Molly Ringwald ponders the pendulum swing of the #MeToo movement
Molly Ringwald thinks cancel culture is an "unsustainable" response to the issues that arose with #MeToo
Aux News Molly Ringwald
Molly Ringwald is still best known for being John Hughes’ leading lady, but she’s also a singer, writer, Riverdale mom, real mom, and a French translator. Her latest work is translating My Cousin Maria Schneider, by Vanessa Schneider. Inevitably, that’s led to Ringwald contemplating the violation Schneider experienced on the set of Last Tango In Paris and how their parallel roles as highly visible film stars differed.
“In a way, my experience was the opposite of Maria’s,” she tells The Guardian in a new interview. “The way she was thought of, this wanton muse, this louche character; that’s what was expected of her. It was the very opposite of me: I was projected as this perfect, sweet American girl next door. Which wasn’t me, but I was figuring out who I was, too. I was pretty young.”
Nevertheless, Ringwald’s famous movies were not free of misogyny and sexualization of female characters (as she thoughtfully wrestles with in a 2018 New Yorker essay), and behind the scenes, she also experienced unwelcome advances from older men (as she details in another New Yorker essay in 2017). Attitudes have changed in the years since, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but Ringwald wonders now if the industry has really undergone true, systemic change. “It’s like bullying in schools. They say: ‘We have a zero-tolerance policy.’ After that, it still exists, but it goes a little bit underground,” she says. “It’s a bit harder to get caught. It gets harder to say: ‘Is this bullying or not?’ It’s a bit like that with #MeToo.”
“I don’t think a Harvey Weinstein situation could exist now. But, again, a lot of people have gotten swept up in ‘cancellation’, and I worry about that; it’s unsustainable, in a way,” Ringwald asserts. “Some people have been unfairly canceled and they don’t belong in the same category as somebody like Harvey Weinstein.”
Before we get bogged down in the mire of “cancel culture,” a nebulous concept often leveled in bad faith to spur disingenuous “culture wars,” Ringwald makes a fair point that the notion itself is a distraction from real issues. “What it ends up doing is make people roll their eyes. That’s my worry,” she says. “I do want things to change, for real. Workplaces should be places where everyone can feel safe—not just in Hollywood, but everywhere. Particularly Americans. We can never do things incrementally; we’re so binary, so all or nothing. We’re basically a bunch of puritans.”
222 Comments
She went public on the internet with a nuanced take on a subject?! What an absolute fool!
Omg I gotta watch that again right now.
What’s nuanced about someone who decries “cancel culture” without understanding it even a little bit?
Jezebel could write a week’s worth of columns just from this interview.
Love to see them actually conduct this interview themselves.
What’s the “nuanced take” here?Is it this? “I do want things to change, for real. Workplaces should be places where everyone can feel safe—not just in Hollywood, but everywhere. Particularly Americans. We can never do things incrementally; we’re so binary, so all or nothing. We’re basically a bunch of puritans.”Because that’s pretty much just word salad.
I interpreted it as the “cancel culture and/or feminism in general is sex-negative” take, which is something I firmly disagree with (but I’ve seen this interpretation more than once). Being against coercive relationships in the workplace, having sensitivity coaches during sex scenes, and not forcing people to do nude scenes unless they want to isn’t “I think sex is bad and no one should have sex with anyone, ever”.
There really does seem to be the view that nudity and sex in movies is automatically and inherently unnecessary, exploitative, and so on. Violence, we accept wholeheartedly. There’s violence in movies all the time, sometimes graphic, sometimes for comedic effect, but a whole lot of violence, just because it’s entertaining. Imagine an industry where every screenwriter and director had to justify every scene of violence, because everyone needs to be convinced it’s absolutely crucial and necessary to the film.
I am fine with sex in media in the following cases:
– Consenting adults
– Times where it makes sense in the plot and isn’t used just as filler or to hide that there is really nothing else going on plotwise
– If there is a rape scene, it should be done making sure the actors involved are all comfortable during filming
– Rape should not be sexualized or made into a joke, and the rapist should be portrayed as a bad person
I’m fine with violence as well, provided it fits the age group the film is intended for. I don’t personally feel comfortable with films where, say, babies and dogs are mutilated, but I just choose not to see them instead of calling for them to get banned.
The second one gives me pause. I don’t think the purpose of filmed art is necessarily plot. There’s an incredibly long, international, human tradition of nudity in art, and some of the most wonderful scenes in film history do not “move the plot forward” in a strictly necessary way. It should be okay to have excesses in art. It seems strange and unhealthy to me that we’re swamped with pornography, yet there only seems to be interest in going after nude scenes in film/television. Like, of course tons of kids and adults are watching the bodies of young women be used by men they don’t know or like at all on completely unmonitored sets, getting paid a few hundred dollars to have every inch of their body filmed up close and displayed to make thousands of dollars for the men using them, and that’s fine, but if we make movies that depict people who love each other, or at least like each other, having sex because it’s something they want to do, simulated by well-paid, unionized actors, then we are going to ruin lives and scar the children.
I meant more when it’s used as padding to distract from when the plot isn’t very good. Keeping the viewer engaged because there might be a random shot of a woman (who isn’t named or relevant to the plot) topless.
I have quite literally seen people (generally a decade or two younger than my 40yo self) say that they don’t want or understand why sex scenes are in films.
It’s hard to articulate but I kinda get it. There’s a certain type of (usually male) film buff who likes to insist that sex and nudity are the pinnacle of great storytelling vehicles, and the obvious rebuttal is that that simply isn’t true. Has there ever been a great story that depended wholly on being able to see a stranger’s naked body? That’s a big part of it – the pushback against men using the language of art and media to justify their entitlement to women’s bodies. Because if people don’t want to film these scenes, and viewers are mostly okay without them, it’s hard to argue that pushing actors beyond their natural boundaries is a good idea.
Agreed that no one should push actors past their limits.As for whether or not nudity is essential, let alone making something a great work of art? …I dunno. There are probably some movies you simply couldn’t produce and still have them be intelligible, let alone the same quality. There’s definitely stories where the fact that the characters have sex is essential. Terminator, for instance. Could you make it without the sex scene? Sure. You could imply it, or you could stage it more modestly. But to skip it entirely seems like it would definitely lose something crucial.
I don’t think any reasonable person opposes implied sex onscreen under covers, or love scenes with certain body parts obscured. The issue is that (male) audiences have gotten used to their “acclaimed” shows always containing gratuitous nudity and borderline pornographic sex, and they’re enjoying being able to push for more stuff like that under the “golden age of television” banner. I don’t need to see actors’ bare boobs and butts, and I don’t want to hear another story about the next Emilia Clarke’s job offer being dependent on whether she’ll sign a contract to be naked and graphically assaulted in her first episode, which she clearly wasn’t happy about, as she renegotiated her contract as soon as she was able. Lena Headey was big enough to be able to push back from the start, because apparently that’s what HBO leads with when hiring women.I’m no prude. If someone wanted to pay me a million dollars to film my boobs, I probably wouldn’t say no. But I just have to call bullshit on any statement that explicit sex and nudity is the dividing line between great art and utter crap, because that’s what’s actually being argued, and that’s stupid.
People complain about violence in entertainment media all the time. Especially when they want to scapegoat it for real life violence.
“cancel culture and/or feminism in general is sex-negative” Yeah that doesn’t really strike me as a nuance. It just strikes me as false (agreeing with you). People aren’t being “cancelled” (whatever anyone thinks that means) over sex. It’s generally over forced sexual activity. We’re not talking about Alan Turing here or Oscar Wilde who were literally punished for sex.I wonder if instead of that she means we’re Puritans in the witch trial type of way, which is punishing people on a wisp of accusation rather than evidence? I don’t think that’s what we’re doing, and obviously the witch trials were pretty much just punishing pretty women for being pretty women, but at least that as a criticism makes a tiny bit more sense.
Based on the context of the rest of the quotes (and what I know of Ringwald in general), that’s my take.
And I’m not saying we’re above a witch trials. We do do witch trials. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but I’m not trying that hard. I just think witch hunting is not a new phenomenon, and it’s not the same thing as these examples of “cancel culture” people are giving.
I don’t know, I’ve seen commenters around here say a woman who’s been drinking can’t hook up because it’s rape, even if the guy is in the same boat. There’s plenty of agency denial that goes on.
No, the argument is that if a man or woman is too drunk to consent, not just if they’ve been drinking.
I wouldn’t personally have sex when drunk, or with someone who was drunk. But that’s just me.
When she says Puritans, you can basically just read The Scarlet Letter and stop there. I’ve been under the thumb of that shit. I was raised Catholic. Born sinful, irredeemable in this lifetime. It’s a hopeless place that just breeds more ill behavior. Why not? You’re already damned.
The key for me was those last two sentences. I think she’s actually asking for nuance and a little more thought before cancelling people- thus the complaint that everything is all-or-nothing.Which I think is fair. Americans really do want to either hate something or love it. We’re not at all comfortable with things being, y’know, fine.
Again, what’s the “nuance” she feels is lacking? She specifically mentioned people who have done things wrong but are being incorrectly put in the same category as Harvey Weinstein. Who are these people? And what does that mean? Are there other celebrities who have been put in jail for sex pestery who she thinks don’t deserve to be there?Also this—”We’re not at all comfortable with things being, y’know, fine.”—does not strike me as in any way true.
“Nuance” is when a both-sideser feels engaged but not challenged.
Ah yes, that’s what I thought it meant.
I think that’s a valid generalization, not word salad. I’m not sure what you want from her.
lol It’s not a valid generalization at all. We can *never* do things incrementally? Really? Never? What does that even mean? I can think of dozens of examples of things that have happened incrementally.
A nuanced take of something she clearly doesn’t even understand?Sure.
“But, again, a lot of people have gotten swept up in ‘cancellation’, and I worry about that; it’s unsustainable, in a way,” Ringwald asserts. “Some people have been unfairly canceled and they don’t belong in the same category as somebody like Harvey Weinstein.”People keep saying this and I wonder who exactly they’re talking about, because even those who have been “cancelled” still work. I remember people being iffy about Aziz Ansari’s situation; he still toured and he’s set to direct a movie starring Keanu Reeves and Seth Rogen.If they did something truly gross, they just lay low for a bit and then come back like nothing happened. Mel Gibson can be wildly homophobic for years, go on to drunkenly rant about the Jews, then go on to punch his partner in the face while she holds his child, and cap it off by telling her he hopes she gets raped by a pack — not a group, not a bunch, not even a gang: a PACK — of n-words, and he got nominated for an Oscar and appears in family comedies while his good friend Jodie Foster says she’s gonna stick beside him. For the likes of Dave Chappelle and Morgan Wallen, getting cancelled boosted sales. Maybe the cancellations for being an asshole will stick, because I do not want to see the James Corden redemption arc.
Yep. Seriously, the Internet kinda poisoned us. Some are so validation-addicted that the idea that someone would not want to trip over themselves to give Dave Chappelle money is a personal affront to them.
Depends on what she means… Because cancellation is a such a nebulous wide reaching concept, you could mean someone like Mel Gibson… Or you could mean someone like Isabel Fall and the helicopter attack story. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter
This is again probably because the concept is so ill-defined.
So, it could’ve been someone like Mel Gibson, who wasn’t canceled, or someone like Isabel Fall, who wasn’t famous and also wasn’t canceled in any way, shape or form.Got it.
The concern about cancel culture – at least among the ostensibly reasonable folks I have offline conversations with – recognizes that the truly powerful will likely find their way back after “laying low” for a bit. But events that are a temporary setback for wealthy celebrities would wipe out most non-wealthy, non-famous individuals. I don’t know about you all, but very few people I know could survive a year without gainful employment in their chosen field.I have a personal anecdote here, which I will keep intentionally vague. I manage a small team in a professional environment. When I joined that team, I had an existing employee who had been accused of sexual harassment a year or so prior. They had been cleared of any wrongdoing; the person who accused them had also accused others of sexual harassment. HR had found that each of those accusations had followed some disagreement or concern about the accuser’s work performance. Eventually the accuser had a very public meltdown in the office that resulted in their termination.However, despite HR clearing my team member of any wrongdoing, their personnel file was forever flagged, and any attempts on my part to present them for advancement were stymied, and I was told, in no uncertain terms, that they would never advance at our organization as a result of that flag in their file.This is certainly nowhere near as bad as losing a job, but they were very nearly terminated as a result of the whole event. Had they been terminated, I would expect they’d have had serious difficulty getting another job in this field, as it’s a pretty small, tight-knit industry. Thankfully that didn’t happen, and eventually they moved onto another organization where advancement was possible. I didn’t enjoy losing their wealth of expertise and engaging personality from my team, but I certainly didn’t blame them from wanting to move on from that situation.
“This is again probably because the concept is so ill-defined.”Which is again because the concept of someone being “cancelled” was Black slang that was co-opted by white people and divorced from its meaning. See also: “woke.” “Cancelled” never initially meant a person was removed from all society and media. It just meant “I don’t like that person.”
I knew “woke” came from AAVE, but “cancelled” sounds very white. I recall David Bax snarking that liberals on Twitter say “X is cancelled” or “Cancel X” whereas leftists like him say “X is a piece of shit”. Cancellation is something the network does to a TV show.
I don’t know what to tell ya. It was ours first, notwithstanding whatever this David Bax person has to say.
Canceled is black slang that goes back to the late 90’s/early 00’s. There’s even a post on urban dictionary from around 2000 with its use.Suey Park used it in 2014 to confront Stephen Colbert’s repeated anti-Asian racism, but by then it was already a really common term on black twitter to talk about crappy people you don’t want to associate with or heart about any more.Anyway, a lot of slang that white people think is modern is just really old black slang minorities were already using constantly but which they just learned about thanks to social media.This phenomenon keeps repeating because white people basically never interact with anyone who isn’t white, so on the off chance that a white person with actual non-white friends randomly drops an out-of-circuit phrase among her white peers it suddenly becomes incredibly dominant in discourse and becomes that one thing.See: yo, the bomb, ghetto, bruh, bae, all that and a bag of chips, shizz, FR, AF, woke, mug, so on and so on…Which isn’t really a problem until 1) white people act like they invented it, 2) some random white person decides a phrase they don’t like is suddenly a “cultural contagion” and declares everyone should stop using it forever, 3) Nazis decide it’s a good stand-in for their hatred of everyone who isn’t white, 4) white people just start using it to refer to things that are explicitly not the thing it refers to so they can stop people from easily talking about the actual thing because it makes them nervous.Which doesn’t mean the people who coined the phrase are going to stop using it just because the problem exists. Because that problem is really just a problem for the people fighting each other over a word they probably didn’t even understand in the first place — no one else is going to care.
Yes, tell this to the people saying I made up that it was Black slang. lol
It’s not black slang, that person completely made that up.
Cancellation is something the network does to a TV show.Yeah, that’s what it’s riffing on. Black folks have been saying “X is cancelled” since the 80s; you can go back to Chic’s “Your Love is Cancelled”.
Nope, it’s 100% AAVE. Jezebel even did a whole thing explaining it several years ago when white people started saying it.
I thought that “cancelled” started with the #cancelcolbert hashtag after Stephen Colbert made some jokes incorporating Asian stereotypes. (They were making fun of someone else’s complete tone-deafness, but the person who started the hashtag thought that was no excuse.) But I thought the idea was that they wanted to literally cancel his show.
They were talking about cancelling his show. That’s not related to the original Black use of the word.
“Or you could mean someone like Isabel Fall and the helicopter attack story”
Yeah but inevitably folks don’t tend to mean someone like that, do they?
…I think they do. I feel like a lot of left-wingers are somewhat disdainful of the less powerful being hurt by similar means as the more powerful and how they are less able to bounce back from it. That they often don’t wanna interrogate that. You see that on this website all the time, from the reporters and from the commentariat. Case in point.
I’m with you on the James Corden bit. #METoo!
Correct me if I’m wrong, most of that stuff involving Gibson happened pre-MeToo and pre-Twitter dogpiling/harassment campaigns. As for Dave (I don’t know who the other guy is), as frustrating as it might be, we as a species are not a monolith. Each one of us are capable of individual thought and opinions. For everyone that wanted him to be brought to task for what he said, there were 2 or even 3 that felt he was being unfairly persecuted for what he said, and as such wanted to show their support. It’s like Hogwarts Legacy going on to sell like absolute crazy in spite of JK’s anti-trans legacy, gamers and Gamers™ alike showed up en masse to support her and her view point.It all comes down to likeability. People are far more likely to forgive transgressions if they like the person, and noone is immune to this. It’s why AVClub and Jezebel forgave Aziz so quickly, because in the end they liked him and they felt there were far bigger fish to go after even though he physically sexually assaulted a woman multiple times throughout the course of a single evening (while also preventing her from leaving).
“People keep saying this and I wonder who exactly they’re talking about, because even those who have been “cancelled” still work. I remember people being iffy about Aziz Ansari’s situation; he still toured and he’s set to direct a movie starring Keanu Reeves and Seth Rogen.”Funny cause Aziz the first and only one I can think of but I think it hurt him really bad. Like folks just kinda isolated him for a good while.I seriously just showed let my teen son hear that Mel Gibson recording because he really has gotten away with a ton. Seemingly insulting most of the known world yet “Child of God directs Jesus” was just fine with most Americans.I personally just hope that it shortens these folks careers at a bare minimum
She might be speaking about, e.g., the truck driver who lost his job for flashing an OK sign. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/)As is the case for most things in life, the people with power (e.g. celebrities) do just fine when we remove norms and guardrails. It’s the nobodies who get boned.
That’s the thing: I never get the sense that they’re talking about us normies; it’s always a defence of a fellow celebrity who tweeted something racist or a notoriously grope-y co-star.
Didn’t someone get fired for middle fingering Trump?
Does he really need one? Hes just an unpleasant asshole, to men AND women, he hasnt raped anyone as far as i know.
But Scott, I hate him.
me too
Cancel culture doesn’t exist.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/
Well, Johnny Depp is a good example of an extreme case.-He got cancelled from Pirates of the Caribbean for abusing his ex wife, when it turned out SHE was the one abusing him throughout the marriage.-It shouldn’t take recordings of the woman calling the man a “baby” and “grown up” for running away from being decked in the face to vindicate a man from false allegations.
It’s unbelievable how stupid you are.
The key is in the phrasing “do not deserve to be in the same category as Harvey Weinstein.” Harvey was a serial rapist who abused his authority to enable it.If you need some names, then you can go with Aziz Ansari or Louis CK. Both are people who did skeezy thing but ARE NOT the same category as Weinstein. Both are #MeToo casualties though and when you think of why people might have Ringwald’s viewpoint, that’s more or less what they’re thinking of. And it also goes into, all these celebrities lived the same culture, so the same sort of grab-ass shenanigans that were baked into the culture may be more tolerable to them, even if they were the victim, then the average MeToo commenter.
As you’ve brought them up yourself, I think the question people are pondering is what was the actual response that should have happened and is that what we actually got. It’s not admonition so much as it is unease.
You need to listen to the podcast Fucking Canceled, at least the first episode. Clementine and her partner are about as far left as you can get, and they were wrongfully banished from their community. They have some great replies to the standard pro-cancel crew. I’ll paraphrase one of them here. Re: they can still find work, that means they weren’t cancelled. Ok. So what is cancelled to you then? What’s good enough? That you bully them into committing suicide? That they leave the public eye and move to Antarctica? How about the fact that getting Internet dogpiled is a terrifying and humiliating experience. It’s scary to get doxxed. How about the fact that some people are blacklisted from their field, or region, and have to move or reinvent themselves? The Rainbow Haired Church Ladies that do the cancelling don’t forgive or forget. There is no apology good enough. No amount of groveling. No amount of proof. The Cancellers are so sure that they are on the right side of history, they will never let it go. And they have absolutely gotten things wrong and persecuted innocent people.
Why is it you guys selectively get to be literal when it suits you? Do you honestly think being “canceled” means being permanently removed from public life unable to make a living? Because even in those early Twitter Mob salad days where anyone and everyone could be an “activist” and shame some nobody sorority girl for wearing a sombrero on Cinco De Mayo as a cultural appropriator (dog whistle for unspecified racist) did canceling mean permanently “canceled.” Canceling is a frenzy of self righteousness internet fury culminating in the actual or symbolic shame/gelding of an individual. To rich people with PR teams it’s an inconvenience. To random people it is a big fucking deal and they get god damned death threats. And I can absolutely think of lots of people that didn’t deserve having the collective scorn of the anonymous internet thrown on them. Poor rando schlubs like that waitress that (it was claimed) wrote a rude note on receipt? Remember her? Weeks of hounding. And none of that shit was true. There are so many they are lost in churn. Liberal celebrities like Chris Hardwick, Sarah Silverman and Steven Colbert all had the Twitter Mob weaponized against them by 4Chan which those shitbags knew would spread to the clout hungry Woke Twitterarchy. And before the truth got its pants on they each had to grovel before the mob. Making apologies turns out they didn’t need to make twenty times. What Ringwald is attempting to (poorly) articulate is the hunger for sacrificial blood and clout is stronger than a desire for understanding. And she is fucking right.
The Dave Chappelle didn’t stick exactly because of what Ringwald was worried about. Both sincere people and trolls (who were just trying to destroy the concept), pushed the idea of cancellation on everything. Right to the point where people started rolling their eyes when they heard it. So Chappelle’s controversy hit at a time when there was not enough energy to overtake the popularity of the person being offensive. So it fizzled. It’s not likely to build back up for a while now, because corporations and other groups have realized they can use cancel culture to generate hate responses that push sales. Look at what Warner Bros has done. Velma isn’t the end of the world, it’s basically just Drawn Together. But WB pushed hard to get people to freak out about it. And then the trolls and “own the libs” people watched it just to “own the libs”. And the people freaking out responded by hate watching it. Result = crazy ratings for a show that’s frankly just “ok”. A C+ at best. They did it again with Hogwart’s Legacy. They successfully leveraged the news of people protesting it in order to get a lot of folks in the “own the libs” crowd to play a game they would have skipped otherwise. You had streamers doing the game while yelling “yeah, fuck cancel culture”. And for what? A mediocre game that has a pretty backdrop but failed to be more than just a generic open world RPG?
Al Franken, for one.
I think she’s using the word in the curent sense that there are clearly elements on the left that have zero sense of perspective, and thus cause a lot of people to roll their eyes (her words) when they’re condemned as heavily by those elements as someone who is committing actual rape and assault (e.g. Weinstein). Cancellation means all-in regardless of the severity of the offense. It doesn’t mean that those people are prohibited from every working again, mostly because so many disagree with that kind of blanket reaction. I look at Win Butler as a current example. He has never been accused of doing anything illegal, just hooking up with young fans. Skeezy? Yeah, especially since he’s married to a bandmate. But around here he’s regularly labeled a predator and worse for doing the very thing rock stars (and every other category of celebrity) have been doing forever.
The Left? Really? So, the right trying to cancel Starbucks, Disney, Nike, Colin Kaepernick, James Gunn, and now Budweiser for stupid culture war reasons is even handed and reasonable?Or, as far as actual “perspective,” both sides are guilty of it.
No argument here, but in this case I’m speaking to the context of Ringwald’s comments. Best part is it never works, as it should be.
APOSTATE!
Why, my uncle Thumper had a problem with his apostate, and he had to take these big pills and drink lots of water.
The reference I didn’t know I needed today.
Casting Molly Ringwald was one of Riverdale’s best moves. They have rarely given her anything to do unfortunately
So, what why was it great if they’re not even using her properly? Sounds like the idea is interesting, but the actual execution sucked.
I liked it when she pulled a gun on those unsavories after the turkey exploded. That was a moment I did not know I needed but it changed me.
#metoo was all about exposing abuses and the systems that enable them to thrive. Add in the terminally online (a good portion of which are not terribly bright or well adjusted), and the “discourse” amongst the rabble became a fight over who could vent their respective id loudest. As it always fucking does.In real terms, the outright monsters (Weinsteins and R. Kellys of the world) will be raked over the coals and imprisoned for their crimes. The CKs and D’Elias of the world still have audiences, and they’ll likely continue to.And, as ever, “cancel culture” is just another catchphrase for the sort of social imposition/reinforcement/changing of mores that has occurred ever since two or more of our shit-chucking ancestors sat around a communal fire and one of them farted.
When we were kids and before the social construct was rebranded it was known as the Court of Public Opinion.
We need to expand the Court of Public Opinion to counteract decades of Republicans locking out justices appointed by Democratic administrations while rubber stamping those appointed by their own without proper review.
The AV Club We can never do things incrementally; we’re so binary, so all or nothing. We’re basically a bunch of puritans
Except when we’re mocking the puritans.
Heresy! Burn the witch!
“Leave us out of this” – Thom Yorke
Even if you truly believe in your heart of hearts that cancel culture has gone “too far,” it’s not new. The public has been fickle for decades and turned on people for saying or doing the “wrong” thing.When the Right complains about it, it’s hilarious to me because they cancelled Starbucks over red cups during the Holiday season.
The public has been fickle for decades and turned on people for saying or doing the “wrong” thing. Yep.Like, THIS IS WHY THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER IS A THING.
Sure, yeah. But just because mobs being mobs is endemic to the human condition doesn’t mean we can’t say “woah guys, maybe let’s be a bit reasonable and not start picking up the pitchforks quite so quickly all the time”.
Almost as if that’s why we have a justice system…Like, people being mad at you online doesn’t deprive you of liberty or employment.
Tell that to Justine Sacco (https://www.the-sun.com/news/3790849/who-justine-sacco-what-say-tweet). Yes, she’s back to work now, but a couple years penance seems rough for a dumb tweet.
Jon Runson’s got a great book on it, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.
She was fired from her role as Senior Director of Corporate Communications. Her tweet didn’t just display poor judgment on her part, it arguably rightfully called into question her ability to do her job. Plus as you say, she’s working now, so.
I find it remarkable that people consider it more reasonable to say that since someone is back their cancellation doesn’t count. As if the stress of being fired (to say nothing of the years of unemployment between jobs) doesn’t count for anything either.That’s exactly the all-or-nothing thinking that Ringwald is talking about in the article.
I have no idea what to tell you. Is she not the one who wrote an offensive tweet? Was she not a Senior Director of Corporate Communications? Should a senior director not be tweeting things that, if not actually racist, could easily be construed as racist because Twitter as a platform excels at removing context and intent?I’m not saying her cancellation doesn’t count because she’s working again; I’m saying that her firing made sense to me given what her role in the company was. I don’t know what else you want from me. All the stress from being fired could have been avoided if she hadn’t tweeted something so offensive. This time, it was a tweet and public humiliation. It easily could’ve been making a rude remark about the boss in front of the boss’ spouse at an office party. She’s responsible for her own actions.You’re asking if a couple years of unemployment seem harsh for an offensive tweet, as if that was a sentence handed down by a judge. Most people forgot about her after a couple weeks. But you’re suggesting that the Woke Mob that cancelled her worked to keep her unemployed for two years. For all the crying about cancel culture going too far, no one has put forth any solutions that aren’t some variation of “Stop getting offended so easily.” And even if I agreed with that, good luck convincing The Internet (or any large group of people) that their emotions are wrong and need to be changed.
“Stop getting offended so easily” is the prescription for just about all the complaints people have about current politics/culture/etc. I agree it’s a pipe dream, because there’s way too much money to be made in keeping people pissed all the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth saying from time to time.
Nah, just stop getting offended by people getting offended so easily.
Yes, she’s back to work nowSo, she wasn’t actually cancelled then. DC just gave James Gunn the keys to their superhero movie kingdom. So he wasn’t canceled either.How does this help your argument?
The idea that “anything less than eternal, permanent consequences means you weren’t really punished” is what you seem to be implying, and that is just a painfully stupid take.
The statement was that being cancelled doesn’t deprive you of employment. It didn’t have a time limit on it.
Do you think it should only be called being “cancelled” if it’s a life sentence… in which case, you think that’s the more reasonable position?
How long is the proper amount of time to deprive someone of their income as a response to a dumb joke? (An admittedly offensive, ill-advised, and unfunny joke, but a dumb joke nonetheless). Consider all the dumb things you’ve said without thinking in your life, because we’ve all done it. Being fired is a stressful event in and of itself.
Now think about how many weeks, months, or years you could go without work. How long would it be before the stress you felt went far, far beyond any damage done to anyone who heard the stupid thing you said. I’m guessing days, let alone years.
Who is saying any of this other than you trying to pivot?You brought up Justine Sacco, who was able to find a new and better paying job again.You brought up James Gunn, who was also able find a new and better job again as well. Whether or not it took them a long time to recover is not relevant, QED, they were not actually “cancelled.” They found gainful employment.
Killa K literally said: “people being mad at you online doesn’t deprive you of liberty or employment”, so that’s “who’s saying it” for one. I attempted to demonstrate that people do quite literally get deprived of employment on account of people being mad at them on line. As for relevancy, it’s only “not relevant” if you ignore the time (be that weeks, months, or years) that it very much mattered to the person being “cancelled”. Or if the stance is that we’re only worried about effects in the extreme long term, then sure, I guess it’s not relevant.If the only goal is punishment and not correction/education, then sure, I guess it doesn’t matter much either whether it took her two days or two years to get another job.
But if we’re supposed to be thoughtful people who make measured decisions (which I would hope is everyone’s goal), then I’d say maybe having the response be equal to the offense is worth considering, and whether or not, for example, a couple years of ostracization is an appropriate response for a dumb joke.
But they are not actually deprived of employment or “canceled” which is the point here that you keep intentionally missing. She got a new job again and did not suffer any real or serious punishment for what she said which is Killa K’s point. If she never was able to get a new job ever again and was wallowing in poverty, then you’d have a case, but that did not actually happen did it? She’s now the COO of a major dating site. Seems like her new employers were probably well aware of who she was and did and didn’t care. So, no not ever deprived of employment. Your attempts to use the “what about the in between period when they aren’t working” is a red herring. Especially when its usually the person intentionally drops out of the public eye and stays unemployed for a while to wait for the outrage to die down and for things to blow over, before resurfacing again, which is what Justine, Aziz Ansari, Mel Gibson, and etc. did.
I’m not intentionally missing anything. I’m quite intentionally disputing the definitions you are using.You said, “Not ever deprived of employment”. Two years is a long time to define as “not ever”, and it’s also a long time to define as not “real” or not “serious punishment”. And yes, it’s probably not that big a deal (financially) for someone like Ansari or Gibson. But even someone working decently high in the corporate world is going to have a hard time coming back financially from two years of unemployment, before you even talk about how stressful that situation is. Maybe you think none of that should matter, maybe you think it’s a punishment fitting the offense. I disagree, and I doubt we’re going to close the daylight between us at this point.
Most “regular people” don’t have the money to keep paying their bills for a couple of years if they lose their job over a dumb tweet.
“Regular person” Justine Sacco among others was able to find an even better paying job after she lost her previous job over a dumb tweet. So, try again.
It absolutely does. Most cancelled people are cancelled because there is a furor online, and because Twitter still seems to hold a disproportionate influence over the cultural landscape.
Well that’s the thing, right? Conservatives have been doing this forever (though their boycotts tend to fail because they usually do something stupid like buy the product so they can shoot it or blow it up). The new thing is that the left is doing it now too, only they don’t really realize that it’s still sometimes ridiculous (see: James Gunn).
James Gunn was “cancelled” by an alt-right troll, not the left. He subsequently got re-hired and is now a co-studio head at a different company.So.
Sinead O’Conner and disco being my favorite examples of this.
What about james gunn? The “left” didn’t cancel him. At all. He didn’t get cancelled, and ultimately got what he wanted, and increased pay with Marvel, and a better paying job at DC.
No one was boycotting James Gunn, they were just crapping on him for being unapologetically crap.I will say that the reflexive anti-current on the left of douchey dudes with questionable political histories and histories of bad behavior with women led to some really bizarre moments like MovieBob and Cenk Uygur demanding no one read James Gunn’s tweets because it was giving in to the political right. Or downright making up and spreading revisionist histories on behalf of James Gunn that covered up his repeated behavior by taking one apology he made before the behavior and pretending he made the apology after the behavior (I suppose to make people think he wasn’t a repeat offender with no self control).Like… James Gunn is a guy who makes mediocre action movies (and also, admittedly, the exceptional The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker) and takes credit for other peoples’ work who has a large fanbase and some very good Hollywood friends. He was never some superhero of the left.
I would say that it stretches further back than decades, more like centuries, even longer, probably. As long as there have been societies.The difference now is that our modern technology allows us to amplify these human tendencies with terrifying speed and reach. We can collectively make someone globally infamous in a matter of minutes, and that is power is often wielded like a chimp with a machine gun.
dude, the 90s are full of the right cancelling everything in sight that went against their “morals.”
Yup. And now they’re cancelling Bud Light, all because they gave some to a trans influencer for free. So stupid. I’d like to see some talking heads go on cable news and ridicule the Right for taking cancel culture too far.
The Bud Light thing was less about the trans woman designer can (which few if any people would have heard about, it was the brand director doubling down insulting the company’s customer base. The implication that the people who currently consume lots of pisswater beer are not a desirable market (aside from being the largest possible customer base, BTW) was an idiotic unforced error. First rule is you don’t show contempt for your customer.
Bud Light has been losing ground to other beers, such as craft beers and Modelo and Michelob Ultra, as well as to spirits, for quite some time now. It’s looking for new customers wherever it can find them. “The reality is much more simple — it’s that the white male customer who used to drink a lot of Bud Light doesn’t anymore, and Bud Light has no choice but to find people who do,” [VinePair beer columnist and publisher of the drinks newsletter Fingers, Dave] Infante said. “There’s just no growth for Bud Light in its traditional core audience the way it used to have and used to be able to rely on.”https://www.vox.com/money/2023/4/12/23680135/bud-light-boycott-dylan-mulvaney-travis-tritt-trans
they tried to cancel Judas Priest, Twisted Sister and damn near every rapper ever too.
The major difference is we haven’t had social media for decades, where tides of sentiment are swift and far-reaching. But I post this at least once a week – I have no idea why people in positions of authority are so afraid of social media. A few thousand people bitching is absolutely nothing in the actual scheme of things.
The major difference is we haven’t had social media for decades, where tides of sentiment are swift and far-reaching.And just as swiftly fade away.
Cancel culture is just “boycotting,” “blacklisting,” “shaming,” and “political correctness” wrapped in the gauzey novelty of black phrasing that the political right adores.The whole of all Republican victim cosplay is just this: “Black people have a word for a thing, black people are the most far left ethnicity, black people hate us the most, so everything that comes out of their mouths is social contagion that needs to be brutally fought regardless of whether we actually know what it means.”Just slap black terminology on a thing you don’t like and wait for white people to have heated debates over whether the Republicans have a point because it’s a thing you just learned about that is actually just a normal thing you were already doing.
“Some people have been unfairly canceled”
Nobody. Has. Been. Canceled.
Ringwald makes lot of sense and so does the summation of her article in this article.
Everyone involved with some of those racist, rapey John Hughes movies had just better hope cancel culture is not a thingNot the lovely Molly Ringwald, I hold her blameless
hey Molly – who, SPECIFICALLY, do you think was unfairly canceled? because if you are not willing to name names so that we can evaluate the point you think you are making, you should SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
“What it ends up doing is make people roll their eyes. That’s my worry…. I do want things to change, for real. Workplaces should be places where everyone can feel safe—not just in Hollywood, but everywhere. Particularly Americans. We can never do things incrementally; we’re so binary, so all or nothing. We’re basically a bunch of puritans.”I think she’s more or less spot on here. We weaken what we exaggerate, and the Extremely Online and the Perpetual Outrage Machine exhaust otherwise reasonable people who would listen to genuine grievances. It’s given cover for “both sides” bullshit journalism. It’s enabled the fascists, sociopaths, and grifters in the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party to point to extreme examples and convince the rubes that vote for them that the “Woke Left” has nothing to offer but over-the-top ridiculous claims and demands. Meanwhile, the fascists, sociopaths, and grifters continue to move the Overton Window further and further to the far right and wage their war of regression.
I think she’s more or less spot on here. We weaken what we exaggerate, and the Extremely Online and the Perpetual Outrage Machine exhaust otherwise reasonable people who would listen to genuine grievances. Yep, this. They look at a bunch of idiots taking barely-literate whacks at each other online, and say “fuck it, #teamnoone.” Which is not an excuse, BTW. Ideally, “on the fence” adults would be able to make a fucking decision or choose a principle independent of the rabble. But, hey, here we are.
Honestly I’m not sure (as a card carrying member of team noone) the online rabble has anything to do with it anymore.
The fundamental problem right now is both sides are ultimately swung in a populist direction that seems largely economically and geopolitically illiterate. When I look at the major branches of government, it’s obvious that the partisanship has gone on too long and fully rotted the institutions because the wings aren’t cleaning up their own houses. We can look at the Feinstein situation for example In the Supreme Court, we appear to have open corruption. In Congress, they don’t pass any laws nor really do the people’s business in a way that prepares the United States for any of the real threats coming up. And the President, neither Biden nor Trump have really shown any discipline in the realms of budgeting, the Fed, or geopolitics. There’s nothing going on right now that wasn’t predictable – China’s been on this track since 2012, the economic history of superheated economies is… predictable, and Social Security/Medicare hasn’t changed appreciably from the 90’s when it was punted last time,
Our choice seems to be down to “Christian Nationalists or No?” And yea, I’m not a Christian Nationalist, but that that leaves a hell of a lot of things that almost anyone who could speak competently about might have a hell of a lot more support in general elections from this group that right now is sort of stuck to two out of control cars.
What’s been exaggerated?
The uproar over James Gunn comes to mind.
You whiffed that once already, but let me guess: “Ok, maybe that’s not a real example but that’s exactly the KIND of thing t h e y do.”
To me, exaggerated implies no malice. James Gunn was absolutely the target of some alt-Right thug trying to score BS culture war points: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/james-gunn-alt-right-marvel-film-director-tweets
True, but James Gunn arguably made out better because of the attempted cancellation.
DC and WB picked him up to do The Suicide Squad after Disney fired him. Disney later rehires him to do GOTG 3, and because DC and WB are a bit of a shitshow (but they trust Gunn because he’s pretty good at this shit), they make him co-CEO and co-Chairman of DC Studios.
The fact is it’s unlikely that Disney allows him to direct a film for a competitor, so if he doesn’t get bounced, The Suicide Squad either doesn’t happen (or happens with a different writer/director at a later time), or him becoming the co-CEO and co-Chairman of DC Studios is an impossibility because he’d still be contracted with Disney in some way (and think about his role in Peacemaker and Coyote vs. Acme, all of which came about before his promotion to co-CEO and co-Chairman of DC Studios; those jobs don’t happen unless he does The Suicide Squad).
The uproar over James Gunn comes to mind.Maybe so, but uproar without outcomes is just…noise.
In terms of career impact, what did he lose? Nothing. In fact, he joined the DCEU, is now the co-CEO and co-Chairman of DC Studios, and Disney ended up bringing him back to direct GoTG 3. Even though Disney bounced him, he was back in less than a year, and in the meantime? He joined the DCEU and did The Suicide Squad. So you can’t really say you’re cancelled when another large entity within the same industry is willing to bend-over-backwards to scoop you up.
And noise is at least a symptom of the problem, because it distracts and dilutes from the impact of trying to cancel actual bad actors, because people just get fatigued about the whole thing. (Which admittedly, was probably the end goal of the troll who started the whole thing, but that doesn’t mean the concept doesn’t hold true for times it happens organically rather than maliciously/intentionally).
You haven’t said anything of value in any of your comments.
Lol the meaningless shit celebrities worry about.
Oh my sweet stupid baby do you realize where you are?
I think when people say someone was cancelled, what really happened is that they caught a lot of flack and bad press. Thats all. The only one I can think of who really seems to be cancelled is Kevin Spacey.
And that same Kevin Spacey just got some kind of lifetime achievement award in Italy, so that’s “cancelled,” apparently? All he has to do is lie low for a bit and he’ll have a comeback just like Mel Gibson did. And all Armie Hammer has to do is say he had a sex addiction and is getting treatment and he’ll be back in roles tomorrow.
Spacey really don’t seem to be working at all in the US. I would also add that while Louis CK can do standup, it’s not comparable to what he could do prior to his downfall.
Not for now, but Mel Gibson didn’t work for a while either. Kevin Spacey also raped a kid. Time off will do him good, but there’s no reason to believe he won’t be able to come back after a while.As for Louis CK, so what? That’s not being “cancelled.” He’s still working, and just because fewer people are interested in his comedy doesn’t mean he’s been “cancelled.” No one is owed an audience. And if you’re a pretty unrepentant sex pest you can expect your audience numbers might take a hit.
People are interested in his comedy, which is why they’ll watch his standup (in-person). It’s larger organizations that can’t touch him, hence my note about cancellation being something a network does.
But that’s not “cancelled” as in “cancel culture.” That’s business. They’ve decided that the PR hit is greater than what they’d gain from hosting him. They can’t be called the same thing if they don’t mean the same thing. Experiencing logical repercussions from reprehensible behavior is not being “cancelled.”
I think we’d need to better define the parameters of “cancel culture” before we can definitively say whether that example is inside.
Exactly. It has no definition. It’s not a real thing. I’ll leave making up a definition to you because I don’t see the value in such an exercise.
How can you say that a specific instance is not cancellation if you don’t know what cancellation means?
Because the reason I don’t know what cancellation means is that it doesn’t mean anything. There are people on here saying someone was cancelled because they experienced a few weeks of bad press. If that’s “cancelled,” then most celebrities have been “cancelled” at one point or another.
By large organizations, you must mean the Grammys?
An interesting example since awards shows are determined by votes, and anonymous voters can’t be held responsible for said votes. I was referring to how he previously had TV shows and standup specials so that one could see him outside a live context, and he had made a movie which got picked up for distribution by The Orchard, who then declined to actually distribute it.
Louis CK is a great example. He was at the very top of his career. Prestige TV shows, guest on everything, media constantly asking for his opinion on stuff. Then, boom, cancelled. I mean, he WAS cancelled but:1. he deserved it2. he wasn’t “cancelled;” he was cancelled. Meaning he got himself in trouble and the court of public opinion decided they didn’t want to buy what he was selling anymore. No one is interested in his opinion anymore and no one is offering him prestige TV shows. He puts out specials but they aren’t on any streaming platform. His YouTube appearances are limited to roundtable sessions with acolytes. So, yeah he was cancelled. But, he deserved it (I’m as big a fan of Louis CK as any). This is totally fair and understandable and should have been expected. I’m sure he knew he was on borrowed time. It may have been a better strategy to just cop to it from the start. He or others can not like it all they want but that’s what happens to people who get a reputation for jerking off in front of their co-workers. They tend to have difficulty in the future with employment. The Justine Sacco case above is a more useful example. I don’t think she was treated fairly at all. Her an others. Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” mentioned above is a good look at this. Cancel culture isn’t a thing but people have been cancelled for good and bad reasons. It is a thing. It has happened to people who didn’t deserve it. But apart from Jon Ronson I can’t think of anyone who has done an adequate job of discussing this including Molly Ringwald.
Louis CK is a somewhat unique example because he’s always acknowledged he’s a kind of fucked-up individual and owning that jerking off in front of people into plants is precisely the type of thing he’d do.
Comedians are weird in that they try to have their cake and eat it too. They make these jokes about themselves which can seem to be revealing but then claim that their on-stage persona isn’t really them. Fair enough except there are often themes, through-lines, motifs, etc. Louis CK constantly makes jokes about what a miserable sleaze bag he is. It turns out those were more than “just jokes.” Again, I don’t REALLY know Louis CK but it sure did seem like some self-sabotaging was going on there.
And for a long time they could (and many would argue that due to the nature of their craft, should still be able to) because it was part and parcel with their act. Comedians have long been considered kind of tortured.Setting aside CK’s…unique…actions, I’m not sure there will ever be a mutually satisfactory answer to how far a comedian can now go onstage in the interests of being transgressive or provocative as part of the act. There’s tons of pushback against Chappelle and the like, but it sure isn’t hurting their box office with the broader public. Many of the classic comedians became renowned precisely by making audiences uncomfortable.
See, I agree with you generally, but I just don’t consider that being “cancelled.” People deciding they no longer enjoy your work isn’t being cancelled, is it? That happens to celebrities all the time whether they committed a sex crime or not. He suffered fair (some would say not severe enough!) consequences for his admitted behavior. That can’t be what Ringwald was referring to when she said people are getting “swept up” and “unfairly cancelled” and wrongly lumped in with Harvey Weinstein.
No it isn’t. We agree. I was just trying to be clever. It’s not cancelled. It’s consequences. They both begin with c.
well europe is weird. They always supported Roman Polanski, too. In the US his career seems to be dead, but i admit yeas maybe he could come back someday.
I mean, Polanski fled the country because he was facing charges, so it’s hard to carry on a career in a country that you can’t come to. Plus according to imdb he’s been working pretty steadily regardless, and he’s like 90 years old so a comeback is probably unlikely but only because he’s about to die.
This is definitely one of the dumber things i’ve seen written today.
you dont read your own comments then, i guess, because for today yours definitely wins.
Wow and you’re unfunny too – shocking.
No, youre just an asshole, not shocking at all.
Some of Kevin Spacey’s victims came out in the press and did not stay anonymous. So you had these identifiable people supporting the claims, which were that he had a gay attraction to underage boys. This was also around when people were realizing that American Beauty wasn’t very good
“But, again, a lot of people have gotten swept up in ‘cancellation’”Name one.“Some people have been unfairly canceled”Name one.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/
Paywall.
Internet Archive! Just plug in the link on internet archive and it will not have the paywall block.
Maybe Al Franken?
That one I’m almost willing to give you, though he could have chosen not to resign.
Depp didn’t resign. He was fired from PotC. And we he started to come back on the “Fantastic Beast”, Amber put out an op-ed about her “abuse” and got him fired there too.
I was responding to a comment about Al Franken.
Heard didn’t even mention him in the oped. He got fired from Potc due to drunkenness and an inability to remember his lines. It was him suing The Sun that really got him into trouble.
Johnny Depp: He lost every Hollywood movie role, including new Pirates of the Caribbean films, because his violent, abusive ex-wife lied and told everyone SHE was was the one being abused.It took a lawsuit, with hours of recordings of her admitting violence and being insane and abusive, and her blatantly lying on the stand, to PARTIALLY clear his name.
His violent, abusive ex-wife was being abused. He hit her too. They were both behaving badly. He has now explained to everyone that he was also being abused, and he’ll be back to doing big roles sooner rather than later, and was working throughout that period. So if your definition of “cancelled” is “having a temporary stint of underemployment,” then yes he was “cancelled.”
As far as anyone can verify, Depp never actually hit her.-Her only semi-verifiable “injuries” were a headbutt (an easy accident) and a kick that Heard admitted didn’t hurt her.-Whereas she threw pots and pans at him periodically (witnessed), admitted throwing punches and starting fights on tape and to a therapist, and even cut off this finger and left him to bleed out for hours (at one point putting out a cigarette on him.)Not a very good “both sides were abusive” example.
I don’t know much about it and I’m not on anyone’s side but didn’t a British court find him guilty of hitting her? Presumably based on some evidence.Although maybe not.
Just once I want to see one of these “canceled” people go back to school in middle age so they can get a real job, instead of continuing to work in very slightly less rockstar versions of the same positions in the same industry.
He was canceled into doing those weird-ass cologne commercials.
Haha, you trash.
It’s always interesting watching someone who’s swallowed Depp’s story whole-heartedly when he’s a lying piece of shit who should be in prison.
Depp was losing roles before Heard ever said anything about him because of his own behaviour.
I remember there was some actress who took part in a pageant when she was a teenager and that pageant and said pageant used to be pretty racist about 20 years before the actress took part in it. AV Club reported it in such a way that made it sound like the actress was partaking in a racist pageant and should be….shamed…embarrassed….”cancelled”….for some event she went to as a teenager that had already changed when she attended it.
I think that is what Mollie Ringwald is talking about. Sites like this one and many others trying to dig deep for some embarrassing non story about people to say “shame on this person” while removing all nuance about it
That was Ellie Kemper, and the ball wasn’t just racist “about 20 years before” she took part in it. It continued to use racist imagery, even though the ban on non-white participants had been lifted in 1979.Regardless, why are you bringing this up? She got some bad press on AVClub two years ago (where, as I recall, the very vast majority of commenters were tripping over themselves to defend her) and continues to work? Is that your definition of “cancelled”? If “cancelled” means getting a little bit of bad press while still riding on the wave of positive popular opinion sign me up for cancellation, please.
The reason I bought it up is that she didn’t get “cancelled” but the article itself was written in such a way of saying “look at this disgusting thing this person has done, let it be a stain on them”. Looking at the article and the comments beneath it, it looked like a lot of people took note of what AV Club and other outlets were trying to do.
Again, the way I interpret what Ringwald is saying above it isn’t that actual predators and terrible people have stopped getting work, it is also that people that may have done something questionable in their past are now getting lumped in with those terrible people. Someone’s questionable tweet from 20 years ago resurfacing now, someone’s terribly dated stand up routine from the 90’s etc etc. Have these people been fully “cancelled”? Not really, though not for a lack of trying (just look at the bad faith attack of James Gunn for his tasteless jokes years ago).
It also let’s people get that hit of smug appeasement when someone says “I really like [X] and gets the reply “oh you mean that bad person who did something bad”.
“she didn’t get “cancelled””All you needed to say.
Okay so we agree that she didn’t get cancelled, which is my entire thesis.“it is also that people that may have done something questionable in their past are now getting lumped in with those terrible people.”Is your understanding that people think of Ellie Kemper in the same breath with Harvey Weinstein?
Literally everything you’re saying is what Molly was speaking on. For some reason Sheep is playing dumb.
Plus Ellie Kemper unequivocally rejected the folks who were white knighting her and sided with the people who criticized her for participating.
Exactly, and the same thing happened with Billie Eilish. I forgot what her controversy was but some video of a teenager of her saying or doing something racist. She owned up to it, she was like yeah that was fucked up and racist and I’m sorry, and now she’s fine? Just like Ellie Kemper is fine.
No, I think it’s their example of people being “unfairly swept up in (attempted) cancellation”.Which it sounds like you agree with. It was an attempt by websites like this one to join a bandwagon and have the next hottest celeb take down… all for ad revenue.
Or, it’s an example of a website that sensationalizes ever nonsense thing on the internet sensationalizing something on the internet, and I see we agree that she was not actually “cancelled.”
Mother fucker I never said she was. We are talking about examples of people getting unfairly dragged into ATTEMPTS. That is literally what the original person you decided to fucking argue with was saying.
Why are we talking about that…mother fucker (since we’re namecalling now)? That’s not what the article is about, and that’s not what my original comment is about. Why are you choosing to talk about something that’s not what anyone else is talking about? Well I guess you and Lakdam wanted to talk about it. Why don’t you talk to him since you two are on the same subject. My comment is that people aren’t being cancelled. People who someone “attempted” (says you) to “cancel” don’t establish that people were cancelled, so I don’t even know what you want me to respond to that. Don’t namecall me because I was talking about a different subject.
I’m literally responding to you shit talking lakdam. They were talking about it. It was a subject that Molly herself mentioned (being dragged into nonexistent controversy, “attempted” cancellation). She mentioned it. Lakdam touched on it. You cried about how it doesn’t happen. Then you admitted websites like this *do* perpetuate these nonexistent attempts for clout/ clicks.Now you’re saying no one was talking about it.“People who someone “attempted” (says you) to “cancel” don’t establish that people were cancelled”Also, I know you’re clearly fucking stupid and have major reading comprehension skills despite coming off as some arrogant know it all cunt, but no – this is not a “says I”. This is what was explained to you by me, since you didn’t seem to understand what Lakdam was extrapolating from Molly’s own words IN THE ARTICLE.And no shit Ellie Kemper not getting cancelled doesn’t establish that she was cancelled. What the fuck kind of smoothbrained fucking sentence is that? The whole point was that people (this website included) rallied behind trying to paint her as some southern belle prom queen racist(for ad revenue), which you already agreed with in your own words.It’s almost as if you literally either don’t have a point, or didn’t understand what was being talked about.
Okay, great! You agree with Lakdam that Ellie Kemper wasn’t cancelled. I agree with Lakdam and Ellie Kemper wasn’t cancelled. I agree with you that Ellie Kemper wasn’t cancelled! I’m glad we’re all on the same page regarding that, and since that was my original and only thesis, for the life of me I can’t imagine what you’re still going on about.“The whole point was that people (this website included) rallied behind trying to paint her as some southern belle prom queen racist(for ad revenue), which you already agreed with in your own words.”And this, well this is just a bald-faced lie. I never said anything of the sort. First of all, there was no “(this website included)“ in my comment. I referred to this website only, not some nebulous “people.” And I didn’t say “(for ad revenue).” “For ad revenue wasn’t an afterthought or parenthetical in my comments. It was the point. I said that this website engaged in sensationalism to get clicks, which it always does about any subject. I never said it was “attempting to cancel” Ellie Kemper (which is what your previous comments said), or was trying to “paint her” as anything. It put together groups of words to drive clicks and engagement, which was effective since, as I said, you folks were tripping all over yourselves to defend her in the comments. This website didn’t give a shit whether she was “cancelled” or not. It didn’t give a shit if she was “painted” as anything or not. It wanted to get you talking, which it did. If anything it created an environment in which she was more popular and supported than she ever was before.But carry on with the namecalling. It makes you look very mature and it makes your points, such as they are, much stronger. Everyone agrees with you now and thinks you’re cool.
“I said that this website engaged in sensationalism to get clicks, which it always does about any subject.”This is somehow different from generating clickbait for ad revenue.You’re so far up your own ass it’s hilarious.I sincerely hope you consider suicide.
“I sincerely hope you consider suicide.”The fact that saying that out loud to a person made you feel good about yourself… bless your heart. 🙁 The misery inside you…what I truly hope is that you find a way past it someday.
And I truly hope you get fucked and die.
You’re in luck. I can guarantee you both of those things will happen.
Lindsay Ellis.
Whenever anyone puts scare quotes around Cancel Culture or says that it doesn’t really work, it always seems to come with the tacit suggestion that they really wish that it *would.* Which then seems to indicate that it *is* actually a culture of thought. “Cancel Culture isn’t real” is the online left’s version of climate change denial on the right. Plenty of observable evidence that it’s happening and yet a steadfast refusal to accept that it is, and an even greater refusal to accept responsibility for it. Yes famous people who have been cancelled continue to find some work, or retain some of their fanbase, but I can’t think of anyone whose careers and reputations have not been significantly altered. Louis CK is still touring and selling tickets but he probably will never be in a major tv show or movie again, and his name will always come with an asterisk next to it with a link to an article about sexual misconduct (I am NOT making a case for or against this, I am just stating it as observable fact). To suggest that he’s suffered no material consequences is just flat out absurd. This past week Ali Wong and Steven Yuen were shouted at until they released a statement about *someone else* and I saw plenty of people screaming about how they shouldn’t be given any kind of support or platform again as long as they remained friends with Choe. And I think that’s where all of this is most fucked, the idea that cancellation should radiate out to the friends and family of the accused and pressure them to abandon their loved one. Abuse is not solved by cancellation and someone is certainly not changed for the better by isolating them from their means of support. Efforts to change patterns abuse and misconduct are necessary but painting someone with a scarlet letter and making a spectacle out of their shame helps no one in the long run.
“Yes famous people who have been cancelled continue to find some work”So which means that they have not actually been cancelled then right? That negates the whole tl;dr of your rant.
It does not. Not really. Cancel culture is a real thing.There’s an element of online discourse that is basically dumpster diving for anything to pin on someone and trash them. Many manu times it is deserved. Sometimes it’s way exaggerated (like with Ellie Kemper). But there is a culture or movement. I guess “trying to cancel culture” doesn’t quite have the same ring
If it’s a “real thing” then cite an example of someone being “canceled” as in career completely ruined, no work and never heard from ever again. Not gonna hold my breath for this answer. You will predictably reply back with insults and attacks.
“Insults and attacks?” Where the hell did that even come from?
So do you actually have any examples of someone being totally canceled or no?
I think this is a bit obtuse. I said that they often continue to find *some* work but it is usually not at the level they once were at. Someone working part-time at a McDonald’s is not the same as running a fine restaurant. But you’re missing the point and kind of proving mine – the point is not that people are or aren’t permanently, irreversibly cancelled, never to be heard from ever again. Cancel Culture is the *desire* for this to be the punishment. It is the moral policing of strangers and the thirst for the spectacle of shame that exist widely on the Internet. Whether or not it is fully successful in utterly destroying a person’s life and reputation is besides the point, it’s that the belief that this is justified and righteous (and FUN) that is Cancel Culture.Rape Culture (which I also believe is a real thing) encompasses a wide variety of behaviors that are completely aside from a physical rape. Jokes about rape, normalization of boundary-crossing in media, shaming girls for dressing certain ways instead of the boys that harass them, etc – none of these are an actual, physical act of rape but fall under the spectrum of behavior that is Rape Culture. So too with Cancel Culture, it is the proliferation of behavior and beliefs and not necessarily someone being fully removed from public life.
“I think this is a bit obtuse. I said that they often continue to find *some* work but it is usually not at the level they once were at.”It’s not obtuse, it’s pretty direct and straightforward. No one is truly “canceled.” Mel Gibson got nominated for an Oscar and is directing and acting in Hollywood productions again. Aziz Ansari won a Golden Globe and Emmy the same year of the allegations. James Gunn just got a multi billion dollar comic book film franchise to play with. To say that “usually not at the level they once were at” is nonsense. There are plenty of examples, most notoriously Woody Allen, Hugh Grant, RDJ, and Roman Polanski, where they not only not canceled, but they get even more accolades.
“Cancel Culture is the *desire* for this to be the punishment.”
“none of these are an actual, physical act of rape but fall under the spectrum of behavior that is Rape Culture”This and that entire paragraphs is where you are being the obtuse one here to feed some victimhood nonsense and are showing your true colors. Are you seriously suggesting that people like Mel Gibson and Louis CK should be continued to be taken seriously after what they did and their phony apologies? You realize that people “desire” them to be perma canceled because they truly did say and do some awful things? Are you saying that being openly racist or antisemitic, present or past, or using your celebrity status to prey on men and women shouldn’t be punished somehow? That black people for example will want to continue work with and pay to see Mel Gibson or Michael Richards after they caught on tape openly saying the N-word?
Drop the bad faith veneer here and tell what you’re really going on about here?
Friend, you are ascribing arguments and motives to me that I have not said, and so you are the one acting in bad faith. I am of course not advocating for an anything-goes, excuse-everything approach where people get off scot-free no matter what, and it’s insane to think I would be. Weinstein, R Kelly, Spacey, Cosby, et al – punishments well deserved for heinous behavior. And I think that anyone who is making social environments, work or otherwise, unsafe for people deserve to be accountable for that behavior and be removed from that environment. I *also* happen to think that people are complex and it’s possible for them to reflect on their behavior, go to therapy, make amends, fix whatever is broken within themselves that causes them to act in harmful ways, and that – in general, not necessarily absolute – we should allow them the space to improve, and not believe that once a bad guy necessarily equals always a bad guy. And so I don’t think that removal always has to be permanent (or desired to be). The *amount* of work that needs to be done I think varies from person to person and the severity of their transgressions, and I think that someone like Weinstein is unlikely to settle his considerable bill in the time he has left. Many people online seem to be unable to accept that a lot of this work might go on in private away from the spotlight and not publicly performed on Twitter. I’ve seen countless people speculate that vilified celebs are just sitting back and cynically waiting for it to pass, or actively still harmful, or whatever, and they don’t know a fucking thing about it. The David Choe stuff from last week was nuts with people harassing Wong and Yuen and condemning them for being friends with Choe – I’m able to consider that perhaps two longtime close friends of someone may know what he has or hasn’t done to better himself than a bunch of internet randos. (incidentally I am no fan of Choe). Everyone is free to make up their own mind and so if you feel that public apologies are inadequate then that’s your right, and you don’t have to support anyone who you feel hasn’t made the sufficient amends. You never have to watch a Mel Gibson movie ever again if you don’t want to. But that’s not what most people online do – they yell at everyone else to coerce them into holding the same opinion. That’s Cancel Culture.(And I’m completely leaving aside everything outside of celebrity sexual misconduct – there’s so many regular people who have had the Internet mob fuck them up for their supposed transgressions – Justine Sacco, Bean Dad, the West Elm fuckboy guy – there is an undeniable thirst and zeal for piling on someone, humiliating them, trying to get them fired, it happens over and over and with increasing frequency. That’s Cancel Culture too.)
Justine Sacco, Bean Dad, the West Elm fuckboy guy are all happily employed and working again as is Mel Gibson, Aziz Ansari, etc, etc, which is the point that keeps sailing over your head over and over when you keep making your bad faith arguments and imagined and exaggerated victimhood complaints. A small but loud minority on the internet that the media amplifies for a short cycle of a second do not actually cancel anyone. And it’s interesting how none of you can actually provide an example of someone getting completely and actually “cancelled” on par with the HUAC blacklisting of the 1950s where their livelihoods are completely destroyed, and they can’t ever work ever again, mainly because it doesn’t and never ever happens. You seem to be more angered by Twitter and internet mobs than the actual act of cancelling someone because they legit wronged people and that’s typical conservative pap.
Caroline Flack maybe?I wish you would tone down the aggression as I have only been polite to you, even if I disagree.MY point is that Cancel Culture exists outside of someone getting utterly permanently destroyed, mainly in the attitudes of people who wish that it *would* have this effect. The fact that people haven’t been eliminated entirely doesn’t negate the fact that people try to make it happen, and vocally. Anyway, I’m out.
I wish you would tone down the aggression Best of luck with that. Won’t happen.
People trying to make it happen versus it actually happening are two very different things and not a good argument and what I literally said to you when I said “A small but loud minority on the internet that the media amplifies for a short cycle of a second do not actually cancel anyone.” But sure, cut and run because you don’t actually have an argument to make other than reverse grievance politics.
Why do you keep coming back to whether someone is successfully consigned to oblivion forever as the *only* measure of whether the culture exists? That’s ludicrous. An attempted murderer doesn’t get off because their defense is “what? They’re still here, walking around, unmurdered! they’re fine!” Intention of the act is considered. Anyway, fuck. Out for real this time. I hope you do something nice for yourself today.
Because you keep coming back to this “internet mob” ruins and “cancels people”” without any kind of real example of that actually happening other than what you imagine and exaggerate as you don’t seem to want to accept that it never has happened. So yes, cut and run with your false beliefs while you accuse others of doing the same while calling my arguments “obtuse” under the passive aggressive guise of “politeness.”
While I truly am envious of whatever life you have that affords you the ability of prioritizing arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet, sadly I have no such luxury and must “cut and run” – i.e. get on with literally every other more important thing I have to attend today.
You keep saying that, but yet you keep replying back, behaving in the same “aggressive behavior” you were complaining about earlier?So which is it? Actually debate and accept that your arguments were flimsy, or keep with the passive aggressive “i’m out” only to return with more attacks and insults? Sounds to me that you aren’t as busy as you claim to be.
But that’s not what most people online do – they yell at everyone else to coerce them into holding the same opinion. That’s Cancel Culture. Nah, that’s the validation trap.We’ve apparently decided that lack of online validation is tantamount to excommunication or banishment. It isn’t.If some fuckhead wants to yell at me for consuming/not consuming media that I decide to consume/not consume, that person can be disregarded, no matter how loud they are. Because, again, they’re a fuckhead. I don’t need or have any use for their validation in any case. Because, once more, they’re a fuckhead. They want to escalate that to credible death threats or doxxing? Different matter, potentially state and/or Federal level.
“pendulum swing”*sigh* Oh no. *.7 seconds of reading later* Yep.
I don’t think a Harvey Weinstein situation could exist now.Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child…
Some things have changed, sure, but I don’t believe for a second that all the quid pro quo stuff has disappeared from Hollywood. Weinstein is a monster, but there are still plenty of them in Hollywood, and Hollywood has a history of protecting them. There are countless production executives and the like who aren’t nearly as powerful as Weinstein was, and who were not/are not public names, who have participated in plenty of awful behavior.