least funny python to make shit documentary not worth watching

[Cuellar]

I agree that this is clearly cultural marxism under a different name, but that's not the same as saying "cancelling" is a thing that never happens to anyone. If we define cancelling as someone losing work or social contacts over spurious accusations or character assassinations online, or character assassination of people that has ulterior political motives, that's clearly something that happens all the damn time.

But this has happened forever, hasn't it? You're friends with X and Y tells you that X is actually an arsehole because they racially abused someone in the street or whatever, so you stop hanging around with X.

But I agree, the solution is for everyone to stop being so online all the time.

edit: sorry sevendaughters said the exact same thing and I NEWPAGED the cunt

but this happened prior to the internet being a thing. yes the internet amplifies it massively but i. demonstrably no one moaning about 'cancel culture' is losing out - quite the opposite! - there is a culture of people moving deliberately toward offence ii. this is just an example of publicly-stated belief being the same in principle as a social action: it will put people off. I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't like Charles Lindbergh in the 30s, even though he didn't actually kill a single Jew. iii. the internet is just the counterweight to the legacy media losing importance.

[chveik]

"it has always happened" is not the most convicting argument, whatever the subject is

[Video Game Fan 2000]

but this happened prior to the internet being a thing. yes the internet amplifies it massively but i. demonstrably no one moaning about 'cancel culture' is losing out - quite the opposite! - there is a culture of people moving deliberately toward offence ii. this is just an example of publicly-stated belief being the same in principle as a social action: it will put people off. I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't like Charles Lindbergh in the 30s, even though he didn't actually kill a single Jew. iii. the internet is just the counterweight to the legacy media losing importance.

The internet has enabled something different, more efficent, more blanket and with a seemless interface between peoples professional and personal lives. There's no escape from it, and the fear of it happening has clearly influenced peoples behaviour and ideas on a wide scale.

I think pointing to multimillionaires like Dave Chappelle and Louis Ck and saying "see! there were no obvious consequences!" is a bad argument. Because of course, rich people will have less consequences and the most widely publicised cases will be wealthy and successful people, not someone in a niche academic area or a small time journalist covering union-busting. They will go back to their jobs like nothing has happened and in "cancel culture" find something new to gripe about. But they're a small minority of people affected.

People can get torn down and have their lives ruined for being heterodox on the internet, or receive out of the blue character assassination for no reason other than to help someone else's career or because their opinions were uncomfortable. This is a fairly frequent occurance and surely it gives more ammunition to the right to pretend that it isn't?

[Cuellar]

"it has always happened" is not the most convicting argument, whatever the subject is

Well the premise of Cleese's show is that there are these new people called 'wokes' and they go around 'cancelling' people.

[Autopsy Turvey]

The problem is you're so determined to play Man Above the Fray you can't see what a twatty neo-reactionary you are.

I can assure you I am not a 'neo-reactionary', or a 'neo' anything. These new-fangled modern reactionaries are a load of cunts, I'm a traditional old-fashioned classical reactionary thank you very much.

So you're fine with "partisan gash" provided it mocks the left and emboldens the right. Got it.

Bit of an 'if you're not with us you're against us' fallacy here. I equally expect and hope that the far right's framing of 'cancel culture' is also squarely rebutted.

[Weeping Prophet]

To be fair, it should definitely be mentioned that many left wing activists like to imagine that 'cancel culture' both does not exist and is a conspiracy to destabilise the left. As long as this is squarely rebutted, then I agree it should be worthwhile.

The left, as with many things, is not on the same page about cancel culture. Some maintain that it doesn't exist, while others maintain (I think correctly) that it's a poorly named phenomena that - while not at all exclusive to the left - makes the left look bad. But the left also has a good reason for getting tied up in it; it lacks any substantial power.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Most of the main "cancel culture doesn't exist!" articles came from American liberal outlets with middle class audiences and in neckdeep in slack and twitter group monocultures themselves.

Outside rock star liberal journalists and their brunching twitter-addict readers, it seems like such a bizarre position to take. The argument literally boils down to - there aren't that many consequences to publically shaming a multimillionaire, therefore no one has anything to fear if they received the treatment themselves. Myopic in the extreme.

Louis Ck, Chappelle, Gervais, Kanye and others being the examples of there being no real consequences of cancelling is just beyond absurd to me. You might as well say, look Prince Andrew's still a free man after being accused of rape, clearly sex offenders have nothing to fear nowadays.

[sevendaughters]

The internet has enabled something different, more efficent, more blanket and with a seemless interface between peoples professional and personal lives. There's no escape from it, and the fear of it happening has clearly influenced peoples behaviour and ideas on a wide scale.

I think pointing to multimillions like Dave Chappelle and Louis Ck and saying "see! there were no obvious consequences!" is a bad argument. Because of course, rich people will have less consequences and the most widely publicised cases will be wealthy and successful people, not someone in a niche academic area or a small time journalist covering union-busting. They will go back to their jobs like nothing has happened and in "cancel culture" find something new to gripe about. But they're a small minority of people affected.

People can get torn down and have their lives ruined for being heterodox on the internet, or receive out of the blue character assassination for no reason other than to help someone else's career or because their opinions were uncomfortable. This is a fairly frequent occurance and surely it gives more ammunition to the right to pretend that it isn't?

But exactly what cancel culture *is* has remained fairly constant since the arrival of it on the scene as a part and parcel of the Culture Wars, be it through the right wing concern with universities, their bizarre obsessions with news and documentary showing a left-wing bias, and now enacting pressure through any cultural arms they can get any reasonable purchase in. Cancel culture is the belief from the right that there is a left-liberal hegemony determining what can and cannot be said or thought. That demonstrably is not the case. I've read your posts on here and I know that you don't think there is such a thing, even though the leftists and the liberals aren't squeaky clean, so I continue to refute 'cancel culture' in the strongest possible terms.

Yes - you are right that people in less powerful positions feel unable to articulate certain thoughts and have to remain expedient to a whole host of political and social concerns. But I think those winds are blowing in all directions at all times and have done since humans came together. I don't think this fact really reveals much other than the general complexity of a life that is enfranchised enough to have a voice but not enfranchised enough to rise above the fray. That's the source of a lot of great comedy and art and most of our social tensions, on some level.

I also think larger bodies - media groups, academic institutions - are becoming more aware about the general importance to give online anger, and how often the most violent storm of rage over a joke or an action or a belief is often i. not replicated by the same people posting online when they express it in real life ii. not shared by most people and iii. not something that 90% of people are even aware is happening.

[Barry Admin]

The internet has enabled something different, more efficent, more blanket and with a seemless interface between peoples professional and personal lives. There's no escape from it, and the fear of it happening has clearly influenced peoples behaviour and ideas on a wide scale.

I think, arguably, it probably should, tbh. People should go back to having some fucking sense about what they put online, especially if they're dumb enough to use their real name and photos etc.

I'm not saying "don't say contentious shit", rather I'm saying, "have some common fucking sense."

[Video Game Fan 2000]

But exactly what cancel culture *is* has remained fairly constant since the arrival of it on the scene as a part and parcel of the Culture Wars, be it through the right wing concern with universities, their bizarre obsessions with news and documentary showing a left-wing bias, and now enacting pressure through any cultural arms they can get any reasonable purchase in. Cancel culture is the belief from the right that there is a left-liberal hegemony determining what can and cannot be said or thought. That demonstrably is not the case. I've read your posts on here and I know that you don't think there is such a thing, even though the leftists and the liberals aren't squeaky clean, so I continue to refute 'cancel culture' in the strongest possible terms.

I really disagree that is a constant. I've seen it happen in smaller places in other contexts where people have received the treatment, and its had nothing to do with either "culture wars" or liberal culture hegemony. I know this is spurious thing to post without evidence - but that's part of the thing, you can't exactly name names and say "look, here's an example" without dragging the whole thing over again, and a lot of the time it happens its over stuff that is -from a distance- so low stakes its scarcely worth bringing it up again.

Cancel culture, especially since Trump used it describe the 1619 project, means culture war in the minds of a lot of conservatives and centrists. But that doesn't change the fact that "cancelling" isn't confined to situations where conservatives are cancelled by leftists.

The combination of the internet becoming more invasive and private interests having more power over what is and isn't acceptable speech has created something new and horrifying. I don't think we can "twas ever thus" about it.

Yes - you are right that people in less powerful positions feel unable to articulate certain thoughts and have to remain expedient to a whole host of political and social concerns. But I think those winds are blowing in all directions at all times and have done since humans came together. I don't think this fact really reveals much other than the general complexity of a life that is enfranchised enough to have a voice but not enfranchised enough to rise above the fray. That's the source of a lot of great comedy and art and most of our social tensions, on some level.

I also think larger bodies - media groups, academic institutions - are becoming more aware about the general importance to give online anger, and how often the most violent storm of rage over a joke or an action or a belief is often i. not replicated by the same people posting online when they express it in real life ii. not shared by most people and iii. not something that 90% of people are even aware is happening.

There is certainly a very rigid, fixed set of opinions shared across institutions now in a way that there hasn't been before. This is enabled mostly by the internet and filter bubbles, but also because of the outsized role of non-profits and NGOs in deciding what constitutes "ethical" and "right and wrong" decisions for powerful institutions and businesses (hence: intersectionality in, socialism out).

I can think of loads of examples, again I don't really care to post them and know that might make me seem like I'm pulling stuff out of my arse, where people have opinions about things they know well that they are afraid to voice online because they'll lose work and risk becoming ostracised. It feels bad to even say this, because it is exactly the same thing that people like G*inner say is happening - aha! a lot of people are secret transphobes! - or a lot of people are secretly against immigration! but in reality the opinions they're worried about expressing aren't those kind of views they're just views you could describe as "professionally inconvenient".

if they're dumb enough to use their real name and photos etc.

I'm not saying "don't say contentious shit", rather I'm saying, "have some common fucking sense."

But you have to put your name, photos, details on line to have a hell of a lot of jobs! And you're expected to have a social media presence that expresses the right "on brand" views. This isn't common sense, its intrusion of capital into peoples personal lives and ideas.

"Common sense" also won't help you if someone marches up to you and puts a camera in your face and claims that you said something horribly offensive a second before the camera was switched one, because they've got a prank channel or they're a youtube political provocateur of some kind. Then suddenly you're the crazy Karen or SJW that everyone is mad at for a while.

[Cold Meat Platter]

One of my facebook mates posted recently about a power metal band that are in the process of being cancelled after racist and misogynistic group chats were leaked after some lineup trouble.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Gloryhammer/comments/p9mdeu/leaked_gloryhammer_group_chat_texts_reveal_racism/

'Chats' used to be ephemeral.

[Barry Admin]

But you have to put your name, photos, details on line to have a hell of a lot of jobs!

What's that got to do with doxing yourself on social media?

And you're expected to have a social media presence that expresses the right "on brand" views. This isn't common sense, its intrusion of capital into peoples personal lives and ideas.

Who expects this, and why would it matter if you're not doxing yourself?

You gotta keep your worlds apart:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NBZVaNpwub8

"Common sense" also won't help you if someone marches up to you and puts a camera in your face and claims that you said something horribly offensive a second before the camera was switched one, because they've got a prank channel or they're a youtube political provocateur of some kind.

That's unfortunate, but seems like a niche concern, and is also no excuse for not having common sense while actually online.

[sevendaughters]

not going to reply in full and respect your position but i still do think 'twas ever thus' (lol wrote 'twat ever thus') to a larger extent because one maxim of comedy was always 'know your audience'. your online audience is now everyone, completely stripped of all those contexts and crutches and intimacies and credibilities a good comedian builds before testing them and relying on them. it's difficult, to bring it back to the original post, to say Cleese is a bad faith merchant completely, as he has sought to defend and test his own views on TV before. but I'm surprised that he can't differentiate in this case between 'some loud people online said this was offensive' and 'institutional pressure to conform to norms'.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

What's that got to do with doxing yourself on social media?

Because what many jobs now demand means that "doxing" isn't a thing for a lot of people anymore, that their names and faces and sometimes addresses are up for everyone to see?

"Not having social media with a photo and real name" is listed as a red flag by a lot of recruiters.

I've sat in with a lot of students on their "how to get private sector work" stuff over the past two years, and a decent chunk of it involves how to make sure a good picture, your name, the right opinions and attitute, etc. all come over if a prospective employer googles you and all that stuff has to be maintained while you're in a position. Stuff like - show pictures of yourself having fun on holiday, because being well travelled is desirable, but try to be holding a non-alcoholic drink in your instagram pictures because booze is bad. That's life now.

Who expects this, and why would it matter if you're not doxing yourself?

Companies looking for the best possible candidate expect it. Universities frequently expect it for post graduate places. If you're trying to get work published everywhere they will look for it. Sometimes if you're even cited by someone people will look for it.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

but I'm surprised that he can't differentiate in this case between 'some loud people online said this was offensive' and 'institutional pressure to conform to norms'.

I'm more surprised that people think instutitions don't have role in why people get loud online and why certain cases of people being loud online turn into something the whole world cares about. Its so artificial.

I don't expect Professor Dead Parrot to talk about this though, no.

[Weeping Prophet]

Yes, people getting mad at each other is a built-in incentive on Twitter. It's the engine that runs the site, very much by design. But the issue is almost always portrayed as individuals acting out, driven by ideology.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Twitters scrolling thing is designed to be addicting. If you go on youtube and see, at a glance, a comment section full of boomer dads going "you can't say this anymore in bonkers britain crysmile" it barely registers because you can see it all in a second and register what it is and move on, never think about it again. But click on a twitter thread full of gammon and you gotta read them one by one. AN IDIOT then ANOTHER IDIOT then ANOTHER IDIOT all differently wrong in their special ways and distinct ways to feel superior to each of them!

[Cuellar]

Because what many jobs now demand means that "doxing" isn't a thing for a lot of people anymore, that their names and faces and sometimes addresses are up for everyone to see?

"Not having social media with a photo and real name" is listed as a red flag by a lot of recruiters.

I've sat in with a lot of students on their "how to get private sector work" stuff over the past two years, and a decent chunk of it involves how to make sure a good picture, your name, the right opinions and attitute, etc. all come over if a prospective employer googles you and all that stuff has to be maintained while you're in a position. Stuff like - show pictures of yourself having fun on holiday, because being well travelled is desirable, but try to be holding a non-alcoholic drink in your instagram pictures because booze is bad. That's life now.

Companies looking for the best possible candidate expect it. Universities frequently expect it for post graduate places. If you're trying to get work published everywhere they will look for it. Sometimes if you're even cited by someone people will look for it.

You can have all that AND secret anonymous accounts.

[Barry Admin]

If only there was some way to be free of these addictive, manipulative social media networks that incentivise outrage.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

a while ago some twitter person I enjoy reblogged someone who making a long list of cool animations in fighting games. i fucking scrolled that thing for four solid hours. I don't own a mobile phone, I was just scrolling down for four fucking hours at my desk. The presentation of getting something enjoyable in bite sized amounts put me in a Turing loop. If the house was on fire I would've burned to death

if it was just on a webpage i'd have spent half an hour "wow these animations are more impressive than I remember" but no on twitter I was like pavels dog fucking the bell. get the right combination and it by passes our self awareness and control "just get up and walk away" is no a solution, sorry Tyler the Creator

[phantom_power]

I think there is a difference between people getting in trouble on social media, or being "cancelled", and the idea of "cancel culture", which I think is widely agreed to be a concerted effort on some people's parts (mainly the left) to push their agenda by ruining anyone who disagrees. I think the former does happen, and happens more often the more social media has taken over our lives. I think the latter is a load of bollocks pushed by the right wing media and right wing personalities to moan about the fact that society has moved on and you can't say certain things any more without getting flak for it.

Most people who complain about being cancelled do so on several platforms and across the media, which suggests they haven't actually been cancelled at all.

[Old Nehamkin]

You can have all that AND secret anonymous accounts.

For now, yeah, sort of, but I think it's pretty clear that big tech is pushing very hard to stop that from being the case.

[Cuellar]

There'll always be CaB

[Barry Admin]

if it was just on a webpage i'd have spent half an hour "wow these animations are more impressive than I remember" but no on twitter I was like pavels dog fucking the bell. get the right combination and it by passes our self awareness and control "just get up and walk away" is no a solution, sorry Tyler the Creator

Saying "cyber bullying isn't real, switch off your phone" doesn't really seem meaningfully comparable to "don't fucking engage with addictive, miserable systems that are built from the ground up to exploit your worst tendencies", sorry Bierka.

(I know what you're talking about, and get it with YouTube's Tiktok ripoff, so... I limit my exposure to it.)

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Peer pressure still exists? People have to do what their friends and colleagues do to maintain friendships and connections.

Part of the success of these platforms comes from them being sold as this is YOUR place YOU get to control what you see and do on here, you should see what YOU like to see. And of course the upshot of that is that the category of "stuff you get to control" contains "thoughts appearing in the mind of a stranger, on the opposite side of the globe"

[Captain Z]

I think some people massively overestimate the number of people that know or give a shit about things that happen on the internet. I'm sure there was some stat posted recently that something like 2% of the population of the US make 80% of Twitter posts.

[Dusty Substance]

No. He's the best one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdtAXqec9-w

Christ, I can't believe* this was a thing. I mean I can believe it because it would've meant Eric Idle earning money, but who would have bought a version of the OFITG theme with a 90s dance beat?

(Said, obviously, in Victor Meldrew's voice).

In Idle's defence his monologue which starts halfway through this video is still one of the most impressive comedy performances of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQODVsl5pFY

[Kankurette]

The internet has enabled something different, more efficent, more blanket and with a seemless interface between peoples professional and personal lives. There's no escape from it, and the fear of it happening has clearly influenced peoples behaviour and ideas on a wide scale.

I think pointing to multimillionaires like Dave Chappelle and Louis Ck and saying "see! there were no obvious consequences!" is a bad argument. Because of course, rich people will have less consequences and the most widely publicised cases will be wealthy and successful people, not someone in a niche academic area or a small time journalist covering union-busting. They will go back to their jobs like nothing has happened and in "cancel culture" find something new to gripe about. But they're a small minority of people affected.

People can get torn down and have their lives ruined for being heterodox on the internet, or receive out of the blue character assassination for no reason other than to help someone else's career or because their opinions were uncomfortable. This is a fairly frequent occurance and surely it gives more ammunition to the right to pretend that it isn't?

It definitely happens in YA circles. Writers being publicly shamed because they drew pornographic fan art or something. And these aren't big name writers, they're up and coming ones.

[jenna appleseed]

Is this the point people start blaming 'internet teen prudes' on "the asexuals" like over in one of the three million glinner threads?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

It definitely happens in YA circles. Writers being publicly shamed because they drew pornographic fan art or something. And these aren't big name writers, they're up and coming ones.

No sex scenes with people under 5'6 because short people are "minor coded" in fiction!