Rowan Atkinson fails to read the room, shares thoughts on "cancel culture"
Aux Features Rowan Atkinson
We’re only five days into 2021 and the news cycle has already reached a certain level of repetitiveness: After one man loosely associated to beans actively chose to spout utter garbage on Twitter for no discernable reason, another Mr. Bean—character actor Rowan Atkinson—proved that he, too, could shirk silence against his better judgment. In an interview with U.K. outlet Radio Times (as reported by Variety), Atkinson turned what could have been a fairly productive conversation about toxic pockets of online culture into more commentary on long-fabled “cancel culture”: “The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.’”
He continues: “It’s important that we’re exposed to a wide spectrum of opinion, but what we have now is the digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn. So it is scary for anyone who’s a victim of that mob and it fills me with fear about the future.”
Atkinson, to his credit, doesn’t cite any specific examples of this recent “mob-ish” behavior. (Though the neverending, transphobic saga of J.K. Rowling is certainly the easiest to access here.) Still, he joins a chorus of privileged public figures who have felt a need to speak out against this maligned “cancel culture”—which tends to actually consist of marginalized communities speaking out against sustained, systemic abuse while having their words mischaracterized as a “witch hunt,” dreaded “cancellation,” or whatever buzzy labels detractors think up to distract from the core issues at hand. Back in July, Harper’s Magazine published an open letter titled “A Letter On Justice And Open Debate,” which claimed that “the free exchange of information and ideas” was being categorically threatened by public shaming. It was signed by 153 major figures in media and academia, including Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, and, unsurprisingly, Rowling.
Atkinson’s questionable take unfortunately ended up overshadowing genuinely interesting insight on his lengthy career, including his displeasure in playing Mr. Bean (“I don’t much enjoy playing him. The weight of responsibility is not pleasant. I find it stressful and exhausting, and I look forward to the end of it”). Ironically, he also hinted towards the development of an upcoming Mr. Bean animated film, explaining that performing the character from a vocal standpoint is far easier than playing him physically.
165 Comments
Wow this is dumb and unfunny
Good Luck cancelling Mr Bean. That’s been on telly for years!
An old comedian dislikes cancel culture, and in other news a dog bites a man.
Only old comedians dislike cancel culture? Okay.
Well, young bigots who hate to be told that’s all they are do, too — as this set of comments proves.
MJS — arf.
There’s like a dozen cancel hashtags on Twitter at any given moment, but the AV Club still thinks “cancel culture” is a manufactured boogeyman of old white guys.
And those hashtags do… what exactly? Do the people in them lose their jobs and get herded into a cage somewhere? The article mentioned JK Rowling, if she’s meant to be cancelled, people are doing an incredibly bad job at it…
Just because you can point to one person who is “Too Big To Fail” and insulated against the affects of people trying to get them cancelled, doesn’t mean that there aren’t lots of smaller people being cancelled all the time.
Cancellation, like everything, is a tool. It works well in some cases, not well at all in others. Trying to cancel JK Rowling is like trying to level Mount Fuji with a crate of dynamite – it just isn’t going to work. Yet that exact same crate of explosives can still utterly vaporize a much smaller target.
Also, like any tool, cancellation can be misused. It has been used against guilty people who deserved to suffer consequences for their actions – but it has also been used against innocent people who did literally nothing wrong.Cancelling people isn’t the problem. Using the angry mob that is the internet to pick and choose who gets cancelled is. Because it turns out that angry mobs are emotional, unstable, dangerous, and easily lied to.
When people talk about cancel culture, they’re talking about one of two things. Thing one is large brands or celebs being noticed as being awful. As previously noted, normally the attempt to cancel does… basically nothing? Sometimes it will slow that person’s roll a bit if what they did was particularly awful, but very often that person will just become “controversial” and people will loudly and proudly how they’re really excited to support famous woman assaulter Chris Brown, actually.The second variant is non-public figures putting themselves in the crosshairs of a social media hate train for getting caught on tape or in their own words/posts/etc being unbelievable garbage. This isn’t “cancel culture”, this is just human nature. It strikes me as laughable to complain that sometimes people get in trouble for the consequences of their own actions.
Weird – in neither of your explanations is there any mention of when innocent people get attacked and hurt because someone lied about them.You say that “cancel culture” is only two things, and in both of those things, there is zero room for innocence – only bad and guilty people get cancelled. I hope you can see the massive fundamental flaw in that argument.
Did cancel culture invent lies or false accusations? Like, no one was falsely accused of crimes or had bad rumors circulated before “cancel culture”? Do you have a statistical basis for suggesting that it increased those concepts? Or are you trying to loop in something unrelated to try to make it sound like you have a point? (It’s that third one).
You keep erecting weird strawmen and ignoring what I’m actually saying, so goodbye.
Remember when James Gunn was let go by Disney from his role in Guardians of the Galaxy by ill-intentioned right-wing trolls using the very clearly non-existent tool of “cancel-culture?” Because nobody else here fucking does. I mean, it’s not like the AV Club covered it extensively or anything.It very clearly is a thing, the fact that it is usually used in a righteous manner doesn’t preclude its existence.
Yes, being terrified of a cancel hashtag on Twitter is literally exactly a manufactured boogeyman of old white guys.
Re-posting my reply to Buko’s comment in case he dismisses it again:Considering you blatantly write off the criticism of appropriation by white authors as “mob justice”, blame the “woke crowd” for your problems with the Star Wars franchise, and believe that giving platforms to Nazis is being “open minded”, you’re likely using what happened to ContraPoints as a blatant false equivalency to argue you shouldn’t be called out for your own bigoted beliefs…Go fuck yourself for inferring that the online harassment of a trans woman is equivalent to bigot like you.
Whether we agree or disagree politically/culturally/socially, on this or any other manner, I have a hard time understanding that you’re willing to waste your time in this way. That you have so little else going on in your life. I did dismiss your replies just as I will always do when they have so little to say: they are pathetic, and deserve nothing better (and probably worse).If you wanted to take up a sincere discussion here or in any of the threads you’ve linked, I’d welcome it. My beliefs and opinions are my own, right or wrong, and I make no apologies for arguing them (though I wouldn’t trust you to paraphrase any of it). I have reasons for believing what I do, making the arguments I make, and when people are reduced to the kind of juvenile “go fuck yourself” crap that you seem to depend on, I take it as a sign that they have nothing else backing them up. For after all, if you could do better, I’d hope to God that you would…
To the matter, I’m not even certain what “inferring that the online harassment of a trans woman is equivalent to bigot like you” means, but what I’m implying (not “inferring”) is that, contra the routine AV Club stance that “cancel culture” is not a real phenomenon, it is. I’m citing ContraPoints and her argument and her experience as evidence of that fact. I’d thought that was clear in my original post? Or do I need to draw it out as a comic for you?
Video is well worth a watch, though. She brings nuance to the issue that some folks here could stand to drill into their skulls.
I agree, my issue is that what happened to ContraPoints is leagues different from telling jackasses to go fuck themselves for saying bigoted shit and Buko comparing the two is beyond disgusting.
Stop talking.
So you’re saying it does exist, or it doesn’t? Thanks for reading!
What you’re saying is, “My White Male Fee-Fees are hurt! See how they pick on me by pointing out what a bigot I am?!?!?”It’s people like you and cjob3 that make me ashamed to be a White Male….
It’s absolutely amazing that you read “This thing exists” and interpreted it as “Look! A white male bigot!” (Only one of those three is correct, btw.) You are undeniably proving my point.
Actually, you just proved mine, you easily-triggered little Trump Nazi snowflake.Cancel Culture exists because people like you exist who deserve it.
Lol…aaaand there it is. Me: “Hey, I think this thing exists.”You: “You are a literal Nazi.”Btw, thanks for finally admitting it exists. It’s hard to admit when you’re wrong. Respect.
Does it make the widdle twollboi feel good to be A Big Boy Twoll now?I think I hear your mother calling you — you should go before she spanks you.
Are you seriously an adult human? And this is how you act?
AV Club tells me “cancel culture” is not real; ContraPoints, a transwoman who routinely produces pieces far more insightful than anything I’ve seen at AV Club (outside of an occasional Teti or O’Neal piece, when they were things), describes the phenomenon and, at length.
Considering you blatantly write off the criticism of appropriation by white authors as “mob justice”, blame the “woke crowd” for your problems with the Star Wars franchise, and believes that giving platforms to Nazis is being “open minded”, you’re likely using what happened to ContraPoints as a blatant false equivalency to argue you shouldn’t be called out for your own bigoted beliefs…Go fuck yourself for inferring that the online harassment of a trans woman is equivalent to bigot like you.
Or how about the same tactics can be used against the privileged as well as the marginalized but the former face better odds against it and thus have an obligation to use their privilege to stand against said tactic? That is the reasoning some signatories to the open letter have used.
My comment appears to have been dismissed. Don’t worry, I’ll re-post it:Considering you blatantly write off the criticism of appropriation by white authors as “mob justice”, blame the “woke crowd” for your problems with the Star Wars franchise, and believes that giving platforms to Nazis is being “open minded”, you’re likely using what happened to ContraPoints as a blatant false equivalency to argue you shouldn’t be called out for your own bigoted beliefs…Go fuck yourself for inferring that the online harassment of a trans woman is equivalent to bigot like you.
No one cares what you think loser
It’s why no one responds to you or acknowledges you.
Yes, this is the exact trick the right-wing uses. “cancel culture” is real, if you’re talking about people (usually in marginalized groups) being the victims of targeted hate campaigns. It’s not real for most of what people use the term “cancel culture” to mean.
As always, conservatives identified a real problem but then sneakily move the solution they offer over to “therefore calling out a famous person when they say something bigoted is wrong and evil” and hope you don’t notice.
That seems like conflating ‘existence’ with ‘effectiveness’ of cancel culture.
The fact that a bunch of loser keyboard warriors on Twitter can’t effectively bully some well-connected millionaire Hollywood celebrity who doesn’t necessarily need to work another day in their life, does not preclude them from trying and wishing that they could.
As pointed out, Contrapoints seemingly has a new struggle session with every video she drops on account of being a trans woman who “only” agrees with like 90% of Twitter social justice discourse and then has some more nuanced takes on the rest.
Hell, you literally got someone trying to pull this shit in this very thread.
A good chunk of your comments are stalking people because they don’t like South Park…
Three months ago I called you out on wandering into every SP thread to endlessly bitch and moan about a show you clearly haven’t seen in years and have a massive chip on your shoulder over. I’m really glad to see you’re still incredibly butthurt over that. 😉
And stalking? Coming from you? Bitch please. Be honest, how many times have you tried to trawl through my comment history desperately hoping to dig up something problematic enough to @ me at over later.
I think we both know the answer to that question.
Oh fuck me Laserface, you really gonna be this much of a bitch to directly call me out only to then dismiss my reply like I wouldn’t keep an eye out for it by this point?
It takes approx. 30 seconds to check and then bypass it, why even bother being like this.
Three months ago I called you out on wandering into every SP thread to
endlessly bitch and moan about a show you clearly haven’t seen in years
and have a massive chip on your shoulder over. I’m really glad to see you’re still incredibly butthurt over that. 😉
And
stalking? Coming from you? Bitch please. Be honest, how many times have
you tried to trawl through my comment history desperately hoping to dig
up something problematic enough to @ me at over later.
I think we both know the answer to that question.
Ironically most of the time JakeyKakey only ever comments here if it’s to stalk anybody who dares to not like South Park…
Yes that episode in particular should be required viewing for all internet pundits.
Counterpoint: Contrapoints says a lot of horrible ignorant stuff.
Twitter hashtags, you say? And not one or five or ten but a dozen of them? My god, man, why didn’t you warn us sooner!
Gadzooks!Are you telling me there are people on Twitter who hurt your tender feelings with their “Cancel Culture” hashtags!I don’t think I can take the strain any longer….
No, I’m saying it exists. Thanks for reading!
So, the mindless “mob” with torches and pitchforks that people like JK Rowling are complaining about, that just want to chase the proverbial Frankenstein’s monster out of town because they fear and misunderstand it…That’s people on Twitter standing up for minority rights? Those are the same thing in your mind?
No they are not the same thing. I disagree with the AV Club’s interpretation, that’s all.For there to be almost daily trends and articles (including this one) talking about “cancel culture,” and to then claim it doesn’t exist, is paradoxical IMO. Culture by definition is a non-instinctual, shared belief, tradition, behavior that exists among a group of people over time. Do multiple people use the word “cancel” or “cancelled” in reference to those who they feel have done something offensive? Yes. Has this been happening over a period of time? Yes again. Does it have its own distinct language patterns, forms (like hashtags), and implications? Yes again. That’s a form a culture.You also seem to think I’m supportive of people like Rowling, which I am not. I’m just saying that “cancel culture” is a thing. Idgaf about the people being cancelled, I just think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t a thing.
As a concept? Yes, “cancel culture” exists. We’re talking about it, it’s part of the national zeitgeist, etc.I think what people are taking issue with is the implication of the concept when it’s usually discussed.“Canceled” =/= “Yep, you’re done forever.”
If “unicorns’ were trending would that mean they exist? The term exists because its a fictional concept that reactionaries are pushing to avoid tackling the issue. So it is a thing, in that it’s a myth and a myth is a thing.
If we’re talking about something “existing,” then we’re veering into philosophy. My point is that “cancelling” as concept has all the elements of a cultural component. (Myths are also cultural indicators, so I’m not sure the unicorn example actually disproves my point.)But when there are groups of people using the phrases “___ is canceled” or hashtags “#cancel___” (which they do), that isn’t a fiction. That’s an actual thing that happens. I agree, some folks like Rowling et al may try to conflate it with not allowing free speech, or political correctness, or similar misrepresentations, instead of actually addressing the issue. But I don’t believe that means CC doesn’t exist at all.
Because your original statement said that cancel culture not be a “manufactured boogeyman of old white guys” because it is a hashtag on twitter, while the reason it is a hashtag on twitter is because it is manufactured bogeyman of old white guys. Instead of actually engaging in meaningful change, it’s so much easier to complain about how mean all those people pushing back against bigotry are being.
I don’t disagree with you re: complaining, but I also believe CC exists, and no one in this discussion has offered evidence to the contrary. So far, all people have really said is, “CC doesn’t exist because the people who complain about it are privileged jerks,” which isn’t actually disproving my point.
It’s not on us to disprove a negative. You may believe ghosts exist, but the onus is on you to show it, not for the disbelievers to prove you wrong.
No, but it is incumbent upon you to prove your side of an argument. I’ve levied plenty of evidence (Twitter trends, headlines, cultural markers and myth making, even this article itself) to support my point. So far, all I’ve heard is “You’re wrong, because people who think CC exists are jerks.”
You’ve only shown that people believe that it exists. By your method the tooth fairy and Santa Claus exist. It’s still up to you to show it’s anything more than some people being mad that other people get mad at their shitty, bigoted opinions. That’s not cancel culture, that’s just life.
It is (mostly) people being mad that other people get mad at their shitty, bigoted opinions. It’s just framed with hashtags and organized efforts to get people fired or boycotted or whatever the endgame is. I’m looking at one effort now where #cancelhenrycavill is trending, an Instagram account has been set up, because he made the horrible mistake of dating Gina Carano 9 years ago. I think this is where we have to agree to disagree on what counts as something “existing”, because I think I’ve proven my point in regards to this.
LEGIT QUESTION: What is the end result of someone having been “canceled?”
Better yet, what is an appropriate job for the cancelled person? Should Louis C.K. be a garbage man? Isn’t that being disrespectful to people who work in the waste industry? Is there no path to redemption? If someone commits a crime don’t they pay their debt to society?
Is there no path to redemption? If someone commits a crime don’t they pay their debt to society? 1. Yes.2. They can, but…they kinda have to pay a debt to society.
Exactly. So what is redemption for someone like Louis C.K. or Michael Richards? Never working again?
So what is redemption for someone like Louis C.K. or Michael Richards? An indication of legit reflection and personal growth, not an attempt at damage control.And even then, some folks are gonna be permanently turned off. Free market. ::shrug::
I’m afraid that’s not good enough for a large majority, but I guess there’s precedent. Look at how long to took Pee Wee Herman to get back.
Who gives a shit about noted transphobe JK Rowling?
Apparently So-Not-Bigots like MPB and cjob3 do, since they keep shrieking like Jonah Hillon the subject, even after they’ve been ratio’d to Hell and back….
And in other news? If you jump off a ship in the middle of the ocean? You get wet…and cold…and eaten by sharks….
A whole dozen? That’s pretty underwhelming.Also worth pointing out that all the hashtags in the world have sent none of these creeps to either the poorhouse or to prison. Must be rough!
i miss Aziz Ansari.
Apparently no one else does.
i noticed, actually.
I liked him in small doses. SEE ALSO: Jack Black.
The writers of these articles apparently were born without any sense of self awareness. The mere mention of cancel culture had immediately grasping for their Wand of Banishment.
It is.
Cancel culture is, in fact, a manufactured boogeyman of old white guys, so I’m not sure what your point is.
“Cancel culture,” to the extent that it exists, has always been with us. You could always lose career opportunities or face social exclusion for doing or saying the wrong thing. It’s just that the list has moved from “I don’t think God exists” and “I’m gay” to racial slurs and rape jokes.
People are acting like J.K. Rowling facing a Twitter backlash is somehow worse than black people being unable to find decent housing for centuries. But I can still buy all of her books at every major retailer. Fantastic Beasts 3 is due in 2222. People complaining about cancel culture like it’s some scary new thing are primarily worried about rich white celebrities. Because the fact they are feeling a small fraction of the heat now is the only thing that’s changed.
But a hashtag and actually making an impact are not the same thing. Also it’s no different from literally any boycott except we have new tools.
I agree, but I was just choosing a rather offhand example. Like you said, it’s no different than a boycott. So are people going to start saying boycotts don’t exist?
Ten years ago, Indigenous Australian activist Larissa Behrendt made a joke about Aboriginal elder Bess Price’s approval about the Northern Territory National Emergency Response.Since that time, Behrendt suffered a campaign of character assassination on social media and by the Murdoch press as a “political” Aboriginal. She lost roles and her reputation has been disparaged in spite of her very real work in indigenous communities. Silencing cultural enemies has ALWAYS been a tactic by bad-faith actors in public discourse. The notion that “cancel culture” is non-existent is insulting to those who have suffered from it.
The difference I see here is that Mr. Bean’s comments aren’t going to lose him any work.Because what was the last thing he did, anyway, so actually I should rephrase that as “Mr. Bean’s comments aren’t going to cost him any residuals off the Mr. Bean franchise.”Also, you literally cannot cancel Mr. Bean, because he’s Mr. Bean. He is metetic and immortal. The Mythbusters mythbusted him, for Christ’s sake.So name-dropping marginalized persons in defense of Mr. Bean is kinda . . . like, I’m not sure it proves the point you think it does?
Is Atkinson specifically talking about himself? No, he’s making a broad point about the dangers of the amplifying nature of social media and the ugly attempts to silence dissent. I admire the fact he is willing to accept the logical flack that his comments will elicit.
The fact that you are even refusing to use his name highlights that he clearly has a point about the “simplistic, binary view of society”.“Name-dropping”?I am using an example. I could cite many others in different cultures and time periods where they were hounded out of public discourse by the right and the left. And “marginalized persons”? She has a name: Larissa Behrendt. You wouldn’t have known anything about her experiences if I didn’t bring them up. Maybe read up about her so she is more than a “marginalized person” in your mind.
Pffft, then maybe don’t hand her name out like a business card for your “Oh no, people aren’t being heard!” argument. And certainly don’t try to make me feel guilty by doing so.Because who the fuck gives a shit about . . . Actually, what even is your point? That when lazy ”dissent” reaches the top of the media pyramid it’s picked at by vultures? Wow! Stop the presses!And while we’re doing that, let’s say his name: Mr. Bean. You do realize how ridiculous it is to use protest language in defense of Mr. Bean?I just don’t buy the whole “social media bad” crux of your argument. I’ve come to think that social media is no better or wise than any past form of media, in that people who communicate by it will live their lives and eventually a war will be fought over it. But it just seems so, so dumb in waiting for that war to happen to defend Mr. Bean.
“I’ve come to think that social media is no better or wise than any past form of media”There have been a number of academic studies that have discussed the impacts of social media on individual’s impulse-control. No one cares what you have come to believe.Anyone behaving in good faith will discern the relevance of Atkinson’s point. Or mine. Willfully silencing enemies has occurred in any society. Do you read much? Not just Tweets, but books and essays?
I just don’t buy the whole “social media bad” crux of your argument. I’ve come to think that social media is no better or wise than any past form of media, in that people who communicate by it will live their lives and eventually a war will be fought over it. If you’re of a researching mind, go down that rabbithole a bit. Check out the latest studies and such.One (glib) aspect: turns out that being permanently jacked-in to the specific type of dopamine hit provided by instantaneous social media is…kinda bad, actually!
Now that’s an excellent point, Andrew. Just how often does “cancel culture” do nothing more than marginalize someone else? That knife cuts both ways, doesn’t it?
Yea but we’re getting to the point where expressing concern about outrage is resulting in articles like this, instead of, you know doing something truly shitty.People have gone so far up their own asses that they think yelling at people on twitter is activism, and therefore any criticism of their shitty tactics is a defense of bigotry.They need to take a look at Stacy Abrams to see what real activism looks like.
The notion that your 10-year old example counts as “cancel culture” as relevant to just about any discussion involving an older, wealthy, frequently white person is insulting. They didn’t care about people getting cancelled until they and their friends might face the mildest repercussions for their shitty behavior.
I like to run into crowded theaters and yell “Fire!” over and over with a bullhorn, and when people try to kick me out, I remind them that there are legit fire hazards and silencing me is an insult to all of the burn victims that have been hurt. THEY HAVE NAMESIt IS weird how many people scramble to my defense when I do this vs how empty the burn ward is on visitation days, but I’m sure they legit care about the issue
No one is saying that people don’t face consequences from the public for things they say or do. That’s not what people say is non-existent. What’s non-existent is “cancel culture”, which is more specific. That refers to a large movement of liberals supposed attacking people for stupid unimportant things they take irrational offense to. As a broad concept that does not exist. There are some people who go too far in taking offense, and there are people who try to “cancel” public figures for irrational reasons. There is no broad “cancel culture”, though, which is the thing Atkinson refers to here and what conservatives complain about.
Progressives complain about it, too, to the extent they’re willing to risk alienating the people they generally agree with. It’s not as big a phenomenon as people fear, but if people are talking about it, it’s a thing that exists.
I’m not familiar with Larissa Behrendt but a quick google indicates that attacks against here were politically motivated (the Murdoch press, no surprise). Right wing attacks to silence marginalized voices is not “cancel culture” that’s good old fashioned white supremacy. Cancel culture is a boogeyman created by the right wing to silence people speaking out against bigotry.
Interesting observation. However, it’s been my experience that cancel culture is a tool of the radical left. But, yes, mostly wielded by white people, primarily young girls with very little experience or education. So, if your assessment is also correct, it would appear that this particular cancer is metastasizing throughout society and fucking over people on both sides of the issue.
Because people have put forth the lie that pushing back against bigotry is “cancel culture”
There is some truth to that, but “cancel culture” doesn’t always involve bigotry. I see that sort of “push back” happening in cases where there is a difference of opinion over anything, including matters that are far from political. There seems to be little tolerance for people who do not think and speak as others want them to, or with ideas that differ from others. Our country was founded on those principles and now they are being flushed down the toilet by some members of society who have no lives of their own and chose to sit in judgment of others. What they don’t understand is that negating someone else’s voice does not negate the sentiment, and there is always an audience for pretty much everything. Also, Karma is a non-discriminating, unbiased bitch and she loves biting people in the ass.
There’s no doubt that cancel culture was coined in reaction to marginalized people pushing back against discrimination. That’s not flushing tolerance down the toilet, it’s pushing back against intolerance. It’s pushing for society where everyone can speak because people’s personhood is not being attacked on a regular basis.
I think you missed my point. What I am trying to say is that many of those who “practice” cancel culture, for lack of a better description, tend to be intolerant of any opinion that does not align with their own. Hence, my “flushing down the toilet” analogy. Being intolerant of another’s opinion is not a demonstration of narrow-mindedness. Nor do I perceive it as “pushing for a society where everyone can speak.” It is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the opinions of others who do not share your own views. That’s intolerance and that describes my observations of “cancel culture.” However, I certainly respect your opinion on the matter and appreciate your input. Stay safe. Cheers!
I understand your point. You are still indulging in the myth that those who push back against bigotry are doing do because they are intolerant of other opinions when what they actually are is intolerant of bigotry. When people push back against, say JK Rowling – for whom the “cancel culture” bogeyman has been trotted out numerous times – they are not calling for government censorship of her opinion. They are calling for an end to hate and a denial of personhood. Do I wish her hateful transphobic opinions did not exist? 100%. They cause nothing but harm and they act to silence the voices of trans people because it threatens their very ability to live their lives openly. I absolutely want a world where transphobia and other bigotry does not exist because I want those marginalized people and their opinions heard in a way that they cannot be when bigotry is allowed to flourish. But JK Rowling is not silenced, she is as free now as she ever was to say her shitty opinions, and we are as free as ever to criticize them. The myth of cancel culture is a myth designed to protect bigots like her while shutting down the opinions of those she wishes to silence.
You might have a point that “cancel culture” carries that baggage currently, and people talking about it should know that going in so they can offer caveats when they’re describing the broad phenomenon (which has always existed) of shunning the people you disagree with and how it produces bad results in a society that depends on the free and open exchange of ideas. I’d argue that all societies depend on that, if they aim to be diverse and representative of all views. The problem is that even with those caveats, people continue to bury their head in the sand and claim it doesn’t exist.
“Cancel culture” was invented by people who believe a “free and open exchange of ideas” means that we have to tolerate bigotry and that any attempt to fight bigotry is an attempt to shut down free speech. It’s an attempt to shut down diverse points of view because it is an attempt to shut down those who are speaking out against the status quo.
I think we disagree about what “cancel culture” means or how broadly the phenomenon we’re trying to identify stretches, but I don’t disagree with the sentiment. I’m against old white dudes trying to maintain the status quo, but I also think there’s a very regressive trend toward further tribalism and stark, almost Manichaean duality rather than following the Michelle Obama “we go high” mantra (which would lead to more nuanced discussions and breakthroughs in understanding, if applied). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we often suck, too. There are some very bad people on both sides, you might say.
We do disagree. because a lot of people here are defining it as any disagreement whatsoever when the power differentials and who is defending the status quo is critical. Cancel culture is a term coined to deliberately silence marginalized voices speaking out against discrimination. That’s why the Dixie Chicks example is not the same as JK Rowling. JK Rowling is punching down on a marginalized group to maintain the status quo. To belittle those who protest her bigotry, the term “cancel culture” is trotted out.
That’s not “cancel culture.” That’s white supremacy at work.
And here comes the pitchforks and torches!
“That guy called us a mob, let’s get him!!”
That is a fun way to criticize people without them being allowed to defend themselves.
I think the existence of this article kind of proves his point.
Ironically, cancel culture wouldn’t be a problem if we were just more careful about what we said to each other.
Unfortunately no, the ‘outrage’ community will always find something else to be outraged about.
Newspeak ftw.
Being conscientious all on your own =/= the government systematically eliminating the words required to express dissent & banning the creation of new words.
GTFO.
Bryan Cranston, also gave his thoughts on Cancel Culture™ recently, and said things along the same lines. I might be out of line here, but to simply note that sometimes it can get out of hand seems reasonable enough to say, right?
I might be out of line here, but to simply note that sometimes it can get out of hand seems reasonable enough to say, right? ::calls SWAT team::Realistically, if we’re being honest (looking macroscale here), this has been a fucking VOLATILE year. 2020 and even 2021, six days in. People are pissed, they want or need to fight, and righteousness (NOTE: not using that as a pejorative) fuels that.People fighting in service to an actual cause or to right an injustice? I’m down.Others? Let’s just say the motivation behind the activity is REEEEEEEEEEAL fucking apparent, and the facade is so transparent as to be a fucking window.
“but to simply note that sometimes it can get out of hand seems reasonable enough to say, right?”Except none of these dudes ever cite any examples. It’s always this broad condemnation with no specifics.
Google them.
Thank you. The only problem with cancel culture is that almost no one gets cancelled. And those who do still seem to golden parachute into semi-retirement. “Cancelled” people are so sure of the weakness of cancel culture that htey plan career reinventions mere months after they’re cancelled. A solid fraction actually manage to come back as though nothing ever even happened. See also, Mel Gibson.
Hey that’s not fair, every once in a while someone reaches back to Justine Sacco!
You might want to check out her linkedin page.
Garrison Keeler.
The guy who was fired for multiple incidents of sexual harassment? That’s the guy you want to go to bat for? Okay.
I only know about one. The lady he hugged while she was crying. Who were the others please?
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=garrison+keillor+sexual+harassment
There are more complaints than I was aware of but none of the ones revealed in the actual investigation are quite Weinstein territory. Infact they are a good example of a situation in which someone should have gone to HR and asked someone to educate Keillor about power imbalance, dont shit where you eat basics etc. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/01/23/keillor-workplace
“but none of the ones revealed in the actual investigation are quite Weinstein territory.”Funny, I though we were talking about the horrors of people being cancelled, not people being tried for multiple counts of rape and sexual assault.“Infact they are a good example of a situation in which someone should have gone to HR”Good thing that actually happened then, eh?
YYea, except they didnt go to hr when it happened, they waited till someone came to them so it didnt result in a conversation, remediation, learning, a chance to be better. It was just “ you’re fired”. That’s canceling, when conversation might have been more productive.
Just to be clear here, you’re saying what happened to Keillor was disproportionate and wrong as well as being emblematic of this whole ‘cancel culture’ movement, correct?
I’m saying I can’t be someone who supports alternatives to jail and a rehabilitation over retribution appraoch to crime while at the same time condemning people absolutely for non criminal anti social behavior without at least trying to see if they can learn and change.
“non criminal anti social behavior”Okay, so once again, to be clear, you don’t think any of Keillor’s behaviour was bad enough to be considered criminal?
True, but I think being broad is the safer move, lest they become targets themselves by appearing to “side” with someone already in a hot spot.
#CancelRobGrizzly
I’ll be the first to star this, lol
I think this Bean fellow is using the term “cancel culture” wrong, but his bit about the binary ‘them or us’ nature of the internet is still spot on. He also didn’t say anything especially egregious unless I’m too blindingly white to have seen all the words. I mean, pretentious? Maybe sure. But given the actually offensive shit filling the twits, this seemed very minor to me.
Yep. It is the reason I exist. To defeat the sheeple and group think that controls the internet, because if left unchecked you will start to believe all the SJW PC MARY SUE nonsense.
Cancel culture complaints can be two things:1# Why am I not allowed to express a shitty opinion without being piled-on?
2# Why can’t we have a nuanced discussion?Too many people pretend that only 1# exists.
Personnally, I think cancel culture should be a weapon only used when laws failed or aren’t properly applied.
I’m ambivalent. Part of the problem is that ‘cancel culture’ is not really just one thing, but when Germaine Greer is prevented from giving a lecture at Cardiff University, then, yes, I have ‘issues’.
Yeah, that’s not the problem. The people asking #2 are usually not asking it in good faith. It’s usually them doing #1 and then asking #2. It’s sort of like Letitia Wright posting skeptical stuff about vaccines, and then saying “I’m just asking questions”. Sure, but you’re asking questions that are easily answered. If you were actually interested in asking honest questions to get the answers, you’d have already found out that the answers to your questions can be easily found all over the web.In this case, people usually say they “just want a nuanced discussion” in the same way. They’re not being honest about it.
I’d say that’s a false equivalence, which is kind of my gripe.
Instead of vainly trying to sniff out people behaving in bad faith and misrepresenting their intentions, why not just act as if people are behaving in good faith until they make it clear? Most people are honest to a fault about their closely held beliefs, though wariness of internet trolls has ruined public discourse, I suppose.
Certain key buzzwords & familiar talking points tend to make it clear when somebody isn’t arguing in good faith.
I guess it’s unavoidable, especially in an internet comment section. I don’t see a meaningful difference between calling out disingenuous Twitter activists by calling them performative or by saying they’re virtue signaling, but I have to acknowledge that I don’t use the latter only because it’s become a shibboleth of the right.
Anyone “reading the room” would notice that the majority of people are tired of the woke nonsense. You do not speak for us, Shannon.
James the majority of one is mad about other people speaking on his behalf
You’re mad about everything.
Your buddies smashed in the Capitol windows today
“Cancel culture” doesn’t exist. Proof is that nothing ever gets canceled! Against this folks usually cite Louis CK and that Weinstein guy. Weinstein is in legal trouble for rape and professional trouble for abusing his power in the industry. Louis CK at minimum shares the second and arguably shares the first given that I don’t think that the grudging “OK”s he solicited quite qualifies as consent.Neither of those really fit what folks claim to be worried about. Also is Louis CK really canceled? Near as I can tell he’s receded but not canceled.Joss Whedon would be the closest to someone who faces this threat and let’s face it — being a nerd it’s easier to go after him for anything so this doesn’t quite fit either. Also I’m not sure he’s been “canceled” exactly, time will tell.
Let’s see, what else….The “Guardians of the Galaxy” writer faced cancellation for, what, 2 weeks, and now is back? The “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor dude, the one in the anti-gay church, what’s his name, the pudgy guy, is still kicking around strong so he hasn’t been canceled either he’s just gotta be careful. R Kelly is still raking in the cash from streaming while. Kanye West despite his support of Trump and bizarre antics, and his own decided lack of any talent whatsoever, is still hailed as a musical genius (huh?).So who, exactly, has been canceled?
viral twitter outrage is incredibly lame. the people who get off on that sort of thing need to get a hobby or start doing actual political organizing. i assume they don’t because it requires actual work and actual moral courage.it’s beyond sad to see a bunch of anonymous twitter dopes direct so much time and effort digging through decades old tweets to scorch earth someone’s reputation based upon a single shitty twitter joke or public misstep. there’s something so useless about the whole exercise. good job, that person quit twitter, they took down their social media. you got a couple thousand retweets and likes. congrats. wow. so much change affected. the earth is dying and society is unraveling. better find a new twitter target for catharsis. ironically, the people who do cave to that pressure are the one’s who shouldn’t.
This article blows. Seriously? Guy points out that it’s a with-or-against culture, doesn’t mention anybody, and you throw J.K. Rowling in, saying-not-saying that he probably-did-but-he-didn’t he was referring to that?This kind of article is exactly what the radical right is referring to. You blame privileged public figures, and yet you use your column forum to do THE EXACT SAME THING. And at the same time, get those all-important clicks, amirite? Stop enabling the radical right (and centrists) with this kind of horseshit.
Thank you! Excellent point.(Kneels before Zod)
Rowan Atkinson —— legendary British comicShannon Miller—- ??????
I love how people say cancel culture has gotten out of hand …..have these people taken a look at the past 4 years of incompetent racists appealing to racists to elect them to powerful positions ? I’d like to think we would cancel more of these assholes. That said, terrible people like Jon Voight and Mel Gibson still get lots of work and still have tons of power. It would appear that the real snowflakes here are these white men and women who are upset that they don’t have free reign to be openly racist and horrible
You know what, as long as he is not directly defending any shitty person or himself, I am okay with an old man yelling at this cloudHe gets a pass because of Black Adder
Cancel culture: as old as humanity itself; only became a problem when white men started getting cancelled.
Well Shannon my newsfeed has a great little feature “do not show stories from… about… ” Mostly I use it to sort clickbait but a lot of mainstream media is blocked also. On the other hand our schools and increasingly the bureaucracy is increasingly subjected to an “algorithm” called Marxist feminist postmodernism. Ain’t no button for that… yet.
Sure, if the room is full of Woke types who have an underdeveloped sense of self-awareness.
As far as I can tell, beyond his use of the word “cancelled” Atkinson doesn’t really seem to be talking about “cancel culture” as a phenomenon at all. He seems to be more broadly talking about online bubbles and Twitter mob-mentality. It seems (IMO at least) to be more an older, less online-aware individual misusing a term while trying to make a different-if-related point rather than an attack on cancel culture itself.
“The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.’”He’s right though, I mean to quote from Charlie Brooker’s Death to 2020:“Look, things wasn’t always this way. I’ve studied human behavior long enough to get sick of it. You gotta remember, most folks are still neighborly, Ned Flanders. Unfuckably nice. But right now, the edges are rougher than ever. On the right, you got shit-nose extremists wondering aloud whether Hitler was all bad and inventing their own clown-house reality. And on the left, you got fucking whiney woke-lords cancelling the shit out of anyone who dares to take a dump at the wrong time of the day. And both sides, both sides look so unhappy it makes you wanna puke. But the way it’s going, you know we gonna end up on one side or the other. So, pick your fucking team and hunker the fuck down”So theres no room for naunce or shades of grey anymore , either a person is 100% correct in their opinion , or else they’re completely wrong and history’s greatest monster..and that’s not a workable system for discussion, the only thing that generates is conflict , which social media thrives on.In a Meta way the fact that this article exists is proof of that .Oh and the worst thing , is that if nearly everything is deemed worth cancelling then nothing is, and it defeats the actual good use of ‘cancelling’ someone who genuinely deserves it ..its the equivalent of saying a person that jaywalks and a mass serial killer are the same as they’ve both broken laws and are criminals.
I think what he’s saying is more important than the blunder about cancellation: the machine learning-generated view of the world we are presented with feeds back into our own categorization. People are invisibly compartmentalized with other people who generate similar signal patterns, and this creates the kinds of divides that become obvious when someone outside our compartment appears. We immediately recognize them as an outsider to our group, and judge them without any compassion. I’m taking it for granted that he’s not just talking about marginalized groups, but all humans in this world right now. For example – recently someone I respect and see as a visionary, progressive and inventor of Chicago House music said something like “I don’t know… these vaccines are kinda scary.. ” and immediately we all started looking at him like he just became a full-blown mouthpiece for the anti-vaxxer movement and a Fox news associate. He’s not, but for a minute there we all thought he had jumped the rail or something.
Cancel culture is absolutely real. There is a difference between speaking out against abuse and tolerating no dissent whatsoever to a narrative. Cancel culture is a culture of intolerance, instant judgement, and yes mob mentality demanding people be fired, never hired again, and not even talked about as human beings. It reduces people to caricatures ignoring everything about them other than what the yes mob decides to focus on.
Cancel culture is an intolerant and hateful obsession with throwing people out; defining them solely by their mistakes and ignoring everything else about them. A hallmark is immediately character assassinating anyone that calls it out. Even President Obama is assailed by a hateful mob with a bunch of copy/paste memes (drone strikes, he doesn’t speak for all “progressives,” etc.) for calling out cancel culture.
Saying cancel culture isn’t real is akin to saying racism isn’t real. What’s more, cancel culture is a disgusting obstacle in confronting true bigots because by crying wolf on anyone who expresses any kind of disagreement focus is watered down on the worst offenders.
The key difference between confronting “problematic” comments and bigotry in general and cancel culture is that cancel culture demands the erasure of someone’s livelihood and lifework for being “problematic.” It’s like the crazy “moral majority” of the last century demanding boycotts combined with McCarthyism.
Sounds like another one of Baldric’s cunning plans….