•   
  •   
  •   

Entertainment Cancel Culture Is Still in Search of a Reasoned Defense

16:52  13 july  2020
16:52  13 july  2020 Source:   thewrap.com

Spike Lee Defends Woody Allen Amid 'Cancel' Culture: ' I Don't Know You Just Erase Someone'

  Spike Lee Defends Woody Allen Amid 'Cancel' Culture: ' I Don't Know You Just Erase Someone' Spike Lee on Friday defended his "friend" Woody Allen and suggested that "cancel" culture may be going too far for filmmakers accused of serious wrongdoing. "I'd just like to say Woody Allen is a great, great filmmaker and this cancel thing is not just Woody," the Oscar-winning filmmaker told Len Berman and Michael Riedel, co-hosts of New York City radio station WOR's "In the Morning" show. "When we look back on it we are going to see that — short of killing somebody — I don't know you just erase someone like they never existed.

The former Register reporter nonetheless denies that he was canceled , or that he canceled King, or that cancel culture is even real. 3. J.K. Rowling confirmed the long-held suspicions of the progressive left when she tweeted in a defense of a British think tank employee who had lost her job

Those decried as ‘online mobs’ are mostly people who’ve never been able to influence conversations about their own fates, says the Guardian It is still pretty much the only way certain marginalised voices can be heard. It’s still the only way they can tell newspapers such as the New York Times that

George Orwell, Charles M. Blow, Salman Rushdie posing for the camera: George Orwell Charles Blow Salman Rushdie Thomas Chatterton Williams © TheWrap George Orwell Charles Blow Salman Rushdie Thomas Chatterton Williams

For weeks now, I've been seeking a reasoned defense of cancel culture, the notion that people, brands, shows, movies should be essentially disappeared because of views that some (or even many) consider to be offensive. This has been scaring the hell out of me.

What is the argument, I wondered, that would seek to champion one kind of speech — the "correct" kind of speech — and cancel another? What gain is to be made by sacrificing the singular, foundational principle of a free society — free expression — to the value of racial equality or other deserving measures? And why is that exchange binary?

Jimmy Kimmel Attributes Outrage Over 'Paw Patrol' to Fox News Being 'Disappointed' Looting Stopped (Video)

  Jimmy Kimmel Attributes Outrage Over 'Paw Patrol' to Fox News Being 'Disappointed' Looting Stopped (Video) Jimmy Kimmel ridiculed Fox News Tuesday night, pointing out how many times in recent days the network's guests and talent have referred to the movement to cancel the cartoon "Paw Patrol." "Fox News, by the way, I think they might be disappointed that there's no looting going on anymore because they have a new focus to distract us from reality and that is manufacturing outrage in response to a non-existent movement to cancel the show 'Paw"Fox News, by the way, I think they might be disappointed that there's no looting going on anymore because they have a new focus to distract us from reality and that is manufacturing outrage in response to a non-existent movement to cancel the show 'Paw Patrol,'" he said, roll

The loudest critics of cancel culture tend to frame it as a sort of inquisition -- as a campaign to quash someone or something that some person doesn't like It was in defense of groups that have long been kicked to American society's fringes. Fast-forward to 2020 for another example of how claims of

Content tagged as " Cancel Culture " at Reason .com, the leading libertarian magazine and video website covering news, politics, culture , science, policy A Trick of Light is the result of an unorthodox collaboration between the accomplished young adult novelist and the late Spider-Man creator.

So I read with great interest the group letter published last week in Harper's magazine led by writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, reaffirming the principle of free speech and warning against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

Editor Thomas Chatterton Williams (left) /Wikicommons/Harper's

It was signed by 150 leading intellectuals, writers, academics and journalists, including fatwa survivor/author Salman Rushdie, far-left theorist Noam Chomsky, former Soviet dissident Garry Kasparov, feminist trailblazer Gloria Steinem and "Handmaid's Tale" author Margaret Atwood.

South Dakota AG Ravnsborg: Trump attendance at Mount Rushmore fireworks is a defeat for ‘cancel culture’

  South Dakota AG Ravnsborg: Trump attendance at Mount Rushmore fireworks is a defeat for ‘cancel culture’ President Trump will be in attendance Friday when – for the first time in 10 years – South Dakotans and Americans will once again behold fireworks bursting in midair, illuminating Mount Rushmore’s 60-foot tall busts of some of our nation’s great leaders.The National Park Service under President Barack Obama was at the forefront of the left’s “cancel culture” when it nixed fireworks over Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills of South Dakota a decade ago, citing environmental concerns related to gunpowder. I found such concerns absurd.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Saturday said the US has not yet fully set a date for when it will begin a period of reduction in violence negotiated with the Taliban.

A spokesperson for Harvard told Reason that the university does not comment on the admissions status of individual applicants. Harvard is a private institution, and is within its rights, of course, to change its mind about admitting a specific student in light of new information.

And I've paid close attention to the backlash against the letter, everything from two signers removing their names post-publication, to 160 journalists and writers signing onto a response published on The Objective that observed: "The irony of the (Harper's) piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing."

In addition, New York Times columnist Charles Blow tweeted this: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE. There is free speech. You can say and do as you pls, and others can choose never to deal this (sic) you, your company or your products EVER again. The rich and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organize their dissent."

I've been seeking to tease out the strongest argument on behalf of cancel culture — and just because Charles Blow says there's no such thing that doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

Christian Cooper: Black birdwatcher in viral 911 call has not cooperated with prosecutors, NYT reports

  Christian Cooper: Black birdwatcher in viral 911 call has not cooperated with prosecutors, NYT reports Christian Cooper, the Black man who filmed a White woman calling the police on him while he was birdwatching in Central Park in May, has not cooperated with the Manhattan district attorney's investigation, The New York Times reported Tuesday. © Provided by CNN "On the one hand, she's already paid a steep price," Cooper said in a statement, according to the Times. "That's not enough of a deterrent to others? Bringing her more misery just seems like piling on." require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

One can argue that cancel culture is both bad and dangerous… and they to dissuade people from doing it… while still To know if those who are denouncing cancel culture have given up on their principles then we would need to If the critics come to the assailed’s defense , principles are in tact.

It’s still unclear what sparked the incident. There are unconfirmed reports that the armed individual was a member of a local militia group but police, with the assistance of the FBI, are still investigating. One local journalist reported that the man “did not seem to have ties” to militia members present at the

I have a bunch of problems with the response letter, since its arguments seem so weak:

• They complain about what the Harper's letter doesn't do — "The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power," the counter-letter says — rather than address its central argument against weakening "our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."

• They aim to undermine the letter by making judgments about the signers (calling many of them "white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms") rather than addressing what the signers say. Additionally, that characterization is a distortion of the signers' identities, which includes Williams himself, an African-American, and other people of color and individuals like Rushdie who have suffered for their commitment to truth-telling.

• While vaguely acknowledging that constricting information and ideas is "real and concerning," the response argues that the examples of "so-called cancel culture" are "not trends." So in the the writers' judgment, their view of what is or isn't a trend prevails? Of note: numerous signers of the response letter declined to publicly identify themselves by name, sometimes citing NDAs or other rules of their employers, a tacit acknowledgement of this tense environment.

Bomani Jones Lights Up Darren Rovell on Twitter

  Bomani Jones Lights Up Darren Rovell on Twitter Bomani Jones just roasted Darren Rovell on Twitter after the latter sent a moronic tweet about Daniel Snyder and "cancel culture."Rovell banged out a tweet concerning the sexual harassment scandal involving Washington's NFL team and claimed the scandal wouldn't take down owner Daniel Snyder:

Dave Chappelle hates cancel culture . Some people have canceled him. Should we just cancel cancel culture already? Chappelle sees “ cancel culture ”—progressive Americans’ attempts to police culture , to draw lines around what ought to be acceptable in humor and sexuality and online

Others argue that cancel culture is just another term for accountability, and that invoking the “I was part of a ‘ canceled people’ text group for a while, and I realized we were exhibiting the same Legit critique is liberal, arguing that Dave Chapelle's special was bad or didn’t work for specific reasons .

• Most unconvincingly, the letter launches broad and unfounded accusations that lead to sentences like this: "There are only so many outlets" — literally untrue given the proliferation of content on Medium, Twitter and Facebook — "and while these individuals have the ability to write in them, they have no intention of sharing that space" — says who? — "or acknowledging their role in perpetuating a culture of fear and silence among writers who, for the most part, do not look like the majority of the signatories" — another breathtaking, unfounded slam. The letter continues, without supporting evidence: "When they demand debates, it is on their terms, on their turf."

The letter did not convince me. The Objective signatories instead addressed multiple other matters, many of them personal in nature, rather than the substance of the Harper's letter's warning. They essentially said of cancel culture: "It's a thing, sure, but it's not a trend we need to really worry about."

There is a stronger argument from those who say worries about cancel culture is merely an excuse to avoid the consequences of free expression. The New Yorker's Jelani Cobb, whose intellect I revere, tweeted this comment: "Amazing how often I hear people say they are defending 'free speech' when what they are actually defending is impunity."

Dwyane Wade says support for 'role model' Nick Cannon wasn't about hate: 'We've all made mistakes'

  Dwyane Wade says support for 'role model' Nick Cannon wasn't about hate: 'We've all made mistakes' Dwyane Wade apologized and removed a tweet last week in support of Nick Cannon after the entertainer touted anti-Semitic hate speech during a podcast appearance. On Monday, Wade talked about the incident during an appearance on NBA on TNT’s “The Arena.” Wade, who has been a vocal supporter of his transgender daughter Zaya’s transition, said that he he’s “a voice for love” and intended to support Cannon as a friend and a leader in the Black community. .

Well, I want to be free to disagree with Cobb but I don't want to lose my job for doing so.  Fundamentally, the disconnect here strikes me as frustration over so many decades of marginalized communities being shut out of our public discourse. Especially when we learn that someone like Blake Neff, who for years has been sharing nakedly racist and sexist views online anonymously, has been serving as the top writer for Tucker Carlson's primetime Fox News show. (He resigned when he was exposed last week.)

Ugh. We can fix that, if we try.

Why can't we agree that as a society we must make a concerted effort to find and amplify the voices of those who have been marginalized — from Black or Latinx or Native American or transgender or disabled or part of some other group that has been outside the mainstream conversation? And that doing so need not require stifling the voices of others?

And why diminish the reality that "consequences" are being doled out by the loudest and most insistent voices on Twitter? How is that a good thing?

As Andrew Sullivan recently wrote in New York magazine: "There is an increasingly ferocious campaign to quell dissent, to chill debate, to purge those who ask questions, and to ruin people for their refusal to swallow this reductionist ideology whole. Liberalism…. It is a spirit that deals with an argument — and not a person — and that counters that argument with logic, not abuse…. Twitter, of course, is the antithesis of all this — and its mercy-free, moblike qualities when combined with a moral panic are, quite frankly, terrifying."

Majority of Americans Self-Censor Political Views in Public, Survey Finds

  Majority of Americans Self-Censor Political Views in Public, Survey Finds The survey comes with less than three months to go before the general elections, and amid rising concerns over "cancel culture"The survey, conducted in July 2020, found that 62 percent of respondents either “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with the statement, “The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive.” Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with the same statement in the survey taken in 2017.

Fear over saying the wrong thing and being targeted as racist or transphobic is real. The force of social media aimed at a perceived wrongdoer is leading to mob justice, social ostracism and knee-jerk responses across business, academia, culture and the news media.

I unabashedly revere the principle of free expression and, of all principles I hold dear, have presumed this to be one that is shared broadly across those of us blessed to live in a free society, and those who I have met in my years of reporting abroad who yearn to do so.

It seems clear that social norms are changing, and rapidly. For those who hope to see America live up to the promise of its founding principles, that is a good thing. So let's continue to argue, with reason, not insult. Let us transform our society for the better by offering the better argument and persuading, rather than canceling the other.


Video: Stop Hate for Profit Organizers Call Meeting with Facebook 'Disappointing' (NowThis News)

Politics is the original cancel culture, but private citizens now face the mudslinging .
Many rough and tumble tactics have seeped from the political realm into day-to-day life.It is actually ironic that cancel culture has become such a topic of political contention, given that a closer look reveals that in many ways politics itself gave birth to cancel culture.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 66
This is interesting!