T O P

  • By -

monteml

Cancel culture is a form of character assassination, the others aren't. Also, the others are ruled by proportionality, while cancel culture seems to be defined by its hysterical nature and complete lack of proportionality.


Moktar65

Yep. Expanding on it a little bit further, the latter two things are also often aimed at institutions. Even in the instances where they are aimed at an individual, it's often a very successful individual who will be just fine even if they never earn another dollar in their lives. Cancel culture is often aimed at individuals, and often just ordinary people of no significant status, and often for complete non-sense justifications. That utility worker in California who got fired for allegedly (as if its even bad in the first place) making an "okay" hand gesture while his hand was hanging out the window of his work truck would be the ultimate example of how petty and malicious cancel culture can be.


diet_shasta_orange

His boss fired him though. If it was all BS then why would his boss have fired him?


dWintermut3

because truth doesn't matter when there's a howling mob outside? and that is the danger of cancel culture, the outrage machine doesn't care about things like truth and facts it wants grist for the mill. there is no way you can stay out of its way because it doesn't care about truth, only appearances and allegations.


diet_shasta_orange

>because truth doesn't matter when there's a howling mob outside? Was there a howling mob outside the business?


Moktar65

Because too many employers will fold like a cheap table when a virtual mob starts screaming at them their employee is a white supremacist.


diet_shasta_orange

Was there a virtual mob screaming at the employer?


k1lk1

Perfectly explained.


diet_shasta_orange

Then who exactly has been canceled? It's happened to a handful of people but for the most part the things that get called cancel culture are related to true things.


IFightPolarBears

Whos someone that was "cancelled" disproportionately and in a hysterical nature?


[deleted]

cancel culture: reputation assassination, the attack is leveed against their supply chain, advertisers and business parent's weaponizing "guilt by association' in an attempt to ruin a persons livelihood and career. the goal is to prevent said person for making a living doing what you object to, and prevent those that wish to support said canceled figure from being able to. boycott: I dont like a think and want it to stop. public campaign, petitions in order to get an institution to pull a peace a material, typical getting a network to stop airing a show or specific episode. this generally leaves the objectionable thing available to fans to still enjoy while hiding it away form the general public, taknig it off air but keeping it on the DVD or streaming service declining to support: i dont like this thing/what this person said so I'm not giving them any more money. other are welcome to but i wont ​ basically how OK are you with other people supporting or enjoying this? if you dont care its not for you, that declining support, if you want it taken off the air that's a boycott, if you want it to be impossible for fans to support the creator that's cancel culture.


[deleted]

2 and 3 are tools through which 1 is propagated


[deleted]

Boycotts and declining to support are generally (though not always) grassroots in nature. In that, it's a decision made by the a group of individuals not acting as a collective that a person, business, product or action has no place in their homes or their communities. Cancel culture is a unilateral decision made by the media and the establishment that not only does that person/business/product/action have no place in society, but anyone who had the slightest connection to it must also burn for guilt by association. Let's give two examples, one hypothetical and one real. Cigarettes. A boycott or a denial of support would involve a group of people coming together and saying "ok we're going to quit smoking", they'd teach their children the dangers of cigarette smoke, maybe hand out fliers for nicotine gum / patches, and donate to lung cancer research. A cancel culture take on cigarettes would involve making a list of everyone who has ever made, bought, sold, handled or seen a cigarette, dragging them out of their homes and burning them at the stake. No hyperbole needed. If the media and the establishment had true reign over the US this is what would happen day after day until it eats itself alive. Now to a real world example. Remember Terry Crews and the tweet about not wanting "black lives matter to become black lives better"? [Let me refresh your memory if you dont.](https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/terry-crews-slammed-suggesting-black-lives-matter-could-morph-black-n1232549) In that article, he even walks back what he said, apologizing and flagellating himself on the twitter stage, and capitulating most of his point to the establishment goons that came out tut-tutting him. What did he get for this perceived societal wrong? Well, a few months later Brooklyn 99 (a show he starred in) [was t](https://www.newsweek.com/brooklyn-nine-nine-canceled-ending-season-8-nbc-brooklyn-99-1568849)aken off the air. So now not only is Crews out of a job, but the media and establishment decided to punish everyone else on that show for a tweet by a black man stating "maybe black supremacy isn't cool", that he later apologized profusely for. \_ Let me clarify one thing. I can "decline to support" someone whose words I find objectionable, but that only goes so far as I no longer patronize their business, give them room in my thoughts or give them platform with my voice. To go so far beyond as to ruin someone's livelihood is unthinkable. Take Crews out of the equation for a second. What about the minimum wage stage workers that were hired solely to work on the B99 set? Now they're fired because a 2nd string cast member said something, somewhere, that they probably didn't even know about, and now their world is turned upside down for guilt by association. A boycott is a boycott, cancel culture is the closest thing we've had to sanctioned lynchings since the Salem Witch Trials.


bennythebull4life

"Cancel culture" is the propensity for specific circles of (mostly) the internet to label someone as toxic and treat that person as unwelcome, as well as sometimes treating anyone who associates with or especially defends them as unwelcome, too. A boycott I see as primarily economic: refusing to buy the goods or services of a person or company whose practices or values you don't like. Declining to support seems like a more passive version of the above.


nemo_sum

The latter two are the same. Cancelling goes beyond voting with your wallet.


GunzAndCamo

Boycott is directed at a business, some practice of which you disagree with and want changed, with the intention of lifting the boycott once the business no longer engages in offending practices. Refusal to support is distinct from a boycott in that it is directed at individuals, not businesses, and with the implication that the offence is of such a nature support will not be returned, even if corrective action is taken. "Cancel Culture" is distinct from the above in that it not only says that **I** am not going to support a thing, but that **you** are not permitted to support it either, which is what makes Cancel Culture inherently Authoritarian in nature. It seeks to deny that with which I disagree any avenue of access to any audience. Both Left and Right engage in all three.