Cancel Culture

[southernhybrid]

I made a remark in another post about an opinion piece I read concerning cancel culture. I didn't want to put this in the political forum for various reasons, but let's just say that cancel culture is more of a social movement than a political movement. Hopefully, this can be discussed, assuming anyone is interested, in a reasonable, intelligent way.

I read about the history of cancel culture. Apparently, it started around 2014 and Stephen Colbert was one who was attacked early on. For those of us who are fans of Colbert, we knew that his earlier show was all satire. He played the part of a far right news anchor. But, some people didn't understand the satire and they wanted Colbert to be cancelled. I just learned about that today.

President Obama is one of the people who criticized cancel culture, among others. It really didn't get too much attention until a few years ago, when all of a sudden people in the past as well as in the present were being criticized for making even one inappropriate remark, that might have been perceived as being racist or sexist etc.

While people on the right often blame people on the left for cancel culture, the truth is that it comes from both sides and from all kinds of people. The most recent example of right wing cancel culture is the right wings attempts to ban books from schools, to refuse to teach children about the systemic racism that has existed throughout the history of the US, refusal to allow schools to discuss such topics as the issues that the LBGTQ community faces etc. When it comes from the left, it's usually related to a remark that someone made, or words in a book written decades ago using words that are no longer considered appropriate.

I read surveys about who is most likely to support cancel culture and it's those who are ages 18-34 that are most supportive of it. Some people don't care and others don't have strong feelings about it one way or another. People over 65 are the least likely to support cancel culture, so I suppose we could say it's a movement of the younger generations. I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish It seems rather extreme to me to punish someone for something they said 20 years ago or something hey said last week without fully understanding they used words that are no longer considered acceptable in today's society.

I mentioned the liberal intellectual John McWhorter who currently writes as a guest columnist for the NYTimes. He is a highly educated, dare I say privileged Black intellectual, who's parents were both college professors. He has said some controversial things, mostly in the past, but I think he's also written some excellent pieces on the status of cancel culture. For that reason, I'm going to gift at least one of his recent columns to start things off.

I'd like to know exactly why any of you support or are disgusted with the status of cancel culture. I'm posting this at the risk of being cancelled myself.

How did our society become so super sensitive that words make one subject to such harsh criticism, including the loss of a job, or status in a community where they've been respected for years? Why are some of us so upset over the fact that some of our US founders or politicians of the past aren't perfect? Why do we judge people in the distant past for using words that were appropriate during their times, but are inappropriate these days? Why do some people judge someone based on a few things they say or believe instead of looking at their entire character and contributions to society?

Below is McWhorter's recent article. Hopefully, I've done it correctly so everyone can read the entire piece.

nytimes.com/2022/03/01/opinion/psychiatry-professor-tweet.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DODm4biOMNAo6B_EGKfbFybNsy1iiBVZpZKrghSedpyfUaI1NgRhXuooeBnN5NBRQJnr-JfzF82YPRD_d_-CX2b2K9JaAkm

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the most accomplished and respected psychiatrists in the world, recently tweeted about Nyakim Gatwech, the celebrated American model of South Sudanese descent who is known for her dark skin, writing, “Whether a work of art or freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.” A number of people on social media and within and outside Lieberman’s profession found his words offensive, particularly his use of the phrase “freak of nature” and specifically the term “freak” in a tweet about a Black woman, and the sequence of events that followed was, sadly, all too predictable.
As the Times’s Lola Fadulu reported Wednesday, Lieberman has resigned from his position as executive director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was suspended by the university and will no longer serve as psychiatrist in chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
The day before he was suspended, Lieberman apologized in an email to colleagues, saying, according to The City, that he had tweeted “a message that was racist and sexist” and contained “prejudices and stereotypical assumptions I didn’t know I held” and that he was “deeply ashamed and very sorry.” He offered that “an apology from me to the Black community, to women, and to all of you is not enough. I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust.” Note, here, his understanding that the apology by itself was not the whole job, that he has learned much from our current culture and was trying to do the right thing.
But in this current culture, that’s not enough. Even after his sincere apology for a single mistake, Lieberman probably won’t be able to continue serving society — at least not as before — as the brilliant doctor he is.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found an article that mentions the positives and the negatives of cancel culture. I can see that there are times when it can be beneficial, but it also seems to me that lately, these cancelations have been extreme.

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-me...mething considered objectionable or offensive

Interestingly, although canceling is often used to call out sexism, the term itself originates from sexist “humor.” Possibly the first reference of canceling someone came from the film New Jack City, where Nino Brown played by Wesley Snipes states mercilessly to his ex-girlfriend “Cancel that [woman]. I’ll buy another one.” But the term really took off in 2014 thanks to a 2014 episode of VH1's reality show "Love and Hip-Hop: New York." In it, music executive and record producer Cisco Rosado ended an argument with his girlfriend by saying "you're cancelled.” From there, the word took on a life of its own, often among Black users on Twitter. It was used as a way to show disapproval for a person's actions as a joke or lighthearted criticism. It wasn’t until later that canceling someone involved boycotting them professionally. Mental Health Effects of Cancel Culture Cancel culture has been incredibly effective at combating wrongdoing, especially sexism and racism. It demands social change and addresses many inequalities. In 2016, many members of the film community boycotted the Oscars because of the lack of diversity among nominees. And canceling the Oscars resulted in real social change. In 2019, the Oscars set a record for the most wins by Black nominees ever. A community that unites against someone who has done something unforgivable can be empowering. It can also make people think twice before behaving inappropriately or posting potentially offensive views. But there are also negative effects resulting from cancel culture.

The Canceled Unfortunately, canceling often turns into bullying. Like bullying, if you've been canceled, it can make you to feel ostracized, socially isolated, and lonely. And research shows that loneliness is associated with higher anxiety, depression, and suicide rates.3 It can feel as if everyone is giving up on you before you've even have the chance to apologize. Instead of creating a dialogue to help you understand how your actions hurt them, the cancelers shut off all communication with you, essentially robbing you of the opportunity to learn and grow from your mistakes or insensitivities. In order to truly grow and become a better person, you need to be able to realize a mistake was made, fix that mistake, and take the proper steps to ensure you don't make the same mistake again.

So, sure, there are times when a person or name needs to be cancelled, but what about when it's taken to extremes, like the example in my first post? Is it rational to bully someone for saying something stupid, especially when the person never meant to be offensive? Isn't okay for us to sometimes disagree about things without condemning each other? When someone says something to me that I find a bit racist or sexist, I usually correct them, give them reasons why what they said may be offensive and even suggest that they read a book on the topic. But, I don't disown them or think hey are terrible based on what might have been an ignorant remark. A person's character is about a lot more than one remark. Imo, some of the critics are worse than those who they criticize, as they are making value judgements based on one tiny aspect of that person.

What's the answer? Quite frankly I'm the type of person who doesn't get her feeling hurt, who doesn't care what others say about me, so it's very difficult for me to understand this era of overly sensitive way of reacting to a few words that someone says. If you disagree, please give us a reasonable explanation. I grew up saying the mantra, "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me". Who's with me on that?

 

[rousseau]

My guess is that it's a movement among young people because they're the ones using social media, which allows these stories to blow up with scale. Fifty years ago you'd read a story in a newspaper, and maybe chat about it with a couple of your friends and co-workers. Today, social media and the internet takes these people's opinions and amplifies them.

I was a Twitter user for nearly a decade, and most people on the platform loved responding to everything, regardless of whether or not they had any understanding of that thing.

Basically, it's an internet / social media thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are we talking “cancel culture” or “cancel culture” or “cancel culture”? That is important. The term has multiple meanings, it is worse than culture warrior.

There is “cancel culture” which is the recognition that certain things need to go after someone does something wrong. Oddly letting Jussie Smollet get cancelled is okay, but Keven Spacey... let’s not get rash here. This is complicated and based on the issue. Spacey assaulted younger males, Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child, Michelle Obama suggested having fruit for dessert. It is complicated. How do we deal with that. Some of these people did great things before doing something wicked (or while we didn’t know). I know I’m not seeking to ban Mel Gibson, but learning how he is an anti-Semite really makes watching him on screen very hard. Cosby is the same way. It makes it much harder to enough watching a predator. But this probably is best left to the viewer.

Then there is “cancel culture”. Old racist shit we might not want to see. This applies generally to media. Think black face Fred Astaire. The initial thought is we don’t need to see this stuff. But some argue we do need to see it. And not in the Song of the South bitchery when Disney+ came out and racist fucks wanted to whine. But stuff like Gone with the Wind (or most cinema with African Americans in it until the late 60s). Generally this is an opportunity to discuss it, why it existed, why it matters, why it is wrong.

Then there is “cancel culture” which means whatever the hell alt-right assholes wants to say it means. This includes old racist statues erected in the 1950s to glorify treasonous assholes in the south in the rise of the Civil Rights movement. Do we keep these statues up? Fuck no! These people were anti-America... literally. But we could put them up for view in a museum dedicated to enemies of the Constitution and decency.

 

[Angry Floof]

Pffth. "Cancel culture" = technology giving voice to everyone, and white people, especially affluent men, are unaccustomed to not being able to silence whoever they don't like or whoever criticizes them as they've done in times past, meaning literally all of Western culture history.

In any movement or ideology, you can find a few people who do not fit the general demographics of that movement. John McWhorter is one and insecure, privileged white people love him because they think he "cancels" their privilege. Y'all have been canceling the SHIT out of non-white people for centuries. Get the fuck over yourselves. "Cancel culture" is just you having to face the reality that you're not central or special or entitled to authority in the world. You'll be okay!

 

[rousseau]

Are we talking “cancel culture” or “cancel culture” or “cancel culture”? That is important. The term has multiple meanings, it is worse than culture warrior.

There is “cancel culture” which is the recognition that certain things need to go after someone does something wrong. Oddly letting Jussie Smollet get cancelled is okay, but Keven Spacey... let’s not get rash here. This is complicated and based on the issue. Spacey assaulted younger males, Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child, Michelle Obama suggested having fruit for dessert. It is complicated. How do we deal with that. Some of these people did great things before doing something wicked (or while we didn’t know). I know I’m not seeking to ban Mel Gibson, but learning how he is an anti-Semite really makes watching him on screen very hard. Cosby is the same way. It makes it much harder to enough watching a predator. But this probably is best left to the viewer.

Then there is “cancel culture”. Old racist shit we might not want to see. This applies generally to media. Think black face Fred Astaire. The initial thought is we don’t need to see this stuff. But some argue we do need to see it. And not in the Song of the South bitchery when Disney+ came out and racist fucks wanted to whine. But stuff like Gone with the Wind (or most cinema with African Americans in it until the late 60s). Generally this is an opportunity to discuss it, why it existed, why it matters, why it is wrong.

Then there is “cancel culture” which means whatever the hell alt-right assholes wants to say it means. This includes old racist statues erected in the 1950s to glorify treasonous assholes in the south in the rise of the Civil Rights movement. Do we keep these statues up? Fuck no! These people were anti-America... literally. But we could put them up for view in a museum dedicated to enemies of the Constitution and decency.

One aspect that I don't know I made entirely clear in my last post: I don't know that 'cancel culture' really exists. There isn't a 'culture', there are platforms that can put public, social pressure on people and organizations. Meaning that if you took the internet and placed it at any time in history, among any given culture or political segment, the same thing would happen: whoever they didn't like would be put under the microscope.

The problem with these platforms is that anyone targeted (of any gender, identity, or political persuasion) is convicted automatically without a fair trial. And undoubtedly this has been weaponized by political parties, which is a serious problem.

 

[southernhybrid]

Pffth. "Cancel culture" = technology giving voice to everyone, and white people, especially affluent men, are unaccustomed to not being able to silence whoever they don't like or whoever criticizes them as they've done in times past, meaning literally all of Western culture history.

In any movement or ideology, you can find a few people who do not fit the general demographics of that movement. John McWhorter is one and insecure, privileged white people love him because they think he "cancels" their privilege. Y'all have been canceling the SHIT out of non-white people for centuries. Get the fuck over yourselves. "Cancel culture" is just you having to face the reality that you're not central or special or entitled to authority in the world. You'll be okay!

John McWhorter is a Black man, certainly a privileged Black man, who was raised by two highly educated people, but regardless if I don't agree with all of his writings, I think he's made a lot of good points lately. I respectfully disagree that cancel culture is always about white people. A lot of Black people have been critical of cancel culture, including one of my friends. We discussed one of McWhorter's recent articles the other day. McWhorter was saying that old books that used the words, "colored people" should not be cancelled as some have been. That usage was acceptable back in the day, despite it no longer being acceptable. His points are often about how words and actions that in their time were considered normal or acceptable are not any longer. We should take that into consideration before we cancel something.

My guess is that it's a movement among young people because they're the ones using social media, which allows these stories to blow up with scale. Fifty years ago you'd read a story in a newspaper, and maybe chat about it with a couple of your friends and co-workers. Today, social media and the internet takes these people's opinions and amplifies them.

I was a Twitter user for nearly a decade, and most people on the platform loved responding to everything, regardless of whether or not they had any understanding of that thing.

Basically, it's an internet / social media thing.

It's definitely mostly a youth movement. I read the statistics on which group approves of this and it was mostly those who were between the ages of 18-34. I think you may be right in that social media is how this started.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, we have people on the left banning books that contain hurtful words that were commonly used in earlier times and we have people on the right who are banning history books about the history of racism, anti semitism etc. I think both sides are wrong.

And, I thing it's wrong for someone to lose their job over something so trivial as a stupid tweet, especially after they've apologized, and hopefully have learned something from the experience.

 

[southernhybrid]

Are we talking “cancel culture” or “cancel culture” or “cancel culture”? That is important. The term has multiple meanings, it is worse than culture warrior.

There is “cancel culture” which is the recognition that certain things need to go after someone does something wrong. Oddly letting Jussie Smollet get cancelled is okay, but Keven Spacey... let’s not get rash here. This is complicated and based on the issue. Spacey assaulted younger males, Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child, Michelle Obama suggested having fruit for dessert. It is complicated. How do we deal with that. Some of these people did great things before doing something wicked (or while we didn’t know). I know I’m not seeking to ban Mel Gibson, but learning how he is an anti-Semite really makes watching him on screen very hard. Cosby is the same way. It makes it much harder to enough watching a predator. But this probably is best left to the viewer.

Then there is “cancel culture”. Old racist shit we might not want to see. This applies generally to media. Think black face Fred Astaire. The initial thought is we don’t need to see this stuff. But some argue we do need to see it. And not in the Song of the South bitchery when Disney+ came out and racist fucks wanted to whine. But stuff like Gone with the Wind (or most cinema with African Americans in it until the late 60s). Generally this is an opportunity to discuss it, why it existed, why it matters, why it is wrong.

Then there is “cancel culture” which means whatever the hell alt-right assholes wants to say it means. This includes old racist statues erected in the 1950s to glorify treasonous assholes in the south in the rise of the Civil Rights movement. Do we keep these statues up? Fuck no! These people were anti-America... literally. But we could put them up for view in a museum dedicated to enemies of the Constitution and decency.

I agree it's complicated. I also agree that it's better to read or watch some of this stuff and then discuss why it's no longer appropriate. Off topic, I saw "Gone with the Wind" for the first time when I was about 18 and I never could understand why that movie was ever popular. But, I can understand why it's now very controversial in how slaves were portrayed.

On there other hand, my favorite comedy is "Blazing Saddles". It's pure satire, but I'm sure some super sensitive people these days would criticize or "cancel" it because it does contain the N word. At the same time, it makes the white people look really stupid and the Black sheriff is the hero and the smartest person in the movie. Yet, I fear that this hilarious comedy would never be acceptable in today's culture.

 

[Angry Floof]

I respectfully disagree that cancel culture is always about white people.

No one said always. It's a privilege to blurt out whatever opinions you've been conditioned to hold and have never been arsed to challenge within yourself. It's about the privilege of speaking without consequence, with most people not bothering or not daring to challenge someone who can make life hard for them in some way. In the US, it's white people who have this privilege, and it's white people who don't have to care about people who are not like them. There's been little or no consequences for white people prejudice for generations upon generations. Now, there's a means for virtually anyone to challenge that leeway that comes with privilege.

As a woman, I say things to men on the internet that I would not in person. There are very real dangers in challenging men in person on infantile, callous views of women. And even in cases where there may not actually be a physical danger, there is intimidation and aggressive posturing that so many men engage in when a woman says something they don't like, and depending on the experiences of the woman in question, the potential for abuse may force her to silence.

Men, especially white men, defend this and believe they have every right to engage in baboon chest puffing and aggressive behavior when women speak up and challenge them. They can get away with it easily, and therefore no self reflection or maturity or frontal lobe activity of any kind on their part is required.

There are people who are the targets of abuse who find the internet and social media a means of gaining support and of speaking out against their abusers. There are countries, as you know, that punish homosexuality with torture and death. Those people now have a voice and a way to network with others to work to change the powers and policies that abuse them.

People with power and privilege don't really have so much power and privilege when everyone has a means to criticize them. Sometimes that inspires them to step up, humble themselves, and try to be a better human who is aware of the world around them. Sometimes they just whine about some made up "movement" that is being mean to them.

It's definitely mostly a youth movement. I read the statistics on which group approves of this and it was mostly those who were between the ages of 18-34. I think you may be right in that social media is how this started.

Well, duh. As someone else has already explained, you could put this power of technology into any generation at any point in human history and you will find the same results: the powerless giving the powerful the what for to whatever extent they feel ignored or abused, which is a good thing, and pretty much everyone being dicks in some way, and some of them eventually learn to be better humans through peer pressure.

As for ordinary citizens losing jobs and reputation due to one slip or joke, that is a definite downside of social media. But there are two things you should understand before your wedge yourself more tightly in your attitudes. One, some of those people crying and giving people like you food for your prejudices, such as Joe Rogan, are people of privilege and power, and they're not losing that power. At worst, they'll receive a few less millions. But if that's what it takes for influential voices to take responsibility for what they spew out to a hundred million listeners, then so be it. They enjoy the power and influence, but when held accountable, suddenly they're just regular folks minding their own business and only bad people would make them cry.

As for the regular folks who do end up destroyed for making comments, this kind of behavior is increasingly condemned. If you agree that extreme dog piling ruining lives of ordinary citizens is wrong and needs to stop, feel free to defend those who do NOT have power and influence to defend themselves against millions of social media users lashing out at them. Going forward, let's hope that parents in our society choose to teach their children to not join in or cheer on such behavior. I've seen videos of women being chased home by men because she cut him off in traffic and he for some reason with a straight face that chasing her home and terrorizing her, video recording her as she clearly states he does not have her permission, and she's crying and he continues to taunt and terrorize her, all on video from his own camera.

The reason he thinks that's acceptable behavior is because a million social media users validate him and vilify her. THAT is what needs to stop, not people of privilege who get butthurt that a lot of people in the world find their comments repugnant with very little else lost. There are numerous videos like this on the internet of privileged, dumb as rocks white boys harassing and stalking women for doing things that do not harm anyone and often are none of those boys' fucking business to begin with.

Promote teaching our kids, especially boys, to humble themselves and respect others, that other people are not theirs to control or judge or punish. Condemn this behavior loudly and clearly, without giving the privileged an inch of excuses. Condemn knee jerk reactions of cruelty. That would not only help protect the innocent, but also those who you think have been "canceled." Have the humanity to do that instead of whining about something that doesn't even exist except as a straw man to make right wing authoritarian white people feel better about never having had to think before opening their mouths.

 

[Angry Floof]

I fear that this hilarious comedy would never be acceptable in today's culture.

We are capable of finding ways to tell a story with the same satire without needing any white characters saying the word. You can trust in the creative power of human minds, especially those that are further opened by humor and respect for their fellow human beings and more informed understanding of their own blind spots and the experiences of others.

Nothing to fear.

 

[repoman]

The Y.A, book cancellings seem to be some of the only true overreaches of the left.

But there are issues with how these books may be sold en masse via schools and libraries. So that is who needs to be placated, the organizations who order these books.

 

[Politesse]

The only new thing about "cancel culture" is the name - people have been retributively boycotting celebrities, scholars, and media for as long as mass systems of media distribution have existed. This is unlikely to change.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree it's complicated. I also agree that it's better to read or watch some of this stuff and then discuss why it's no longer appropriate. Off topic, I saw "Gone with the Wind" for the first time when I was about 18 and I never could understand why that movie was ever popular. But, I can understand why it's now very controversial in how slaves were portrayed.

What I find most peculiar about the film is how the main character is a heel, when in fact, if she were a dude, she'd be a hero.

On there other hand, my favorite comedy is "Blazing Saddles". It's pure satire, but I'm sure some super sensitive people these days would criticize or "cancel" it because it does contain the N word. At the same time, it makes the white people look really stupid and the Black sheriff is the hero and the smartest person in the movie. Yet, I fear that this hilarious comedy would never be acceptable in today's culture.

Lets make something clear, Blazing Saddles was written by comic geniuses and it wasn't making light of racism, it was making fun of it. Much like how Life is Beautiful wasn't making fun of the Holocaust, but managed to bring comedy even into the death camps itself, because of ingenious craft. Get Dave Chappelle and Eddie Izzard in a room and you could make a Blazing Saddles like film, but you need that level of genius. Seth Rogan ain't writing Blazing Saddles.

We shouldn't shy from words, but instead from malice. We shouldn't try to ignore something happened, but we shouldn't pretend some people aren't proud of it.

 

[southernhybrid]

The only new thing about "cancel culture" is the name - people have been retributively boycotting celebrities, scholars, and media for as long as mass systems of media distribution have existed. This is unlikely to change.

Sure, the name is fairly new, but I've never known of people who were highly respected in their communities, suddenly losing their jobs and having their reputations damaged due to one ignorant remark they made or tweeted. Of course boycotts of famous people have always happened, but in the past it was due to things like discovering that a famous celebrity was a serial rapist, or was laundering money etc. That's reasonable. But, what I'm objecting to are things like the the example in the OP. A highly respected man, lost his career and reputation over one tweet that was meant to be a compliment. Even after he apologized and said he was beginning to realize that he needs to be more thoughtful in how he expresses himself, he was still fired. Now, he is no longer able to serve his community, all due to the reaction to one dumb tweet. This may have happened in the past, but I have not seen any evidence that it was as common as it is today.

I'm not talking about people who are obviously racist or sexist, like Joe Rogan. People like him don't do anything constructive. They just create a lot of hate and noise. People like that are certainly a problem, but that's not what I was referring to when I said I objected to "cancel culture".

Times change and what was once considered acceptable is suddenly considered to be so bad, that a person's reputation is destroyed over a minor offense. I don't see how this helps bring people together. I don't see how this helps teach people anything. If anything, destroying and bullying a person over a minor offense has the potential to have a very damaging impact on society, regardless of which side it comes from. It causes more hate and divisiveness, not more unity and understanding.

Wouldn't it be better to discuss the offense, accept the apology and move on? Or if a book written 100 years ago, contains offensive words or ideas, is it acceptable to ban that book, or is it better to be able to read the book without over reacting to what may have been acceptable in that era? When did we become so easily offended? Sometimes it appears that young progressive white people are being very patronizing, by telling minorities what should offend them.

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree it's complicated. I also agree that it's better to read or watch some of this stuff and then discuss why it's no longer appropriate. Off topic, I saw "Gone with the Wind" for the first time when I was about 18 and I never could understand why that movie was ever popular. But, I can understand why it's now very controversial in how slaves were portrayed.

What I find most peculiar about the film is how the main character is a heel, when in fact, if she were a dude, she'd be a hero.

On there other hand, my favorite comedy is "Blazing Saddles". It's pure satire, but I'm sure some super sensitive people these days would criticize or "cancel" it because it does contain the N word. At the same time, it makes the white people look really stupid and the Black sheriff is the hero and the smartest person in the movie. Yet, I fear that this hilarious comedy would never be acceptable in today's culture.

Lets make something clear, Blazing Saddles was written by comic geniuses and it wasn't making light of racism, it was making fun of it. Much like how Life is Beautiful wasn't making fun of the Holocaust, but managed to bring comedy even into the death camps itself, because of ingenious craft. Get Dave Chappelle and Eddie Izzard in a room and you could make a Blazing Saddles like film, but you need that level of genius. Seth Rogan ain't writing Blazing Saddles.

We shouldn't shy from words, but instead from malice. We shouldn't try to ignore something happened, but we shouldn't pretend some people aren't proud of it.

I agree with you about "Blazing Saddles", but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some young idiots got their panties in a bunch because of the use of the N word in that movie, despite the fact that the movie was brilliant satire. That's how crazy some of this has gotten. Mel Brooks, who is Jewish himself, even used comedic satire regarding Hitler. I'm not sure this would be acceptable in the current social era.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree it's complicated. I also agree that it's better to read or watch some of this stuff and then discuss why it's no longer appropriate. Off topic, I saw "Gone with the Wind" for the first time when I was about 18 and I never could understand why that movie was ever popular. But, I can understand why it's now very controversial in how slaves were portrayed.

What I find most peculiar about the film is how the main character is a heel, when in fact, if she were a dude, she'd be a hero.

On there other hand, my favorite comedy is "Blazing Saddles". It's pure satire, but I'm sure some super sensitive people these days would criticize or "cancel" it because it does contain the N word. At the same time, it makes the white people look really stupid and the Black sheriff is the hero and the smartest person in the movie. Yet, I fear that this hilarious comedy would never be acceptable in today's culture.

Lets make something clear, Blazing Saddles was written by comic geniuses and it wasn't making light of racism, it was making fun of it. Much like how Life is Beautiful wasn't making fun of the Holocaust, but managed to bring comedy even into the death camps itself, because of ingenious craft. Get Dave Chappelle and Eddie Izzard in a room and you could make a Blazing Saddles like film, but you need that level of genius. Seth Rogan ain't writing Blazing Saddles.

We shouldn't shy from words, but instead from malice. We shouldn't try to ignore something happened, but we shouldn't pretend some people aren't proud of it.

I agree with you about "Blazing Saddles", but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some young idiots got their panties in a bunch because of the use of the N word in that movie, despite the fact that the movie was brilliant satire. That's how crazy some of this has gotten. Mel Brooks, who is Jewish himself, even used comedic satire regarding Hitler. I'm not sure this would be acceptable in the current social era.

Life is Beautiful happened, so I don't see why not... (especially after The Producers was remade as well, but the musical version overstayed its welcome) but only a handful of comics have the skill to pull it off. Jerry Lewis tried in the 70s to create a holocaust film of sorts and I believe that film was buried in a vault and encased in concrete. What madman thought Lewis had the skill?!

 

[Angry Floof]

We shouldn't shy from words, but instead from malice.

Some people don't seem to be able to discern the difference. Why, that word doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother anyone. What a vile and stunted high horse to sit on.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I despise the term “cancel culture”. It has no real meaning, as pointed out by Jimmy Higgins.

I also do not understand why people want to claim they are being “canceled” for certain things. For a very large part of my life, I have been in a non traditional field of work. I also have interests that are considered outside the norm for females and Christians. I have never felt like I was being "canceled" even though I have certainly encountered people who thought I should be

You can only be “canceled” if you allow yourself to be put in that position. Everyone should have enough self worth to stand their ground when facing any form of discrimination; no one is going to tell me I am not allowed to do/think something simply because they don’t think someone like me should be doing/thinking that. And you can only “cancel” other people if you have an exaggerated opinion of your own worth. I guarantee that your personal egotism will get you in the end; I don’t have to “cancel” your stance to make you look bad as your own actions are going to lead to that without any intervention on my part.

I freely admit I have made mistakes in how I discuss/treat other people. So what? I am human. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t understand what the big deal is if the mistake is followed up with an apology and an attempt to do better in the future.

I find it foolish that as a society, we are trending toward removing everything that might possibly offend a particular group of people. Now, understand that I am not saying that things such as racism or unwarranted venom against another group like gays shouldn’t be eliminated. I am saying that trying to remove all historical references which might contain some offensive ideas in literature or the arts is a step too far. Like it or not, this is our history and should not be hidden. No one is guaranteed a life free of encountering ideas that might be personally offensive. Learn from the experience and go on with your life. No one can force you to suffer emotionally without your permission.

over.

Ruth

 

[Elixir]

No one is guaranteed a life free of encountering ideas that might be personally offensive. Learn from the experience and go on with your life. No one can force you to suffer emotionally without your permission.

Funny how some things resonate throughout life. Reading your post above, one memory kept recurring. In a public bathroom stall on the UC Berkeley campus ca 1968, I came across a bit of graffiti that struck me funny. It just said:

FUCK YOU HOLDEN CAULFIELD