Subtitles section Play video Print subtitles - [Reporter] As cancel culture is infiltrating everywhere. And it doesn't even. - The way of me making change - And this cancel culture. - Is be as judgemental as possible about other people. - Cancel culture in a nutshell Cancel culture actually. - Cancel culture. - Freedom of speech. - Cancel culture. (dramatic music) - Let's talk about cancel culture. I'm gonna assume you know that cancel culture is a form of a boycott involving an individual. Usually a celebrity, who is deemed to have had problematic behavior or who has said something questionable and controversial. There have been countless videos and numerous takes on why cancel culture itself has become problematic. The way that we judge an entire flawed growing human being by one moment in time taken out of that time social context, thanks to social media and the internet. Ironically enough, cancel cultures origins apparently come from a misogynistic joke. Possibly the first reference to canceling someone comes with the 1991 film, "New Jack City". In which Wesley Snipes plays a gangster named Nino Brown. In one scene after his girlfriend breaks down because of all the violence he's causing. He dumps her by saying, "Cancel that bitch, I'll buy another one." Jump to 2010 when Lil Wayne referenced the film and a line from his song, "I'm single". "Yeah. I'm single, had to cancel that bitch like Nino." This callback to the earlier sexist cancel joke probably helped the phrase percolate for a while. And then several decades later gained massive popularity in 2018 and 2019 as evidenced by this Google trends data. Of course, there are certain cancel people who absolutely deserve to be stripped of their power and made to pay the consequences of their actions. If you're a serial rapist, abuser, convicted pedophile, murderer or someone who likes fucking cantaloupe then you deserve to be canceled. And more importantly, probably serve jail time. 'Cause if you actually enjoy cantaloupe you should not be free to walk the streets and there's something incredibly wrong with you. What I do wanna add to the cancel culture conversation are three things. One, how cancel culture is weaponized against others. Two, how we weaponize cancel culture for ourselves and three, how we can actually fix this monster that we have created. Though cancel culture began with good intentions and undeniably has brought some predators to light. We're now witnessing the intentional weaponization of cancel culture against others. Some people use this to their own advantage, hurling accusations in order to get revenge for personal matters. If you're not familiar with the Tati Westbrook and James Charles drama, Westbrook insists her video calling James Charles out a video that used language to insinuate that he was a sexual predator, was because Westbrook thought this was the only way to get Charles the help he needed and not because she was upset that he promoted vitamins that weren't hers. You can watch the hours of videos if you want they'll dissect this topic to all hell but I can tell you, it was about the vitamins. This weaponization of cancel culture is not exclusive to individual against individual. (upbeat music) Fandoms rally against properties they aren't satisfied with. Most notably the "Sonic the Hedgehog" film. Now, when the trailer came out in April of 2019 it was heavily roasted online and had a nearly 50% dislike ratio. And I mean, yeah, he looks horrifying. The reaction of the internet was not wrong here. I mean, he had a human freaking teeth for crying out loud this a creepy boy, but the Twitter outrage mob on Sonic was according to the Hollywood reporter. So immediate and loud that Paramount pushed the release date and had the VFX team redesign Sonic with an appearance that matched the Sega games. It's hard to argue that this weaponization and power of the internet of Fandom was necessarily wrong because when you compare the two designs one is clearly way less creepy. I think we can all agree that the redesign is cuter and more approachable and feels less like a creature who eats and enjoys cantaloupe. But nonetheless, this is still weaponization. And in this case, things came seemingly all out for the better given that it set the record for the biggest opening weekend for a video game film in the United States and Canada hauling an estimated 57 million. I mean, Sonic ultimately ended up grossing over 319 million worldwide. And even with the redesign, the budget was about 95 million. So this entire debacle had a happy ending but I would argue that it sets a pretty dangerous precedent. I mean, how much of a say should audiences have over creative choices? How many times have we seen movies canceled based on their trailers, which by the way most filmmakers have no control over the way that their movie is marketed. Usually, it's at the discretion of the film distributor and we all know how misleading trailers can be in order to get us to watch the movie. And though this Sonic incident turned out well we've seen outrage mobs in other contexts, particularly academics. And these mobs have often succeeded in silencing professors, philosophers and journalists. Take the case of Rebecca Tuvel who in 2017, published an article, addressing the question of transracialism, which was relevant at the time because of the news coverage of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who claimed black identity. In the paper, in defense of transracialism. Tuvel examined the arguments you use to defend a transgender identity and applied these to the question of transracialism. This is a very common technique among philosophers, testing if reasoning used on one issue would apply equally to a different issue that appeared to close parallel. The negative social media response to Tuvel's article, huge. An open letter with 500 signatures which apparently was mostly signed by non-academics was sent to the publication, demanding that the article be retracted and it was, an unprecedented move. Now the academic community itself largely supported Tuvel. Pointing out how several statements in the open letter were false and misleading and did not reflect the actual content of Tuvel's paper. The Intelligencer has a great breakdown of Tuvel's paper that debunks most of the assertions in the open letter and I'll link it if you wanna read it. Tuvel herself went on the record to say that she had written the article from a place of support for those with non-normative identities because she saw transphobic logic lay at the heart of the attacks against Dolezal. Now I'm not here to comment on who was right or who was wrong 'cause I'm not an academic or a transgender person or a transracial person. My only thought on the entire controversy of this, is that if people found fault with it they should have addressed it critically with critical thought. The level of outrage and personal attacks that Tuvel faced was not warranted for an academic article rooted in philosophical thought and examination, because this is what philosophy is for - to examine why we think the things we think and bring different viewpoints to the discussion for debate. But the culture we live in is moving at such a rapid speed. What is socially acceptable or not changes incredibly quickly. The norms around gender and identity are in flux and philosophy. You know, they got a lot to examine right now. And if we find fault with one of those assertions we should make sure to note the context is within academic speculation and address it accordingly without threatening someone's life or family or employment when they're doing the very thing that they're employed to do. Now, if Tuvel's article was like a hate piece that attempted to invalidate trans identity and was laid in with obscenities like that's a different story, but it wasn't. And I'm very curious how many people who signed that open letter one, actually read Tuvel's article and not just the provocative headline and two, have the academic background to even understand why the explorative article was written as a parallel to trans racial identity and the conclusions it made. Now the weaponization of cancel culture against a myriad of others seems like a no-brainer. But the second, and I think more harmful effect is that we weaponize it for ourselves. We weaponize cancel cultures that we feel better about ourselves, because feeling angry and feeling superior and feeling outraged feels fucking great. - But I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people. And that's enough. Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or use the word wrong verb or then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. 'Cause man, you see how woke I was? I called you out - Yeah. Calling someone out makes us feel real good. It automatically places us above the person who did wrong. The problem is, we forget that we do wrong shit all the time. - This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff you should get over that quickly. (audience laughing) The world is messy. There are ambiguities, people who do really good stuff have flaws. - There's a wonderful book it's called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson and it examines the Twitter outrage mob and the real life effects that this digital judge jury and executioner have had. Some of my favorite standout quotes are, "The snowflake never needs to feel responsible for the avalanche." And, "We were creating a world where the smartest way to survive is to be bland". Cancel culture in its most extreme form often forgets that we judge an entire person based on one moment in time, out of context of actually knowing that individual's background, exposure, upbringing, and growth. And if cancel culture's goal is to make people more aware of their harmful behaviors. Yeah. It's succeeding. But if its ultimate goal is for those harmful behaviors to be adjusted so that people can move forward in their lives and integrate that awareness and get rid of that problematic behavior, then it's fucking failing. I think Sarah Silverman put it the most eloquently on an episode of her podcast. - Christian Picciolini my friend, who was a Neo-Nazi for years since he was from 14 to, you know, into his twenties late twenties maybe was the head of a Neo Nazi, whatever KKK chapter, where he lived. He has spent the last 30 years getting people out of hate groups. That's what he does. But he went towards love. He was 14, he was smoking a joint and an older kid took the joint out of his hand and threw it out and said, "You don't need that stuff, man." And gave him a place where he was accepted and cared for and loved. And that was a hate group a Neo Nazi group where he found family and comradery and a place to be when both of his parents worked all day. In this cancel culture and we all know what I'm talking about. Whether you think there is one or there isn't one or where you stand on it. And there's a lot of gray matter there. But without a path to redemption, when you take someone you found a tweet, they wrote seven years ago or a thing that they said, and you expose it and you say this person should be no more, banish them forever. They're gonna find someplace where they are accepted. If we don't give these people a path to redemption then they're gonna go where they are accepted which is the motherfucking dark side. I think there should be some kind of path. Do we want people to be changed or do we want them to stay the same to freeze in a moment we found on the internet from 12 years ago. And so we can point to ourselves as right, and them as wrong. It's righteousness porn. - I don't know about you, but I'm very tired of this circle jerk of righteousness. I want people, who don't like cantaloupe, to have a way back to love not banishment and irredeemability and moral superiority. If we don't have a space for white supremacists to go when they denounce the KKK how do we ever expect them to leave? If we don't have a path for misogynists to deprogram and be reintegrated into society how can we expect them to change? If we don't have room for people to make mistakes, learn from them and then do better, what the hell do we think cancel culture is actually promoting? Real growth or just getting really high on someone's low. And I'm sure we can all agree that if we had to choose the goal of cancel culture we'd say we want these people to change to stop perpetuating problematic behavior that hurts others. But right now we don't give them any acceptance or room or grace to do so. All we do is point the finger and watch them burn and feel really fucking good about ourselves. And if our goal, our true goal is to bring awareness to injustices and prevent them in the future. Then we need to humanize cancel culture. And that starts with every single one of us, every single time we're logged on. I'm Annna Akana and thank you to the Patreons who supported this video. And thank you of course, to Daddy Squarespace for sponsoring today's episode. From websites and online stores to marketing tools and analytics. Daddy's Squarespace is the only one platform to build a beautiful online presence and run your business. With Daddy Squarespace you can see how your visits, unique visitors and page views trend over time as well as gain insights into the top traffic sources, products and browsers by visits. Plus stand out in any inbox with Daddy Squarespace email campaigns. You can unify your brand voice from your homepage to your emails and you can authenticate all your social media profiles. And auto-post your content to Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr. What more could you want from Daddy Squarespace? Bye.
B1 cancel culture article sonic squarespace academic Why we can't accept cancel culture 14 0 林宜悉 posted on 2021/02/24 More Share Save Report Video vocabulary