What "Cancel Culture" gets wrong
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Patreon: / joshstrifehayes
Twitch: / joshstrifehayes
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / joshstrifehayes
Reddit: / joshstrifehayes
JoshStrifeHayes Main TH-cam Channel:
/ joshstrifehayes
JoshStrifePlays (2nd TH-cam)
/ @joshstrifeplays
JoshStrifeReplays (Full Twitch VODs)
/ @joshstrifereplays
Podcast channel, Tangent Tavern:
/ @tangenttavern8946
Josh Strife Hayes Clips on TikTok ► / joshstrifehayes
Official Josh Strife Hayes Clip / Highlights Channel.
Editing, Thumbnails and Channel Management by Visa
Josh Strife Says is the official Twitch clips/Highlights channel for Josh Strife Hayes. This channel features Best Moments of Josh Strife Hayes, Best of Tangent Tavern Podcast with Callum Upton and sometimes clips from Session Zero DND Group which Josh DM's (Dungeonmaster) for players RageDarling, BillieTrixx and Callum Upton. Josh often talks about multiple MMORPGS like World of Warcraft (WoW), Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV), Guild Wars 2 (GW2), Runescape (RS3), Old School Runescape (OSRS), New World, Diablo, Path of Exile, Tera, Otherland and other games such as Skyrim, Oblivion, Dragon Age. Some of the best content of Josh Strife Hayes is his React videos with Asmongold reacts and Zepla.
Visit Josh's Main channel for "The Worst MMO Ever"-series and second channel for "Was it good?"-series
#shorts #JoshStrifeHayes #twitch #clips - บันเทิง
they don't mean "do objectively better" they mean "do as i command or i'll poke you in the eye again".
In the worst cases it's more like "Do as I command SO that I can poke you in the eye again." How often do you see people apologize to a cancel mob, and then be forgiven? It's pretty rare.
I equate apologizing to people like that with kneeling before an executioner and begging forgiveness. Usually all they're thinking is "Thanks, I can hit your neck much easier now!"
Which is totally messed up, because it creates an atmosphere where people won't apologize even when they're actually wrong. But in the public sphere that is the truth, more often than not nowadays. Forgiveness is dead, and apologies are viewed as a sign of weakness to be capitalized on.
@@yewtewbstew547 It also sucks because from a legal standpoint people can be taken advantage of more during an apology. I actually remember watching a video about a guy scamming his way to effectively hostile-takeover other channels and content by forcing them to admit defeat and then going through a legal process to weasel their way out of their money and content. I wish I could remember the specifics but the fact that people can legally do that is completely infuriating.
@yewtewbstew547 I think that's over simplified only a little in that it's all about ratios. You apologize and you might have 80% of people accept it to the 20 that are even meaner lol. Maybe those numbers are reversed even. Regardless of which way it goes the negativity always hurts more and it's also normally from jerks. You gotta consider that near fact and consider how much merit the hate deserves after you tried to do the right thing. I've noticed that in real life responses are normally way less vicious because it's harder to go over board without the anonymity of a keyboard. Someone messes up and says sorry at work. After that if you really continue to get badgered it's probably from a jerk who's known for being like that. Aka not most people. I'm not saying you do this but it's my pet peeve, people who don't do the right thing because they assume it won't be have enough effect. Like I'd say sorry for my shady actions but not enough people would forgive me to make it worth it. That seems wrong to me.
Pretty much my life at school and sometimes online. Ppl tell me to do better, not even in grades but just "oh you don't know this? Do better" and over and over I learn and know things to a point I actually did remember them. In fact I ended up knowing more about certain things than they did; so when someone said "Do better" I told them "I did." and they replied with "yeah but don't forget you didn't before I told you" (that was word for word btw).
Surprised I just kept going on and eventually it came up a few times. Then I had enough. Someone did the same song and dance routine and when they got to "yeah but don't forget you didn't do better, until I told you" I replied without hesitation " And you don't forget that you doubted me. But I did it. Don't YOU forgot that" I kid you not, they were so angry that they couldn't reply and immidiately just left the conversation online. (This person heckled me for about 3 years non-stop.)
Long story short, the guy dedicated his life to contradicting and bullying me, so much so they actually ended up making more mistakes and showing themselves up more often, BECAUSE they were trying too hard. What I learn from that moment onwards is, ppl will always complain whether you do better or not. What matters is what makes you happy.
*TLDR* : The thing I took from it is. I don't need to do better to make others happy. What matters is what makes ME happy, flaws and all.
If they don't like it? Who cares? I'd rather be flawed and happy than correct and miserable!
This, word-for-word. *Spot. On.* 👏🏻👏🏻😎
That's exactly what's going on. It's not a morality thing. It's a power thing. Once you know it, they have ZERO power over you.
While I don't think "Cancel culture" is actually as widespread or systemic a problem as some people think it is, what Josh describes here is absolutely a thing that happens, and it's a bad thing. I think the people who complain the loudest about it are actually the people it impacts the least, and are the people who don't even try to change or consider their behaviour. I think the issue Josh identifies here is actually far more prevalent within smaller communities that don't actually get a spotlight.
I'd say it's not _successful_ on a widespread level, in the sense that most people it happens to manage to recover in some way, but the people doing it are almost always present and stirring the pot. Specifically with online controversies surrounding public figures I mean. They're always present, and the attempt is always being made, it's just that usually they don't have a big enough "voice" to actually gain traction with it.
It's a dark part of human nature imo. People, or at least a certain type of people, enjoy seeing others suffer and be shamed publicly from a position of perceived security within a crowd. It's why witch trials were a thing, or the pillory. I'm not a psychologist, but if I had to guess it's probably something to do with feeling part of the "in group". By punishing others as a part of a group of likeminded peers, it makes the people doing it feel closer to each other and more secure. That's my armchair assessment anyway lol.
its very true that often times the one shouting the loudest are often times not the ones actually impacted. its people that want to feel like they are morally superior by standing against something they see as Offensive or what they perceive as wrong.
and also the amount of people shouting is often not as much as as it seems. its just the Internet is like a Loud speaker and its far easier to make it sound like millions of people are shouting when it turns out to really just be 1000 people.
self-righteousness is the suitable word
Sanctimoniousness is what I would use.
Narcissism is what I would like to call it.
Im still judging you based on your lack of pink fluffy hat prior to this. There's no way I can forgive the fact that you didn’t start streaming wearing a pink fluffy hat.
Three words:
Pink Fluffy Mug.
I'm so disappointed in Josh now.
I left online political circles because of this lmao. It stopped being about improving the world and promoting good ideas and changing their minds and more about who was the purest most perfect king of morality. Even the people who were good and not like that were forced into the circlejerk of drama because of the way the algorithm works. It turns out that a lot of the people who were jerking their own egos wound up being abusive not just in a creepy authoritarian way but in their own relationships as well. It's really sad.
I'm still a progressive, I just refuse to play the game of "who am I going to have to stop watching to preserve my ever dwindling mental health" anymore.
another furry checking in. Can. Relate.
Furry Twitter circa 2015~2017 destroyed a lot of friendships
I used to be like that and I'm not sure why I specifically stopped, as in I don't know what specifically caused my attitude to change. All I know is that one day something clicked in me that if I refused to accept that people could change all I was doing was denying the very possibility of personal growth, and that's just a real jerk move
And it was at that moment that you did better.
For me it was the first time I heard someone equate racism and bigotry. Bigotry is exactly what they espouse, intolerance of other people's views.
'I hate -ists and everyone is an -ist. You're also an -ist because of your skin colour'
I do feel there's some kind of paradox, because I suppose i'm bigotted towards bigots if nothing else.
@@mandowarrior123What you're talking about at the end is often referred to as the 'paradox of tolerance'. "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them."
But others have instead 'solved' this by instead saying that tolerance is a social contract. If you violate the contract by say being racist, bigoted, etc then you are no longer protected by it.
@@KageCM that's all well and good, but this social contract only exists in one's own social circle. How do they extend it to justify personal attacks against individuals? Or- is this belief in excommunication exactly what cancellation is?
I can only see similarities to my catholic upbringing's excommunication, rather than a traditional breach of etiquette.
@@mandowarrior123tldr: I'm bad at explaining things
Sorry I'm not good at talking to people in general. Bad general and social anxiety. Meaning I usually just keep quiet. But if I do talk to someone I either keep it really short or go way overboard because I worry about not explaining myself correctly.
I want to try and make sure I'm explaining things correctly so I'm copying stuff from google, Wikipedia, dictionary, etc. I'll put quotes around things I copy from elsewhere or from your or my previous comments. Sorry for the length, formatting, excessive use of single (') and double (") quotes, if anything is confusing, I leave something out, or plain incorrect. Someone else probably has better knowledge and/or can explain it way better than me.
Addressing "How do they extend it to justify personal attacks against individuals?" I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Like who is "they" and what "personal attacks" are being referred to. By "it" I assume you mean the 'social contract'.
A 'social contract' is not just something "in one's own social circle". Laws are an example. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road or walk up and punch someone without the potential of facing consequences. "When an individual goes to the supermarket to buy their groceries, they enter into a contract with the supermarket to make payment of money in exchange for food and drink. Employees enter into a contract with their employer to perform their work in exchange for a monthly or weekly salary." Then of course there are the ones not by society as a whole but in your example of "in one's own social circle".
My initial response though was about your comment "I do feel there's some kind of paradox, because I suppose i'm bigotted towards bigots if nothing else." This reminded me of reading about the 'paradox of tolerance' and then the related 'tolerance as a social contract'. When you said "bigotted towards bigots" it sounded along those lines of 'intolerant to intolerance'.
People arguing in bad faith use the 'paradox of tolerance' as a way to continue spreading racist/bigoted/hate speech, etc. With arguments along the lines of 'If you are truly tolerant to everyone then you have to let me keep saying (insert racist/bigoted/hate speech here)'.
The idea with instead treating tolerance as a social contract is a way of cutting off this way for the intolerant to argue in bad faith and get their way. As in racist/bigoted/hate speech should not be allowed even though tolerance is about "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."
I see among the definitions for 'excommunication' "to exclude or expel from membership or participation in any group, association, etc." This seems the closest to my limited understanding of 'cancellation' or 'cancel culture' which had been along the lines of getting enough of a group or society to use social pressure to ostracize and/or silence some individual or group. The original topic, Josh's video, is that instead of using this to make some individual or group 'be better', with the general idea that they would then be allowed back into the group or society, the ones 'canceling' are not following up on their end of the deal. Instead most are continuing to judge based on the past perceived transgression(s).
Sorry again for the wall of text and if I missed or misinterpreted anything.
Something I've noticed with "influencer" cancellations in particular is that you can usually predict it ahead of time based on the audience that person has cultivated. There's a recurring theme of absolutism, group thinking, and just a general childish dishonestly amongst people who maliciously engage in mob brigading behaviour. That can sometimes become visible through the in-jokes and memes they share within their communities.
In think it's why guys like Asmon are basically uncancellable, because he isn't afraid to disagree with his own audience. Ironically, given the state of his room, he regularly weeds his (metaphorical) garden. And it will cost him viewers, but the trade-off is that the viewers he retains won't be prone to turn on him without strong evidence of actual wrongdoing on his part.
Asmongold? Really?
Brother, that guy's community is so far gone they wouldn't bat an eye if he Asmon went on a racist tirade.
He has basically become another rightoid grifter. Also, Asmongold is the same guy who cried "cancel culture" when people merely disagreed with his uninformed takes. lol
These people often don't want you to do better, they want you to suffer, they want to feel superior to you. It's pathetic
It’s an impasse, quite literally damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Such a true statement.
Self-righteousness is a hell of a drug.
That's why it's important to judge how people react when they're proved to be wrong.
If they try to deny it qnd double down, or offer only empty promises (which, let's face it, is way too common), then sure, they don't deserve your attention anymore. If they show clear signs of improvement, they deserves a second chance, or as many as possible, as long as they still prove themselves trustworthy.
That's (partly) why we follow Josh. Because he has proven again and again that he was ready to accept his mistakes, and was willing to correct them, no matter how "insignificant" they may sounds.
The only people I will keep ignoring are people who never apologized / acknowledged that they were wrong (or tried to hide it in only apologizing on a small side channel and ignoring it on the main...), but I won't go out of my way to spew hate against them.
who decides what's better?
Something about good and bad things is that a lot of people think that it's some kind of scale, where if you do 5 bad things and 5 good things, you're automatically at 0 things because bad is a minus and good is a plus. In reality you still did 5 bad things and 5 good things, and the results of all those 10 actions are still in the world; you're not in a neutral position because odds are there's 5 people that like you and 5 that don't, and they don't magically cancel each other into being neutral towards you. Hell, just look at Fallout New Vegas' take on the system: when you do a bunch of good things and a bunch of bad things to a community, you're not neutral and in perfect balance -- you're a fucking bipolar lunatic that nobody can get a read on.
Sometimes people might wish to remind you of something bad you've done and how something good "doesn't fix what you've done", and... only a literal mental caveman would live long enough to gain literacy and access to the internet and still think in such bafflingly reductive terms like "+1 and -1". At the end of the day, the people who should do better are the ones who should be concerned about whether they did better or not, and not the people who have little to no insight on the matter; they know that person for a few lines of easily misinterpreted text, while the person knows themselves for a whole life.
you did better, now you are allowed to say them the same thing: do better and try to keep up
Answer is simple. Cheap gas and oil are in the past.
Now think about that.
They're not making mistakes they're just evil
The majority of people who actually complain about "cancel culture" do it on their netflix specials, or syndicated TV shows, or on twitter to 2 million people.
cope and gaslighting, the majority of people I know personally complain about cancel culture and aren't netflix shows hosts
You're dumb
"Look at this 15 year old tweet, you're an absolute monster!" Fine, but have they said or done anything similar to that thing in the last 15 years?
I was like that in my teens, because that's how my parents treated me, and that's because their parents were even worse.
I feel like that does explain how a lot of people are like this as well. Do better, don't be like that to your children.
The phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes to mind. That phrase, along with things like the frequent recalling the story of the boy who cried wolf makes me wonder why we bother with anything. Why get upset at anything, everyone's lying, why improve ourselves, they'll find a new reason to be mad.
A flawed viewpoint on life and morality, I would say, but one nonetheless difficult to completely steer clear of.
Do better usually means adhere to my ideology, fully. So that's not something I care to engage with anyway, I'm not concerned about what people that say things like this, think I should or shouldn't do, they certainly wouldn't take any advice from me.
Um... I'm not sure I'm with you. The people saying "do better" aren't always the same people saying "don't forget". I think in the creator space we forget demographics are comprised of people, who have different levels of acceptance.
We are incentivized commit the composition fallacy, which, I'm sorry, I'm accusing you of here.
Part of what drives some folks further distrust is how often apologies have been disingenuous and *not* followed up by doing better.
The core idea of what you're saying here I'm behind- people do need to be able to be recognized for the change they do complete, but my ire isn't out for the people who are holding people to account, my ire is for the people who inspire those people to have a lack of trust- not just in the public sphere, but in what they've had to endure personally to form that behavior.
122nd
I think it was hank or john green who pointed out that a lot of those types of things are about being self righteous, and not about actually finding a solution or a better way to be. Well said Josh.
We’re way past the virtue signaling era. This is more about people wanting control of the narrative, industry, and messaging moving forward. When it comes to cancel culture, it’s never about “doing better” or even appearing virtuous or moral, it’s about power. Their very philosophy stems from a power dynamic that has not traditionally been with the disadvantaged, so the only solution is to attain some power, and wield it like a club against their “enemies.” It’s the same messaging from contemporary race baiters like Ibram X. kendi who say the best method of pushing against racists is to employ all racist arguments, tactics, etc. against them. All of cancel culture is an attempt to smack down all contrarian arguments/ideas regardless of how moral/virtuous they are.
@@greyknight627 that's an excellent analysis.
@@greyknight627welcome to communism
I've said it before so I'll say it again: I'm fearful for the current generation.
Social media is so antagonistic and politicised that kids that dont know any better can and will be attacked by adults for simply not knowing any better. This is then used as a tool to perpetually beat them over the head for the rest of their lives and justify horrible actions such as harassment, stalking, doxxing etc.
There was a story that personally sticks out to me that may not occur again in the future: There was a girl in the Westboro Baptist church who left the cult because she was able to have discourse with others online through twitter. The ones that helped her have a marked improvement in critical thinking were the ones that asked non-judgemental questions to lead her away from hateful views and really think about the things she'd been taught as fact.
That same person might not have had a way out of the cult if the people she reached out to 'discuss' werent so patient and understanding.
There was another instance where the leader of the KKK was talked out of his own cult by a black man who just started talking to him like a normal person.
We will not have this teardown of hatred and vitriol if it's perpetuated by more hatred and vitriol.
But all social media seems to do lately is attack people for indiscretions and hold it over their head, big or small.
Which may as well say: You said something phobic, you're always going to be phobic and you will remain guilty.
Which in the eyes of the person trying to do better results in a mentality of: 'Fuck it, if I'm to be branded indefinitely regardless of my actions I'll be exactly what they claim I am.'
This is what a lot of centrists refer to as progressive regressionism and why people dont unite under feminism, instead creating alternative banners to achieve the same thing.
In identifying race, gender, sexuality - neatly categorizing and putting people in boxes creates in and out groups which then premisses attacks and creates justifications for those based on whether they are within or out of the group. In a word: Tribalism.
I dont align with any political faction for this very reason.
Even though I'm centre left leaning, if I call myself a liberal I'll be labelled a snowflake by the right and labelled alt right by the far left.
The current political landscape has an ideal for each faction and if you dont neatly conform are branded heretics or monsters.
To put simply: When you're on the far left, everyone to your right looks alt right. When you're on the far right, everyone to your left looks like an extremist liberal.
It's not that they are, it's that you are the extreme and sadly the extremes are rewarded for being the most vocal.
If they don't acknowledge the improvement, they weren't looking for you to change, they just wanted to feel superior.
I know this is about morality and cancel culture, but I hold this view on game studios and bad business practices, because it's the only responsible consumer thing to do. "Yes, you finally removed your gambling box for children, but the fact that it was here in the first place and you thought you could get away with it is still the problem."
Obviously it's not the same thing, but it's still tangentially related to moral judgement of an entity's actions and the effect of the remedy, so depending on the context, I can picture someone saying "don't do it in the first place" versus "good job on doing better".
At the same time, since I don't know the context, I assume it's less the case of a consumer's outlook on the ethics of product's supplier and more a case of an unrelated person choosing to morally adjudicate over an issue that doesn't personally affect them on behalf of a third party without prompting from any party directly related to the issue.
But hey, as a person on the internet, it's my moral obligation to comment without knowledge of the underlying context.
Agree
While its important we hold people accountable , we should allow improvement , That is not to say past infractions should be forgotten about because its quite common for people to improve only briefly then go back to how they acted before , So I think we should support continued improvement , not one off actions.
Ironically the people who do that are often the same kind to put actual religions on blast
THANK YOU, I've been saying this for years!
"no, that is not how you're supposed play the game"
I thought the thumbnail was a Trump impersonation
TBH, being/doing better doesn't absolve anyone from consequences of their previous actions. Victims of your "crimes" don't have to forgive you, even if you become virtually saint. It's on your tab forever and you must really work for it to be insignificant. It's possible but it shouldn't be easy by defeault.
It's great to be better and everyone should really try to be better person every day, but it ultimately can't change past. Parable of the Prodigal Son is nice and all, but it sends wrong mesage about personal responsibilities.
Who's the victim of edgy jokes lol
Dragons Dogma fanbase asking for more?
Wisdom will come when others can see everyday as the new beginning it is. Yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, and today is a gift.
I mean, cancel culture isnt a thing. You can look at Dave Chappelle for example: he didnt lose any playforms and in fact has had no ussue filling arenas for shows since his transphobic jokes. If hed suffered at all, but he didnt. Hell, Netflix doubled down and gave him a special. I think its fine if we dont forget. Mostly be ausr he hasnt done better. But even so, he has the same amount or more power than he had before that shit.
And as for between regular folks i think its just called holding a grudge but we have tweaked the name.
That's only because Dave Chappelle is too big to fail. Plenty of smaller public figures have suffered tremendously as a result of cancel culture. That doesn't mean to say all of them were completely innocent either, but the point is that the punishment is disproportionate and they are denied any attempt at redemption. Which is clearly immoral.
A recent-ish example I can think of is the video game writer/developer Chris Avellone, who still isn't finding work despite proving his innocence about as conclusively as anyone can in those circumstances. Or if he is working, he is wisely doing so under a pseudonym and not announcing it publicly. ProJared was probably the most infamous example on TH-cam. Granted what Jared was actually doing still wasn't cool, but he categorically was not guilty of the thing he was cancelled for.
I'm being hyperbolic for effect here but the logic behind your argument would almost make crimes like attempted murder non existent. I shot you, but you survived and made a full recovery. Therefore murder doesn't exist and I did nothing wrong? Clearly no lol. I still _attempted_ to destroy you, and I'm unrepentant. That would make me a deeply immoral person. The same applies to people who engage in cancel culture, regardless of whether or not they are actually successful.
It's not just a grudge. It's a concerted effort to destroy a person's reputation and ability to make a living, often with no heed given to facts, evidence, or that person's desire to do better. It's a purely destructive act.
@@yewtewbstew547 no, what I mean is that, Jarred for example, TH-cam didn't remove his chanel and he still has the resources to make content. Other than socially he hasn't suffered consequences. If his platform has been taken Id agree he was "canceled" but zero people prevented him from speaking or acting, didn't even lose the ability to address the public.
It feels like you're purposely misunderstanding me. But as for the people that whine about being canceled? Their ability to whine publicly is proof they still have an audience and a platform.
Are their outsized social reactions? Yes, Jarred is a good example. And I agree. But that's not being "canceled". That's just people reacting to you. They don't always react right or fairly. But no one restricted his ability to speak or act.
"Cancel culture" doesn't exist because it's just a rebrand of disliking how people react to you and none of it removes power from the person targeted. That's my focus. Where power rests and who holds it. Jarred still has a position of power in relation to his audience, at least those who have erroneously developed parasocial relationships. Which is independent of Jarred himself and is always a consequence of audience over identification with their objects of adoration. "Suffer" in that context would be a loss of power or privilege as opposed to emotionally.
@@radaro.9682 This is mostly a semantic disagreement then? What Josh is talking about, and what most people mean when they use the term "cancel culture" in this context, is fundamentally a form of social ostracization. One that doesn't really seem to care about facts in many cases, nor the person's desire to better themselves.
Rightly or wrongly people just seem to have settled on "cancel culture" as a name for that. It's not only about some higher authority removing the mechanism that enables someone to speak (e.g. the banning of a social media account). When people talk about cancel culture in this context they're also describing the concerted effort of a group to harass and defame a person into silencing _themselves_ as a means of self preservation.
I would argue that their ability to speak or work, their "power", being removed by a higher authority is often also a part of that effort though. Like with Dave Chappelle, clearly the objective of those going after him was to cause Netflix to quite literally cancel his shows. The fact that they failed in doing so is irrelevant, ethically speaking, which is what I was getting at with the murder/attempted murder analogy. It seems like you're making a more consequentialist argument there, and suggesting that because no power was lost, no wrong was committed? If so, I wouldn't know what to say to that. It's not good.
And again in the Chris Avellone example I gave, they actually succeeded in seeing him fired from multiple jobs and burning bridges for him within the games industry. So he got it from both ends.
@@yewtewbstew547 no one is owed a platform. And it's reasonable that when you say bigoted shit, use your platform to spread bigoted shit, and refuse to learn or admit you might be wrong then you don't deserve a platform. Like, yeah, Chappelle shouldn't have been paid by Netflix to make that special. Like, I don't see that as an issue. Obviously he has the power to not be effected. But you're missing the point I think because it feels like you expect zero social consequences for how people use their platforms and authority. What kind of response to using one's platform to spread bigotry would be reasonable? I think that we should be quicker to educate rather than condem. However, at the point the person demonstrates an unwillingness to learn or change I think it's rational to remove the tools they use to spread bigotry.
I wouldn't even think it's necessary to say I think harassing a person is the wrong way to get them to change. But no one is owed a platform.
@@radaro.9682 That's exactly what these people want. They want 0 consequences for what they're saying.. hence they flock to the right where saying b1g0ted stuff is to be expected.
And usually those people live their lives projecting their own actions and mistakes in other's, and probably do "worst" than the people they want to do better, and at the end of the day the best question is "Who TF are you to ask me to do better, stranger on the internet?" Because sometimes people will just double down when they are proved wrong, which tells a lot about the person.
Very well said, Josh. 👍
It's the same playbook used throughout history and it's always so eas-...so who wants to start a cult?
The correct response is to double down. Repeat until going further beyond is no longer possible.
Well said
wise stuff
The thing that pisses me off about people that claim "cancel culture doesn't exist" is that they're basing that claim off the fact that the person that was "cancelled" wasn't left permanently destitute in the aftermath. Like you said, it's not about expecting people to do better, it's about trying to cancel that person from life itself. I'm just like, you realize you're living down to the stereotype of those you oppose, right?
"Cancel culture doesn't exist, it's just the consequences of their actions" is the one that frustrates me. At the risk of adding to the overuse of the term, it's gaslighting. There has been an observable growth in moral puritanism over the last 10-15 years. People are literally organising to de-platform celebrities and public figures that make even relatively small missteps. That's not just "the consequences of their actions", that's a culture of "cancelling" people.
@@zigedelic3909 It is almost baffling in a way, these were in my experience the same people who made a movement against such moral puritanism, but then they turn around and recreate it with only slight modifications a couple years after it was pretty much gone.
The people who engage in cancel culture are essentially fake consequentialists. In other words their rationale would be something like "what we're doing to this person might seem cruel, but it's for the greater good of society." AKA "the ends justify the means". But I say "fake" because the reality is they don't actually care about the consequences, they merely use that as a post hoc rationalisation for their witch hunts.
It's not even a good rationalisation, because consequentialism is ethically dubious even when it is genuine. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means. Quite often, actually.
@@zigedelic3909Hey, could you give an example of thise please?
I only ask because generally speaking if I find out a celebrity is an asshole, I am not going to support them anymore. That is a consequence, what is also a consequence is that maybe if they come up during conversation I'm going to mention how I used to enjoy their work, but when it came out that they did something awful that crossed a line for me I couldn't do so anymore, and maybe the people I'm talking to didn't know they did this thing and also no longer want anything to do with this celebrity. These are consequences, do we agree on that?
I understand that there are people (I have only ever seen them on social media), who will sort of wage a dishonest hate campaign that uses either lies, or exaggerated claims to muddy someones character, which I can understand you labeling as cancellation, and I'd call that gross. But the divide I have with you, is I don't believe in a "cancel culture", and that most people who have claimed to he cancelled in the past have done so at the height of their relevance.
I don't want this to get too long, it's already longer than I wanted, so I'll stop there and wait for a response...
@@it-s-a-mystery Nailed it
It's not very convincing without an example.
Said as if elsewhere in society you get raises or positive recognition for no longer failing to do what is expected of you, for reaching the minimum standards. So, in a sense, if we don't reward people for serving their time or for no longer sabotaging their workplace, why should we reward people for no longer breaching social contracts? Maybe we should, but until then I don't think we should expect anyone to.
"Do better"
By whose standards? Because I really don't give a shit about yours.
Ok just keep being a douche then
L take
I think it’s fair to also vulnerably say:
“I realize now that even though you have done better that that isn’t as helpful in restoring my opinion of you as I thought it would be.”
I think that’s part of the issue. People say do better and what they mean is do better and my trust is permanently broken. Regardless of if they say the second part it is perfectly valid to say do better and at the same time not respect the person when they do do better.
Is it valid? Sure. What's not valid is continuing to attack and harass someone despite them "doing better", which is what Josh is getting at here.
i doubt most people participating in cancel culture care about trust.
I mean, from what I can see, then there's absolutely no reason to pander or listen to those kinds of audience,
because effectively, they wont acknowledge you anyway even after you "do better"
I think some people just dont want to acknowledge that the people that they want to "do better" did "become better" because it feels like theyre backtracking.
A profound observation somewhat diminished by the addition of the pink cowboy hat.
I believe a lot of it comes from lack of self-confidence in these people who judge others, they NEED to believe they hold value to themselves, but because they have no confidence they have no idea what that value is that they have. And so when they see someone make a "mistake" in their eyes they say "Well at least I'm better than THAT person"
It's false self-confidence and really tragic because if they had more confidence they wouldn't feel such a need to judge others.
Are we certain they didn't mean do better at being cruel and oppressive? I didn't get a chance to ask at the last meeting because the cacophony of mindless shrieking is always scheduled during the town meet Q and A''s. I stopped going, not because of that though - I just really don't suit having purple hair and dressing like I'm auditioning for a children's show.
And that's why apologizing for a mistake is almost never a good thing. Those who care about you already know you're sorry and will try to do better and might not even have cared about the mistake in the first place, and those who demand the apology will never actually accept it anyway because in their pettiness they will not allow you to forget about the mistake regardless of much you improve as person.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
This reminds me of the image that shows Pewd's post about having a baby and that girl in the comments was like "bu-bu- but what about the bridge incident", as if he is now no longer allowed to even live a life due to one mistake he apologized and made up for, it's insane.
"Do better" is such a millennial reddit-era type of dialogue that really gets under my skin
Absolutely the same kind of person with self deprecating humour and a non stop condescending tone to everything they say, along with that weird, fake/pretend (american style) sarcasm thats deliberately obvious, aka "/s" style.
ugh.
They often don't really care, it not like they spend their time or money on what you do anyway.
I mean, from what I can see, then there's absolutely no reason to pander or listen to those kinds of audience,
because effectively, they wont acknowledge you anyway even after you "do better"
Imagine you got like 60 out of 100 in a test, then your parents said "do better"
then you got 80 or 100, and instead of saying "good job", they said "you did get 80, but I wont forget that you got 60 the first time"
I think some people just dont want to acknowledge that the people that they want to "do better" did "become better" . One of the reason being, I think, it feels like theyre backtracking from their initial stance, which feels weird if you think logically or apply it in real life.
you're soooo real for using the parent example.
Yup. Forgive the religious talk for a second, but it’s why Forgiveness is seen as a virtue, but judgement is talked about repeatedly as being God’s realm. It’s because we don’t understand everything about a person. So it’s our place to give them an opportunity to grow and change.
People don’t want that. They never do but now more than ever. They want to be right. They want to be vindicated, by any means necessary, that they are a good person. Even if that means finding someone and ripping them down. They want to be seen as virtuous, without the effort of virtue. And what better way of doing that than finding some sod and pointing at them and going ‘See!!? See!?! They’re bad! I condemn them! Forever!! Aren’t I so good!?!!’
I literally just lost 2 of my closest friends of an 8 year long friendship and my partner of 2 years, where they all cut me off without notice and zero communication. I had previously expressed to them multiple times that I want them to confront me and talk about things if I was a bother to them. But instead they all chose to just go behind my back, move my partner out and block me on all communication fronts.
Josh's statement here about people that do that type of cancel culture rings very true with how they act, because if I made a mistake they would never let it go and would never talk it out. It's so goddamn infuriating to deal with people like that in the long run. Because they are scared of any type of conflict, as if every conflict has to be only bad and not a chance to grow as people.
damn, you must be very violent for them to jump through so many hoops to get the f away from your life.
Somehow I get the feeling you're leaving things out if your partner was willing to _move out_ over that and your _friends_ just cut you off.
So what was the actual issue?
@@TykoBrian7 I am very aware that in absence of further details it might sound that way but I can only assure you myself that that is not the case. It's just that the three people in question including my ex are highly autistic and have problems with conflict resolution. I have literally spent the last 3 weeks accommodating my former partner's every need, asked how they felt and if they needed space. The only times I got upset or criticized them was whenever major life decisions that affect and involve me was made behind my back with our mutual two friends. Then they went and did that exact same behavior multiple times while lying to my face that things were fine, or avoided talking to me at all about it.
Meanwhile I have multiple other friends (some who are also autistic) that are 100% understanding of my situation and have had to force into my head that I am not the bad guy because I tend to self criticize and take on too much responsibility a lot.
I'm not gonna elaborate further on the matter because I don't really care what strangers on the internet think of a situation they have no insight or context of. You'll just have to trust me as a stranger that I am true to my word on the matter.
@@RuSosan "It's the woke mind virus turning people against me, I swear!!"
THIS!!! This sums up my feelings on cancel culture in a minute long video!
Truth.
the constantly moving goal posts for sake of moving goal posts does not help that sort of panderous attitude either. some people do not want to see the world get better, they want to stay perpetually unhappy, offended and hinder both their own and others achievements.
I disagree.
1. I have never seen anyone "cancelled" and then they are totally ruined. People who are "cancelled" are never damaged permanently. So, there's no real power held by the accusers.
2. In the words of Maya Angelou, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." If someone is racist, sexist, generally horrible publicly, you can bet the farm that even if their public behavior changes, they haven't really changed.
I think that in a broad sense you're right, but there are nuances here that are important to drill down on.
1. This point is very true... for celebrities and people with followings. I think that you will sometimes see "cancelling" happen to smaller personalities without a safety net and that does end up doing long term damage to them. Usually this happens as a result of bad faith actions though, often by someone who has more power than the accused themselves, so they can drown out the truth when the accused tries to defend themselves.
2. This is something to be treated with a degree of care, again especially with celebrities. I think when we're discussing this, the focus shouldn't be on whether or not people can change, because I for one think people can change and we should want them to change. The focus should be on whether or not someone who has shown the bad behaviour in question should be entitled to enter a position of public trust and authority again. I think that even if a celebrity or someone in power generally has done or said terrible things truly changes, that does not mean they should be able to return to the same level of influence and trust they once had. And if they're sincere in changing, they should be able to accept that, since no one is entitled to trust or influence or power. What Josh is talking about is people being continually piled on and cajoled for their past behavior, and this is genuinely a bad thing, I agree with that. However I think it's entirely reasonable to say "I do not care if you've changed, I do not trust you to have the level of trust and influence you had before."
It's a difficult balance though, and one that really varies from person to person and situation to situation, which makes it super messy when it comes to public figures, as you're accounting for so many different people and opinions.
There's a lot of middle ground between "totally ruined" and "not damaged permanently". Even if they're able work again, they could have permanently lost relationships, had their careers damaged (but not destroyed), they could have lasting trauma from the experience, etc. And then there's another large middle ground between "damaged permanently" and "damaged".
I don't think "people typically don't end up totally destitute and homeless, therefore accusers have no power" is a logically sound statement.
1. Alec Holowka.
2. If you're correct then all people that didn't know any better because of their surroundings and/or upbringing, but then learned that they were wrong all along, don't deserve any redemption. Which are, like, most of the humanity.
If you can't tolerate racists, sexists etc- that makes you a terrible bigot. Most of the world has views on race, sex and other topics than you. They're formed opinions, if you don't talk to them then racist sexists they will be. You're just happy to justify your own vile behaviour when their views don't affect you.
Low info moment
If only the people with the colorful flags would understand this.....
They did till they got power. It was all "we are equal - treat us the same" at first and then slippery slope "we need forceful inclusion - treat us better"
@@JesiAsh "Got power" I'd hardly call them being 'in power' They have a voice now, which is more than before. But it's not exactly a rainbow domination out there in the world.
@@JesiAsh
_What_ "power" would that be?
Oh right, some of them can _exist_ in relative peace _sometimes._
Woop woop.
THANK YOU JOSH FOR SIDING WITH PEOPLE LIKE THIS.
Translation: "Why won't they allow me to be openly bigoted towards LGBT people!!"
the first genuine chance I have I'll show this videos to a supervisor in my university and recommend him to make ALL teachers watch this.
Ps.: not a joke.