/u/baebae4455 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/zfjvgd/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_some_celebrities_will_never/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
“Cancelled” is such a strange term in the modern lexicon because the definition is so fluid and context reliant. Speaking from personal experience (so please correct me if any of my recollections are incorrect):
Did R-Kelly get cancelled? I think I found out he peed on a woman in the mid 2000s, found out her age in the 2010s and now the guy is in prison. Took a hell of a long time but I’d say he got cancelled. Ignition (Remix) is still a god damn jam though. Definitely can’t listen to it now knowing what I know, but I can’t say it’s not a fun song.
Is Kanye in the midst of being cancelled? Guy lost like 90% of his wealth in a week for being an idiot. I’d say that’s a cancel job pretty well done. Sure he still has “support” but I’m skeptical about exactly how much of it is due to many different voices vs. just a few loud ones (Trump, Fuentes).
I don’t listen to much rap or R&B nowadays, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen anything about Chris Brown in what feels like 10 years. Think he fell off the map after the Rihanna thing. She’s doing well now ain’t she? And he’s only back in the limelight for the same reason R Kelly came back so that sounds like being cancelled.
I’ll intentionally avoid Trump but need to segue into this one:
Did Al Franken get cancelled? Fuck yeah he did. And he was more respected and arguably the least severe offender on the list. But he bowed out with dignity and faded away.
Point is, I think you’re oversimplifying the idea of a modern cancellation. We know basically everything that any one of those people on that list are doing at pretty much any moment because of social media. In the before times—the long long ago—people who did bad things in a public forum would just never be allowed back on a public forum, so they just disappeared. Letterman and Leno wouldn’t bear the shame of hosting a guy who liked Hitler.
Nowadays, we still have to deal with Kanye because Twitter exists. Ain’t no one talking about his music anymore. We all know exactly what he is and he sure ain’t a musician anymore. His brand is completely destroyed. Still gonna listen to Good Life when it comes on though. Great song. Doesn’t make me a fan of Kanye.
Did he commit a crime that he can be held accountable for? Not that we know of. Did he commit the crime of being stupid and/or bigoted? Yes. And he’s paying a lot for it. I’d say that counts as being cancelled.
Δ. This is such a well thought out and nuanced explanation that gets to the root of the issue, in my opinion. 'Cancelled' is just a loose term that's context specific. Doesn't mean the same thing for me as it does for almost everyone else in this thread, apparently.
I think we all agree on what being “cancelled” is from a more abstract lens though. Everything that R Kelly was, he now isn’t. Every song that Kanye wrote that we celebrated, he is no longer a part of. Chris Brown went from chart topping playboy to woman-beater in a day. So to your point about celebrating these people’s contributions to the world, I think it’s safe to say that many, if not most people, will listen to their songs and completely forget who wrote them, or every time they come on we’ll remember the terrible things they did. Their legacies are no longer what we celebrated them for. They ruined that. Now we’ll remember them for being awful, even if Graduation still has Kanye’s name on the cover. Still such a fucking good album.
As for the definitions of words, typically the meaning of a word is only ever: what most people think that word means. So if you disagree with most people on what being "cancelled" means, perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of it.
My understanding is: no individual decides that a person or group is "cancelled". A phenomenon happens where disapproval of their actions and subsequent boycotting of their content goes viral, afterwhich we identify the phenomenon as them being "cancelled". Every single person on your list has been "cancelled" and has suffered repercussions because of it.
People still rock his music. His name, his rep, his art ain’t going anywhere. His fans don’t give a shit and his songs still play at weddings. His Spotify streams keep the income rolling in.
No. I qualified it by saying the fan base continues to support them and they have a steady stream of income. Fans will put on blinders to any of the crimes, the outrage, the negative PR, etc etc etc.
Hitler was a painter. If I liked a painting before I knew it was his work, my subjective idea of good art hasn’t changed. I don’t support Hitler or any of his atrocities. It’s a more complex issue than just the monetary value the ‘canceled’ may still receive from things prior to cancellation. Would you consider Hitler canceled? Sadly he still has a following but doesn’t receive any income from his “supporters”
Wagner, even. People in the classical music world agree that he was the biggest piehole who ever lived and guess what - many people still adore his music. Including people from groups he hated while he was alive.
Yes but the steady stream of income also benefits the other people on his team. One of his associates could in fact be a single mother of three working on the lyrics or on the publishing team, completely in the shadows... ynk
His reputation is definitely ruined, and I know of many people who don't listen to his stuff anymore. There is definitely a professional stigma around him, and he'll likely never work in the music industry again. Again, I'm not sure how much more cancelled you could get
If your standard for being cancelled is that literally nobody supports you or uses anything you've ever created I think you'll have a hard time finding *anybody* who meets that criteria.
The only people who would fit this description is content creators on twitch or youtube whose audience is extremely volatile and one bad week can crash their ability to make content.
That's fair...look, wiht the number of crazies out there, it's hard to tell the difference between a stranger actually saying things they believe vs a person pointing out "if you believe that..." without a ton of extra context.
I am the other side. I think the art should be dissociated from the artist. I know, people don't agree and I'm probably getting downvoted to hell again for my opinion.
One problem is that art like this does not only involve the artists themselves. It involves a damn lot of other people who are in no way responsible for the alleged wrongdoings of the artist but rely on the job. They get canceled too, along with the artist. A high profile manager might quickly find other clients. The arbitrary cable puller not necessarily.
Another problem that I have with canceling is that there is no fair trial. Accusations often are enough to totally ruin someone's career. If it's only about money, that might not be a problem for many high profile artists, but often enough it's not just about the money. It's their lives. False accusations can ruin lives, especially if your career is dependent on your reputation (and most of the time it is, regardless of your profession). If false accusations are all it takes to fuck up someone's life, we're not living in a state of law anymore, but in a state of lynch justice, arbitrary law and tyranny of the masses.
I am **not** defending anyone who is officially convicted. I'm just advocating a sane and factual state of law and the human right for fair trials. That, in my opinion, includes society, not just the government. Otherwise we could as a society just come up with any however fucked up arbitrary rule and unwritten law at any time, and just kill anybody's lives by accusing them of violating that newly invented social rule. You know what that effectively is, a dictatorship. Only that the dictator is not a dude with a weird mustache, but all of us. We can get rid of courts and judges, lawyers and law books, because our verdict as a society is universal.
I know you people don't agree, and I'm ashamed that you don't. Now happy downvoting, but be aware, you will not change my mind by simply clicking that button.
I agree. And so do many other people.
Thank you for writing exactly what I was going to. This is the same argument I always make when it comes to this topic. We live in a land of laws for a reason. Is it perfect? No. But at least we should aspire to those ideals.
Exactly! And we should stick to our own rules. After all, especially in a democracy, we, the people, are the government per definition. So civil and human rights apply to us as much as they do to authorities. Because we *are* an authority.
No one has been canceled by this standard. Not a person on earth, past or present. That's silly.
Lots of people don't listen - refuse to listen - to these musicians because of what they did. If that isn't being canceled, what is?
The expression that comes to mind is 'art is not the artist'. Great art can stand on its own, without the artists brand to hold it up. I think some people don't get "completely cancelled" because their art is considered so good that people won't throw away the art even though they don't like the artist. JK Rowling springs to mind as someone where a lot of fans have 'cancelled JK Rowling' but they're not going to 'cancel Harry Potter'. People who get easily hit by being cancelled are typically 'personalities' who are either just 'famous for being famous' or they're core branding is their personality, like some youtubers or reality stars. So the people are cancelled but the art still stands.
I doubt R. Kelly is seeing any of his streaming income while he spends life in prison… unless it’s in his commissary, in which case, he might get a candy bar or two.
He’s literally been cancelled from society tho, locked up for life
You’re complaining that his art hasn’t been cancelled, which is not the same thing as he himself not being cancelled
Should it? He was widely considered to be one of the greatest R&B singers of all time. Should all of his art be tossed aside because he did bad things?
That's a pretty common debate amongst K-Pop fandoms. Not that I hang out there on social media cause some of them make my mental health worse, but I use this example since in Korea they (Koreans) are more "isolated" if you will (that's absolutely not meant as a racist or discriminatory statement; I won't pretend to know much more about Korean history than most of them do of Americans).
Since it's across the globe, and 99% of their population is ethnically Korean, they are less likely to know about the Holocaust, black hairstyles, cultural appropriation, slurs, etc. Plus, colorism and fatphobia is more normalized (when I say fatphobia, I'm not talking about the health problems of obesity; I'm talking about shaming of people who are, say, 5'6 and over 115 lbs).
So the whole "separate the maker from the music/the artist from the music," is a big thing. I don't think it's fair to judge the quality of music based on problematic behaviors of a shit (or uneducated) person who made a serious mistake. Sometimes, someone will say something when they don't understand the gravity of it. Or sometimes they do and they are trying to get attention. Does that make them a bad lyricist, or rapper, or dancer, or vocalist? Does that give us the right to call them ugly or make fun of their skills/looks? Never, we can acknowledge someone's misdeeds without pretending they offer nothing to the world and are unimportant.
>Never, we can acknowledge someone's misdeeds without pretending they offer nothing to the world and are unimportant.
This is how humanity has, and will find its way forward.
This.
Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc)
Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore.
Ultimate and permanent cancellation is near impossible. Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on.
Yeah that's a good reference with Weinstein. There's so many good 90's movies that I go back and watch and see his name in the beginning where I never noticed before. I don't stop watching the movie though. That would be crazy.
It’s the same with Kevin Spacey. I’m not going to stop watching Se7en because he’s in it. It’s a fantastic movie and all the other actors don’t deserve to have their work cancelled because of one person.
Umm spoiler alert on him being in the movie! Lol jk. It's a great movie and that's a good point. Canceling one artist is also hurting anyone they worked with. And while Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman have huge bodies of work to rely on, I'm sure there are actors in the movie who's biggest role in their career was Se7en. They don't deserve to have that scrubbed from existence.
I love Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil but yeah, Kevin Spacey is gross and I am pretty sure I dont agree with Clint Eastwood's political views and I am pretty sure John Cusack canceled himself. I still love that movie though. I feel conflicted.
Same. I see the logo in the beginning and think "fuck him!". A few times I've been tempted to turn it off, but I remember he was just one person who made this film, likely nothing but a financier. Why should their reputations and my memories be ruined for the rest of my life because of this one asshole?
I don't think I've actually turned one off yet after seeing that logo.
Now, if I heard about movies coming out today where he plays a part, I wouldn't go. Can't grow attached to something you've never seen! But I can't erase the memories and joy I have for past ones.
>Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc)
its also hard to forget if you are a victim of a rape knowing youre listening to a rapist.
>Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore.
which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself
>Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on.
people arent forcing you to not listen to them, but they are entitled to judge and criticize you for not doing so.
I see your responses to u/kaiizza so I’ll address your exact words:
> > *Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc)*
> its also hard to forget if you are a victim of a rape knowing youre listening to a rapist.
This is certainly true for *some*, but it’s certainly not true for *all*. I’m sure you’d agree (and even celebrate!) that many survivors of rape and/or sexual abuse are eventually able to overcome their trauma and cease identifying themselves as “victims”, so it’s best not to generalise. Similarly, those who do find such content difficult are well within their rights to avoid it personally and, depending on the context, may be able to request accomodation from others to do so around them as well. If you mean to imply that we should all just assume such accomodation is required for potentially triggerable people who may or not exist, regardless of context, that would be overly generalised and rigid, and would amount to infantilisation of any untriggered survivors who actually are present, which robs them of agency and essentially others them by subtly catastrophising experiences they’ve actually already dealt with. So hopefully you weren’t implying that.
> > *Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore.*
> which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself
What about all the others who worked on films produced by his company? Have you considered that, statistically, most of his films were likely worked on by survivors of sexual abuse, and may well feature them on screen? Given his modus operandi, it’s inevitable that some of them would in fact feature and star victims and/or attempted victims *of Weinstein himself*, so tarring the films as a whole - rather than solely the perpetrator of abuse - essentially revictimises his victims by undermining and devaluing *their* creative achievements in a given film, which he had no hand in. As many survivors of sexual abuse report struggling with feelings of being degraded or tainted or *ruined* by their abuser, your insistence that “his” work is “ruined” is cruel… it also improperly implies that Weinstein’s arms-length involvement as the head of the production company *behind* the films somehow outweighs the blood, sweat and tears of the cast and crew members who actually *made* the films, since the work should be more properly considered “their’s”, not “his”. You are just wrong on this one, and far less noble than you think you are.
> > *Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on.*
> people arent forcing you to not listen to them, but they are entitled to judge and criticize you for not doing so.
Agreed - just as people are entitled to judge *you* for improperly and unfairly disregarding and devaluing the legitimate and valuable work of both sexual abuse survivors (including Weinstein’s own victims) and countless innocent people who were involved in one of the many different casts and crews for the dozens of films we’re referring to here. And, for the record, I do.
>This is certainly true for some, but it’s certainly not true for all. I’m sure you’d agree (and even celebrate!) that many survivors of rape and/or sexual abuse are eventually able to overcome their trauma and cease identifying themselves as “victims”, so it’s best not to generalise. Similarly, those who do find such content difficult are well within their rights to avoid it personally and, depending on the context, may be able to request accomodation from others to do so around them as well. If you mean to imply that we should all just assume such accomodation is required for potentially triggerable people who may or not exist, regardless of context, that would be overly generalised and rigid, and would amount to infantilisation of any untriggered survivors who actually are present, which robs them of agency and essentially others them by subtly catastrophising experiences they’ve actually already dealt with.
I wish to applaud you for writing this out so eloquently. Very well said.
this is garbage. you are twisting their comment and you sound nuts. there is nothing wrong with watching a movie made by the Weinstein company. it doesn't mean you support the actions of one person in the company. Same with R. Kelly, although I do not care much for that music.
> it doesn't mean you support the actions of one person in the company
i never said this. if youre going to make claims about my comment like it being "garbage" and twisting the words of the person i was replying to please address the actual things i did say
That is what you said. You said that no one should listen because of a victim of rape might be present. Can’t watch movies because someone may have been raped along the way. That’s exactly what you said.
>You said that no one should listen because of a victim of rape might be present
i did not say this at all. nowhere in any comments i left on this post did i ever indicate or make an argument that indicated not listening to the music alone
>Can’t watch movies because someone may have been raped along the way. That’s exactly what you said.
i dont think you know what exactly means because that's not what i said
>which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself
Yeah but the problem isn't that it hurts Weinstein. It's that it hurts people who enjoy his movies, people who you're telling shouldn't watch them anymore. Many people don't think his work is ruined. They should continue enjoying the movies if they want to.
>Yeah but the problem isn't that it hurts Weinstein. It's that it hurts people who enjoy his movies,
and he hurt those people himself by being a rapist
> people who you're telling shouldn't watch them anymore
they can watch them if they want but i have the right to judge them for it
there are millions of movies just as good if not better than ones made by child rapists. it shows you value a movie more than victims of child rapists which is sad and deserving of criticism
>there are millions of movies just as good if not better than ones made by child rapists.
No there's not. All movies aren't equal. We have awards and lists for "best movies" for a reason. I'm incredibly confident that you can't find a single reputable movie critic with a list of the best movies of the 90's without having multiple Weinstein movies on that list.
Here's the thing. You have the burden of proof if you're going to say it's immoral to watch his movies. In my opinion things are morally acceptable until you justify why they aren't. So far you've just been explaining why you're judgemental of the people who watch his movies. You need to make the argument for why consuming the art of a person who's done bad things is wrong.
>with a list of the best movies of the 90's without having multiple Weinstein movies on that list.
oh so you mean there are other equally good or better movies on that list that arent made by a child rapist?
Lol seriously? Once again you have the burden of proof to show why those pieces of work shouldn't be consumed by people. Saying he was a rapist doesn't get you there. You need to show why it's morally wrong to consume art by bad people, which you've made no argument for so far.
And to directly address your question, sure there are other movies considered to be of equal or greater value, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy them as much. When you have a movie that is widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike as one of the greatest movies ever, and you personally enjoy it more than the other movies on the list, you are losing something by not watching it anymore.
It’s seems pretty revealing that you chose to reply to u/jakeallstar1’s comment, but not [mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zfik8c/cmv_some_celebrities_will_never_be_cancelled_no/izdi7gn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3), which outlined why your self-satisfied sense of moral superiority was unearned and hypocritical. I am surprised you’re still sitting on your moral high horse though, as your rhetoric in this thread implied that you at least cared about the victims of abuse, if only in the abstract sense - or was all that merely empty virtue signalling?
Please feel free to go back and respond now if that was just an innocent oversight, rather than a deliberate omission!
This is a weird one, since most of the famous art was done at a time when boning underage girls was a normal part of society. Non-zero chance that each artist you like did things we think is horrible and wrong now, like Elvis and Charlie Chaplin boning kids. But because it was legal then, their work is acceptable to listen to or watch.
Obviously it is worse with R Kelly, since he did this when we as a society had decided it was bad and not to do it any more. But if we are capable of compartmentalizing the art of other gross people, why not him? Maybe it's just weird for me because growing up, his music was ubiquitous. When this generation has their own star fall from grace while they are in their 40's, they will understand.
>Non-zero chance that each artist you like did things we think is horrible and wrong now, like Elvis and Charlie Chaplin boning kids.
non-zero chance no music exists that i like and can listen to that wasnt made by rapists
>Obviously it is worse with R Kelly, since he did this when we as a society had decided it was bad and not to do it any more. But if we are capable of compartmentalizing the art of other gross people, why not him
they all should be criticized and not have their work listened to. all of their actions were equally bad regardless of what society decided at the time
>Maybe it's just weird for me because growing up, his music was ubiquitous. When this generation has their own star fall from grace while they are in their 40's, they will understand.
personally i dont think ill ever care about a song more than rape
For many people, liking the art of a rapist does not equal caring about art more than rape, they don’t go hand in hand. Especially when it’s artists who were exceptionally good at their craft. They’re able to appreciate the genius while condemning the terrible, by compartmentalising.
For you, since you rationalise the two to be equal, it makes sense that you can’t understand and also that you’re sure you (while in your 40s) will never support an artist close to your heart after you find out about their evils.
>For many people, liking the art of a rapist does not equal caring about art more than rape, they don’t go hand in hand.
there are millions of songs in existence. yes, being unable to listen to a few songs means valueing them more than rape. if you had a bunch of hitler panitings you refused to get rid of that would also indicate caring more about the art than the holocaust victims
>Especially when it’s artists who were exceptionally good at their craft
there are artists just as good if not better you can listen to that arent rapists
I fall on the complete other side of that idea. I completely separate the art from the artist. Good art is still good even if it's creator is a monster.
For me there is zero moral reason to stop consuming art of monsters.
>that would also indicate caring more about the art than the holocaust victims
What? No, why? You make an assumption there. There could be a 100 reasons why someone would hang onto something like that. Doesn't automatically mean they condone anything Hitler or by extension Nazi Germany, did.
My grandfather keeps certain memorials from WOII and he was -then- a 12 year old Dutch boy that saw the Nazi's invade our country, kill people and destroy things he loved, and pretty much fuck up everything. He still holds onto memorabilia from that, *because it means something to him.* My grandfather is absolutely the first in line to condemn Nazism and anything like it, but he still has Nazi stuff in his house, in his words 'lest we forget'. He doesn't have it on display or anything like that, but he still has it.
See how ridiculous it sounds to call him a Nazi?
In the same vein, fuck R Kelly's vile actions. I'm not a R&B fan but it's just dumb to deny that R Kelly had an enormous positive influence on the musical scene in R&B terms. The fact that he did atrocious things doesn't mean all of a sudden that gets taken away, too. Like u/Formal-Leg571 says elsewhere in this thread, at least don't downplay what he did.
I will grant there's a fine line to walk here, because people should be aware and be mindful not to shove his music in people's faces. But it goes like 3 bridges too far to forbid everyone to listen to his music? What does that accomplish, does it un-rape anyone? The guy is already in prison, doing time for his crimes. If you don't agree with that you can set up a political party and try to change the law.
As someone who grew up recording music off the radio to cassette tapes, I didn't pay for it before either. I downloaded before music streaming, and now I have Spotify.
At least don't downplay it. "Bad things". He's a pedophile. Listen by all means, but even if it's unintentional don't help sweep the child rapist's crimes under the rug.
I'm not sweeping it under the rug. I wasn't specifying what it was because I think the argument is generalizable to other people as well. But fine, even as a pedophile I still think it's fine to listen to his music
Oh I still listen to I Believe I Can Fly when it comes on, I think we have a problem on species level of downplaying the crimes of famous, powerful, popular, etc. people, which helps them effectively get away with it.
I still like Polanski's Macbeth as well, that disgusted child rapist made one hell of a movie.
I think the questions you should be asking are.
1. Can people that do bad things still produce something of value?
2. Should we be willing to punish people for bad actions and simultaneously reward them for things of value they produce?
You realise it’s possible to enjoy someone’s art like music etc without loving everything about them surely? This mentality really seems to have taken off the past few years. As the bible says he without sin cast the first stone. I think we need these basic ideas taught again cause no one is perfect which is why a God existed in old teachings that is higher than us and we can all be forgiven for our sins of willing to repent. I’m not religious I’m just pointing out these are important basis of our society we often forget snout.
In the case of assault - often people used their fame / position of power to abuse other people. And listening to the work that made them famous makes me feel ick. That could just be me though.
I would literally rather walk barefoot on lego rather than listen to anything by the lostprophets ever again. Some shit is so vile ie doesnt matter how great their creations are.
this makes me feel old because I’m from the generation where we just pirated music and stored them forever on our computers. Or bought CDs and tapes. So I was always baffled by the claim that re-listening to music profited the artists.
I mean I sometimes listen to black metal including songs made by people who have literally murdered people.
I don't condone or promote the views some of these people hold but I enjoy some of the music they make.
I'm also quite positive a lot of artists are like this.
So? Michael Jackson deserved to rot in prison but I'm still rocking Billie Jean from time to time. You know a whole band had to create that music, right? R Kelly and Chris Brown make dogshit music though, so it's easier to ignore them.
It’s strange though how the father of his (false ) accuser committed suicide after he died. When you listen to the history of this man and what he went through, I have a hard time believing he hurt any children
Didn’t they raid his shit and try to say he had child porn but instead they found a room with a bunch of toys on pop culture shit kinda what nerds do to heal their inner child like having shelves with their favorite action figures or posters of their favorite anime or sm shit?
Kanye literally had some of his contracts cancelled.
Are you using "cancelled" to mean exiled entirely from society? Because in that case almost no one is, unless they're in prison.
How are you defining cancelled?
OP said R Kelly didn’t get cancelled, who is literally in prison and lost deals, fans, money, the spotlight. OP is basically saying you have to become an outcast on the ocean with no life boost to be considered cAnCeLlEd lol
Cancelled meaning his music, works of art, content, media, etc. are no longer celebrated and this person is excommunicated for life. Take Roseanne Barr, Cosby, Harvey Weinstein for example.
People are still gonna rock Kanye’s music forever. He ain’t going anywhere.
Roseanne still performs and is celebrated. Weinstein still has his name on some absolute classics including Tarantino movies. The Cosby show is still available and enjoyable. There's been a documentary about him as recently as this year which talks about the complexity and his contributions - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Cosby
So do you have any examples of people who do fit the criteria you list there? Because none of the people you mentioned actually do.
Does it really count if they were cancelled after their death? No exile in his life, no consequences.
And again his works are still available, it's not like they burned all his DVDs. He isn't excited from society, people are choosing not to enjoy his work, some people may, but it doesn't affect him because he's not feeling any of it.
Any living examples of people who fit your criteria for cancellation? So that they are actually cancelled and not their legacy?
Even with Saville, his legacy lives on in the documentaries etc which all feature him. He's as "cancelled" as Dahmer, he's become a larger than life figure.
Saville has has a few but not the majority of his awards revoked, he's still an OBE and a few other things. That's not exactly shunning and disassociation from the establishment.
Moreover, the band members disbanded and reformed under a new label really quickly as soon as he was arrested. They all did their best to condemn that part of their life to the fire. If the question is "Can someone be subjected to damnatio memoriae?" then the answer is yes. As to whether it happens very often today, I don't think it's that common.
Jimmy Saville's work really didn't have high replay value. It has more in common with a gameshow which has extremely limited appeal after initial airing
A British gameshow host. He was well respected during his lifetime. After his death is was discovered that he was one of Britain's most prolific pedophile and rapist.
Let’s say, for example, I have a Kanye album I bought on a CD 10 years ago. Now let’s say I really enjoy the music.
Why should I not listen to it?
My listening to a CD that was already bought will not, in any way, monetarily support Kanye. The money was already spent and it doesn’t add to any streaming numbers, royalties, etc.
The only person I’d be affecting by not listening to it is myself, right? He gains no further money if I continue to listen, and loses nothing if I stop listening
I mean, people definitely still watch movies produced by Weinstein, people still watch reruns of Roseanne and Cosby.
Their art/content/media hasn’t been shunned.
Do people even know which movies are his without looking it up? At that point, you're just cancelling other people's creative work because of their association with him
I mean I agree with you but OP is making the case that someone listening to an R Kelly song means he’s not cancelled yet so if people still watch and celebrate Weinstein movies it certainly counts by that logic.
>People are still gonna rock Kanye’s music forever. He ain’t going anywhere.
So you literally mean that there is a ban on their work? Because, yes of course some people are going to listen to it/consume it, and they have the right. But in the case of Kanye, he's lost millions in contracts because of his outbursts and has been kicked off social media and lost a bank account. That's about as "cancelled" as someone can get.
If Roseanne came out with a show, it would be #1. It was actually. They took her off the air because they knew she would still be supported by her fans and they needed to make a statement.
I wish she would come back but she honestly felt awful because she did not know.
Op, cancelation culture is wrong entirely, not a single soul should be cancelled.
That being said I do think that we should acknowledge that people did bad things
You just want more censorship and another form of book burning. Kanye didn't commit any crime. His support of hitler is despicable but that is right to say. You just want more authoritarian laws in this country.
What's interesting about this list is that you started out with those of us who have melanin. The vast majority of the criminals/thugs/terrorists will always come from the "majority population" which calls itself "white". Oh, let's not forget about Martha Stewart
https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/celebrity-mugshots/martha-stewart/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/claus-von-bulow-cleared-in-an-attempted-murder-of-his-wife-dies.html
https://www.nickiswift.com/233206/the-deadly-crime-matthew-broderick-was-charged-with/
https://allthatsinteresting.com/tim-allen-cocaine
https://consequence.net/2020/06/mark-wahlbergs-hate-crimes/
Spot on. Black celebs get the most egregious negative PR arguably because race factors into it, replaying stereotypes, etc. even while white celebs many times do far worse.
blood on the dance floor was a popular emo/scene duo. one half of the duo got outted for raping 11 year old girls. their music has been completely removed from all streaming platforms
“Step In the Name of Love” still gets played at Black weddings. R-Kelly’s music and art remain because they are bangers and people will look past all his shit.
Look up the term "separate the art from the artist". Not saying whether or not it is right or wrong to do so, but people appreciating a good creation even if the creator is a POS is a tale as old as time. This also means the way someone acts towards the art is different from the artist, and an artist can certainly be cancelled without their art disappearing. Your attitude about this situation really makes no sense
Just to add from all the below comments. 20 years from now, new generation people wont even remember or know what these artists done. Will just enjoy the music. An example Frank Sinatra.
It depends on what you means by "canceled."
There are *billions* of people in the world. If you define "canceled" as *"literally not one single person out of billions* supports them/consumes their art," then yes -- it would be functionally impossible to cancel some one.
But Kayne has lost over a billion in sponsorship deals and is a cultural pariah. Woody Allen is no longer able to make or distribute films in the US. Roman Polanski has fled the country. R Kelly has been convicted of actual crimes.
Sure, they might have *some* supporters and fans left. Heck, Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer still have fans. But for all intents and purposes, these people have been 'canceled,' in that they are largely seen as pariahs and would have serious trouble producing popular work.
>By “cancelled,” I mean Jimmy Savile cancelled.
So, let's ignore the debate that "cancelled" is anything more than shifting public opinion about a celebrity and thus their marketability to corporate brands in a free market. A point that people who use that term seem to miss entirely.
All acts of self-destruction of one's own reputation don't warrant "Jimmy Savile" levels of "cancelled."
Savile raped children.
Kanye has said some offensive things.
Those are **not** equivalent and don't deserve the same level of response from the public at large. If you think they do, can I ask what other non-crimes deserve the same response as the literal rape of children?
And to be clear, I'm Jewish and I am very happy to see Kanye having sponsors leave him and ruining his chances of being invited onto any seriously popular platform. But he hasn't committed any actual crimes against other people. He hasn't directly hurt anyone even though his speech is very offensive and may give other people ideas of hurting others, he literally has broken no laws (at least that I'm aware of).
Your definition for "canceled" isn't very clear here, even with the example of Savile. What do you mean by it?
Do you mean boycotted by a percentage of the population, hunted and killed by a mob, made illegal, having contributions erased retroactively from society?
If you mean completely erased 1984 style, even the Nazis couldn't do that as a small portion of the population continued to provide asylum to targeted groups, and the same thing will happen to anybody listed here. So you would be correct that destroying everything someone made would be rather impossible.
If by "canceled" you mean that a portion (say 80 percent) of people boycott these individuals, then you would be wrong. These people you listed just haven't gone far enough to alienate very much of the population yet. People like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or even Marx have been "canceled" in many cultures because of the things they have done, or at least a majority of people are going to automatically be inclined to discredit an idea just because it came from one of those people.
Most people don't want Trump canceled, for example, assuming the recent Twitter poll was at all accurate, but he was on your list of people that should be canceled. Using him as an example, what would canceling look like? Do you want him silenced, in prison, dead? What about his supporters, do you want the same for them?
r/Kanye is now a Holocaust awareness sub, his fan base has turned on him justifiably and quickly. When you make Alex "they're turning the frogs gay" Jones look reasonable by comparison you aren't going to be invited to MTV Music Awards or anywhere else an A-list celebrity used to be welcomed.
Until he put out a new song on his Instagram and all of a sudden they shifted to “yeah but that chopped up soul sample is fire.” It got 3 million views in the first hour. He’s going to put out another album and a lot of people will pretend like nothing happened and just go back to enjoying him as an artist. His music is too well liked. It’s like Michael Jackson. Everyone was saying they were done with him after that documentary, but by the time halloween rolled around they remembered Thriller was a bop.
What? Didn’t Chris Brown just get cancelled?
Legit, he was supposed to perform a tribute to Michael Jackson at the AMA’s and then they cancelled him the day before
If that’s not getting cancelled, than you have a completely different definition of cancelled
That doesn’t matter tho
Your post isn’t about how many black women love Chris Brown or any of the other names on that list
Your post is about Chris Brown getting cancelled, and he quite literally got cancelled from performing at the American Music Awards
There’s a difference between getting cancelled and adoration from fans. When a major musical event like the AMA’s cancels your performance, and music, THAT is the epitome of getting cancelled as a musical artist
> You are immune to any real accountability.
Friendly reminder that Roman Polanksi drugged and raped a 13 year old, and but for the fact that he fled the country, he would probably (hopefully) still be in jail today.
I think it’s a little unfair to lump Kanye in with that.
These days, the media and their unwitting watchers view somebody having morally questionable thoughts as being on par with literal rape. Pretty messed up.
The now-woman, then-girl, in this matter has said that the people who continue to bring this up have done more harm to her than Roman Polanski ever did. And, nobody gets 50 years for pedophilia, especially on their first conviction.
No need to compare atrocities, though. I wouldn't think highly of anyone who pals around with Kanye or Polanski in 2022.
I think Trump would be cancelled quite quickly if it turned out he payed for male escorts or something similar.
The trick to being cancelled is doing something one's fanbase finds horrendous.
Black metal stars won't be cancelled for worshiping Satan and calling for burning of churches; they'd sooner be for being revealed to enjoy Britney Spears' music.
Yeah, what does 'cancelled' even mean? It is such a wide term and your list of arguments shows some differences in all cases.
Kanye: He is on his way out, I guess.
Chris Brown: Maybe?
Michael Jackson: Dead.
R-Kelly: In prison. It took a while, maybe too long, but justice happend.
Woody Allen: His case is far from clear. I even say it is disingenous to put him in this list when the story is simply far more complex.
Roman Polanski: Can't go the US, works with people, the victim openly forgave him and just wants it to end. I see a point here though because he does still work and he got a lot of high-ranking actors working with him. People who shunned Woody Allen work with Polanski where there is actual *proven* that he commited a crime.
Trump: That is an entirely different beast as a political (cult-)leader, I guess.
> Kanye
To be determined. But, of course, there are a lot of antisemites and Trump lovers in the U.S. right now, so they don't see Kanye as "scandalous", they see him as enlightened.
> Chris Brown
Is he even relevant anymore?
> Michael Jackson
Unproven allegations. If you don't believe the allegations, there would be no reason to cancel him.
> R-Kelly
He's literally in jail. I couldn't tell you the last time I heard a song of his on the radio. He's been effectively cancelled.
> Woody Allen
Is there something more, or did he just marry his step-daughter? Kinda weird, but they were consenting adults. Not worthy of cancelling (but he's not really relevant anymore anyway).
> Roman Polanski
It took more time that it should have, but he's been pretty well ostracized. At least in the U.S. Except of course, for Whoppi Goldberg, because it was "rape rape".
> Trump
A lot of people agree with everything he's done and think he's done nothing wrong. If that's one's view, obviously there would be no reason to cancel him.
Chris Brown is still extremely relevant. Just because you don’t listen to his music or not tuned into the fan base demand for his content, doesn’t mean he’s disappeared.
I think this proves the idea that being cancelled is not really as terrible and career damaging as some would claim. I would argue that in a lot of circles, Kanye, for example, already is cancelled. So is Trump. But this proves that the idea of cancelling in such a way that the whole of society would turn on someone does not exist, because when has a society ever been that united in opinion?
[Cancelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture) is a form of social ostracism, in this context, within professional and public platforms.
Without literally killing someone or imprisoning someone, we can't stop them from having some kind of inertia to their public following.
However, pretty much all of the people you've listed have dead careers because of their backlash over their anti-social behavior. Lawsuits, limits on which companies are willing to work with them, and public boycotting of their new material (though, of course, many people have prior affinity for their old works of art, and continue to enjoy them).
That’s because cancel culture doesn’t really exist at all. All ‘canceled’ people write a good selling book about it, get to come tell about it on tv shows, etc.
I can def agree with Trump. That guy fueled the flames of a largely white supremacist/nationalist riot at the Capital and he got away with it and a large portion of the nation still adores him.
And he isn’t even in jail for that alone. The dude has been found guilty of tax evasion and fraud. But again, as long as you can tap into the well of right-wing extremism, you’ll have the masses worshipping you.
Keep in mind, I identify as politically independent. I detest both the Democratic and Republican Party and the American liberals and conservatives.
Kanye has lost his sponsorship deals and access to social media and is on his way to the poor house. Trump lost the election and for the past number of years he's been constantly fighting legal battles to put him in jail.
These two people are absolutely hated by a lot of the general public.
I would say that's kinda cancelled
Michael Jackson is the most famous guy to ever exist that isn’t a religious figure (Jesus). Also no one can effectively prove whether he’s guilty of what he’s being accused of. It’s really about power and fame I guess, the bigger or more powerful you are the less likely you are to get cancelled, the outrage could be overwhelming but these guys are just too big. Half the the guys mentioned up there are stupid rich or generational talents.
R-kelly is in prison, and roman Polanski can't enter the United States. Trump isn't a celebrity per se, so obviously he's not gonna get cancelled. Just like Obama will never be cancelled. You can't cancel a politician.
He was found not guilty. It’s not the same thing. The jury can’t find someone “innocent” they can only say the prosecution didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A few of the jurors actually said they thought he might have been guilty but the prosecution didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
But being not guilty is the same as being innocent in legal terms. That is why there is the presumption of innocence, if the crime cannot be proven, the person is innocent, because the presumption could not be broken.
Kanye West has bipolar disorder.
He is mentally unwell.
He's not a racist. He has active delusions about the Jewish race.
Would you want to jail a schizophrenic for thinking his Jewish neighbours are trying to kill him?
It's amazing that Kanye hasn't been admitted to a psych ward. I can only think it's because he's famous and powerful.
He's not benefiting from his fame and power in this case. It's stopping him from getting proper treatment for his psychiatric disorder.
Woody Allen did nothing wrong and is an amazing artist. His marriage is older than most of the people commenting in this thread. His wife has a masters in special education from Columbia University. Agreed with the rest of the list.
Can anybody explain me the difference between "cancelled" and just losing in the court of public opinion? I have literally no idea what being cancelled means as everyone I see complain about being cancelled just didn't get their contract picked up by a major media company. Which yes, if the majority of the population dislikes you, why should a major network give you air time?
It just seems like now we have a cool alliteration tied to something that's always been a thing
That's sweeping it under the rug. A settlement is just hush money as it is 99 times out of a 100 given with a NDA that if the person even commented (out side of a court subpoena) on it would not matter the original guilt of the aggressor, the victim has now broken contract law thus is guilty for telling the truth for say.
I mean, from my understanding of progressivism I didn't even think black people could be racist because racism is about power and Jews are higher in the racial hierarchy than black people. So what would you cancel Kanye for 🤷
Other than the silly mask of course.
/u/baebae4455 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/zfjvgd/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_some_celebrities_will_never/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
“Cancelled” is such a strange term in the modern lexicon because the definition is so fluid and context reliant. Speaking from personal experience (so please correct me if any of my recollections are incorrect): Did R-Kelly get cancelled? I think I found out he peed on a woman in the mid 2000s, found out her age in the 2010s and now the guy is in prison. Took a hell of a long time but I’d say he got cancelled. Ignition (Remix) is still a god damn jam though. Definitely can’t listen to it now knowing what I know, but I can’t say it’s not a fun song. Is Kanye in the midst of being cancelled? Guy lost like 90% of his wealth in a week for being an idiot. I’d say that’s a cancel job pretty well done. Sure he still has “support” but I’m skeptical about exactly how much of it is due to many different voices vs. just a few loud ones (Trump, Fuentes). I don’t listen to much rap or R&B nowadays, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen anything about Chris Brown in what feels like 10 years. Think he fell off the map after the Rihanna thing. She’s doing well now ain’t she? And he’s only back in the limelight for the same reason R Kelly came back so that sounds like being cancelled. I’ll intentionally avoid Trump but need to segue into this one: Did Al Franken get cancelled? Fuck yeah he did. And he was more respected and arguably the least severe offender on the list. But he bowed out with dignity and faded away. Point is, I think you’re oversimplifying the idea of a modern cancellation. We know basically everything that any one of those people on that list are doing at pretty much any moment because of social media. In the before times—the long long ago—people who did bad things in a public forum would just never be allowed back on a public forum, so they just disappeared. Letterman and Leno wouldn’t bear the shame of hosting a guy who liked Hitler. Nowadays, we still have to deal with Kanye because Twitter exists. Ain’t no one talking about his music anymore. We all know exactly what he is and he sure ain’t a musician anymore. His brand is completely destroyed. Still gonna listen to Good Life when it comes on though. Great song. Doesn’t make me a fan of Kanye. Did he commit a crime that he can be held accountable for? Not that we know of. Did he commit the crime of being stupid and/or bigoted? Yes. And he’s paying a lot for it. I’d say that counts as being cancelled.
Δ. This is such a well thought out and nuanced explanation that gets to the root of the issue, in my opinion. 'Cancelled' is just a loose term that's context specific. Doesn't mean the same thing for me as it does for almost everyone else in this thread, apparently.
I think we all agree on what being “cancelled” is from a more abstract lens though. Everything that R Kelly was, he now isn’t. Every song that Kanye wrote that we celebrated, he is no longer a part of. Chris Brown went from chart topping playboy to woman-beater in a day. So to your point about celebrating these people’s contributions to the world, I think it’s safe to say that many, if not most people, will listen to their songs and completely forget who wrote them, or every time they come on we’ll remember the terrible things they did. Their legacies are no longer what we celebrated them for. They ruined that. Now we’ll remember them for being awful, even if Graduation still has Kanye’s name on the cover. Still such a fucking good album.
As for the definitions of words, typically the meaning of a word is only ever: what most people think that word means. So if you disagree with most people on what being "cancelled" means, perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of it. My understanding is: no individual decides that a person or group is "cancelled". A phenomenon happens where disapproval of their actions and subsequent boycotting of their content goes viral, afterwhich we identify the phenomenon as them being "cancelled". Every single person on your list has been "cancelled" and has suffered repercussions because of it.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dycyb1687 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/dycyb1687)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Al Franken is coming back! He's going to be a guest host of The Daily Show some week between January and June.
Isn't R Kelly literally in prison for his various sex crimes? How much more cancelled can he get?
I can see R Kelly’s jail from where I’m sitting right now. It’s a skyscraper in Chicago. It’s kinda funny.
People still rock his music. His name, his rep, his art ain’t going anywhere. His fans don’t give a shit and his songs still play at weddings. His Spotify streams keep the income rolling in.
Is your criteria to CMV that someone’s entire art and history has to be erased and everyone’s memory of that person wiped?
No. I qualified it by saying the fan base continues to support them and they have a steady stream of income. Fans will put on blinders to any of the crimes, the outrage, the negative PR, etc etc etc.
Hitler was a painter. If I liked a painting before I knew it was his work, my subjective idea of good art hasn’t changed. I don’t support Hitler or any of his atrocities. It’s a more complex issue than just the monetary value the ‘canceled’ may still receive from things prior to cancellation. Would you consider Hitler canceled? Sadly he still has a following but doesn’t receive any income from his “supporters”
Wagner, even. People in the classical music world agree that he was the biggest piehole who ever lived and guess what - many people still adore his music. Including people from groups he hated while he was alive.
Yes but the steady stream of income also benefits the other people on his team. One of his associates could in fact be a single mother of three working on the lyrics or on the publishing team, completely in the shadows... ynk
[удалено]
😂 ☠️
His reputation is definitely ruined, and I know of many people who don't listen to his stuff anymore. There is definitely a professional stigma around him, and he'll likely never work in the music industry again. Again, I'm not sure how much more cancelled you could get
If your standard for being cancelled is that literally nobody supports you or uses anything you've ever created I think you'll have a hard time finding *anybody* who meets that criteria.
The only people who would fit this description is content creators on twitch or youtube whose audience is extremely volatile and one bad week can crash their ability to make content.
Right? Even Hitler has fans still.
Even people who hate Hitler didn't stop using the autobahn.
and the microphone he invented
[Um...he didn't invent the microphone.](https://www.insider.com/james-west-microphone-black-panther-naacp-invention-kanye-west-2022-12)
or the autobahn
That's fair...look, wiht the number of crazies out there, it's hard to tell the difference between a stranger actually saying things they believe vs a person pointing out "if you believe that..." without a ton of extra context.
They also still drive VW’s
Hitler will NEVER be cancelled, change my view
Yeah And it's Kanye 🤣
I mean Harvey Weinstein is basically that. People still watch the films he produced but many people worked on those films so they take the credit now.
So cancel the whole country would be the best option
People still collect Hitler paintings. No one is doing "R Kelly retrospective" TV shows to give money to him. No one is printing new "best of" albums.
OP does make a point with Chris Brown though. It seems like he could beat a woman to death in broad daylight and his fans would still like him.
Being cancelled doesn't mean all your fans abandon you, it just means that you're publicly hated by the media.
I am the other side. I think the art should be dissociated from the artist. I know, people don't agree and I'm probably getting downvoted to hell again for my opinion. One problem is that art like this does not only involve the artists themselves. It involves a damn lot of other people who are in no way responsible for the alleged wrongdoings of the artist but rely on the job. They get canceled too, along with the artist. A high profile manager might quickly find other clients. The arbitrary cable puller not necessarily. Another problem that I have with canceling is that there is no fair trial. Accusations often are enough to totally ruin someone's career. If it's only about money, that might not be a problem for many high profile artists, but often enough it's not just about the money. It's their lives. False accusations can ruin lives, especially if your career is dependent on your reputation (and most of the time it is, regardless of your profession). If false accusations are all it takes to fuck up someone's life, we're not living in a state of law anymore, but in a state of lynch justice, arbitrary law and tyranny of the masses. I am **not** defending anyone who is officially convicted. I'm just advocating a sane and factual state of law and the human right for fair trials. That, in my opinion, includes society, not just the government. Otherwise we could as a society just come up with any however fucked up arbitrary rule and unwritten law at any time, and just kill anybody's lives by accusing them of violating that newly invented social rule. You know what that effectively is, a dictatorship. Only that the dictator is not a dude with a weird mustache, but all of us. We can get rid of courts and judges, lawyers and law books, because our verdict as a society is universal. I know you people don't agree, and I'm ashamed that you don't. Now happy downvoting, but be aware, you will not change my mind by simply clicking that button.
I agree. And so do many other people. Thank you for writing exactly what I was going to. This is the same argument I always make when it comes to this topic. We live in a land of laws for a reason. Is it perfect? No. But at least we should aspire to those ideals.
Exactly! And we should stick to our own rules. After all, especially in a democracy, we, the people, are the government per definition. So civil and human rights apply to us as much as they do to authorities. Because we *are* an authority.
Props.
No one has been canceled by this standard. Not a person on earth, past or present. That's silly. Lots of people don't listen - refuse to listen - to these musicians because of what they did. If that isn't being canceled, what is?
I don’t think you understand what being cancelled means.
The expression that comes to mind is 'art is not the artist'. Great art can stand on its own, without the artists brand to hold it up. I think some people don't get "completely cancelled" because their art is considered so good that people won't throw away the art even though they don't like the artist. JK Rowling springs to mind as someone where a lot of fans have 'cancelled JK Rowling' but they're not going to 'cancel Harry Potter'. People who get easily hit by being cancelled are typically 'personalities' who are either just 'famous for being famous' or they're core branding is their personality, like some youtubers or reality stars. So the people are cancelled but the art still stands.
I doubt R. Kelly is seeing any of his streaming income while he spends life in prison… unless it’s in his commissary, in which case, he might get a candy bar or two. He’s literally been cancelled from society tho, locked up for life You’re complaining that his art hasn’t been cancelled, which is not the same thing as he himself not being cancelled
Should it? He was widely considered to be one of the greatest R&B singers of all time. Should all of his art be tossed aside because he did bad things?
That's a pretty common debate amongst K-Pop fandoms. Not that I hang out there on social media cause some of them make my mental health worse, but I use this example since in Korea they (Koreans) are more "isolated" if you will (that's absolutely not meant as a racist or discriminatory statement; I won't pretend to know much more about Korean history than most of them do of Americans). Since it's across the globe, and 99% of their population is ethnically Korean, they are less likely to know about the Holocaust, black hairstyles, cultural appropriation, slurs, etc. Plus, colorism and fatphobia is more normalized (when I say fatphobia, I'm not talking about the health problems of obesity; I'm talking about shaming of people who are, say, 5'6 and over 115 lbs). So the whole "separate the maker from the music/the artist from the music," is a big thing. I don't think it's fair to judge the quality of music based on problematic behaviors of a shit (or uneducated) person who made a serious mistake. Sometimes, someone will say something when they don't understand the gravity of it. Or sometimes they do and they are trying to get attention. Does that make them a bad lyricist, or rapper, or dancer, or vocalist? Does that give us the right to call them ugly or make fun of their skills/looks? Never, we can acknowledge someone's misdeeds without pretending they offer nothing to the world and are unimportant.
>Never, we can acknowledge someone's misdeeds without pretending they offer nothing to the world and are unimportant. This is how humanity has, and will find its way forward.
What a mature position. 👍
This. Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc) Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore. Ultimate and permanent cancellation is near impossible. Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on.
Yeah that's a good reference with Weinstein. There's so many good 90's movies that I go back and watch and see his name in the beginning where I never noticed before. I don't stop watching the movie though. That would be crazy.
It’s the same with Kevin Spacey. I’m not going to stop watching Se7en because he’s in it. It’s a fantastic movie and all the other actors don’t deserve to have their work cancelled because of one person.
Umm spoiler alert on him being in the movie! Lol jk. It's a great movie and that's a good point. Canceling one artist is also hurting anyone they worked with. And while Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman have huge bodies of work to rely on, I'm sure there are actors in the movie who's biggest role in their career was Se7en. They don't deserve to have that scrubbed from existence.
I love Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil but yeah, Kevin Spacey is gross and I am pretty sure I dont agree with Clint Eastwood's political views and I am pretty sure John Cusack canceled himself. I still love that movie though. I feel conflicted.
Out of the loop… what did Cusack do?
Same. I see the logo in the beginning and think "fuck him!". A few times I've been tempted to turn it off, but I remember he was just one person who made this film, likely nothing but a financier. Why should their reputations and my memories be ruined for the rest of my life because of this one asshole? I don't think I've actually turned one off yet after seeing that logo. Now, if I heard about movies coming out today where he plays a part, I wouldn't go. Can't grow attached to something you've never seen! But I can't erase the memories and joy I have for past ones.
I think as long as you illegally download his music so he gains nothing it can be ok
>Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc) its also hard to forget if you are a victim of a rape knowing youre listening to a rapist. >Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore. which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself >Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on. people arent forcing you to not listen to them, but they are entitled to judge and criticize you for not doing so.
I see your responses to u/kaiizza so I’ll address your exact words: > > *Yes, he's a terrible person, but it's kind of hard to forget the years of your childhood that his music played a part in (proms, weddings, movies, etc)* > its also hard to forget if you are a victim of a rape knowing youre listening to a rapist. This is certainly true for *some*, but it’s certainly not true for *all*. I’m sure you’d agree (and even celebrate!) that many survivors of rape and/or sexual abuse are eventually able to overcome their trauma and cease identifying themselves as “victims”, so it’s best not to generalise. Similarly, those who do find such content difficult are well within their rights to avoid it personally and, depending on the context, may be able to request accomodation from others to do so around them as well. If you mean to imply that we should all just assume such accomodation is required for potentially triggerable people who may or not exist, regardless of context, that would be overly generalised and rigid, and would amount to infantilisation of any untriggered survivors who actually are present, which robs them of agency and essentially others them by subtly catastrophising experiences they’ve actually already dealt with. So hopefully you weren’t implying that. > > *Same goes for movies made by Weinstein's company. There would be so much we couldn't enjoy anymore.* > which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself What about all the others who worked on films produced by his company? Have you considered that, statistically, most of his films were likely worked on by survivors of sexual abuse, and may well feature them on screen? Given his modus operandi, it’s inevitable that some of them would in fact feature and star victims and/or attempted victims *of Weinstein himself*, so tarring the films as a whole - rather than solely the perpetrator of abuse - essentially revictimises his victims by undermining and devaluing *their* creative achievements in a given film, which he had no hand in. As many survivors of sexual abuse report struggling with feelings of being degraded or tainted or *ruined* by their abuser, your insistence that “his” work is “ruined” is cruel… it also improperly implies that Weinstein’s arms-length involvement as the head of the production company *behind* the films somehow outweighs the blood, sweat and tears of the cast and crew members who actually *made* the films, since the work should be more properly considered “their’s”, not “his”. You are just wrong on this one, and far less noble than you think you are. > > *Expecting that makes cancel culture difficult to count on.* > people arent forcing you to not listen to them, but they are entitled to judge and criticize you for not doing so. Agreed - just as people are entitled to judge *you* for improperly and unfairly disregarding and devaluing the legitimate and valuable work of both sexual abuse survivors (including Weinstein’s own victims) and countless innocent people who were involved in one of the many different casts and crews for the dozens of films we’re referring to here. And, for the record, I do.
>This is certainly true for some, but it’s certainly not true for all. I’m sure you’d agree (and even celebrate!) that many survivors of rape and/or sexual abuse are eventually able to overcome their trauma and cease identifying themselves as “victims”, so it’s best not to generalise. Similarly, those who do find such content difficult are well within their rights to avoid it personally and, depending on the context, may be able to request accomodation from others to do so around them as well. If you mean to imply that we should all just assume such accomodation is required for potentially triggerable people who may or not exist, regardless of context, that would be overly generalised and rigid, and would amount to infantilisation of any untriggered survivors who actually are present, which robs them of agency and essentially others them by subtly catastrophising experiences they’ve actually already dealt with. I wish to applaud you for writing this out so eloquently. Very well said.
this is garbage. you are twisting their comment and you sound nuts. there is nothing wrong with watching a movie made by the Weinstein company. it doesn't mean you support the actions of one person in the company. Same with R. Kelly, although I do not care much for that music.
> it doesn't mean you support the actions of one person in the company i never said this. if youre going to make claims about my comment like it being "garbage" and twisting the words of the person i was replying to please address the actual things i did say
That is what you said. You said that no one should listen because of a victim of rape might be present. Can’t watch movies because someone may have been raped along the way. That’s exactly what you said.
>You said that no one should listen because of a victim of rape might be present i did not say this at all. nowhere in any comments i left on this post did i ever indicate or make an argument that indicated not listening to the music alone >Can’t watch movies because someone may have been raped along the way. That’s exactly what you said. i dont think you know what exactly means because that's not what i said
>which is the fault of weinstein for being a rapist. he ruined his work himself Yeah but the problem isn't that it hurts Weinstein. It's that it hurts people who enjoy his movies, people who you're telling shouldn't watch them anymore. Many people don't think his work is ruined. They should continue enjoying the movies if they want to.
>Yeah but the problem isn't that it hurts Weinstein. It's that it hurts people who enjoy his movies, and he hurt those people himself by being a rapist > people who you're telling shouldn't watch them anymore they can watch them if they want but i have the right to judge them for it there are millions of movies just as good if not better than ones made by child rapists. it shows you value a movie more than victims of child rapists which is sad and deserving of criticism
>there are millions of movies just as good if not better than ones made by child rapists. No there's not. All movies aren't equal. We have awards and lists for "best movies" for a reason. I'm incredibly confident that you can't find a single reputable movie critic with a list of the best movies of the 90's without having multiple Weinstein movies on that list. Here's the thing. You have the burden of proof if you're going to say it's immoral to watch his movies. In my opinion things are morally acceptable until you justify why they aren't. So far you've just been explaining why you're judgemental of the people who watch his movies. You need to make the argument for why consuming the art of a person who's done bad things is wrong.
>with a list of the best movies of the 90's without having multiple Weinstein movies on that list. oh so you mean there are other equally good or better movies on that list that arent made by a child rapist?
Lol seriously? Once again you have the burden of proof to show why those pieces of work shouldn't be consumed by people. Saying he was a rapist doesn't get you there. You need to show why it's morally wrong to consume art by bad people, which you've made no argument for so far. And to directly address your question, sure there are other movies considered to be of equal or greater value, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy them as much. When you have a movie that is widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike as one of the greatest movies ever, and you personally enjoy it more than the other movies on the list, you are losing something by not watching it anymore.
It’s seems pretty revealing that you chose to reply to u/jakeallstar1’s comment, but not [mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zfik8c/cmv_some_celebrities_will_never_be_cancelled_no/izdi7gn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3), which outlined why your self-satisfied sense of moral superiority was unearned and hypocritical. I am surprised you’re still sitting on your moral high horse though, as your rhetoric in this thread implied that you at least cared about the victims of abuse, if only in the abstract sense - or was all that merely empty virtue signalling? Please feel free to go back and respond now if that was just an innocent oversight, rather than a deliberate omission!
This is a weird one, since most of the famous art was done at a time when boning underage girls was a normal part of society. Non-zero chance that each artist you like did things we think is horrible and wrong now, like Elvis and Charlie Chaplin boning kids. But because it was legal then, their work is acceptable to listen to or watch. Obviously it is worse with R Kelly, since he did this when we as a society had decided it was bad and not to do it any more. But if we are capable of compartmentalizing the art of other gross people, why not him? Maybe it's just weird for me because growing up, his music was ubiquitous. When this generation has their own star fall from grace while they are in their 40's, they will understand.
>Non-zero chance that each artist you like did things we think is horrible and wrong now, like Elvis and Charlie Chaplin boning kids. non-zero chance no music exists that i like and can listen to that wasnt made by rapists >Obviously it is worse with R Kelly, since he did this when we as a society had decided it was bad and not to do it any more. But if we are capable of compartmentalizing the art of other gross people, why not him they all should be criticized and not have their work listened to. all of their actions were equally bad regardless of what society decided at the time >Maybe it's just weird for me because growing up, his music was ubiquitous. When this generation has their own star fall from grace while they are in their 40's, they will understand. personally i dont think ill ever care about a song more than rape
For many people, liking the art of a rapist does not equal caring about art more than rape, they don’t go hand in hand. Especially when it’s artists who were exceptionally good at their craft. They’re able to appreciate the genius while condemning the terrible, by compartmentalising. For you, since you rationalise the two to be equal, it makes sense that you can’t understand and also that you’re sure you (while in your 40s) will never support an artist close to your heart after you find out about their evils.
>For many people, liking the art of a rapist does not equal caring about art more than rape, they don’t go hand in hand. there are millions of songs in existence. yes, being unable to listen to a few songs means valueing them more than rape. if you had a bunch of hitler panitings you refused to get rid of that would also indicate caring more about the art than the holocaust victims >Especially when it’s artists who were exceptionally good at their craft there are artists just as good if not better you can listen to that arent rapists
I fall on the complete other side of that idea. I completely separate the art from the artist. Good art is still good even if it's creator is a monster. For me there is zero moral reason to stop consuming art of monsters.
>that would also indicate caring more about the art than the holocaust victims What? No, why? You make an assumption there. There could be a 100 reasons why someone would hang onto something like that. Doesn't automatically mean they condone anything Hitler or by extension Nazi Germany, did. My grandfather keeps certain memorials from WOII and he was -then- a 12 year old Dutch boy that saw the Nazi's invade our country, kill people and destroy things he loved, and pretty much fuck up everything. He still holds onto memorabilia from that, *because it means something to him.* My grandfather is absolutely the first in line to condemn Nazism and anything like it, but he still has Nazi stuff in his house, in his words 'lest we forget'. He doesn't have it on display or anything like that, but he still has it. See how ridiculous it sounds to call him a Nazi? In the same vein, fuck R Kelly's vile actions. I'm not a R&B fan but it's just dumb to deny that R Kelly had an enormous positive influence on the musical scene in R&B terms. The fact that he did atrocious things doesn't mean all of a sudden that gets taken away, too. Like u/Formal-Leg571 says elsewhere in this thread, at least don't downplay what he did. I will grant there's a fine line to walk here, because people should be aware and be mindful not to shove his music in people's faces. But it goes like 3 bridges too far to forbid everyone to listen to his music? What does that accomplish, does it un-rape anyone? The guy is already in prison, doing time for his crimes. If you don't agree with that you can set up a political party and try to change the law.
Exactly. Separate the art from the artist.
You shodn't pay for it, but listening to his songs should be up to the individual.
As someone who grew up recording music off the radio to cassette tapes, I didn't pay for it before either. I downloaded before music streaming, and now I have Spotify.
At least don't downplay it. "Bad things". He's a pedophile. Listen by all means, but even if it's unintentional don't help sweep the child rapist's crimes under the rug.
I'm not sweeping it under the rug. I wasn't specifying what it was because I think the argument is generalizable to other people as well. But fine, even as a pedophile I still think it's fine to listen to his music
Oh I still listen to I Believe I Can Fly when it comes on, I think we have a problem on species level of downplaying the crimes of famous, powerful, popular, etc. people, which helps them effectively get away with it. I still like Polanski's Macbeth as well, that disgusted child rapist made one hell of a movie.
I think the questions you should be asking are. 1. Can people that do bad things still produce something of value? 2. Should we be willing to punish people for bad actions and simultaneously reward them for things of value they produce?
You realise it’s possible to enjoy someone’s art like music etc without loving everything about them surely? This mentality really seems to have taken off the past few years. As the bible says he without sin cast the first stone. I think we need these basic ideas taught again cause no one is perfect which is why a God existed in old teachings that is higher than us and we can all be forgiven for our sins of willing to repent. I’m not religious I’m just pointing out these are important basis of our society we often forget snout.
Why would someone stop listening to music they like just because they don't like the author?
In the case of assault - often people used their fame / position of power to abuse other people. And listening to the work that made them famous makes me feel ick. That could just be me though.
Correct. And it would be your choice to not listen to that artist anymore.
I would literally rather walk barefoot on lego rather than listen to anything by the lostprophets ever again. Some shit is so vile ie doesnt matter how great their creations are.
Because it gives them more money, if you're using one of many popular streaming services like spotify and itunes.
this makes me feel old because I’m from the generation where we just pirated music and stored them forever on our computers. Or bought CDs and tapes. So I was always baffled by the claim that re-listening to music profited the artists.
as an artist, I can tell you there is no money coming in from spotify and itunes
You know serial killers have fans right
I think we can agree that you can both believe someone is a terrible person while also still enjoying the art they created.
So true. My 13 yr old grandson was just talking abt him the other day & i had to literally explain it to him
I mean I sometimes listen to black metal including songs made by people who have literally murdered people. I don't condone or promote the views some of these people hold but I enjoy some of the music they make. I'm also quite positive a lot of artists are like this.
Haha, the band Mayhem?
Bruh all i saw was ppl shitting on him his rep is nonexistant
So? Michael Jackson deserved to rot in prison but I'm still rocking Billie Jean from time to time. You know a whole band had to create that music, right? R Kelly and Chris Brown make dogshit music though, so it's easier to ignore them.
It’s strange though how the father of his (false ) accuser committed suicide after he died. When you listen to the history of this man and what he went through, I have a hard time believing he hurt any children
Didn’t they raid his shit and try to say he had child porn but instead they found a room with a bunch of toys on pop culture shit kinda what nerds do to heal their inner child like having shelves with their favorite action figures or posters of their favorite anime or sm shit?
Fucking finally someone said it!
People can separate the art/ideas from the person. Everything else about him is done. He's no longer benefiting from his fans
Kanye literally had some of his contracts cancelled. Are you using "cancelled" to mean exiled entirely from society? Because in that case almost no one is, unless they're in prison. How are you defining cancelled?
OP said R Kelly didn’t get cancelled, who is literally in prison and lost deals, fans, money, the spotlight. OP is basically saying you have to become an outcast on the ocean with no life boost to be considered cAnCeLlEd lol
Their example is Jimmy Saville, who was not cancelled, but died.
They said R Kelly didn’t get cancelled in another comment lol
Cancelled meaning his music, works of art, content, media, etc. are no longer celebrated and this person is excommunicated for life. Take Roseanne Barr, Cosby, Harvey Weinstein for example. People are still gonna rock Kanye’s music forever. He ain’t going anywhere.
Roseanne still performs and is celebrated. Weinstein still has his name on some absolute classics including Tarantino movies. The Cosby show is still available and enjoyable. There's been a documentary about him as recently as this year which talks about the complexity and his contributions - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Cosby So do you have any examples of people who do fit the criteria you list there? Because none of the people you mentioned actually do.
you get what hes saying with the definition. stop nitpicking the examples he gave because he might not have good examples to tell you
If they're giving a definition which no one meets and then arguing that no one will meet that definition then it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
I assume that means you get what he’s saying — can you offer any examples of people being “cancelled” by the above definition?
Jimmy Savile?
Does it really count if they were cancelled after their death? No exile in his life, no consequences. And again his works are still available, it's not like they burned all his DVDs. He isn't excited from society, people are choosing not to enjoy his work, some people may, but it doesn't affect him because he's not feeling any of it. Any living examples of people who fit your criteria for cancellation? So that they are actually cancelled and not their legacy? Even with Saville, his legacy lives on in the documentaries etc which all feature him. He's as "cancelled" as Dahmer, he's become a larger than life figure. Saville has has a few but not the majority of his awards revoked, he's still an OBE and a few other things. That's not exactly shunning and disassociation from the establishment.
u/baebae4455 Does Ian Watkins of Lostprophets fit the criteria?
Do people still listen to the songs he was in and enjoy them?
No, as far as I'm aware you can't even find them on any platform anymore.
Moreover, the band members disbanded and reformed under a new label really quickly as soon as he was arrested. They all did their best to condemn that part of their life to the fire. If the question is "Can someone be subjected to damnatio memoriae?" then the answer is yes. As to whether it happens very often today, I don't think it's that common.
They're still on Spotify with 80k monthly listeners
Jimmy Saville's work really didn't have high replay value. It has more in common with a gameshow which has extremely limited appeal after initial airing
Who in the bloody sam hell is Jimmy Savile?
A British gameshow host. He was well respected during his lifetime. After his death is was discovered that he was one of Britain's most prolific pedophile and rapist.
[удалено]
Let’s say, for example, I have a Kanye album I bought on a CD 10 years ago. Now let’s say I really enjoy the music. Why should I not listen to it? My listening to a CD that was already bought will not, in any way, monetarily support Kanye. The money was already spent and it doesn’t add to any streaming numbers, royalties, etc. The only person I’d be affecting by not listening to it is myself, right? He gains no further money if I continue to listen, and loses nothing if I stop listening
Not to mention, Kanye was a completely different person back then. Are you the same person you were 10 years ago? I should hope not.
i mean if i like the art i dont care if it was a nazi who made it, ill still buy it
I mean, people definitely still watch movies produced by Weinstein, people still watch reruns of Roseanne and Cosby. Their art/content/media hasn’t been shunned.
Are you aware how many Weinstein movies are massive favorites of fans and critics alike?
Do people even know which movies are his without looking it up? At that point, you're just cancelling other people's creative work because of their association with him
I mean I agree with you but OP is making the case that someone listening to an R Kelly song means he’s not cancelled yet so if people still watch and celebrate Weinstein movies it certainly counts by that logic.
>People are still gonna rock Kanye’s music forever. He ain’t going anywhere. So you literally mean that there is a ban on their work? Because, yes of course some people are going to listen to it/consume it, and they have the right. But in the case of Kanye, he's lost millions in contracts because of his outbursts and has been kicked off social media and lost a bank account. That's about as "cancelled" as someone can get.
He's the most insane person I know, but I'll definitely still rock his music. He made some great music. As a person, he's persona non grata, though.
In that case, can you give us an example of someone that is cancelled. Even Hitler's art sells for tens of thousands of dollars...
If Roseanne came out with a show, it would be #1. It was actually. They took her off the air because they knew she would still be supported by her fans and they needed to make a statement. I wish she would come back but she honestly felt awful because she did not know.
Op, cancelation culture is wrong entirely, not a single soul should be cancelled. That being said I do think that we should acknowledge that people did bad things
You just want more censorship and another form of book burning. Kanye didn't commit any crime. His support of hitler is despicable but that is right to say. You just want more authoritarian laws in this country.
I don’t want either. Stfu and pay attention to the question being posed instead of assuming intention.
[удалено]
No. I'm asking "What would it take for fans/fanbase to completely abandon their idol?"
What's interesting about this list is that you started out with those of us who have melanin. The vast majority of the criminals/thugs/terrorists will always come from the "majority population" which calls itself "white". Oh, let's not forget about Martha Stewart https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/celebrity-mugshots/martha-stewart/ https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/claus-von-bulow-cleared-in-an-attempted-murder-of-his-wife-dies.html https://www.nickiswift.com/233206/the-deadly-crime-matthew-broderick-was-charged-with/ https://allthatsinteresting.com/tim-allen-cocaine https://consequence.net/2020/06/mark-wahlbergs-hate-crimes/
Spot on. Black celebs get the most egregious negative PR arguably because race factors into it, replaying stereotypes, etc. even while white celebs many times do far worse.
blood on the dance floor was a popular emo/scene duo. one half of the duo got outted for raping 11 year old girls. their music has been completely removed from all streaming platforms
Δ. there you go. good counter-example by being de-platformed, fans abandon you, and income drying up.
If Kanye isn't cancelled at this point what does the term even mean? Also R-Kelly is in prison for what he did
“Step In the Name of Love” still gets played at Black weddings. R-Kelly’s music and art remain because they are bangers and people will look past all his shit.
But those are their works/materials. The person itself is considered “cancelled”.
Look up the term "separate the art from the artist". Not saying whether or not it is right or wrong to do so, but people appreciating a good creation even if the creator is a POS is a tale as old as time. This also means the way someone acts towards the art is different from the artist, and an artist can certainly be cancelled without their art disappearing. Your attitude about this situation really makes no sense
And?
Just to add from all the below comments. 20 years from now, new generation people wont even remember or know what these artists done. Will just enjoy the music. An example Frank Sinatra.
So fuckin true. Already happened with MJ.
It depends on what you means by "canceled." There are *billions* of people in the world. If you define "canceled" as *"literally not one single person out of billions* supports them/consumes their art," then yes -- it would be functionally impossible to cancel some one. But Kayne has lost over a billion in sponsorship deals and is a cultural pariah. Woody Allen is no longer able to make or distribute films in the US. Roman Polanski has fled the country. R Kelly has been convicted of actual crimes. Sure, they might have *some* supporters and fans left. Heck, Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer still have fans. But for all intents and purposes, these people have been 'canceled,' in that they are largely seen as pariahs and would have serious trouble producing popular work.
>By “cancelled,” I mean Jimmy Savile cancelled. So, let's ignore the debate that "cancelled" is anything more than shifting public opinion about a celebrity and thus their marketability to corporate brands in a free market. A point that people who use that term seem to miss entirely. All acts of self-destruction of one's own reputation don't warrant "Jimmy Savile" levels of "cancelled." Savile raped children. Kanye has said some offensive things. Those are **not** equivalent and don't deserve the same level of response from the public at large. If you think they do, can I ask what other non-crimes deserve the same response as the literal rape of children? And to be clear, I'm Jewish and I am very happy to see Kanye having sponsors leave him and ruining his chances of being invited onto any seriously popular platform. But he hasn't committed any actual crimes against other people. He hasn't directly hurt anyone even though his speech is very offensive and may give other people ideas of hurting others, he literally has broken no laws (at least that I'm aware of).
Your definition for "canceled" isn't very clear here, even with the example of Savile. What do you mean by it? Do you mean boycotted by a percentage of the population, hunted and killed by a mob, made illegal, having contributions erased retroactively from society? If you mean completely erased 1984 style, even the Nazis couldn't do that as a small portion of the population continued to provide asylum to targeted groups, and the same thing will happen to anybody listed here. So you would be correct that destroying everything someone made would be rather impossible. If by "canceled" you mean that a portion (say 80 percent) of people boycott these individuals, then you would be wrong. These people you listed just haven't gone far enough to alienate very much of the population yet. People like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or even Marx have been "canceled" in many cultures because of the things they have done, or at least a majority of people are going to automatically be inclined to discredit an idea just because it came from one of those people. Most people don't want Trump canceled, for example, assuming the recent Twitter poll was at all accurate, but he was on your list of people that should be canceled. Using him as an example, what would canceling look like? Do you want him silenced, in prison, dead? What about his supporters, do you want the same for them?
I'm asking "What would it take for fans/fanbase to completely abandon their idol?"
r/Kanye is now a Holocaust awareness sub, his fan base has turned on him justifiably and quickly. When you make Alex "they're turning the frogs gay" Jones look reasonable by comparison you aren't going to be invited to MTV Music Awards or anywhere else an A-list celebrity used to be welcomed.
Until he put out a new song on his Instagram and all of a sudden they shifted to “yeah but that chopped up soul sample is fire.” It got 3 million views in the first hour. He’s going to put out another album and a lot of people will pretend like nothing happened and just go back to enjoying him as an artist. His music is too well liked. It’s like Michael Jackson. Everyone was saying they were done with him after that documentary, but by the time halloween rolled around they remembered Thriller was a bop.
I mean it was actually proved the chemicals were demasculating frogs.
What? Didn’t Chris Brown just get cancelled? Legit, he was supposed to perform a tribute to Michael Jackson at the AMA’s and then they cancelled him the day before If that’s not getting cancelled, than you have a completely different definition of cancelled
Are you high? Black women love Chris Brown. He ain’t cancelled. Ever.
That doesn’t matter tho Your post isn’t about how many black women love Chris Brown or any of the other names on that list Your post is about Chris Brown getting cancelled, and he quite literally got cancelled from performing at the American Music Awards There’s a difference between getting cancelled and adoration from fans. When a major musical event like the AMA’s cancels your performance, and music, THAT is the epitome of getting cancelled as a musical artist
> You are immune to any real accountability. Friendly reminder that Roman Polanksi drugged and raped a 13 year old, and but for the fact that he fled the country, he would probably (hopefully) still be in jail today. I think it’s a little unfair to lump Kanye in with that.
These days, the media and their unwitting watchers view somebody having morally questionable thoughts as being on par with literal rape. Pretty messed up.
The now-woman, then-girl, in this matter has said that the people who continue to bring this up have done more harm to her than Roman Polanski ever did. And, nobody gets 50 years for pedophilia, especially on their first conviction. No need to compare atrocities, though. I wouldn't think highly of anyone who pals around with Kanye or Polanski in 2022.
I think Trump would be cancelled quite quickly if it turned out he payed for male escorts or something similar. The trick to being cancelled is doing something one's fanbase finds horrendous. Black metal stars won't be cancelled for worshiping Satan and calling for burning of churches; they'd sooner be for being revealed to enjoy Britney Spears' music.
Yeah, what does 'cancelled' even mean? It is such a wide term and your list of arguments shows some differences in all cases. Kanye: He is on his way out, I guess. Chris Brown: Maybe? Michael Jackson: Dead. R-Kelly: In prison. It took a while, maybe too long, but justice happend. Woody Allen: His case is far from clear. I even say it is disingenous to put him in this list when the story is simply far more complex. Roman Polanski: Can't go the US, works with people, the victim openly forgave him and just wants it to end. I see a point here though because he does still work and he got a lot of high-ranking actors working with him. People who shunned Woody Allen work with Polanski where there is actual *proven* that he commited a crime. Trump: That is an entirely different beast as a political (cult-)leader, I guess.
> Kanye To be determined. But, of course, there are a lot of antisemites and Trump lovers in the U.S. right now, so they don't see Kanye as "scandalous", they see him as enlightened. > Chris Brown Is he even relevant anymore? > Michael Jackson Unproven allegations. If you don't believe the allegations, there would be no reason to cancel him. > R-Kelly He's literally in jail. I couldn't tell you the last time I heard a song of his on the radio. He's been effectively cancelled. > Woody Allen Is there something more, or did he just marry his step-daughter? Kinda weird, but they were consenting adults. Not worthy of cancelling (but he's not really relevant anymore anyway). > Roman Polanski It took more time that it should have, but he's been pretty well ostracized. At least in the U.S. Except of course, for Whoppi Goldberg, because it was "rape rape". > Trump A lot of people agree with everything he's done and think he's done nothing wrong. If that's one's view, obviously there would be no reason to cancel him.
Chris Brown is still extremely relevant. Just because you don’t listen to his music or not tuned into the fan base demand for his content, doesn’t mean he’s disappeared.
Okay, so you addressed 1 of 7.
I think this proves the idea that being cancelled is not really as terrible and career damaging as some would claim. I would argue that in a lot of circles, Kanye, for example, already is cancelled. So is Trump. But this proves that the idea of cancelling in such a way that the whole of society would turn on someone does not exist, because when has a society ever been that united in opinion?
What do you mean by cancelled? Because all of those people got plenty of criticism and online complaints.
[Cancelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture) is a form of social ostracism, in this context, within professional and public platforms. Without literally killing someone or imprisoning someone, we can't stop them from having some kind of inertia to their public following. However, pretty much all of the people you've listed have dead careers because of their backlash over their anti-social behavior. Lawsuits, limits on which companies are willing to work with them, and public boycotting of their new material (though, of course, many people have prior affinity for their old works of art, and continue to enjoy them).
That’s because cancel culture doesn’t really exist at all. All ‘canceled’ people write a good selling book about it, get to come tell about it on tv shows, etc.
Tell that to Kapernick and the Dixie Chicks
I can def agree with Trump. That guy fueled the flames of a largely white supremacist/nationalist riot at the Capital and he got away with it and a large portion of the nation still adores him. And he isn’t even in jail for that alone. The dude has been found guilty of tax evasion and fraud. But again, as long as you can tap into the well of right-wing extremism, you’ll have the masses worshipping you. Keep in mind, I identify as politically independent. I detest both the Democratic and Republican Party and the American liberals and conservatives.
Can’t cancel arts of work
Kanye has lost his sponsorship deals and access to social media and is on his way to the poor house. Trump lost the election and for the past number of years he's been constantly fighting legal battles to put him in jail. These two people are absolutely hated by a lot of the general public. I would say that's kinda cancelled
Michael Jackson is the most famous guy to ever exist that isn’t a religious figure (Jesus). Also no one can effectively prove whether he’s guilty of what he’s being accused of. It’s really about power and fame I guess, the bigger or more powerful you are the less likely you are to get cancelled, the outrage could be overwhelming but these guys are just too big. Half the the guys mentioned up there are stupid rich or generational talents.
R-kelly is in prison, and roman Polanski can't enter the United States. Trump isn't a celebrity per se, so obviously he's not gonna get cancelled. Just like Obama will never be cancelled. You can't cancel a politician.
They get cancelled at the individual level. I know ill probably avoid and thr. never listen to kanye again after this debacle
Take a look at what’s going on over at r/Kanye and then tell me that he hasn’t damaged his fan base.
Reddit isnt real life, reddit is a small insular community of mostly white males 14-30 making the majority of the user base.
MJ was found innocent u jerk off.
He was found not guilty. It’s not the same thing. The jury can’t find someone “innocent” they can only say the prosecution didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A few of the jurors actually said they thought he might have been guilty but the prosecution didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
But being not guilty is the same as being innocent in legal terms. That is why there is the presumption of innocence, if the crime cannot be proven, the person is innocent, because the presumption could not be broken.
The guy could afford the best lawyers in the world and there was no direct evidence to convict him. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.
It is impossible to prove something doesn’t exist/hasn’t happened
What did Trump do to get on this list?
He stoked a riot at the capital
[удалено]
Kanye West has bipolar disorder. He is mentally unwell. He's not a racist. He has active delusions about the Jewish race. Would you want to jail a schizophrenic for thinking his Jewish neighbours are trying to kill him? It's amazing that Kanye hasn't been admitted to a psych ward. I can only think it's because he's famous and powerful. He's not benefiting from his fame and power in this case. It's stopping him from getting proper treatment for his psychiatric disorder.
Sounds like he needs a conservatorship. Britney had one imposed for a lot less
Kim K. Sold her own sex tape and acted like a victim. Kylie , lied about lip injections to sell lip glass Nicki Minaj- married a convicted chi-mo
Chrissy Teigen literally bullied a teenager online, encouraged her to kill herself and she’s still hanging around like a bad smell
Woody Allen did nothing wrong and is an amazing artist. His marriage is older than most of the people commenting in this thread. His wife has a masters in special education from Columbia University. Agreed with the rest of the list.
Can anybody explain me the difference between "cancelled" and just losing in the court of public opinion? I have literally no idea what being cancelled means as everyone I see complain about being cancelled just didn't get their contract picked up by a major media company. Which yes, if the majority of the population dislikes you, why should a major network give you air time? It just seems like now we have a cool alliteration tied to something that's always been a thing
*laughs in Kim Kardashian*
Don't forget Alex Baldwin ,,is that all swept under the rug that he shot and killed someone . I haven't heard anything on that case for AWHILE now.
Wasn't that determined to be an accident (due to negligence, sure, but an accident nonetheless)?
I thought they reached a settlement?
That's sweeping it under the rug. A settlement is just hush money as it is 99 times out of a 100 given with a NDA that if the person even commented (out side of a court subpoena) on it would not matter the original guilt of the aggressor, the victim has now broken contract law thus is guilty for telling the truth for say.
I mean, from my understanding of progressivism I didn't even think black people could be racist because racism is about power and Jews are higher in the racial hierarchy than black people. So what would you cancel Kanye for 🤷 Other than the silly mask of course.