Should celebrities be given more leniency from cancel culture?

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I don't think I completely subscribe to this default "position of power" narrative towards celebrity excess and abuse. I would liken it to the difference between owning a calico house cat or a tiger. Clearly the tiger is more impressive, something the owner would be well aware of, but also comes with dangers and special treatment you wouldn't have to deal with, with the calico. I'm not saying celebrities are apex predators. I'm saying you're an idiot if you get a tiger and get pissed off when it doesn't require just the exact same care as a calico or when the behavior is different.

I'm not excusing clearly abusive behavior, but I think some are being held to higher moral standards than the common man when the people know full well when getting involved it's never been a bastion of high moral standards. Religious celebrities can't even keep high moral standards. Celebrities have never been the standard bearer for high moral standards and I don't understand why they are expected to now.

I expect nothing from this topic from the early days of the forum, but I'm contributing.

 

[jkcerda]

link

Cancel Culture
A desire to cancel out a person or community from social media platforms.

It is characterised by the response of an evil individual when they are shown to be wrong. They will call on their followers to report the social media accounts of the person or group that did the criticising rather than discussing the criticism or showing by evidence where the criticism is incorrect.

Narcissists make up the majority of the people who engage in cancel culture, and others who do this would include immature individuals.
Johnny was criticised for being vindictive against Janny and instead of discussing the problem, Johnny called on his followers to report the account, cancel culture style, of the person who made the criticism.

The McRae Boomer was offended because of some dictionary definitions he read and applied cancel culture by calling on his followers to report the definitions rather than having a good belly laugh at them.

HE WHO lives by the sword........

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

HE WHO lives by the sword........

But they aren't even dying by the sword. They're dying by having a sword in a trophy case that everybody wants to hold and then get mad when they get to and cut themselves on it.

 

[Eric]

I don't think I completely subscribe to this default "position of power" narrative towards celebrity excess and abuse. I would liken it to the difference between owning a calico house cat or a tiger. Clearly the tiger is more impressive, something the owner would be well aware of, but also comes with dangers and special treatment you wouldn't have to deal with, with the calico. I'm not saying celebrities are apex predators. I'm saying you're an idiot if you get a tiger and get pissed off when it doesn't require just the exact same care as a calico or when the behavior is different.

I'm not excusing clearly abusive behavior, but I think some are being held to higher moral standards than the common man when the people know full well when getting involved it's never been a bastion of high moral standards. Religious celebrities can't even keep high moral standards. Celebrities have never been the standard bearer for high moral standards and I don't understand why they are expected to now.

I expect nothing from this topic from the early days of the forum, but I'm contributing.

You are contributing and it's appreciated, that goes for everyone here. I do see the cancel mob "attempt" to hit celebrities on Twitter quite a bit, the #Lizoisoverparty type thing (just an example from the past couple of days) because they've done something offensive but they have a hard time making it stick for more than a day or so, then they let it go. I think people attempt to cancel far more than they actually achieve.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

You are contributing and it's appreciated, that goes for everyone here. I do see the cancel mob "attempt" to hit celebrities on Twitter quite a bit, the #Lizoisoverparty type thing (just an example from the past couple of days) because they've done something offensive but they have a hard time making it stick for more than a day or so, then they let it go. I think people attempt to cancel far more than they actually achieve.

I think the more immediate problem is some celebrity's careers are getting ruined however long just based on allegations, and some of these allegations aren't even about anything illegal, maybe just kink that isn't shared by the "victim".

Since it's the early days of this forum I would like to quote Bill Burr on his bit about whores. "Every man in here wants to fuck just as many women in here as celebrities. Even the the guy who works at Home Depot does, but whores don't care about lumber."

 

[Alli]

But they aren't even dying by the sword. They're dying by having a sword in a trophy case that everybody wants to hold and then get mad when they get to and cut themselves on it.

That’s a really good way of looking at it. I like it better than the cat analogy, but only because every house cat believes himself to be the tiger.

I think we take things too far by giving celebrities a platform outside of their arena. I’m not going to be a gues on a news show because I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. But most celebrities don’t have any more reason to state their opinion in public than that. There are a few exceptions, but they’re not the ones holding the sword, so to speak.

For example...who in hell made Alyssa Milano the spokesperson for anything? Whether I agree with her or not is irrelevant. Her opinion is not worth more than anyone posting on this forum because she’s an actor.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

That’s a really good way of looking at it. I like it better than the cat analogy, but only because every house cat believes himself to be the tiger.

I think we take things too far by giving celebrities a platform outside of their arena. I’m not going to be a gues on a news show because I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. But most celebrities don’t have any more reason to state their opinion in public than that. There are a few exceptions, but they’re not the ones holding the sword, so to speak.

For example...who in hell made Alyssa Milano the spokesperson for anything? Whether I agree with her or not is irrelevant. Her opinion is not worth more than anyone posting on this forum because she’s an actor.

I totally understand people feeling celebrities should SHUT THE FUCK UP about causes they are so far removed from. But at the same time, there are for more "civilians" that do the same thing. I know the difference is celebrities have a bigger megaphone, but again, if the "civilain" had the same size megaphone they would do the exact same thing.

"Celebrities should know better." Based on what? Do they get a morning briefing like our current president chooses to ignore?

 

[Alli]

I totally understand people feeling celebrities should SHUT THE FUCK UP about causes they are so far removed from. But at the same time, there are for more "civilians" that do the same thing. I know the difference is celebrities have a bigger megaphone, but again, if the "civilain" had the same size megaphone they would do the exact same thing.

"Celebrities should know better." Based on what? Do they get a morning briefing like our current president chooses to ignore?

It’s not that they should know better, it’s that WE should know better. Why do we promote them over joe citizen who knows the exact same thing?

 

[Yoused]

Bad things happen to people all the time. That one guy who misjudged the curve and ended up in the canyon had his life change for the worse in a moment. Because he did something stupid. His grandchildren might not be able to retire his hospital bills.

So a celebrity does/says something stupid and gets piled-on. So they lose millions of dollars (more money than most people ever make) and have to sell a couple of their houses to get by. Seems pretty trivial to me, compared to the shit that happens to everybody all the time. I cannot coax my inner crocodile to cry about them.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I think the more immediate problem is some celebrity's careers are getting ruined however long just based on allegations, and some of these allegations aren't even about anything illegal, maybe just kink that isn't shared by the "victim".

True, but celebrities also did it to themselves when they started yelling at each other on twitter and often demanding for some apology of some kind.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think the more immediate problem is some celebrity's careers are getting ruined however long just based on allegations, and some of these allegations aren't even about anything illegal, maybe just kink that isn't shared by the "victim".

Since it's the early days of this forum I would like to quote Bill Burr on his bit about whores. "Every man in here wants to fuck just as many women in here as celebrities. Even the the guy who works at Home Depot does, but whores don't care about lumber."

I think that far more of them availed of the power differential which allowed them to take (occasionally cruel) advantage of sometimes starstruck fans, or youngsters who had perhaps hoped for mentoring, or advice, and failed to realise that even the appearance of such may have come with an ugly cost.

And, there is a difference between enthusiastic consent, and the sort of consent where you don't really feel the you can - or have the right to - say no, not without negative consequences, such as being bad-mouthed, or having your career killed by someone older, and considerably more powerful and influential than you are.

However, when celebrities are seen (or held up as) possible role models, I think that they do have a greater responsibility to this before they open their mouths. Plus, they may reach an audience that official government advice (on, for example, mask wearing) may not be able to reach.

Far better, of course, is that - in general - they choose to confine their utterances to their area of expertise; I'm not always sure that they are qualified to discuss much else.

 

[Huntn]

I think the more immediate problem is some celebrity's careers are getting ruined however long just based on allegations, and some of these allegations aren't even about anything illegal, maybe just kink that isn't shared by the "victim".

Since it's the early days of this forum I would like to quote Bill Burr on his bit about whores. "Every man in here wants to fuck just as many women in here as celebrities. Even the the guy who works at Home Depot does, but whores don't care about lumber."

The problem is that one allegation should in itself not be enough to hang you, because individuals have been known to make false allegations. In that situation the only fair thing to do is investigate. The Kavenaugh hearing for SCOTUS would be a good example, but instead of allowing a complete investigation, the GOP gave it a week and said move on. The other case when you can go with testimony is when you have 10 or more people confirming the allegation such as Weinstein or Cosby.

When I was in the US Navy and sexual harassment first arose, there were real cases and fake accusations, and unfortunately one accusation could sink your career. I know one individual who would not see a woman in his office, with the door closed, or he would insist on another female to be present to act as a witness. Over reaction? Maybe not in that original environment.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The problem is that one allegation should in itself not be enough to hang you, because individuals have been known to make false allegations. In that situation the only fair thing to do is investigate. The Kavenaugh hearing for SCOTUS would be a good example, but instead of allowing a complete investigation, the GOP gave it a week and said move on

Kavanaugh had 13 (thirteen) full FBI investigations on his shoulders at that point. I wonder if people realize how detailed those investigations are and how terrible they are for the families. Kavanaugh also had to complete thousands (thousands!) of legal forms within 36 hours.

Let me remind you that Senator Feinstein held off on releasing the allegation until the vote was up, when she had the documentary material for one or two months prior to that. If you think that more time was needed, take the complaint to her, not the GOP. I am not even going into the credibility of the witness, which was disproved by the very same witnesses she mentioned (among others, including herself).

 

[lizkat]

I think it didn't take long for "cancel culture" to expand from its original focus to anything else that someone with a big mouth and a social media feed decides is unacceptable. Not sure people will remember what was cancel culture in a few years.

People want in on cancelling now because it's cool. It's not quite the same as wanting to own something or buy something or see an upcoming movie, but wanting to get in on bashing folks in the "influencers' zone" seems almost like kids craving Pop-It beads and saddleshoes in the 50s ffs. Only it's cheaper because we or our parents or workplaces are already paying for internet access.

Talk really is cheap anyway. But see right now "cancel culture" talk has serious cachet on the net.

Now we are are a place where it's cool to try to cancel others' livelihood because their political opinions don't line up with our own or we're jealous they somehow jacked up a no-talent love for some kind of food into a whole YouTube channel thing with ad revenue. Has to be time to cancel all those people?! Next week it will be way more cool to pile onto newspapers for having Opinion sections... or was that last week, I keep losing track of what is the latest focus of cancel culture.

Covid-19 is an accelerant here. Idleness is the work of the devil and all that.

OK i realize this post belongs in the Arkham asylum but you know me, even my rants are off topic.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Next week it will be way more cool to pile onto newspapers for having Opinion sections...

Already happened at the NYT, which is insane.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I deeply dislike cases where there is a clear power differential, and where the purported victim is subordinate to, or in a direct line of report to, the alleged perpetrator. This is a clear abuse of power.

While there are women who use (abuse) the system, I would contend that a greater number of men do so.

I've certainly worked in places where a female network evolved to discreetly advise new hires that certain individuals (invariably holding senior positions, or senior to those with whom they abused their position) could not be trusted not to abuse their position, all the way from the disgusting "office hugger" (and every woman knows, immediately and instinctively, the difference between a hug given by a male colleague who is a pal, a mate, a colleague who wishes you well, and the creep - lip slightly curled in a leer - who uses the cover of such a greeting to get in a sneaky squeeze, which leaves you repulsed, and feeling filthy and violated), to far more flagrant abuses.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I deeply dislike cases where there is a clear power differential, and where the purported victim is subordinate to, or in a direct line of report to, the alleged perpetrator. This is a clear abuse of power.

While there are women who use (abuse) the system, I would contend that a greater number of men do so.

I've certainly worked in places where a female network evolved to discreetly advise new hires that certain individuals (invariably holding senior positions, or senior to those who with whom they abused their position) could not be trusted not to abuse their position, all the way from the disgusting "office hugger" (and every woman knows, immediately and instinctively, the difference between a hug given by a male colleague who is a pal, a mate, a colleague who wishes you well, and the creep - lip slightly curled in a leer - who uses the cover of such a greeting to get in a sneaky squeeze, which leaves you repulsed, and feeling filthy and violated), to far more flagrant abuses.

I am a hugger... the Italian in me is, at least. Always a “side hug” shoulder height, after asking for permission, and if I know the person well.

As for women, and after having worked in some 99%-female teams (in one situation I was the only male on the floor, for a couple of years), I noticed that they tend to be vicious towards other women. The stuff I heard and witnessed left me appalled to the point that in at least one case (involving a pregnant woman who was seriously bullied by other team members to the point of causing a nervous breakdown) I involved HR (pregnant woman resigned).

 

[lizkat]

I deeply dislike cases where there is a clear power differential, and where the purported victim is subordinate to, or in a direct line of report to, the alleged perpetrator. This is a clear abuse of power.

While there are women who use (abuse) the system, I would contend that a greater number of men do so.

I've certainly worked in places where a female network evolved to discreetly advise new hires that certain individuals (invariably holding senior positions, or senior to those who with whom they abused their position) could not be trusted not to abuse their position, all the way from the disgusting "office hugger" (and every woman knows, immediately and instinctively, the difference between a hug given by a male colleague who is a pal, a mate, a colleague who wishes you well, and the creep - lip slightly curled in a leer - who uses the cover of such a greeting to get in a sneaky squeeze, which leaves you repulsed, and feeling filthy and violated), to far more flagrant abuses.

All so much my experience as well... and all the more reason perhaps for women in particular to object to "cancel culture" subsuming the ongoing conversations tagged in social media as #metoo. The latter outcry has shed light on the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact and power imbalances in the workplace. "Cancel culture" though... I have disliked any suggestion that #metoo is just a subgenre of cancelling efforts, i.e. merely an envious bashing of more accomplished folks who have managed to establish a livelihood and perhaps a public following

Among other things the #metoo discussions --along with the backlashing, and the pointing out of exceptions and mistakes-- have become valuable springboards for addressing other than sexual misapplication of power imbalances on the job... any job, not just those of celebrities but the produce market stock clerk and the office cleaner.

"Cancel culture" though with its seeming focus on bashing celebrities (of any sort, including whaling on people who have gained large numbers of followers in social media for whatever accomplishment ) seems distinctly meaner to me in several senses of that word, and sometimes strikes me as just mean for the sake of being mean. Cancelling seems to be evolving to an often nasty mob-style application of social media's bullying powers: "because we can"... which of course is extremely ironic versus the genesis of the #metoo conversations.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Agree with you, @lizkat, completely on cancel culture; thank you for putting into words what I have not yet managed to get around to articulating.

And agree, also on the need to ensure that 'me too' is not subsumed, or viewed as a sub-set of 'cancel culture' because it is something entirely different.

@yaxomoxay; hugging with consent is absolutely fine and, as I mentioned above (and @lizkat concurred), believe it or not, but women can tell - immediately and instinctively - the difference between hugs benevolently bestowed, and those driven by less pleasant motives.

However, there is a part of me that is delighted that covid-19 has put paid - for now - to all such unwanted office advances.

Re women (in groups), I think it is more subtle and nuanced than you seem to suggest.

By that I mean - and I don't at all doubt that some women can be vicious - I remember some such from school, and some all-female environments can be utterly toxic, - but, as I came to realise as a teacher, I think it more an interplay between individual character and group dynamics.

I used to be amazed how the "collective character" of each individual group of students differed, and how, in turn, that "tone" was determined by the character of a few key individuals.

Some groups (or classes) of students, I loved, because the atmosphere of that group - collectively - was so positive and engaged and witty and warm that it was an absolute pleasure to teach them, - it was a real pleasure to even think that you would face them on a particular day something to look forward to, and they - in turn - loved to be taught by me.

Others were okay, and there were one or two that were - unpleasant - or, difficult to engage with, and that came down to the character of a few key individuals. This was character rather than gender, but an obnoxious (and yes, cruel, or callously insensitive) female boss (and yes, I have had them, but this is character not gender) is every bit as depressingly awful as a narcissistic or bullying or horrible male boss.

But, yes, of course I wouldn't deny that there are female bullies and that - in a professional context - they are every bit as awful as their male counterparts who are bullies. But women are not usually the perpetrators in the peculiarly unique humiliation that is sexual harassment.

 

[lizkat]

But, yes, of course I wouldn't deny that there are female bullies and that - in a professional context - they are every bit as awful as their male counterparts who are bullies. But women are not usually the perpetrators in the peculiarly unique humiliation that is sexual harassment.

I sure have had some unpleasant experiences with women as bullies, whether work based or in avocational gatherings. I don't just mistake assertive women for bullies, either: a bully is a bully no matter gender. Sometimes I have thought the dynamics sprang from someone just exploring the boundaries of personal power because she was "finally" out from under thumb of possibly domineering family members, male or female. Other times it became pretty clear the trait was of longstanding.

Happily enough, sometimes a preponderance of men in a woman's childhood just makes a woman strong, assertive, self-confident and not a bully. Growing up in family that includes a bunch of uncles and brothers -- I had a wonderfully strong friend and mentor in the prime of my working life who was the youngest child and the only girl in a brood of 8-- doesn't always mean that a little girl ends up afraid of men, a man hater or a reactive bully either. It often enough means she sees how "stuff" gets hashed out in a boys' world, and later on she doesn't ever mistake the world of adults as one that belongs just to men. That can result in some spectacular battles royal in corporate life, but the way they play out won't get mistaken for a woman trying to bully a man; she's just playing the same game he is, and he may be pretty startled at first by seeing his own battlefield tactics matched by her actions. It's only if he's actually a bully himself that the jousting can end up in HR or with a lawsuit, which is likely these days if she's competent and he's just an overbearing bully.

But there can be jealousies and mean spirited interactions among women on the job, that's for sure, and regardless of the genesis. Sometimes a workplace is just toxic in general, so "monkey see, monkey do" in order to survive and it's an easy trap to fall into after a few weeks on a new job. Bottom line I quit trying to guess and in workplace situations with hostile women, I just maneuvered to find myself a way not to get fired -- for slipping up and letting some bee know all too bluntly what I thought of her tactics! Sadly though in plenty of occupations and of course in fragile economic times, it's not possible to just pack up and take one's CV to the headhunter and look for a more fun place to work.

In fact it was a bullying woman at a consultancy project once who caused me to look into the worth of meditation. I couldn't see leaving the outfit I was working for since I'd just got there, so I needed some way to put a new job hunt on the back burner. Resorting to learning how to meditate in a kind of desperation turned out to be a lifetime benefit, but god knows I didn't let that discovery keep me from moving on from that company, when after a few projects working for other managers, my number came up for a project with her at the helm again.

As for cancel culture on the net, let's stipulate there certainly seems no dearth of women in those virtual crowds. In political seasons my list of Twitter follows does grow, and so also then my list of mutes and blocks. And either there are a lot of men whose avocation is emulating shrewish, overbearing women, or else some women are just as good as men at being bullies. I figure from past real life experience, we're all human and can hone flaws as well as skills.

But in the workplace... the traditional imbalances can harden a woman's heart for the sake of survival. A Filipina friend of mine who's an operating room nurse once observed, "you watch a surgeon wield the scalpel you hand him for long enough, you can't help but admire his skill even if there's a part of you that's jealous of whatever advantage put him in that room to use the knife and you just to make sure it's clean and sharp and the right one for his task at hand. But... outside that room,,,, he shouldn't forget that you know how to bring a knife to a fight too."

The problem is that once our hearts are hardened there may be no turning back, so we're not tough as nails just to men in our lives, we can take it out on women and kids as well. Food for thought.. but it's not on a menu we consciously choose from in the heat of a moment in any venue. In social media settings, as cancel culture runs its uncertain course, it seems an equal opportunity for men and women to jump on a bunch of thoughtlessly driven bandwagons here and there.