Cancel Culture - A Tale As Old As Time....

[A2SG]

Several years ago, a psychiatrist named Frederic Wertham interviewed a handful of kids that he considered to be "juvenile delinquents," and noticed they all seemed to have something in common: they read comic books. He wrote a book about this, called Seduction of the Innocent, and a bunch of people tried to ban comic books because of this, even sparking a congressional hearing on the matter.

A few years later on, a housewife named Terry Rakolta objected to a TV show called Married With Children and decided that her objections meant the show should not be on the air, and started a write-in campaign and boycott to have the show cancelled.

What we currently call "Cancel Culture" is nothing more than the current version of something that's happened before, and happened fairly often. You could very easily include the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1940s, and even the Romans in Jerusalem as doing the same thing, simply using different tactics.

What it all boils down to, ultimately, is someone doesn't like something or someone, and they speak up about it. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing new about any of it.

Social media adds speed to the mix today...but that's about it.

-- A2SG, nothing new under the sun.....

 

[Clare73]

Several years ago, a psychiatrist named Frederic Wertham interviewed a handful of kids that he considered to be "juvenile delinquents," and noticed they all seemed to have something in common: they read comic books. He wrote a book about this, called Seduction of the Innocent, and a bunch of people tried to ban comic books because of this, even sparking a congressional hearing on the matter.
A few years later on, a housewife named Terry Rakolta objected to a TV show called Married With Children and decided that her objections meant the show should not be on the air, and started a write-in campaign and boycott to have the show cancelled.

What we currently call "Cancel Culture" is nothing more than the current version of something that's happened before, and happened fairly often. You could very easily include the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1940s, and even the Romans in Jerusalem as doing the same thing, simply using different tactics.

What it all boils down to, ultimately, is someone doesn't like something or someone, and they speak up about it. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing new about any of it.

Social media adds speed to the mix today...but that's about it.

-- A2SG, nothing new under the sun.....

That it has happened before doesn't change it from a bad thing to a good thing.

It's not about whether it's happened before, it's about whether it is good or not.

 

[A2SG]

That it has happened before doesn't change it from a bad thing to a good thing.

It's not about whether it's happened before, it's about whether it is good or not.

I never said any of these examples were good or bad. Simply that nothing happening today is substantially different from what has happened before.

People often use their freedom of speech to speak, and other people have a problem with that, and use theirs.

What is said, who objects to it, and what they do about it may change every now and then, but that's about it.

-- A2SG, whether it's good or not only depends on whose side you're on.....

 

[Pommer]

That it has happened before doesn't change it from a bad thing to a good thing.

It's not about whether it's happened before, it's about whether it is good or not.

People always fight over “what’s good for the children” and “what kind of country do we want to have?”, and use whatever economic clout that they possess to try to guide public-policy with a reward/punish “feature”.

This is normal social-intercourse, now being portrayed as abnormal, deviant and wrong.

Welcome to politics!

 

[A2SG]

People always fight over “what’s good for the children” and “what kind of country do we want to have?”, and use whatever economic clout that they possess to try to guide public-policy with a reward/punish “feature”.

This is normal social-intercourse, now being portrayed as abnormal, deviant and wrong.

Welcome to politics!

Exactly. Conservatives used to be the ones trying to cancel others, now some of them are being cancelled, and they don't like it.

Free speech in action.

-- A2SG, the beat goes on.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Several years ago, a psychiatrist named Frederic Wertham interviewed a handful of kids that he considered to be "juvenile delinquents," and noticed they all seemed to have something in common: they read comic books. He wrote a book about this, called Seduction of the Innocent, and a bunch of people tried to ban comic books because of this, even sparking a congressional hearing on the matter.

Wow...what was the result?

A few years later on, a housewife named Terry Rakolta objected to a TV show called Married With Children and decided that her objections meant the show should not be on the air, and started a write-in campaign and boycott to have the show cancelled.

I'm sorry...I'd swear I remember that show running so many seasons that Kelly Bundy was perhaps a 30yo playing a 17yo. The guy playing the neighbor had been replaced at least once.

I'm guessing that boycott didn't work out.

What we currently call "Cancel Culture" is nothing more than the current version of something that's happened before, and happened fairly often.

Aleksandar Katai cut by LA Galaxy over wife's 'racist and violent' Instagram posts

Aleksandar Katai has been released by the LA Galaxy after a series of alarming social media posts by his wife on Instagram

www.google.com

What did that guy do?

You could very easily include the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1940s

Huh? The party that told children which race was to blame for all their society's problems?

Those nazis?

and even the Romans in Jerusalem

The Romans tried to cancel Judaism?

as doing the same thing, simply using different tactics.

I'm not certain what you think cancel culture is?

What it all boils down to, ultimately, is someone doesn't like something or someone, and they speak up about it.

Well no....they demand that person lose their job. If they merely voiced disagreement....it's hard to understand why these people lose their jobs.

These are children....incapable of holding discussions or engaging with any views outside their tiny bubble. They hope to silence everyone who disagrees because they could not hope to defend their beliefs honestly.

Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing new about any of it.

I just explained the difference.

Social media adds speed to the mix today...but that's about it.

It gives a small amount of power to a large amount of morons.

-- A2SG, nothing new under the sun.....

There's nothing that makes the dumb feel smart quite like silencing anyone who disagrees. It does seem to have tapered off some....since Twitter was the big platform for them and it's been "rebalanced" as what they like to call "a level playing field".

 

[A2SG]

Wow...what was the result?

Comic companies decided to form a regulatory body themselves, called the Comics Code Authority, and regulated themselves for a little while. Eventually, they stopped doing that.

I'm sorry...I'd swear I remember that show running so many seasons that Kelly Bundy was perhaps a 30yo playing a 17yo. The guy playing the neighbor had been replaced at least once.

I'm guessing that boycott didn't work out.

No, it didn't.

Aleksandar Katai cut by LA Galaxy over wife's 'racist and violent' Instagram posts

Aleksandar Katai has been released by the LA Galaxy after a series of alarming social media posts by his wife on Instagram

www.google.com

What did that guy do?

I've no idea. I'm sure it's explained somewhere in the article.

Huh? The party that told children which race was to blame for all their society's problems?

Those nazis?

Sounds like them, yup.

The Romans tried to cancel Judaism?

Seems so. Didn't work out that well, did it?

I'm not certain what you think cancel culture is?

The current version of an ongoing struggle for some people to disagree with others, and take action based on that disagreement.

Well no....they demand that person lose their job. If they merely voiced disagreement....it's hard to understand why these people lose their jobs.

Because the employer listened and agreed with those making the demand...or, at the very least acceded to those demands.

These are children....incapable of holding discussions or engaging with any views outside their tiny bubble. They hope to silence everyone who disagrees because they could not hope to defend their beliefs honestly.

I'm sure Frederic Wertham or Terry Rakolta felt otherwise, but if you wish to argue their points, you'd have to take it up with them. Dr. Wertham is no longer with us, but I believe Ms. Rakolta is still around, somewhere.

I just explained the difference.

And I'm sure you see a marked difference between these examples. Personally, I do not.

C'est la vie.

It gives a small amount of power to a large amount of morons.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
-- George Carlin

There's nothing that makes the dumb feel smart quite like silencing anyone who disagrees. It does seem to have tapered off some....since Twitter was the big platform for them and it's been "rebalanced" as what they like to call "a level playing field".

Before twitter, people used other means. In the future, they'll find new ones.

The beat goes on....

-- A2SG, drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.....

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm old enough to remember the moral panic about Dungeons and Dragons. Alot of fuss from cultural conservatives about "orcs for dorks".

 

[Clare73]

I never said any of these examples were good or bad. Simply that nothing happening today is substantially different from what has happened before.

People often use their freedom of speech to speak, and other people have a problem with that, and use theirs.

What is said, who objects to it, and what they do about it may change every now and then, but that's about it.

Until it involves abuse of the power of the law by prosecutory misconduct, which then is an attack on our Constitutional foundation.

-- A2SG, whether it's good or not only depends on whose side you're on.....

Precisely the glibness that is so dangerous to the preservation of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

For actually, it depends on the law and the Constitution, which are being violated.

But too many are not informed enough to realize such, nor the dire consequences if it is allowed to continue.

 

[Clare73]

People always fight over “what’s good for the children” and “what kind of country do we want to have?”, and use whatever economic clout that they possess to try to guide public-policy with a reward/punish “feature”.

This is normal social-intercourse, now being portrayed as abnormal, deviant and wrong.

Welcome to politics!

The magnitude of the current abuse and disregard for the law has far exceeded "normal" social intercourse.

Stay tuned!

 

[A2SG]

Until it involves abuse of the power of the law by prosecutory misconduct, which then is an attack on our Constitutional foundation.

There are legal means to rectify that. If you see that happening, you have every right to use those legal means.

Precisely the glibness that is so dangerous to the preservation of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

My glibness isn't dangerous, nor is it unconstitutional.

For actually, it depends on the law and the Constitution, which are being violated.

Then hire a lawyer and have them take legal action. You have that right.

But too many are not informed enough to realize such, nor the dire consequences if it is allowed to continue.

What is called "cancel culture" is nothing more than some people exercising their freedom of speech.

Anything more than that is a different issue. Each specific issue can have different possible remedies, depending on the circumstances, so I can't possibly address them all in general terms.

-- A2SG, if you have a problem with a specific person using their freedom of speech, feel free to let them know....you have freedom of speech too.....

 

[A2SG]

The magnitude of the current abuse and disregard for the law has far exceeded "normal" social intercourse.

Stay tuned!

It only seems that way because the people who used to do the cancelling are now being cancelled.

Otherwise, it's just business as normal.

-- A2SG, same as it ever was.....

 

[Clare73]

There are legal means to rectify that. If you see that happening, you have every right to use those legal means.

Indeed, which are time consuming and expensive, and one should not have to remedy when law enforcement obeys the law itself.
Ironic that the lawless law accuses someone else of lawlessness.

My glibness isn't dangerous, nor is it unconstitutional.

It doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be dangerous, nor was such stated.

Then hire a lawyer and have them take legal action. You have that right.

Goes to my first response.

What is called "cancel culture" is nothing more than some people exercising their freedom of speech.

Which does not mean it is not "cancel culture."

Anything more than that is a different issue. Each specific issue can have different possible remedies, depending on the circumstances, so I can't possibly address them all in general terms.

Anything more than violation of the law and the Constitution was not presented.

-- A2SG, if you have a problem with a specific person using their freedom of speech, feel free to let them know....you have freedom of speech too.....

I just did.

 

[Clare73]

It only seems that way because the people who used to do the cancelling are now being cancelled.

Perfect demonstration of the problem.

Otherwise, it's just business as normal.

-- A2SG, same as it ever was.....

Some of us know when it wasn't that way.

 

[Pommer]

A poster saw stories of a rock & roll person “cancelling” beer with a gun.

 

[Clare73]

A poster saw stories of a rock & roll person “cancelling” beer with a gun.

And there you have it. . .

 

[Hans Blaster]

A poster saw stories of a rock & roll person “cancelling” beer with a gun.

Ted Nugent or Kid Rock? Probably Kid Rock, Nugent would have used a compound bow.

 

[Pommer]

Ted Nugent or Kid Rock? Probably Kid Rock, Nugent would have used a compound bow.

Yes, I think it was the second “b-list” music person you mentioned.

 

[A2SG]

Indeed, which are time consuming and expensive, and one should not have to remedy when law enforcement obeys the law itself.
Ironic that the lawless law accuses someone else of lawlessness.

Well, legal remedies are what they are...if you wish to complain about how the rich have an advantage that everyone else does not, well, that's a different issue entirely.

The fact remains, people using their freedom of speech is not against the law.

It doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be dangerous, nor was such stated.

I still fail to see how my being glib is dangerous at all, but as you were simply expressing your freedom of speech to say so, it really doesn't matter if I see your point or not.

A2SG said:
What is called "cancel culture" is nothing more than some people exercising their freedom of speech.

Which does not mean it is not "cancel culture."

Isn't that what I said?

Anything more than violation of the law and the Constitution was not presented.

I don't see any violations of the law or the Constitution in this discussion.

I just did.

Cool.

-- A2SG, have no problem with people expressing their freedom of speech.....

 

[A2SG]

Perfect demonstration of the problem.

Some of us know when it wasn't that way.

People throughout time have expressed opinions. And other people throughout time disagreed with them.

I don't see anything new here at all. But if you do, feel free to provide specific examples, if you wish to discuss them.

-- A2SG, generalities only take us so far.....