obvious to those capable of reading comprehension that "cancelling" in this context is being used to mean that a handful of random powerless voiced a criticism of someone with no consequences at all. That is objectively all that has happened to Jodie Comer and yet it was called "cancelling". IOW, "cancelling" is the word used by alt-right snowflakes who are outraged and engaging dishonest hyperbole b/c they feel that no one should ever criticize actions that they personally have no problem with.

 

[Emily Lake]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...celled-not-late-fight-says-JOHN-HUMPHRYS.html



Halle Berry ought have realised 'acting' is not about playing roles that are not you. I do hope Berry has realised that going forward, she ought only consider roles where she plays a beautiful A-list actress at about whatever her current age is.



Look, this cancellation is actually fair. What did she expect when she married literally Hitler?

Not that Comer was the first actor to fall foul of the witch-hunt. Only last month, Florence Pugh, of Little Women fame, apologised for her so-called ‘white privilege’ after a picture surfaced of her with cornrows, a type of hairstyle favoured in the Caribbean.

It's a shame there were no future Canadian prime ministers there that could pull focus.

Well thank G`D you are an expert on her career where she can only play "beautiful" women. Misogynistic much?

Not really challenging the description of Misogynistic... just not sure why that particular comment seems misogynistic to you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no such group. People talk about "getting woke" or "staying woke", referencing an influential pop song that became something of a popular aesthetic in the mid 2010s. This got somewhat loosely connected to the social theories of Davis Cross, and for a while was quite trendy in Leftist circles. It is now used primarily as a pejorative by conservatives, having peaked and declined as a self-referential term by the end of 2019. But there is (and never was) no differential group of "Wokians" akin to "Christians" or "Communists". To say that the Woke are trying to come after you makes as much sense as saying that the Turned On were after you in the late 1960s. To be sure, people often described themselves as being "turned on" during that time period. But there are no Turned Ons, and there are no Wokes.

Sure there is such group. It's defined, like most terms, ostensively. The Woke are the adherents of the religion, ideology or whatever one calls it that has become increasingly powerful in recent years across the world (and in some universities in other places), and includes as some of the paradigmatic beliefs that all sorts of people engage in things like transphobia (though never against non-trans people), sexism ( never against men), racism (never against Whites), and other things of the sort, alongside with accusations against those classified as 'the rich' , or the 1%, etc. (except maybe for allies), etc.

Sure, their beliefs are loosely defined, but so are those of Christians today and that was the case in some other period as well. Moreover, enforcement via social media (condemnantion, harassment, etc.), major media outlets, and so on, produces compliance and reduces the dispersion of beliefs.

The entirely imaginary religon that you believe exists, you mean.

Woke adherents usually do not recognize their religion/ideology as a religion/ideology.

 

[Metaphor]

It should be obvious to you that that is not what "cancelling" means in this context.

It is obvious to those capable of reading comprehension that "cancelling" in this context is being used to mean that a handful of random powerless voiced a criticism of someone with no consequences at all. That is objectively all that has happened to Jodie Comer and yet it was called "cancelling". IOW, "cancelling" is the word used by alt-right snowflakes who are outraged and engaging dishonest hyperbole b/c they feel that no one should ever criticize actions that they personally have no problem with.

The Woke are neither "random" nor powerless.

 

[Emily Lake]

I personally think it's silly to insist that a cisgender person shouldn't be allowed to play a transgender role. A big name cisgender star will draw a larger crowd, and garner more support for the cause than a no-name transgender actor will.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

IOW, "cancelling" is the word used by alt-right snowflakes who are outraged and engaging dishonest hyperbole b/c they feel that no one should ever criticize actions that they personally have no problem with.

That is your ideology/religion speaking. Plenty of people use the word 'cancel culture' and are most certainly not alt-right or snowflakes. I can easily give examples, but of course you might well have faith that they are all alt-right and snowflakes. Still, just for example:

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.pr...als-come-out-against-cancel-culture-1.8979336

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...-serve/video/7d8228f3e9bcc983fb0cb497099ae605

https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1283188578093355008

https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1281562864860323841

https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1281559471068782593


https://unherd.com/thepost/steven-pinker-theyre-trying-to-cancel-me/

 

[Politesse]

I personally think it's silly to insist that a cisgender person shouldn't be allowed to play a transgender role. A big name cisgender star will draw a larger crowd, and garner more support for the cause than a no-name transgender actor will.

If the portrayal is enforcing the stereotype that trans men are nothing but confused or insane women, why would trans people want a larger crowd watching it? "Their cause" is not, in fact, to amuse cis- audiences at their own expense, and perpetuate the effective blacklisting of trans actors. Positive portrayals of trans people are vanishingly absent from Hollywood cinema, and the exclusion of actual trans people from the production process is a major reason why we end up with insulting trash like "The Crying Game" and "Psycho", when we could have better films like "Tangerine" or "Saturday Church"

 

[Politesse]

Woke adherents usually do not recognize their religion/ideology as a religion/ideology.

Well, of course they don't. Because there isn't such a movement. There was, as said, an aesthetic trend by that name that came and went. What you are doing is seeking a collective noun for everyone who opposes any regressive social policy or antisocial behavior, and moreover a supposedly religious motive for the same that is apparently so secret even those who are in the cult don't know about it.

That isn't what being "woke" means, or ever meant to anyone who uses that term outside of conservative circles. And as I said, your reinvention of the term comes across as extremely paranoid.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Woke adherents usually do not recognize their religion/ideology as a religion/ideology.

Well, of course they don't. Because there isn't such a movement. There was, as said, an aesthetic trend by that name that came and went. What you are doing is seeking a collective noun for everyone who opposes any regressive social policy or antisocial behavior, and moreover a supposedly religious motive for the same that is apparently so secret even those who are in the cult don't know about it.

That isn't what being "woke" means, or ever meant to anyone who uses that term outside of conservative circles. And as I said, your reinvention of the term comes across as extremely paranoid.

It's not secretive. It's just that the Woke don't realize that they are following a religion/ideology, of course unjust and unwarranted, and with plenty of false beliefs. Rather, they tend to believe things like that they are those who oppose "regressive social policies and antisocial behavior", etc.


I would recommend the links in this post.
Also, an interesting letter: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

But the evidence is too strong not to see it, unless religion/ideology blinds you. Persecution is all over the place now - well, all over universities, and major media outlets, and social media, etc.; it's not in happening in, say, China - they have a different persecution over there, which is clearly a lot worse. Woke persecution is not lethal or anything like that, but still persecution (to give a very recent example https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter , but it's again all over the place; you need to be blinded by ideology/religion not to see it).

 

[Politesse]

It's not in happening in, say, China - they have a different persecution over there, which is clearly a lot worse.

Yes. In China, they have the kind where you actually get persecuted for your identity or beliefs. Not just criticized for persecuting others. We do have plenty of that kind of persecution here, of course, but if I point that out, I guess I'll just be reckoned as a "Woke".

That Harpers article's really annoying, by the way. There's no point in trying to pretend that you're pro-dialogue when what you're mad at is vocal criticism. If people aren't allowed to express their feelings about your side of the "dialogue" lest they be accused of persecuting you, that isn't a dialogue.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I personally think it's silly to insist that a cisgender person shouldn't be allowed to play a transgender role. A big name cisgender star will draw a larger crowd, and garner more support for the cause than a no-name transgender actor will.

She is allowed to do it. None of us are in a position to grant or deny her permission. Personally, I'm not deeply concerned with this issue, though I have a passing interest in it. I won't be sending messages asking cisgender actors not to take roles portraying transgender characters. I won't be boycotting those actors if they do take these roles. I'd just rather they held off for the next decade or so. Society is slowly warming up to transgender actors--mostly on television. Transgender characters are slowly becoming more normalized. We're becoming more than sex workers, suffering porn and the punchline to jokes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's not in happening in, say, China - they have a different persecution over there, which is clearly a lot worse.

Yes. In China, they have the kind where you actually get persecuted for your identity or beliefs. Not just criticized for persecuting others. We do have plenty of that kind of persecution here, of course, but if I point that out, I guess I'll just be reckoned as a "Woke".

Not much in the US by the government, though sure there are right-wing fanatics too. No one is denying it. Some of them are very violent. The Woke usually aren't. On the other hand, Woke is an ascending religion/ideology, and its influence is more pervasive - as in, it's all over the place. Did you see those links? Not just the Harper letter - though that too of course -, but really the persecution is all around. It's just a lot milder than other left-wing persecutions, like those of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam or NK, or Cuba (which also have different degrees of intensity, across time and between places), but still is persecution.

That Harpers article's really annoying, by the way. There's no point in trying to pretend that you're pro-dialogue when what you're mad at is vocal criticism. If people aren't allowed to express their feelings about your side of the "dialogue" lest they be accused of persecuting you, that isn't a dialogue.

It's not vocal criticism. Rather, it is the persecution aimed at suppressing opposing views. It's not aimed just at persuading the opponent or the public at large. It is to threaten the livelihood of the opponents in such a way that they would, depending on the case, just up or even submit and affirm Woke beliefs.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

This guy got fired because he was called racist after he used the term "guerilla":

https://nypost.com/2020/01/25/espn-...er-still-paying-for-absurd-racist-accusation/

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not afraid of their criticism. I'm afraid that its belief system is becoming increasingly mainstream and its influence on law and culture.

It seems to me that the fear you express is unfounded, and Halle Berry declining a transgender role after entertaining an argument put forward by actual transgender people in no way lends any legitimacy to that fear.

I don't know if she found it compelling

You don't know, yet you are going to let your ignorance inform your fear of "The Woke". Can't you see how that might be a less than rational position? The combination of fear and ignorance never leads to anything good.

or is it a general principle that actors and actresses should not be allowed to decline roles that they have previously accepted? Oh, maybe it is that no one is allowed to reverse a decision ever, is that what you are on about?

No.

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. I am still perplexed, however, as to why you think Helle Berry (and ostensibly most actors/actresses) should not have been allowed to make the decision she made. Remember, you have only expressed that you believe that screenwriters, directors, and casting directors should be allowed to make those decisions, and I would hate to put words in your mouth.

 

[KeepTalking]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

Ask Conor Daily what he did to get his NASCAR sponsorship pulled.

Why should I? I am not the one making the argument. If you think Conor Daily and NASCAR are pertinent to this discussion, you need to explain why. I don't watch NASCAR, and I don't know who Conor Daily is.

If you think she withdrew from the role because she found the argument compelling, then what the fuck is the thread all about? Please take some time to figure out exactly what you are outraged about and how it pertains to Halle Berry declining this role, and then get back to us.

I have reserved judgment on what Berry actually thinks, because I don't know.

If you have reserved judgement, why are you letting it inform your fear of "The Woke"?

as Bomb#20 has pointed out, the kinds of answers you get under duress are different to the kinds of answers you get when you are not.

As many have pointed out in response, the things that are known about Halle Berry's interactions with "The Woke" in no way resemble the normal meaning of the word "duress".

 

[Metaphor]

It seems to me that the fear you express is unfounded, and Halle Berry declining a transgender role after entertaining an argument put forward by actual transgender people in no way lends any legitimacy to that fear.

No single event would.

You don't know, yet you are going to let your ignorance inform your fear of "The Woke". Can't you see how that might be a less than rational position? The combination of fear and ignorance never leads to anything good.

What's irrational about it? Either she found the argument compelling, which is bad, because the argument is nonsense, or she didn't find it compelling but kowtowed to the Woke, which is worse.

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. I am still perplexed, however, as to why you think Helle Berry (and ostensibly most actors/actresses) should not have been allowed to make the decision she made.

Really, how do you understand my post to mean Berry ought not have been allowed to make the decision she made?

Remember, you have only expressed that you believe that screenwriters, directors, and casting directors should be allowed to make those decisions, and I would hate to put words in your mouth.

No. I think screenwriters, directors and casting directors should have the artistic say in who they want to appear in their films. They've got no right to compel somebody to appear. How on earth could you think that from what I've said?

Of course, I suspect even directors don't have that power any more, if they ever did. The producer can fire a director so the producer ultimately has all the power.

 

[ruby sparks]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

Personally, I do think there is a modern, recent social problem in this respect. Metaphor overplays it, but that's not to say he's wrong in principle. I think he's right in principle.