That is such a wife response.
Edit - saw your response.
It’s an example to highlight that cancellations happen without there being a concrete evidence of it.
If you are evidence oriented, I don’t think you can provide an evidence of the opposite.
It’s not evidence. It’s a thought or feeling at best.
Just like it is a feeling that FA/refs are against Arsenal and unfairly charged Arteta. All the calls on tackles received by Saka are fair.
1 Like
If you want to dispute my opinions on that you’ll have to respond in the appropriate thread.
Of course it’s valid to say it’s difficult to quantify the effects of cancellation because you just don’t know what an artist or public figure has lost out on as a result of controversy.
1 Like
You can say that if you want. I don’t accept it.
By this line of thinking you can literally claim that anybody has been cancelled with zero evidence of damages whatsoever, and nobody can question it because you are pointing to ill-defined, essentially hypothetical projects or roles which don’t actually exist, but you argue may have come to fruition.
What is this, Schrodinger’s cancellation? Lol
I could very reasonably argue that Rowling still gets published all the time, still has major games, films and theatre productions based on IP she created as an argument against her having been meaningfully cancelled and apparently you can respond by saying she has been cancelled because who knows what other opportunities have been denied her, with zero evidence of her actually being denied any opportunities or having any doors closed to her, and apparently you win the argument?!
It’s like bringing a case against someone for libel or slander, and instead of pointing to actual damages caused by the false comments made about you, you tell the judge that you may have got extra work but that you can’t point to a single concrete opportunity subsequently lost. You’d be rightfully laughed at. And I know that actual courts require a burden of proof that were don’t when discussing cancel culture informally, but you do still actually need to be able to point to something that backs up a claim of “cancellation”.
2 Likes
But the majority of this takes place outside a court room and exactly the things you are talking about don’t come into play. When people express unacceptable views they are more often tried in the court of public opinion and the consequences that follow are equally vague.
2 Likes
Ok, so you don’t need any evidence whatsoever, you can just say Rowling got cancelled without being able to point to a single, tangible thing lol.
There’s nothing anyone can say to you to refute that by this logic. It’s crazy.
The court example was a small part of my post and I acknowledged we aren’t in court.
Unless someone is privy to boardroom meetings of every brand interested in J.K.Rowling, I doubt someone can produce this information.
When there is a lack of direct evidence, you have to rely on inferences.
- How much influence does the trans community have to dictate mainstream media?
- Are brands influenced by ongoing progressive viewpoints and do they have tendencies to shy away from personalities who counter such viewpoints?
- Can social media noise affect someone’s career?
- Can a popular figure lose out on business due to a witch-hunting campaign against them?
And each of those questions is answered with ‘Yes’ based on historical evidence. The likes of Chris Pratt, Gina Carano, Dave Chapelle, Kevin Hart etc were affected in one way or another.
Schrodinger is applicable where you can make absolutely no inferences.
That is not the case here.
It is evident that if you have the progressive social media groups campaigning against you, you will suffer financial & professional losses.
1 Like
You don’t have to be cancelled for these wokists to make your job or position extremely difficult.
There are plenty of universities where outside speakers have been cancelled or even lecturers hounded for something as trivial as not using the correct pronouns.
These protesters refuse to listen to anyone outside of their echo chamber and will not debate.
They claim they want fairness and tolerance in society yet they are some of the most intolerant, hate filled people around.
https://www.aei.org/articles/cancel-culture-is-not-just-in-colleges-and-universities/
Interesting read.
Otherwise intelligent people claiming that assertions can be made with literally zero evidence is honestly a bit embarrassing. This is how the culture wars has rotted people’s brains lol, people are now just claiming to be right about things without feeling like a single scrap of evidence needs to be provided.
Nobody going to address the point that you could claim literally anybody has been cancelled and by the line of reasoning in this thread it’s literally impossible to refute this claim.
I just gave you the explanation of inferences.
Otherwise intelligent people unwilling to understand the effectiveness of inferences is a lot embarrassing.
Lot of scientific derivatives are based on inferences. Lot of business decisions are made on inferences.
You’ve created a definition of cancel culture that literally cannot be refuted when applied to any celebrity or public figure in the world. When your initial assertion can apparently be made without a scrap of evidence it is essentially impossible to refute.
You can claim anybody has been cancelled and literally nothing I say can refute that because apparently you can just point to non existent projects or roles that may have come to fruition.
If you really can’t see the issue with such a line of argumentation then there’s no helping you in this specific conversation.
I disagree with this statement as the evidence is right there. JK is fine as she has f you money so it won’t affect her that much. But how many of the cast has come out and made a statement about her “views”? How many are saying boycott the new game? Rosie duffield had an article saying stop spending time with JK. You could go on. It’s disingenuous to say evidence pleases to something that’s no quantifiable. At this point it’s just your bias based on the views you hold is making you refuse to see what a lot of people are seeing happening in society now. A player doesn’t want to wear a rainbow anything becomes a issue. A player didn’t want to take the knee becomes a issue. A (insert profession here) says men can’t be women becomes a issue.
1 Like
Dunno. Why don’t you tell us.
Dunno. Why don’t you tell us?
There was no issue. That player didn’t play in those games and has played subsequently. That’s totally fair in my view.
Yous are creating the echo chamber here gents.
sure just saying hey this thing is happening is not creating a echo chamber
Unless I write a thesis detailing more of the below metrics on which you can determine if there has been a reasonable impact of cancellation(if any), I can never convince you how inferences are effective tools.
- Popularity of a celebrity
- Amount of work in the celebrity’s kitty
- Age of the celebrity
- Competition
- Amount & reach of cancellation talks
blah blah blah
You can use intuitive sense to determine who are legit victims of cancellation culture and who are not. I am not going to use historical data to say some random nobody got cancelled because 2-3 replies to his tweets were negative.
We are talking about J K Rowling here and further down about Chris Pratt. These individuals are popular as well as at the end of relentless attacks.
It makes intuitive & common sense to determine they have been at the end of a fair bit of cancellation.
By that very logic, Unless you provide evidence that Rowling fared positively in every possible project coming her way, you can’t make a claim that there has been no cancellation.
But you are refusing to acknowledge that there is no way to quantify cancellation. It’s impossible.
What you’ve just evidenced is people being criticised or disagreed with, not cancelled. The two are not literally synonymous, even if people want to act like they are.
Rosie Duffield was criticised by an article. Harry Potter cast members have disagreed with Rowling’s views. It’s not the same thing as being cancelled, however much it suits your political outlook to conflate the two.
In your post you criticised my argument, like I have criticised other people’s in this thread this morning. Criticism or disagreement is not synonymous with cancellation, no matter how much some people want it to be.
3 Likes