Cancellations

[catalog]

I think this calls for an elaboration.

the virtue signalling allows the racism to pass as an act. because the signalling is just that, a gesture, not necessarily an action.

i think it reinforces the problem, because it restates the categories of racism. it builds on them, therefore, to me, it entrenches them further. there's no possibility of moving beyond.

i think it also, demonstrably, does not work. it's ineffective, as a long-term project. it relies on a quick win approach, is basically PR. the structural issues remain the same.

 

[droid]

It's important to understand that most of these TV cancellations have not been called for by activists in any substantive way. It is, in effect corporate virtue signalling by organisations simultaneously terrified of mass censure and revenue loss and a desire to appear supportive of anti-racism.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's important to understand that most of these TV cancellations have not been called for by activists in any substantive way. It is, in effect corporate virtue signalling by organisations simultaneously terrified of mass censure and revenue loss and a desire to appear supportive of anti-racism.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Most of these activists are quite young and I doubt many of them have even heard of a sitcom from 45 years ago, let alone watched it.

It's also a good use of the phrase "virtue-signalling" in its original and true sense.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I mean Padraig is right to be wary of people using the phrase because, like so many of these terms, it can be used in a pernicious and bad-faith way - but for all that, it's still a real thing.

 

[chava]

cancellation is a tool of those without power

like Netflix?

 

[chava]

I sense that there's a big switch going on towards talking about racism as 'structural'. Probably a good turn.

I still don't know what it means

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

to me, all the virtue signalling is as damaging as racism, in fact it is racism, it's just covert

both parts of that statement are absolutely ridiculous. your explanation didn't improve it, either.

racism actively damages peoples' lives, physically, mentally, emotionally

at absolute worst, virtue signalling gives ammunition for backlash against anti-racism. it is in no way comparable.

you know what defines and entrenches racism? racism. not virtue signalling.

virtue signalling is not something anyone would self-identify as doing - it's a solely pejorative term. it is not a "project", or a strategy.

further, you don't actually know what is and isn't virtue signalling - this is the most galling thing, the assumption of insincerity.

idk if you were around for it, but we went through the same bullshit with "political correctness", and it was just as wearying then.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

all you're doing is restating the old affirmative action (positive action, I believe it's called in Europe) is racism of low expectations argument

a neat inversion by which people seeking social equity are in fact, the true racists

 

[catalog]

no, that's not what i'm doing. i've not mentioned affirmative action.

i don't think this is a productive discussion, so i'm going to leave it alone.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

leave that part out, if you want

just coherently explain why virtue signalling is as bad as racism. I don't think that can be done because it's an absurd position, but I'll hear you out.

 

[catalog]

i feel like i have explained, you've said my explanation is 'absolutely ridiculous'. I also don't accept your arguments. so I don't know what else to say really.

 

[catalog]

leave that part out, if you want

just coherently explain why virtue signalling is as bad as racism. I don't think that can be done because it's an absurd position, but I'll hear you out.

to me, it's offensive for a company to shout about their anti racism at a time like this, or make statements. mainly cos it's usually just that, a statement, prompted by a wider cultural moment, maybe some links of what to do, where to donate. it's not substantive in any way. who has asked for it? is it appreciated? you could argue it either way i suppose, as in, some black/ non-white people might think it's good. i get that, that my opinion on it is not shared by every non-white person.

and i think it is actually damaging. partly because it can be used to mask real racism. people think they can make a statement, and that's them done. there's no actual change to behaviour.

but i think it is also actually racist, because, like i said above, it reinforces the categories, reinforces the prejudices, redraws the lines. I appreciate that this point is a bit hazy. another way of saying it might be to say that it is a form of psychological or covert racism, in that it is not overt, it's not someone calling you a disgusting name on the street, for example. cos that is hurtful, and can be seen/heard, there's a register to it. but virtue signalling, without the concomitant change in behaviour, allows the virtue signaller off the hook. and the same structural oppression can happen in the background.

 

[sufi]

It's frustrating that this thread, which i wanted to be about the virtues of cancellation, which we all agree (I think) has been a powerful force for justice in recent times
but we keep getting bogged down in the same old side issues and absurd straw people, rather than digging into the question of how cancellation can actually be a powerful force for social justice

 

[catalog]

Good point sufi, let's get back on topic.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

rather than digging into the question of how cancellation can actually be a powerful force for social justice

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise

I think there's a real question as to whether cancellation's positives as a force for social justice outweigh its negatives

I have faith in individuals and groups of individuals ("the wisdom of crowds"), but I have very little faith in mobs, or mob mentality

catalog and I are arguing, but we agree - I think - that cancel culture is seriously problematic, even when it accomplishes good things

 

[sufi]

Of course it's problematic, and unpredictable, and fundamentally unjust, in that it's not a process that has checks and balances like the mainstream justice system (which of course is flawed in many many ways).
But cancellation's achievements recently have been really significant - the Bristol statue incident has had powerful social effects in UK and internationally tht are still playing out. And that's a campaign that has been active for many years, but was blocked until the mob got going

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

to me, it's offensive for a company to shout about their anti racism at a time like this

definitely. droid is absolutely right above about kneejerk corporate reactions to events. that is harmful virtue signalling.

where I think you're going wrong is conflating it entirely with cancel culture, which overlaps but is not the same.

cancel culture is done by individuals (sometimes gathered into mobs). individuals always have complicated motivations.

the idea that it can be a do-nothing substitute for doing something substantive - sure. still not nearly as bad as racism itself, but it's not good.

the point about it reinforcing the lines or whatever, I still think you're failing to make, no offense

 

[catalog]

There's two separate things being conflated here, for me:

1. Cancelling of mainly historic authors or artists cos their work is problematic and/or because they have done bad things in their real life.

I joke about this and how it's helpful for me to have people cancelled, cos then you can just avoid them but in seriousness, I think it's generally unworkable as a long term thing. Luka said to me on, I think, the ts eliot/wasteland thread, where I said don't bother with the wasteland, cos Eliot was a waste an, that it's not a good way to think about things, or at least not the first good way. And I see merit in what he said.

2. Cancellation of current people, services etc.

The virtue signalling comes into both, but I'm arguing it with padraig more as the second thing. That it's unproductive, on racism, in the second instance.

I dunno if that helps in any way, Im more clarifying it for myself.

 

[catalog]

Of course it's problematic, and unpredictable, and fundamentally unjust, in that it's not a process that has checks and balances like the mainstream justice system (which of course is flawed in many many ways).
But cancellation's achievements recently have been really significant - the Bristol statue incident has had powerful social effects in UK and internationally tht are still playing out. And that's a campaign that has been active for many years, but was blocked until the mob got going

The thing is to me, the Bristol statue drowning, that is not cancel culture, or virtue signalling. Its the total opposite. Its not protest, its not marching down a street with a banner, its direct action. Its riot. And yes, it's so much more effective

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

cancellation's achievements recently have been really significant

I more or less agree with catalog - not that it wasn't a protest (it was), but that it was a direct action, not a mob

mobs and mob mentality, meanwhile, are fucking dangerous. trying to direct and control them is a fool's errand. there a million historical examples.

I don't think mob mentality is something that should ever be encouraged or applauded

and cancel culture is at best, a stopgap measure when no other realistic means to hold someone accountable exists