Oddbean new post about login | logout @98042630 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.
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@7fccbd65 > 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. @98042630
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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. +
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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. +
@b05df304 @98042630 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. +
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@7fccbd65 > 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) @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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. 😅
@7fccbd65 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 :) @98042630
@7fccbd65 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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... 😉
@b05df304 @98042630 As hilarious as it is for you to brand this to cancel culture when that isn't real. Businesses have distanced themselves from people saying controversial things since the beginning of hollywood. Like there's no....this was the left doing it...to this. Ironically enough. The right literally started cancel culture from the start of america to begin with. With the church leading the charge and still doing so now. lol
@b05df304 @98042630 Again. They let her go because it was bad for business (something that doesn't get called cancel culture until it LOOKS like the left did it). Republicans/conservatives constantly cancel people for say...not supporting trump...all the time. But yeah. Crossing picket lines to any degree. Even if it's perceived that way. Is a no no. Even in business.
@0ac60577 @98042630 Again. They let her go because it was bad for business Yea, sure.. I have no doubt they did this because they thought it would be in their best interests as an org. They did it for popularity, not any sense of morality, agreed. (something that doesn’t get called cancel culture until it LOOKS like the left did it). I mean, as myself being on the left, and the fact that I said nothing about left, right, or even politics, this seems nonsensical. It sounds more like your reading from a talking points script than engaging the topic as it is actually presented here. Republicans/conservatives constantly cancel people for say…not supporting trump…all the time. They sure do… you realize you arent disagreeing with me. This point just further proves (with yet another example) that we live in a Cancel Culture. But yeah. Crossing picket lines to any degree. Even if it’s perceived that way. Is a no no. Even in business. Yea even when crossing picket lines is morally ok, generally its avoided from a business standpoint.
@0ac60577 As I already explained in this thread. You clearly dont understand the meaning of "Cancel Culture". It isnt refering to a culture where boycotts happen from time to time. The name implies a culture where boycotting things is a central and dominant theme in the culture. > Like there's no....this was the left doing it...to this. Ironically enough. The right literally started cancel culture from the start of america to begin with. Who said anything about left, right, or who started Cancel Culture. Seems like your arguing against something you imagined I said that I never said (or came close to saying)... > With the church leading the charge and still doing so now. lol Sure Cancel Culture is pretty common in church circles too, especially historically... how int he world is that relevant to what i posted though? @98042630
I could be wrong but isn’t #DrewBarrymore in #SAGAFTRA?
@b05df304 @98042630 If you read the article, she employs (employed?) 3 writers who are on strike now.
@212f83a6 > 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 I get it. You are anti union and anti fair pay and pro union-busting and scabs. Your choice.
@212f83a6 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@212f83a6 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@3d4d0632 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. It’s not new, it’s consequences. 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). @98042630
@3d4d0632 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 @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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.
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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.
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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.
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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.
@b05df304 @98042630 "How many wrong people need to say something before I am obligated" You're the wrong one.
@3d4d0632 I am sure you think so... and you would be wrong to think that. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 Irrelevant, since I'm not wrong.
@3d4d0632 Exactly what someone who was wrong would say :) @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 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.
@3d4d0632 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. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 "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.
@b05df304 @98042630 Cancel culture? Bad behavior has consequences, act like a dick, get dumped.
@954973b1 Bad behavior has consequences, nothing wrong with that. Thats not what the phrase "Cancel Culture" has issue with, boycotting bad actors responsibly is a good thing and should be encouraged, obviously thats not what the term "Cancel Culture" is refering to. The term "Cancel Culture" is when Canceling (boycotts) are both frivilous and have become central to our culture. Whether this is Cancel Culture vs responsible boycotting is obviously a matter of opinion. But those two concepts are also very different things. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 Someone mentioned it, and I think it’s a weasely way to complain without taking responsibility. I’m old enough to remember that really bad behavior erases you from the story.
@954973b1 Yes I am the one who mentioned Cancel Culture. My point is what you are describing, namely "bad behavior erases you from the story", is NOT what Cancel Culture is. We would just call that boycotting. Its responsible and when justified what society SHOULD do. My point is responsible boycotting, as you describe, is distinctly different from Cancel Culture which is where boycotting is using frivilously, irresponsibly, against actors who are not clearly bad actors but nebulous at best, and where such canceling is central to the culture. Im all for good responsible boycotts, but Cancel Culture, the irresponsible use, is a valid concern and good to call out as well. Now as i said if this counts as a legit boycott or Cancel Culture is a a matter of opinion. @98042630
@b05df304 @98042630 Ah, ok. Unmerited “canceling” as a thing is just juvenile. I think this is justified boycotting, or turning away from her. She betrayed her tribe!
@954973b1 Thats fair... I can certainly see your perspective here as well. In my few the only obligation of an employer when faced with a strike is they cant hire replacement workers... I dont see any violation in a company continuing operations during a strike while leaving the strikers positions vacant. @98042630