🏳️🌈🖖🏽
🇳🇱
I thinkt he book awards can do whatever they like, and are within their rights. But it was the wrong decision. As far as I know Drew didnt hire any non-union writers, nor as she personally violated any of their asks... She is perfectly ok.
The bigger issue is the cancel culture, I know I will not give any attention to the book awards (As is my right) due to this decision.
> The show has her name on it, so she's ultimately responsible.
I never said she wasnt responsible for the decision. I said that her decision was the correct one and thus she did no wrong doing.
> Besides, 'Cancel Culture' has been around for thousands of years (ostracism), and will quite likely be around for many more.
You seem to be confused what Cancel Culture means. It isnt just the act of boycotting, we have always done that and its fine. Its a Culture where boycotting is central to that culture, which is a recent development.
@freemo @georgetakei
I don't think her decision was the right one. We are at a critical crossroad with regards to many things, and her actions are a potential dent in the armor.
Also, I'm not confused about cancel culture.
It's not that boycotting is central to the culture, it's that the internet makes protesting that much easier, and therefore people don't actually have to go out and do something.
Therefore what we have is not a culture of cancelation. That's always been around.
+
@freemo @georgetakei
What we have now is people pretending they care when they actually don't, not enough to actually do something other than liking and commenting on a post.
Before the internet became so prevalent people who cared (not that many, tbh) would actually DO things. They'd actually stop buying products, stop watching programming, etc.
Now, with the power of social media, pretty much anyone can be a protester just by making a video of them burning a shirt or shooting at a beer can.
+
@freemo @georgetakei
But personally I'm not a fan. Because the ones with actual power (the corporations) don't care that much about noise, about social media posts, even about protests and picket lines.
What they do care is money. They don't care that you destroy their products after you've already paid for them.
+
@freemo @georgetakei
But, you stop giving them money & you'll see how fast they change their tune. You stop subscribing to their platforms, you stop buying the products that advertise on those shows & you'll see how fast they come to the table.
But we won't do that because we're a consumer society that likes our trinkets, & comforts, & we want to watch our favorite movies and shows.
And so, we complain about it online because we lack the courage to do anything that actually costs us something.
> I don't think her decision was the right one. We are at a critical crossroad with regards to many things, and her actions are a potential dent in the armor.
On that we strongly disagree.
> Also, I'm not confused about cancel culture.
> Therefore what we have is not a culture of cancelation. That's always been around.
I mean clearly you still are since you said you werent confused, then went on to perfectly agree with me... You said "thats always been around"... ok so you just said Cancel Culture has always been around, thats literally you admitting that Cancel Culture is a thing, you just dont think its a new thing.
@freemo @georgetakei
I'm not because my point was that the central issue is not the cancelation mentality, it's the "I'm outraged now so lets do something now, preferably something that doesn't involve much effort".
Actions have consequences, that's the basis for ostracism. So that basis will always be behind most responses to things like this.
+
@freemo @georgetakei But the change we have now is not a shift in that mentality, its with the ease of access that we have to information and the ability to react to it almost instantly.
We see a post that angers us and we can immediately reply to it, and repost it, express our anger, giving it greater visibility.
But in that same way, we can see something online and immediately buy it.
We've become a more visceral society, where we tend to act more impulsively than ever before.
+
@freemo @georgetakei
We are much more dependent on instant gratification, instant responses, sometimes even before we know all the facts.
And that was my point. Society has always had ways to punish those it sees as transgressors, so what we're doing now isn't that different from what the Greeks started doing more than 2000 years ago.
But this is part of a bigger issue, one that has ramifications in many aspects of our society.
Simply put, this cancel culture is a symptom of a larger problem.
Sure but as per my last comment, Cancel Culture (that is, boycotting frivilously) seems to have happened quite a bit later after the instant gratification had already been a thing for decades.
@freemo @georgetakei
It was already here. I'm constantly reminded of that woman that made a stupid joke before boarding a 12 hour flight to find she'd been fired when she landed.
What probably changed is what I mentioned in the other reply.
We are so divided nowadays that this has almost become a type of warfare.
I cancel the actor you like, you cancel the actor I like. I cancel the beer you love, I cancel the beer you love, and so on and so forth.
> It was already here. I'm constantly reminded of that woman that made a stupid joke before boarding a 12 hour flight to find she'd been fired when she landed.
Cant say I agree... People have been boycotting since forever. But prior to the last few years it was far less frivolous than it has become in recent years.
> What probably changed is what I mentioned in the other reply.
> We are so divided nowadays that this has almost become a type of warfare.
> I cancel the actor you like, you cancel the actor I like. I cancel the beer you love, I cancel the beer you love, and so on and so forth.
Here we agree, the (IMO) recent development of Cancel Culture is closely linked to what you say here.
Sure, but that immediate response thing has been around long before the dynamic arose of frivolous boycotts. If they were as closely linked as you suggest I would have expected them to both emerge at the same time, not with a 20 year lag.
@freemo @georgetakei
I think it was already here before, but it got a significant boom when smartphones became a thing & we got instant access to anything & everything.
As for the rest...
The world is becoming more extremist in its views. Ppl are being pushed further & further apart, to the point where we almost sound alien to one another.
That happened slowly with major help from social media & the ease with which it groups us with similar thinking ppl while separating us from everyone else.
> I think it was already here before, but it got a significant boom when smartphones became a thing & we got instant access to anything & everything.
I mean people canceled things before sure, and there were frivolous examples of it. But it was more of a rarity. It seems to be in overdrive the last few years (which is where the distinction comes in too)
@freemo @georgetakei
Granted, but its not the only thing that's in overdrive and frivolous nowadays.
Which is why I said that it wasn't the problem, it was one symptom of the problem.
Hopefully if (normally I'd say when, but I'm not so sure that it'll happen) things calm down, we'll see a return to a "normal cancel culture" like it was in the days of yore. 😅
> Granted, but its not the only thing that's in overdrive and frivolous nowadays.
Agreed
> Which is why I said that it wasn't the problem, it was one symptom of the problem.
Also agree, it is more a symptom than the root problem.
> Hopefully if (normally I'd say when, but I'm not so sure that it'll happen) things calm down, we'll see a return to a "normal cancel culture" like it was in the days of yore. 😅
One can hope :)
Nothing wrong with canceling that which we find deserving.
The issue is the frivolity in which we "cancel" these days has reached a point of absurdity.
@freemo @georgetakei
Conceptually I agree, but who's the "we" in this example?
We're constantly seeing examples of things that make no sense, like censoring things because someone gets offended by it.
Like you said, it's easier and easier for things to get removed no matter how small the protest or inconsequential the subject.
And as a result we have good cancelations and bad cancelations, depending on which side each one of us is... 😉
> Conceptually I agree, but who's the "we" in this example?
The human race or any group thereof.
:)
@Rui_ALF_Chaves @freemo @georgetakei
Really? How many people do you think would not attend the awards if BS was hosting them?
@freemo @georgetakei I could be wrong but isn’t #DrewBarrymore in #SAGAFTRA?
If you read the article, she employs (employed?) 3 writers who are on strike now.
> If you read the article, she employs (employed?) 3 writers who are on strike now.
I did read the article, and what part of my statement do you feel was in error given this fact? Nothing i said disagrees with what you just said.
I get it. You are anti union and anti fair pay and pro union-busting and scabs.
Your choice.
No not at all.
Usually when there is a strike the company continues to operate with the striking workers vacant. As a general rule as long as that persons position isnt replaced to nullify the strike then there are no issues. Since as far as I know the show did not replace the striking workers, and did not hire any new writers, they are fine.
Cancel culture is the public's way of letting the powerful and bigoted know what they think and prefer.
If you feel cancelled, try looking into why so many people don't approve of what you do/did.
You seem mistaken on what the term "Cancel Culture" means. A culture in which reasonable and occasional boycotts are employed is NOT cancel culture... thats just boycotting and its been around forever and its perfectly fine.
Cancel Culture is pointing out a culture where **frivolous** boycotting is central the the culture.
The distinction is important to having a productive conversation here.
She's crossing a picket line, her show is a struck show. That's why she's being called a scab.
Cancel culture is just a silly way of saying consequences. It's not a real thing, people just want to pretend there's a new wave of mob mentality punishing people, and it's just sometimes people get a backlash for their actions. It's not new, it's consequences.
> She's crossing a picket line, her show is a struck show. That's why she's being called a scab.
Yes that is the opinion of the strikers it seems. My opinion is that she is perfectly ok with what she did morally and the strikers are wrong to take issue with it. To each their own, we dont have to agree.
> Cancel culture is just a silly way of saying consequences. It's not a real thing, people just want to pretend there's a new wave of mob mentality punishing people, and it's just sometimes people get a backlash for their actions.
No you are thinking of the word Boycott. Cancel Culture is not simply any act of boycotting... It is when **frivilous** boycotts are central to the current culture. This is distinctly different from all acts of canceling someone (the word "Culture" in "Cancel Culture" isnt just there for show).
> It's not new, it's consequences.
Boycotting isnt new.. Cancel Culture is, re:above
"Yes that is the opinion of the strikers it seems."
Incorrect, it's a fact. Her show is listed as a struck show, and they will be picketing it.
"My opinion is..."
...Not what the unions use to determine which shows are struck shows.
"No you are thinking of the word Boycott."
Incorrect. Consequences may include boycotts, but boycotts are not the only consequences when there's a backlash.
"It is when frivilous boycotts"
Irrelevant.
> Incorrect, it's a fact. Her show is listed as a struck show, and they will be picketing it.
Yup, they were of the **opinion** that she was in violation, and decided to list the show as a striked show...
The fact that they listed it as striked is fact. It is the strikers **opinion**, and the decision that fueled, that caused them to make that decision.
> ...Not what the unions use to determine which shows are struck shows.
Of course not, they use their opinions to determine what to strike, not mine, duh.
When did I say my opinion is what unions base their decisions on? Its like your arguing against some imagined argument not even being discussed... your arguing against things i didn't disagree with.
> Incorrect. Consequences may include boycotts, but boycotts are not the only consequences when there's a backlash.
This is really getting silly now.. you keep saying you disagree with me, then state a bunch of stuff that in no way disagrees with me.
At no point did I say or even hint, that somehow boycotts are the only consequence when there is backlash... literally this whole comment was just you disagreeing with stuff I never asserted because you didnt bother to read what you disagreed with carefully first.
> Irrelevant
Since you are arguing that a term i used means something other than what it meant, and that understanding terminology is key to accurate communitication, it is very much relevant at this point.
"Yup, they were of the opinion..."
Nope, still a fact her show was already on the list of WGA shows and therefore struck. You may not like that fact, which is your opinion, but it remains a fact.
"This is really getting silly now."
What's silly is that several people have attempted to explain to you what cancel culture is but you refuse to accept the correction.
"Since you are arguing that a term i used means something other than what it meant"
irony
Holy hell, you are still arguing against fictional things I didnt say....
> Nope, still a fact her show was already on the list of WGA shows and therefore struck.
At no point did I say her show was or was not on the list of WGA shows.
You are literally arguing with a fantasy of something being said that wasnt said, its really annoying.
> What's silly is that several people have attempted to explain to you what cancel culture is but you refuse to accept the correction.
How many wrong people need to say something before I am obligated to accept it as true? The number of people who may disagree with me doesnt really matter when they are all wrong... just like if I got a bunch of Trumpers in here all saying the same nonsense it doesnt make them right either.
> irony
Finally something we agree on.
"At no point did I say her show was or was not on the list of WGA shows."
You said "they were of the opinion that she was in violation, and decided to list the show as a striked show." which is incorrect.
Her show was already on the list of WGA shows, before she decided to bring the show back. It was a struck show before this controversy. Her show is struck based on the rules of the guild, she had WGA writers. It's not based on opinion, as you erroneously claimed.
I dont know how many times your going to agree with me and start it with "incorrect"... but here we go again...
> Her show was already on the list of WGA shows, before she decided to bring the show back.
And at what point did I say that wasnt the case?
> Her show is struck based on the rules of the guild, she had WGA writers.
Yup. When the people who compiled the list had to form an opinion on which qualified and which didnt they used the rules of the guild to do so. Since she had WGA writers in the past they decided to add it to the striked list.
> It's not based on opinion, as you erroneously claimed.
My best guess is that your misunderstanding what the word opinion means.
You do realize you can hold an opinion that happens to be fact right? An opinion may or may not be fact or based on fact. While opinions that arent facts will always just be opinions, opinions which are facts, are still opinions, they are fact-based opinions.
Here is the definition fromt he dictionary"
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Pay close attention to the word "necessarily", clearly showing opinions are still opinions even when they happen to be rooted in facts.
"When the people who compiled the list had to form an opinion on which"
Incorrect. Whether wga writers were on her show isn't an opinion. Any talk show that has wga writers is a struck show when the wga goes on strike. It's not based on opinion. Pretending it's an opinion is false, you need a better argument if you want to pretend what she did isn't in violation of the strike.
"at what point did I say that wasnt the case?"
you keep claiming it's an opinion.
Again you clearly dont understand the meaning of the word opinion... When an opinion is formed solely based on facts, it is still an opinion...
You seem to think opinion means "not a fact, just my personal idea i formed on a whim"... thats not the definition of an opinion. I already showed you the definition of an opinion and why an opinion based on fact is still an opinion...
Thus why you keep thinking your disagreeing with me when your not.. you think im saying "its an opinion not a fact" when in reality im saying 'Its an opinion, and an opinion can be a fact"
> you keep claiming it's an opinion.
Yes I do, saying something is an opinion is **not** the same as saying it isnt a fact, as I have said multiple times and you refuse to listen.
"Again you clearly dont understand the meaning of the word opinion"
Nope, I'm correcting your errors. Pretending I don't know what a word means won't help you.
"'Its an opinion, and an opinion can be a fact""
LOL sure jan
Well thanks, you now proved y point, QED. ? Apparently me explaining it 4 times over AND the dictionary telling you youre wrong and your still clueless...
This is the point you've just proven you are a waste of my time, if you cant even understand the meaning of a simple word clearly explained by the dictionary.
Please do not tag or contact me again, you either are incapable of an intelligent conversation or intentionally arguing in bad faith and refusing to listen.
Again: You are not welcome to contact me again, thank you.
"Apparently me explaining it 4 times over AND the dictionary telling you youre wrong
You're incorrect, and your explanations don't help you. The dictionary also doesn't help you.
Since i have asked you to leave me alone you have now repeatidly sent me 4 messages.
You. keep. replying. to. me.
"How many wrong people need to say something before I am obligated"
You're the wrong one.
Irrelevant, since I'm not wrong.
What someone would say if they're wrong is irrelevant. The facts determine that you've been incorrect and I and others have been correcting you.
Unfortunately no, the facts determined **you** are incorrect.. the fact that you keep saying things that an incorrect person would be expected to say just reinforces it.
"Unfortunately no, the facts determined **you** are incorrect."
Nope. You claimed the wga strikers used opinion to determine her show as struck, it isn't.
You claimed cancel culture is a frivolous boycott, it's not. Cancel Culture is a catchphrase for people who don't want to admit consequences exist.
The fact remains a talk show that has had wga writers is a struck show when those writers go on strike. If that show is broadcast during a strike, it will be picketed.
"I asked you to stop contacting me. Last warning, please go away."
No one asked you to reply.
You. keep. replying. to. me.
@freemo @georgetakei The show has her name on it, so she's ultimately responsible.
Besides, 'Cancel Culture' has been around for thousands of years (ostracism), and will quite likely be around for many more.