Vengeance toward someone we don't know can never be satisfied, and they can never be forgiven, as they aren't a person to us, they are a only a concept...so it's impossible for them to suffer enough. It's better to admit that we do not know any of these people, and treat our relationship with them just as abstractly - which is to say with a lot less invested emotion. We may feel like ScarJo or whoever 'knows' us, but they don't, and we don't know them, literally at all. They are icons in our minds, not family, not friends who love us. This extends from superstars on down to me right here in this post. It's better to admit I'm not actually real; I am an idea that you agree or disagree with. I'm an idiot, I'm a genius, I should f$ck off. You like me because you feel the same way, you hate me because I don't. All these emotions in you are valid - they are yours - but none of what kicked them off is real. I am not a person; this is only text. Forget me, spend time with those you love, and choose things that make you happy. And if you write back, know you are writing to no one in particular - then anyone who reads it might really hear what your saying.
Holding the websites liable openly? Like if youtube can delete my channel all the same as someone who uploads cp, who are they to make that equivalency? If they think they're in a position too they need to be held for the liability of the cp. Period. This isn't an argument this is basic law Otherwise I'm a person online and off and I want a trillion dollars reimbursement. I've been banned many of places, I don't even need UA-cam's money specifically to be Jeff Bezos rich right now And that's the moral imperative others have to come to themselves. Would you rather your personhood be respected online? I can see why. You are entitled to your free speech, but know if UA-cam isn't cancelling you, the government will. Which means more fed surveillance, more taxes going to that surveillance, serious criminal charges off of things that lead nowhere. But you are a person. And it's not youtubes job to tell you you're not OR you hold the website liable. They do damage control kinda like now but moreso. Probably turn off all comments. Forums will always exist, they always have, and at least your average stupid normie will finally comprehend who to actually blame. Sure you'll have to deal with these child grooming Reddit and discord jannies, but the feds are their problem, not yours.
If we can not allow for people to make mistakes, grow past those mistakes, and accept their apologies for those mistakes, we are all very, very screwed.
True, but also "sorry 'bout that, it was a long time ago" doesn't always make for a convincing apology. Unfortunately, we can't mind-read, so we have to use imperfect measures to determine if someone's apology and assurances that they're a different person now are believable.
@@unvergebeneid people just need to realize that it's not their place to judge complete strangers. We should just leave social punishment to the people who actually know these people, like their family, neighbors, or acquaintances
@@unvergebeneid is a celebrity really a person in power? They're not. If a person does something horrible, they should just go to jail. If it's not a crime, then it's enough if the people close to the wrong doer shuns them. Frankly, trying to punish a complete stranger is a bad idea because you really don't know what actually happened. Just because some lady claims a man raped her, that doesn't mean uninvolved strangers get to jump in and ruins the man's life. You see, there are plenty of false accusations about these kinds of things, and it's disgusting how easy it is to get the public to ruin a man's life like this. Listen, if a man is truly guilty of such a crime, take him to court and put him in jail. Leave it up to the law. The only exception to publicizing a person's wrongdoing is if it's a politician, since we vote these people in, and public opinion actually matters.
Sadly, cancel culture often punishes those who have little fighting power against the mob. A high profile celeb wont be in financial ruin and will likely bounce back. A neighbor who used racist jokes years back on the hand will become unemployable. It is really sad how people are judged for past misconduct because it upholds the belief that people cant grow or change.
I been accused of sexual harassment without proof or details of the claim to prove my innocence, luckily, I been fighting these false accusations back and despite being banned from two chats, I haven't been cancelled
@@DreamsOfDior do you believe in changes or punishment? Cause if someone is racist, you want them to change, if you are publicly shaming them, you are not only giving them a chance to change, but you can either make that person double down on their bad beliefs or cause them to be suicidal, if you don't want to give them the chance to change, you are as bad as the person you are cancelling
@@Lilliathi most people done bad shit in the past, I told someone "I hope you get cancer" in the past, I learned from my mistake and learn to be a better person
What scares me more isn't people getting canceled for past actions, but for present ideas, especially when these ideas, unpopular as they are, actually contribute to the cause many so-called advocates claim to be fighting for.
Someone: **Did/said "bad"** Social Media: **Call out** Someone: **Apologizes for wrongdoing** Social Media: "Admitting guilt and apologies because they got caught, therefore evil and needs to be cancelled" ------- Someone: **Refuse to apologize** Social Media: "Deny guilt and responsibilities, therefore evil and needs to be cancelled" Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But some apologies are accepted. Jenna Marbles apology vids were accepted. Shane Dawson’s wasn’t because man’s is a psycho. Teigan’s wasn’t because she’s been doing the same thing on Twitter for like ten years, ppl don’t believe she’d change. Dababy’s wasn’t cuz he doubled down like twice and kept the harmful lyrics up. Some ppl’s apologies are accepted if they do some other action with it
Exactly. That's why it's best to stand by your words, and refuse to apologize in the first place. You'll be damned either way, but at least then you'll have your integrity.
To use the example of Teagan. She bragged about spending 10k on a bottle of wine, during the second "once in a lifetime" economic collapse. She, and the other rich people aren't going to be facing any serious repercussions for this. We see the rich escape any restorative justice all the time. The worst she's facing is mean tweets. When the powerless are continually victimized, we have to get any kind of justice we can. If that means we hurt her pockets via boycott, or hurt her feelings, by letting her know our displeasure at trying to get a minor to commit suicide, so be it. As the oppressed, we have a duty and moral obligation to fight oppressors any way we can.
To judge people by your personal opinion is not " good intentions" they are thinking they are superior and have greater moral standards. But if they were to be judged or question they become very defensive and nasty. Showing their true intentions as this is personal for their own self worth .
People don't need blood, people don't need justice. They need directives, especially the ones at the bottom. They gain these by watching awful TV, ideological-circle youtube videos like Wisecrack and living their lives without seeing any form of pluralism, believing whatever anyone says.
if there was a app where you could murder someone canceled people would do it. give an easy anonymous way to do it on a twitter app everybody will do it people are vile
I think he was just put to death by order of Athens government, not its masses, because he was pointing out big flaws of the Athens government. The people where split because he was making valid observations, but in the end he was ultimately proven right about how corrupt and closed minded they where.
@@rogerreger9631 : That’s a slightly unfair interpretation of Mr Sake’s use of the term, “the masses,” don’t you think? His point is perfectly valid, without need of correction, and he obviously understood the issues involved? Yes, it was a hit job, by a few corrupt men. But, the jury was literally over two hundred people strong, each representing their clans and family’s interests. While Socrates had friends among the wealthy, educated class, he was generally unpopular enough for this to happen to him. And his defence more or less sealed his fate, ensuring his popularity was at an all time low among the people of Athens, by the time the jury returned their verdict. In actual fact, not one person sitting on that jury actually expected Socrates to die at all. They all knew his rich friends would bribe the guards and smuggle him out, and they more or less left the door open for him to escape. They were as shocked and saddened by his death as his friends were. But, that’s because they didn’t understand his (Asperger driven?) character, or his commitment to his principles, which included his obedience to the letter of the law. He chose to accept his death sentence, to make the point that no one should obviate the law, and that their law was wrong. Something of a game going on, for sure, “They’ll miss me when I’m gone,” mixed with a touch of, “Now they’ll be sorry.” But, he was right, because he knew each of them, collectively and individually, better than they knew themselves. And his final act was to show them the recklessness of mob mentality, and rule by mass consent. He spoke at great length about it to Plato, if his dialogues are to be believed? I’m only saying all this, not to say you were, “wrong,” in any way, but only to suggest that approaching your contribution from the point of view of a, “correction,” was unnecessarily patronising, maybe? It certainly invites, “defence,” when the point Mr Snake made was 100% correct, for all intents and purposes. I’m not accusing you of, “obtuseness,” merely that there was a friendlier way to add your knowledge? . . .
Thomas is in the truth, remind yourself that athen condition's was totally different, it's label itself as a democracy but in truth only less than 10% was actual citizen who had the chance to have juridic/executif and legislatif power and only 10% of those 10% had the majority of the power. Socrate himself was among the most powerfull citizen of Athen, an ancient militar general who was plotting for real (so is execution isn't as unfair that people make it look to) a coup. IF socrates accept to die rather than be exile, or to pay (they give him the choice, he was way too powerfull to be put to death directly), is cause it's just pointless to keep living in those conditions (he was one of the greatest ennemy of all the foreign states so no hope in that) and lost almost all his friends, his drip and social status, as an old men makin it pointless to try.
>be Socrates >get called upon by what you interpret as a divine task of knowing ones self by questioning how well others know themselves and the things they claim they know >the questioning via the socratic method was so effective that it pissed hundreds of people off including people in high places of authority >Athens, a literal democracy (not a constitutional republic like the U.S.A.) has a process where the PEOPLE can literally vote to exile someone every year just because they don't like them. >Athenian court is literally just a back and forth of he said she said and most of the time winning is only due to bribery or straight up ass kissing and pleading >socrates does neither of these because he obeyed the law and made it a point to not only stick to his values, which he though pleased the gods the most but also made an example of how corrupt pure democracy is.. "Tyranny of the Masses >literally challenges a couple of his accusers to debate him on this and publicly BTFO's them >Plato, one of Socrates' greatest students decides to dictate tons of anti-Democracy ideas to HIS students and in his debates, inspired by the death of his teacher. yeah, it was totally just a couple of rich guys my mistake, there was no blatant mob abuse in Athens how could I be so silly?
@@rogerreger9631 "I think"? do you actually know? @SIMON "it's label itself as a democracy but in truth only less than 10% was actual citizen who had the chance to have juridic/executif and legislatif power and only 10% of those 10% had the majority of the power. Socrate himself was among the most powerfull citizen of Athen, an ancient militar general who was plotting for real (so is execution isn't as unfair that people make it look to) a coup." I am pretty sure Lacadaemon their neighbor also commented on Democracy and it's flaws. Bribery and higher corruption does not change the system entirely if it isn't made official and public that these are now law, and Socrates while a veteran had no money to his name and his very mission angered everyone. like my prior post people got voted out and exiled in Athens on feelings because the masses didn't like them as a way of providing a vent for the people. I have my examples and they are available on in the accounts of Socrates by Xenophon and Plato, where are you getting your sources that say he was planning a fucking Coup?
Great video, guys! I think we also should be discussing ways to overcome the "algorithm based" social networks, which certainly have some responsability in fomenting public rage (for profit lol)
That's unavoidable. People have different tastes. No good would come from UA-cam recommending an anti-vax conspiracy theory video after watching a more leftist take on it. It would be like being recommended an anti-car video after watching a video about how great cars are. It makes no sense. The problem is far deeper. It lies in people's inability to think for themselves and determine fact from fiction. I've been on the internet for more than 20 years, since I was a preteen, and I listen to all sorts of contradictory takes with no issues. I have times when I delve into conspiracy theory black holes. I have friends on both sides of the isle that I often discuss difficult issues with. The difference is that I'm not easily swayed by memes or (arguably worst of all) sensationalist TV shows and "documentaries". The problem has nothing to do with the internet or algorithms. The problem is stupidity.
I consider your assessment of this video wrong, and believe the video is uninformed nonsense. It barely scratches the surface of how authoritarian and malicious cancel culture is. Wisecracked here just takes it for granted that the targets of cancel culture are the wealthy and well-known, that the anger expressed towards the target or the ones doing the cancelling are reasonable, that the targets punishment is deserved, and the entire act isn't an evil demonstration of power. Here, Laci Green did a much better video on Cancel Culture: ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
@@Mahaveez Not sure I can do it without ANY value judgments since this is subjective, but it’s reduced since what situation fits what will vary person to person. Cancel culture can be used to… 1) Deplatform unambiguously harmful people like R. Kelly, ensuring that though he can still make or sell music, he isn’t able to use profits from it to directly harm underaged girls like he has. This is closest to boycotting, a good old American tradition. I’d argue a good use since it centers on objective harm reduction, people putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to their morals so to speak. 2) Call out or deplatform people some believe are toxic but others don’t. This is more ambiguous since not everyone will agree if the person is WORTH canceling, if they’ve been bad enough to warrant it. It has the ability to backfire, giving the person being cancelled publicity while making a mockery of those doing the cancelling and therefore their cause. It can stop helpful conversations that could lead to learning. Sometimes someone acts how they do because they don’t know better. Other times they don’t care and others still it’s out of spite. Sometimes this form of cancelling CAN be good, other times harmful. It entirely depends on who you ask. Much in the same vain as “everyone is being too sensitive until someone does something that offends ME personally.” 3) Dog piling, doxing, and attacking people for things they did in the past-even if that person’s changed. Or inflaming simple misunderstandings by defaulting to the least charitable interpretations of what was said. Also subjective and ambiguous. It definitely kills any educational conversation, involves more gossip and reflexive groupthink than thoughtful research, and honestly seems to be for more self-aggrandizing purposes on the part of those canceling than it is helpful for the people they’re supposedly defending. When people complain about cancel culture (in good faith) they’re usually talking about this group.
It seems to me that cancel culture isn’t about justice at all it’s about being aloud to bully someone cause it’s a good cause (in their minds as a justification) and having power over someone’s life
@@ELMAGNIFICO101 Pro-lifers are worse because they harass and slut-shame pregnant teens, murder doctors, and bomb abortion clinics. Cancel culture just types insulting messages and boycotts celebrities and corporations.
It’s possible to tank through cancel culture by not reacting to it. A lot of adult cartoons writers have managed to do this. The internet is toxic and thrives on pain and bullying, so being unreactive is usually the best counter in the interim
that doesn’t work when the platform itself is held in moral hostage(or financial hostage by those that are powerful), “if you dont cancel this person on MY behalf then you must be against MY views and you(the platform) are supporting the one i want to cancel”
Cancel culture rarely affects celebrities significantly, few experience more than a momentary hiccup. It primarily affects average people who happen to catch the attention of society at large and they often face serious repercussions. And there is a difference between one being held accountable for their words and actually being cancelled. The interpretation of which is which is often dependant on who the definer likes or dislikes. Calls for cancellation are not only righteous indignation, but also chances to attack people who one wished to harm prior to their missteps.
Same! I think a lot of people's anxiety they feel comes from having to process all of the negative opinions, perspectives and conflicts from social media posts and comments. It's a lot of information to take in and process and our brains don't seem to be adapted to handle it all.
@@pretikewl76 you can straight up shoot someone in the face on camera and still even then you’re given a fair trial. It doesn’t matter how guilty you feel that person is. It’s not your job and I’m glad it isn’t.
Even then I think cancel culture will persist. Back in the middle ages people were humilated in thr town square for breaking laws. People even back a few decades ago were being attacked by tabloids and having their lives ruined by media frenzies. We crave detroying people humilating them and making them feel worse then they already feel.
Weird, I was also thinking of a Black Mirror episode while watching this, but a different one (White Bear)! It addresses the way society dresses up the punishment/humiliation of someone who's done wrong as entertainment.
Awesome idea. One critique is that it’s hard to imagine how restorative justice could occur on social media platforms that are built to create and promulgate the very outrage and public shaming that drives cancel culture.
So then don’t have justice happen on social media. Keep it between the offenders and the victims. Of course social media was made to inflame fights and cause drama, but justice probably shouldn’t happen here.
@@kohlcooke8789 lolol, when you keep in between just the party hurt and the party doing the hurting, how is there any justice? if no one knows what that person did, how can they make informed decisions on how and if to interact with them?
@@constantreader1422 how about this: either the offender or the offended releases what happened AFTER they have already talked. As in, the offender and victim meet up, seek restorative justice and consequences. Then, if it works out, the offender (or the victim if the offender is too cowardly) can come forward and address the situation and what happened at the meet up. Or, if the meet up didn't work out, then the victim can come forward and the offender can get the hate they deserve. That way, it gives it a chance to work itself out before the rest of the world gets involved.
@@kohlcooke8789 that sounds more traumatic to the person, as i was in that pretty much that exact situation before and it looked bad that i tried to work it out with them first rather than telling everyone. so, milage may vary. it doesn't seem good to place the onus on the victim to go about it "the right way" when they have been traumatized. at least, it doesn't seem like it to me.
@@constantreader1422 well the victim can have a therapist or friend there, to show the clear balance of power and not make it even worse. idk, just an idea
Companies need to stop firing employees at the slightest whiff of a scandal. It only emboldens the online mobs. Seriously, whatever happened to the disclaimer: "These people's opinions are their own and do not reflect that of (insert company name)"?
Customers are fickle. If they find that anyone in the company doesn't fit their moral agenda they won't use said company and tell everyone else not to use them either. Companies now have to look like the shining beacons of morality to keep the customers coming. Unless you're like Apple or Amazon.
@@SD-tj5dh An online mob has the attention span of a 5 year old. And in this perpetually connected society, there's a new scandal every minute. So threats of boycotts are empty threats.
There is a chance that a sexual predator would try to seek retaliation on whoever told on them. They wouldn't have a lot to lose. That seems like a danger for everyone at the workplace.
@@hongquiao that may be so, but 5 minute attention spans are an eternity if your company is trading on the stock market. Anything that looks anything but perfect will crash stock values and damage the company severely. The world is shitty and fickle about everything and looking like beacons of social justice as a company keeps shareholders happy and their customer base as wide as possible.
This one is tough for me. There's someone in my past who did monstrous things to me. I escaped from them. While I definitely don't want retribution, I also don't see any means of restoration or transformation: in my case, what they did was (at least partially, and who can say how much, overall?) the result of mental illness. Given the nature of their illness, I don't think it's possible for them to ever see what they did as wrong, or to ever even be willing to have an honest dialogue. I'd definitely be in favor of good, across the board mental health services for those of us here in the USA. That would absolutely keep some of the cases like mine from happening. But it wouldn't bring me any closure, and it wouldn't help my abuser to face reality. Perhaps we might have to face that, for some cases, justice (in any reasonable form) isn't even a possibility.
This person sounds similar to the effects of narcissists I've seen hurt others in my life, though certainly not to preclude other mental troubles that may get in the way. I know in psychology, the example of narcissists that I'm relating to what you said with, can actually change with good environments and the help they need. There may be those rare few within society that just wont be able to be saved through good efforts. But like with an individual utilizing violence, anything beyond restorative/transformative justice efforts should certainly be held back for last resorts, even if they may well be necessary at some point. Pain is dumb and I'm sorry to hear about yours.
The important and scary discussion point that must be made in this case is this; Do we really have free will? If you think about it, there is no such thing as a purely internal experience or thought, every single last thing about you has originated from outside of you, your parents, friends, community, media you watch. You can't know what you don't know, and so you base your reality and everything you believe and think based off of an insane amount of calculations you have made in your life with the thoughts implanted in you since birth. The mental illness and other such things in that person's life inevitably lead up to and determined their actions, as all else in the universe is determined. A few examples: A star cannot pop into existence, it needs a nebula, which needs a ton of matter heat and energy to gather in one area. Is a coin flip random? Yes, but actually no. Everything about a coinflip; the weight, the angle it lays on your fingers, the force of the flick of your thumb, the air density, the angle it hits the ground, all of these things are based on the laws of physics, which are deterministic, not the laws of because I say it is random. But, because we as humans cannot perceive the answers or begin to try and calculate everything involved, we cannot know the outcome or how it got there until after it happened, thus for all intents and purposes, the coin flip is random. If a coinflip machine with all of the necessary scientific instruments where able to calculate all of those things in real time, you would see that it could perfectly know what the outcome is before it happens, again, proving that random cannot exist, and that everything is determined. If everything is determined, are we even morally responsible for the things we do? We want others to be responsible for their actions, but if everything in us is predetermined by things in the past, how can we ever truly say punishment is right? If anything, education, and righting past wrongs and becoming better should be the focus of wrong doings. However then we enter endless philosophical debates about brainwashing, treating humans like robots, and many many other things branching off from that. I am not saying what happened to you is right, I am not saying that person is a good person and shouldn't have to have some correctional activities, but this is an infinitely complex subject, and all I know about you or that person is seven sentences.
@@CuRoss Thanks, and - yeah, the person I'm referencing is a toxic narcissist. That's not the problem though: this is a person who often experienced trauma-related fugue states, memory lapses, and near-complete divorces from reality, during my time under their heel. Years of good, qualified psychological therapy and psychiatric help hadn't been able to help with those issues - at least by the time I finally left. And, of course, compounding that is a family DEEPLY rooted in societal image and heavily invested in pretending everything is alright, all of the time. These are the people that SHOULD make sure my old abuser is staying grounded in reality and getting good help, but they're all too willing to go along with false realities that better suit their collective public image. For me, the choice has been to move on one day at a time and really try to take the wisdom and positives from my experiences, while letting go of the poison where and when I can. And, back on the original topic, I don't feel like justice is what I need - at least right now. I don't know what form it could take, or how it would improve my life, at any rate. Life, away from the abuse, and in a place where I can put myself back together as a stronger, healthier person, is good enough. Actually, it feels pretty darn good, most days of the week, even if it took a long time to get here.
@@paladinrose Your maturity and reason is astounding and I salute you. I'm guessing your outcome is on the order of 1% of cases of induced trauma. Notwithstanding, one could argue that the resolution needs to happen with the caretakers. In the same way you can't hold a child accountable when it's a result of parent negligence, you can't really hold someone not in control of their mental faculties accountable. Just spitballing, I'd say the best outcome would be the mentally ill person to be in treatment (perhaps permanently depending on the illness) and the caretakers to be confronted in an attempt for closure on some level. It's not ideal, but it might be the best you can expect.
The situation is you'll never get the satisfaction you desire even when they get cancelled. The only thing you can do is move on from ground zero. Sounds easier than it is. But it's possible.
This take on cancle culture is so bad I can only believe it was written by political activists who are scared someones going to take their favorite club away.
@@obo2999 oh they went that far? Good God help us all. I barely got past their explanation of cancle culture. Which is insane because no one has an issue with a person not patronizing a buisness. It's more the harrasment campaigns and attempt to make sure you are unable to live any kind of life after the fact that people are upset about.
Public shaming used to be a useful tool for keeping the a-holes of society in line but now a-holes find other a-holes with similar opinions online and the algorithms reinforce their opinions by feeding them content they like. Social media sites should be required by law to give people alternate views occasionally so people don't end up slowly creeping toward the extremes like so many do now.
That's a lie and you know it. It's almost always been used by the very 'a-holes' you're referring to in order to get rid of people they disagree with; just ask Socrates. _Oh wait._
I get what you’re saying, I think, but public sharing also used to keep heretics, homosexuals, skeptics, and many other groups in line. I don’t think it’s the best mechanism of justice. That’s not to say that it’s never appropriate, I just don’t think it should be thought of as an ideal option
It wasn't, back then these barbaric methods had no effect on the crime rate, it even had an opposite effect because people were so afraid of the punishments that'd they commit even more "crimes" in an attempt to avoid the punishment. Look at many European countries and see that crime rates go down a lot as the justice systems are rebuilt towards rehabilitation not punishment.
@@Eagle3302PL Did I say rehabilitation was bad? No. Public shaming works to keep most people on the right path but for those that do still commit crimes I agree rehabilitation works far better than just locking them up for years. I'm aware of the Scandanavian countries building rehabilitation complexes for minor offenders so they don't become hardened criminals like those in the US often do once they go to prison. They do work but you still need prisons for the people that are so screwed up in the head that it would take decades of therapy to fix them. There comes a point where it's too expensive for long term treatment and if they've done terrible things like multiple murders or many violent crimes they might not deserve help.
"an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" wasn't actually supporting retributive justice. contextually it was advocating limiting it to equal punishment. it suggested; if a guy gave you a black eye, you couldn't kill him but you could give him a black eye back
@@chase-warwick to clarify if you didn't get it the first time, retributive justice was around before then. hammurabi's code was a limiter to how much punishment could be doled out.
@@chase-warwick No, you're missing his point. It's not retributive, it's about restricting retributive justice. You're talking about the most rudimentary existence of laws at a time when there was none prior. It's like talking about the prison system prior to the stance of being rehabilitative than punitive, of which William Penn of Pennsylvania's namesake set in motion. Before that the focus was on punishment. The CONCEPT of rehabilitation simply did not exist. Hammurabi's code was basically giving offenders rights similar to our fifth amendment rights to not be tried for the same crime twice. The problem with cancel culture or mob justice is that it has no limitations and that you can be repeatedly punished for one action multiple times and in excess of the crime, and this is even BEFORE you get to the other things our bill of rights protects, like innocent before proven guilty, a right to trial before a jury of your peers, ect. and that has even YET to touch upon rehabilitative justice over punitive ones. So you can argue it is a matter of retributive justice by hiding behind a definition and literalism (a common tactic these days), but in context and what and when, it's actually about setting up rights for the accused and the first instance of setting up limitations on justice.
Speaking of Jared- has anyone seen his new channel and his interview on why he left wisecrack? While he and the team may not talk a lot, it’s a relief to know he left on good terms/wasn’t cancelled and nothing nefarious took place.
People who hadn’t had their voice heard most of their life feel they are being heard when they “cancel” somebody and have randoms like their tweet lmaoo
You say "lmaooo", but you're right; there's a seriousness to it. There's a huge amount of injustice that occurs day to day, and many people have so little power to do anything about it. So lashing out against the ennemi du jour, deservedly or not, provides a tiny sense of control. There's a catharsis to it.
@@Dracalis Perhaps their outrage can be harnessed for a plebiscite election, to make or change laws, even constitutions? They could vote not only for politicians but department heads, executives, and company policies. This would give cancelers the power they want.
I like this. I like this a lot. It's not the tired right-wing whining/ fearmongering nor the tired leftist mob mentality, rather aims to actually tackle the issue and offer a solution that helps society.
This is what adults do: they find solutions and try to help society change from those flaws However, this is proof that all humans are just huge adult babies
@@mansamusa8410 same. I'd consider myself fairly left, but I'm glad this wasn't just another instance of "the right sucks" or "the left sucks" and just a fairly apolitical, yet analytical take with sociology in mind
It's a pipe dream though. Most people are tribal little demons that want to destroy others to improve their own social status. This would all be solved if people just didn't get involved in things that don't have anything to do with them, but we all know that ain't happening either.
Where have BEEN? I was worried they’d cancelled YOU, Helen!? So great to see you back! Maybe I’m just missing your vids when they come out? But it feels like you were gone for a long time? ✌️
I love this video’s focus on the consequences felt by both the victims and the guilty, with an honest effort to consider what might be best for everybody. Contrasting retributive and restorative justices prompts the audience to consider what they actually hope to achieve once the conversation is over. This is useful.
I think, however, there is one key consequence of cancel culture, for better or worse, that this video fails to acknowledge: deterrence and self-censorship. Public hangings, for example, were not purely retributive; they were public for a reason. If a man was hanged for blasphemy, the publicity of the horrible consequence resulting from his politically incorrect behaviour served as a deterrent against future so-called blasphemous utterances by forcing everybody else to self-censor before saying anything that might read as offensive to God. This is the true weight of cancel culture. The cancelling of Chrissy Teigen, like a public hanging, affects everyone, not just her. When somebody like that gets labelled “beyond redemption”, the rest of us are effectively deterred from engaging in anything that would appear similar to what she did for fear of facing similar consequences, even if our words are comparatively innocent.
So who gets to choose what behaviours are beyond redemption? It seems to me that the judgment isn't done with any sort of ethical rigor, but is rather left to the populist court of public opinion. Now, if we were just talking about twitter activity, this might be okay, but it seems that many of these attitudes have bled into the workplace and just about every other institution in North American society. I'm sure many people have ethical questions that they do not feel safe sharing with any but their most trusted confidants, purely because they fear the social consequences of raising such questions. This is the weight of self-censorship. Such people haven't done anything wrong. Yet why do they feel the weight of the consequences? Why are attitudes like curiosity and hesitation being deterred?
I don’t think cancel culture is going away because it was always kind of here, just with different faces (I’m thinking of the Red Scare. I’m thinking of scientists under Hitler’s Germany who withheld academic findings that went against the populist belief in differences between races. I’m thinking of any Chinese citizen who discredits Beijing. Etc.). But I hope that by placing more emphasis on alternatives like restorative justice, the innocent bystanders of cancel culture will feel more comfortable engaging in public discourse in honest and productive ways.
While I don't have the mental fortitude to navigate the field of razor wire that is this comment section... Solid video, Wisecrack. "Justice" needs an overhaul and restorative justice seems like a productive direction to explore.
No, "justice", in this context, is just a concept here meant to peddle a false solution to a problem of people wanting to feel morally superior. Its, in a sense, stealing the spotlight and diverting away to a pet solution. Here, a better video about cancel culture, from Laci Green: ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
You didnt talk about the worst thing of cancel culture. It always assume the person being cancel as guilty and ruin their lives without first ensuring they are guilty.
I feel like the main issue with cancel culture is that there isn't exactly a middleground except just shutting up. Because most criticisms of cancel culture are by people who have no issue with cancel culture they just feel like people are getting cancelled for the wrong reasons. When Kaepernick started to kneel the people who usually spend all day decrying cancel culture essentially cancelled him. At the same time they get upset when Nazis get cancelled on twitter.
“Nazi get cancelled” oh you mean people who vote differently from you? People like you are why cancel culture exists. Kapernick can’t be criticized right, but let’s shame anyone who disagrees with you into depression or suicide. How “progressive”
@@vVAstrAVv fuck off kid. I didn’t miss shit. 😂 I’ve seen enough of peoples hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. Sorry if you can’t handle it being called out
@@obo2999 The problem is how you instantly assumed you were included into the Nazi demographic. If you're not a Nazi then why does his comment offend you?
“Cancelled” is one of the newest terms to be added to the social-media-slang dictionary. ... According to Urban Dictionary, cancelled i “to dismiss something or somebody; to reject an individual or an idea.” Essentially, this practice encourages a community to blackball, isolate and shun an individual from society, for past speech, certain personal belief, even something as small as a joke or video game character they like, ect. This nasty stuff has GOT to stop. :( We can't keep continuing to control people. When will this craziness end? We need to at least make some rules for it.
An apology almost never helps against cancel culture. they want you to get fired from your job and banks deny you service over a tweet they deem heresy.
Haha, I was literally going to start talking about Harmon. Watching him talk about it was transformative for me. I'd never believed an offender before, and it was so staggering to honestly believe someone who hurt someone could want to actually own up to it and not just avoid accountability. It both helped acknowledge where I've wronged others, but most importantly it also opened the door to potentially forgiving people who deeply harmed me. I really respect Dan for that, and am grateful he was willing to do that so publicly, not as a performance but a demonstration.
cancel culture can be summed up in two ways atleast for me hypocrites trying to call out other hypocrites or flawed people trying to call out other flawed people
The first step toward any Justice is to identify who's the victim. We can't really do that on social media. Both types of Justice that are exposed in this video have clear perpretator and victim and this line is very very blurry when it's just people arguing on twitter.
If cancel culture did anything then the people being cancelled wouldn't be complaining about it on the biggest platforms the human species has to offer.
Canceling is a neat replacement of living in a 1st world country where functional law exists and represents people's will. That's why you have to promote it as bening "withdrawing support" when it's the "societal effect of coordinated, selective, and unequal... withdrawing of support". Forcing the punishment to be unaccountable. It's a good sequel to legislation being overtly punitive with only safeguard being jury system that can let you off the hook on the basis of proper fee-fees. Cue anybody who like to scream words ending at -got at their opponents, they're all just same people with same methods. When it's fashinable to vilify being big, when it's fashionable to vilify being fab.
@@Lilliathi Except there is always another platform. If they're kicked off social media that isnt being canceled, unless you also think being fired is being canceled. There is ALWAYS another huge platform that will host them, and if you get hosted you cant claim you were canceled. Can anyone name one person who actually got canceled and didnt deserve it?
Honestly I see CC overall as the equivalent of the outrage at everything during the 80s. Just like it pushed rebellious kids towards liberalism then, this might push the new generation of kids towards even more extreme conservatism in the future.
What the lady also should have mentioned is that on top of taking responsibility and give an apology, the offender(s) should also say WHY they did what they did. It doesn't change anything, but it does help the victim(s) understand why things was done and help said victim(s) find closure and not have to constantly ask themselves: WHY did they do it? It also helps the offender(s) think of what they have done and possibly give them chance to truly feel the weight of their action and then do their best to make things right the best they could. Basically: 1. Victim(s) say what was done to them and ask questions; 2. Offender(s) say why they did what did; 3. Victim(s) finds out the reason(s) why they had to go through what they had gone through; 4. Offender(s) takes responsibility and gives an apology; 5. Victim(s) finds closure knowing what they now know and having have confronted the offender(s) and can move on with their life without having to look back; 6. Offender(s) (if sane enough and can feel genuine remorse and regret for what they have done and don't have any mental issues) is given a little bit of time to realise the full weight of their actions; 7. Offender(s) after dealing with the full consequences of their actions is given opportunity to make things right as best they can in a controlled manner; 8. Offender(s) is given a second chance in life in whatever form said chance comes in.
@@CoralCopperHead That's another way of doing things, but it is better to deal with a problem than let it sit and let it become a bigger problem then it needs to be.
One thing also: its SUPEr easy to always see people dig more and more into the bad, but whenever it seems actual care is done to redeem and change, it always goes under the rug. A weird kinda phenomena that im sure isnt new, but frequently annoying.
Glad you've covered this topic. I've been thinking about this for some time because it seemed odd how people kept thinking this behavior was new. I've also done some reading on retributive justice, it's a topic I think everyone should look into. Unfortunately, I don't think restorative justice really works in this context (the internet) because, A. Most things people get "canceled" for are not for illegal, let alone material crimes, the crimes are usually too subjective (like an unfunny tweet or an opinion). B. A lot of "cancelations" are not often aimed at specific individuals, meaning that there is no way to get a proper consensus on how the offender should be accountable for their actions. c. There is no real "community" on the internet, therefore no community to be accountable for. It's been observed that when people don't view others who they interact with as "people" when on the internet, which makes sense since seeing a profile picture never invokes that same amount of empathy as seeing an actual person, even when you fool yourself into thinking that you've formed a para-social relationship with someone. You are just projecting yourself onto someone else.
I'd be really interested to see you guys explore this topic further. Keep up the great work! More specifically, I think there should be another video done on the different usages of the term, since there are so many ways "cancel culture" is thrown around in media. I agree with the general premise the retributive justice aspects can be harmful, but I think in some ways the idea of "cancelling" has some merit in the sense that it seems that the law doesn't always hold people/groups/companies accountable for actions or statements which we find unethical, immoral, etc. A major downside of living in the information age is seeing bad things happen and feeling powerless to do anything about it. The only tool the average internet-user has is to be a small part of a larger collective voicing their dissatisfaction with a particular practice or behavior. Setting aside the reverse-bullying that can often arise from these movements, I find the idea to be quite similar to the entire concept of "voting with your dollar", i.e. that you don't support businesses/people that don't adhere to your ethical standards. I'm not sure about the specifics, but to me there isn't that much difference between "boycotting" and "cancelling". While this could easily be applied to the spread of misinformation as well, the internet is particularly good at spreading information quickly, so it can lead to greater awareness of bad behaviour that most people wouldn't have heard about just a few decades ago.
I am literally constantly afraid that my irl friends will cancel me irl for accidentally saying something or doing something I don't know is bad. Because I am not in the best headspace, that could really do a number on me, and it scares me. Especially since I want a job in the entertainment industry.
This video completely avoided discussing the kind of cancel culture of most concern. People becing canceled not for doing anything, but just expressing opinions the cancelors don't want to hear. The intent is not retribution but silencing.
Agreed. Our society is like 1984 by George Orwell in a lot of ways. 2 minutes hate, propaganda in everything, the altercation of our english lexicon (political correctness), redefining reality & history, and much much more. We even have scapegoats (ex. Goldstein) that we still talk about 6 months down the line… You know who I’m talking about. At the end of the day, the media and oligarchs have all the power and the people are just the proles, idiots, living their lives in the fake and immoral reality. We can’t even define the word woman anymore. Damn.
@@michalis75 In a society where speech can be considered violence, opinions can get you in big trouble. Chrissy T told someone to kill themself. That is a lot different than an opinion I think. I think that society should tell her, that isn’t ok. But to cancel people for things they said years ago, YEARS AGO, that is a bit much in some cases.
The boycott would then restart until reasonable change is made. Otherwise, they need to find a new market. Meanwhile, a competitor can take this opportunity to cater to the disenfranchised and perhaps steal away some market base.
@@niuguber Pretty much any company that allows the Chinese to build their products (ahem, anyone who isn't Samsung) should have been boycotted a while ago.
Why did you say absolutely nothing about cases when someone was fired from work and ostracized based on false accusations? Cancelling is just lynching without any repercussions for the mob. Most of the mob doesn't care for any form of justice, or victims(or if there are any), they just love the power.
Granted a lot of ppl have been fired for nonFalse accusations so I don’t think it’s people being power-hungry. False accusations are going to happen, just kinda gotta check the info beforehand which is hard to do in an internet world where you Pay attention for four seconds.
@@TubemastaC not gonna happen, majority of people only see headlines and follow the bandwagon, if this actually happened, cancel culture would've been less toxic.
Theres no alternative, or "another way". Laci Green's assessment of cancel culture is more worthy of being heard: ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
This is a fantastic video. The arguments here do a fantastic job of expressing my views on the subject in a clear manner and does an excellent job of backing it up with historical and philosophical sources. I think this is immediately my favourite Wisecrack video yet.
Cancel Culture be like Twitter: your Canceled Me: What did I do Twitter: You said a slur Me: it was 10 years ago tho Twitter: "if I shot someone and get caught 10 years later, I still shot that person" Me: 10 years ago that word was not a slur Twitter: Your canceled we don't care Me: Does not care a keeps uploading videos
I am sooo tired of this shit being talked about WITHOUT also bringing up people being wrongfully cancelled by way of false accusations and the subsequent band wagon
Restorative Justice isn't groundbreaking because we did this in elementary school. The fact that as adults we have to give it a label and treat it as such a big deal is actually indicative of one simple truth: Kids are wiser than adults, sadly and ironically enough.
Bully culture. Its how bullies watches every move you do hoping you slip something that will give them the opportunity to harass you to the point of suicide.
I agree, her example also didn't cover those who were falsely acused of something or those who simply had a "bad" opinion. It leads people to be afraid to speech as she stated earlier in the video.
@@nannerhannah3268 Yeah and that is what cancel culture really is at least the way I see it. its usually people wanting someone cancelled for an opinion they dont agree with or a mistake they had no idea about ( people fired for the "white supremacist" ok hand sign). Theres a difference between people doing real bad shit and getting fired or whatever for it and people being cancelled for an opinion
@@TheNatew97 That assumes that going after someone's job even meets the standard of retributive justice, and I think very often it doesn't. I would argue that the legal systems in the US and Canada mostly are retributive justice, and while imperfect, it's better than sheer mob rule without due process. Twitter ganging up and going after someone's job (rallying people to contact the accused's employer for example) for something they said is closer to mob violence than it is to anything resembling justice. In my opinion. Having said that, I wouldn't consider some of the examples they gave as "retributive justice" either. It's retributive, but not justice. In reality, most of our legal process is retributive justice, it's not just witch burnings a century ago or what happens on twitter. That's the point I'm trying to get at here. Lastly of course, I do agree that restorative justice is what we should be aiming for anyways though.
Cancel culture will remain so long as the platforms that facilitate it continue to reward shallow interactions while disincentivizing those that are deep and meaningful.
11:00 this idea only makes sense within the wider society and saying we have to divert attention away from people's bigoted statements to structures is suggesting that we can't do both at the same time. Cancel culture primarily exists on social media so of course it's focused on individuals.
Well, slacktivism and hacktivism are online protest groups. There are "pedo-hunters" who impersonate children, lure and publically expose child molesters. There is also crowdfunding, The former can and do attack systemically bigoted institutions, with online petitions for social change and hacking the offending corporate and government computers, respectively. These could join the pedo-hunters in petitioning and hacking for change in Catholic and public schools, to prevent child abuse. They could crowdfund for survivors, social welfare, prison, and mental health reform, preventing hate crimes and police brutality.
Very interesting point on how cancel culture interferes with the restorative justice process - by only serving punishment we dont address the victims in situations nor do we address the offenders in conflict owning up to their participation in situations.
Perhaps there is a difference between someone saying something that you find offensive, and someone saying something evil. Perhaps intent should matter.
What about context? Or innocent until proven guilty? Or overzealous persecution? Or even a simple misunderstanding? My problem with Cancel Culture is the lack of nuance.
The issue I see with “transformative justice” is the question of transformation into what and who decides what that justice looks like, how it’s implemented and where any resources the transformation requires comes from. Restorative justice simply rectifies a situation to a previous state where transformative changes the situation to a third form. This transformative justice paradigm is predicated on the existence of an objective good which society cannot agree on (especially in a heterogeneous society like the US).
yea this is interesting to me. the examples of transformative justice seem to be based on the idea that justice = victim forgiving perpetrator. why should that be an ideal to measure justice against? is it really in the best interest of most victims to actively go through that process with the people who have harmed them? it feels very similar to the one-sided idea of christian "forgiveness" that places the onus on one party to forgive, based off of some abstract virtue. if that helps some people heal, then they should really be encouraged to do so. but the idea that that's somehow the "better" or "right" choice seems like absolute bullshit to me, and a great way to put victims into a further damaging process.
I'm not sure anyone has to agree. Placing focus on the victim makes them the arbiter, in large part at least. Once the offender has exhibited change such that the victim is satisfied and can forgive, justice is considered met. Because who else has a greater stake in the matter? The enforcement apparatus is basically just there to push for authenticity and prevent the perp weaseling out of things or conning the victim.
@@twistedtachyon5877 That's the issue -- people are often accused with no actual victim to step up. At that point, the people who are upset _cannot_ be satisfied because there's no satisfaction to be had.
The problem with cancel culture is that too often it becomes about self-righteousness for people doing the cancelling and ends up targeting those who have the least power and influence because they can be damaged the most easily. The cancelling often pays little to no regard to what that offence was, the context surrounding the offence, or the offenders point of view, or any attempts at making amends. People have lost their jobs, businesses, social standing, have had themselves and their families come under threat of harm, and all because of the collective dog-piling of Internet Puritans who can call themselves "brave" whilst hiding behind their screens. This is the problem with cancel culture and why it is so difficult to offer a restorative solution.
Cancel Culture seems extreme… until you realize that Chrissy Teigen is the worst case scenario… basically an anomaly. Most people who are “canceled” like Roger Ailes, Nick Cannon, Andy Rubin (from Android), and Louie CK either get paid wildly high severances or return to the business just like normal. When you consider that, cancel culture itself almost feels like a boogeyman that is demonized to escape any semblance of accountability, which this video demonstrates CC as not being very good at anyway.
Good to hear Louis CK has his TV show back and is doing big venues again.. oh wait. Yes, rich celebrities are all that affected either way, but you don't hear about the normal people who lose their job over a naughty tweet.
@@Lilliathi Louie is selling out venues, just because they aren’t huge (as far as I know) doesn’t mean his career as ended. Also, people can’t cancel the smaller people over a naughty tweet because those people don’t have following that warrant the attention. So the only way they get canceled is from their own employers… which is how it’s always been since social media started.
@@ChanningChea Louis was doing TV shows and massive venues. His career has been severely damaged. Of course it's always the employers afraid of backlash that do the firing.. you think the twitter mob shows up to someone's work and tells them they're fired? There's been numerous unknown people who's tweet went viral and got them fired because the mob was outraged about it.
I highly recommend to everyone who's interested in this topic to read into the forms of consensus democracy and consensus justice that are used in the independent Kurdish region of Rojava! That's how true progressive politics look like!
@@seanwieland9763 Private property and markets without democracy is just feudalism. Hope you enjoy being a peasant, because you don't look fit for combat.
The biggest problem with this video is that it assumes that the Cancellation is Legitimate - and most often it is NOT legitimate. It is Person A says something that Person B disagrees with, and offends Person B. Person B moves to punish Person A for saying what they said. In the vast, VAST majority of cases, Person B has no relation to Person A in any way, shape or form beyond the two of them existing on Twitter simultaneously. And what Person A says is rarely as cut and dry as even what Tiegen said to Stodden. Not to mention there is very few cases where Person A has actually targeted an individual, like Harmon did to Ganz. So these examples are very unhelpful in this discussion. So where this video goes wrong is it skips the step of determining if there is a LEGITIMATE reason to Cancel Person A, and skips right to assuming that Person A deserves to be Cancelled, and figuring out how to better Cancel them. Which leads to the solution of changing the culture that led to Person A saying what they said and not directly cancelling Person A, which is... nice? Okay? I agree that's a better way to do it... when there is a legitimate case to be made. But that case has to be made first, and right now the only thing that makes the "case" is that enough people with Power decide that that is the case. It's no different than a village in 1690 saying that the old woman who lives just outside the border is a Witch, and she must be burnt alive because she happens to have a physical deformity on her face and she's very good with medicinal herbs. Person B said Person A is a WITCH, and we all believe Person B, so BURN THE WITCH! (newsflash: Person A .... ain't a witch...)
We collectively have a bad habit of assuming that we understand the situation at hand, and things are often presented to us in a misleading way. People don't compensate for the ignorance of others, and in doing so, act in their own ignorance. Nothing good can come from Cancel Culture.
I had an interesting conversation some time ago about cancel culture and comedy with a friend and the final point we reached was "if Jeff Dunham and achmed the dead terrorist is the most popular entertainer in the middle east it's clear people will except offensive if it's funny. -then why was Jerry Seinfeld canceled? -maybe people realised he's not funny"
The way I see humour is that it doesn't equal funny, but merely the intention to be funny to an audience, whether that audience be 1 friend or millions of people. No one joke will ever appeal to everyone in the world, so why must some be punished if others get a free pass? That is selective enforcement, and inherently unfair. Intention is the biggest key word here, intention separates a stereotype joke from genuine hate speech, context is another massive key point people refuse to see. When you remove intention, and by extension, context, you are able to manipulate the message into whatever form you want it to be. That is why text only communication can be so dangerous, you don't know the person on the other side, you don't have all information (intonation, inflection, emphasis, body language, environmental context), it is so incredibly easy to misinterpret simple sentences. Just yesterday I hade a mini comment chain where another person and I continuously thought the other was arguing with each other even though we were both agreeing with each other, funny in small scale, downright terrifying when dealing with angry mobs.
If we say that it is good when a victim ends up befriending their abuser, are we placing a moral obligation on the victim? Something along the lines of "we've decided that it'd be best if you could just forgive them" therefore "you should forgive them". We must prepare ourselves for the potential outcome that the victim does not want to lend forgiveness, and maybe this is a lack of virtue, but it is human.
Missing the point of the video, mate. The point isn't that the victim should forgive and forget, the point is that we should focus on righting the victim's circumstances and mitigating their pain, and find a way for the perp to make amends, rather than just lob them into jail or completely ruin their lives forever by canceling them.
@@Laurentus Yeah, I understand high school level philosophy. What I did is called "contributing to the conversation" instead of "mindlessly listening to words" which you may be more familiar with. I'm talking about how amends can't always be made. This is a fact, it can't and shouldn't always be avoided. It can only be accepted.
Your literal words were that the video was arguing the victim should forgive, when that is not, at all, what was being argued. Clearly your high school was less successful at teaching you comprehension skills than philosophy, since you've decided to take the obnoxious and insulting rhetorical stance.
@@Laurentus I said nothing even close to what you're claiming. For starters, I repeatedly said "we". The video isn't arguing anything - it's presenting. I'm not arguing with the video - I'm adding onto their presentation, adding a notable consequence. There is more to conversation than debate. Expand your social capacity.
I agree with you that sounds wild as fuck. I'm extrapolating here, but if the murderer feels genuine regret at their crime. If they apologized to the family and acknowledged that their apology can't bring back their loved one, but they will spend their life trying to make things right. Maybe the family could forgive them, but it still seems like a wild stretch. The only other alternative is if the murder was accidental manslaughter and like the previous example they feel truly sorry about their crime.
Judicial/Retributive Punishment serves the state (and the molding of society in the projections of law maker). Picture it: A whistleblower gets 25 years, a drug drug dealer (or nonviolent possessor) gets 10-30 years, a tax evader gets 3 years, a police officer convicted of an unjust killing gets leave without pay and a recommendation to other stations. And the CEOs and executives of pharmaceutical and oil companies under fire? Well.. picture it, and you can imagine why if anybody would grow discontent and disillusioned with the legitimacy of the state and its judicial system. They'll become new targets/threats to said system.
As someone who's worked in a school, I can say that restorative justice does work... but only if the perpetrator actually cares. Otherwise they don't take it seriously and in public school there really isn't the consequences in place to make them. I feel like people especially use cancel culture when perpetrators seem untouchable, like they'll never face other consequences. It's a sign, possibly, of how little we trust the various authorities we have in place who actually do have the power to do something besides dogpiling.
The issue isn't with any system of justice, it's with the fact that we're human beings. If you want to avoid people being jerks, then your only option is to avoid people, period. Works for me.
I think there's an important distinction between "cancel culture" and "call-out culture" that's missing here. Canceling someone is usually a transaction between the powerless and the powerful. What can we, the powerless, do to hold powerful people accountable? Not much, but we can ignore them. Chrissy Tiegen has been condemned to the life of a multimillionaire, but now with fewer followers. Calling people out, though... you nailed it. Excellent video.
You only see the celebrity cases. Plenty of people have been fired from their jobs over having the wrong political opinion or making an offensive joke on the internet.
13:18 Murder is a or one of the most unique crimes. The damage inflicted could not be compensated. So,in this case, I believe restorative justice is just an oxymoron.
Meh, some people deserve to be cancelled. Like Lebron James for tweeting "You're next" with a picture of a police officer who saved a black women from being stabbed to death.
@@NotShowingOff Such a prominent public figure like Lebron James should stay out of politics and not speak so quickly and harshly before he has a full understanding of the situation. BTW even after hearing the full situation he still stands by what he said.
@@ThisIsY0SE so suddenly we are making the freedom of speech, conditional? This has nothing to do with government. This is culture. You want ppl who disagree with you to not be very powerful or influential. It doesn’t work that way. The Twitter culture is very inflammatory and reactionary, but that’s because of the culture of the country and the world in general. Lebrun James lives in the world as does everyone else. He experiences a life very few will experience but at the same time experiences a life that we all experience.
10:00 BASED. Retributive justice isn't justice. It's a fundamentally selfish search for emotional catharsis regardless of whether the material outcomes are better or not.
Restorative justice can be a good "first strike"/first offense route. The problem in scaling it up to the criminal justice system is that offenders have a certain level of criminal thinking where they lack some level of responsibility, upto and including anti-social or sociopathic thinking. For lower level offenses and juvenile justice, I see it working. Higher level probably does require punishment.
@@krokodilegrundee5101 all evidence of behavior??? Have you ever worked with offenders? There are some amongst them who have no remorse, who dispell any sense of responsibility, who would gladly do the crime again if they could. They cannot be fixed, let alone by restorative or transformative justice
@@gocubs1815 That is actually a common psychological response to punitive justice. When people are punished it makes them feel as though they are the victim. Their persecution is more recent in their memory than the action that they are getting punished for, so hatred for the punisher outweighs any sense of remorse they might have for the thing they are getting punished for. This sense of post punishment bitterness can be even stronger for people who are punished for crimes that they didn't even commit. This is a part of the reason that so many people who have been incarcerated especially in America which has a very brutal way of treating prisoners often go on to commit crimes after being released. A bigger reason for that is the lack of opportunities for decent paying employment for people with criminal records, but that is a separate discussion. My point is that punishing someone, whether or not they committed a crime, never makes someone feel more remorse for the crime, but rather makes them feel fear, helplessness, self righteous anger, and a deepening hatred for whoever they consider responsible for their incarceration which can be either the state, or in some cases their original victim. Restorative or transformative justice can provide an option for bypassing this vicious cycle, and cases where it doesn't work usually come down to perpetrators in need of serious mental health assistance which, if we all received consistent mental health assistance a lot of crimes probably wouldn't be happening in the first place.
@@DangerDags tl;dr my masters degree and 10 years as a psychologist, mostly with addicts and SPMI say you just copied and pasted something from a website so you can feel good about being right
Every time, every time miss the mark when talking about this. It`s not about retribution or justice, people like feeling superior than others, they feel powerful by mobbing an acceptable target, it`s about being permitted to be cruel, and this is what happens when it`s made socially acceptable. Trying to rationalize it won`t help, it`s something that needs to be found unacceptable.
Contrpoint's video was better. Lindsay Ellis' lack of self awareness, calling cancel culture "the beast" at the end of it was cringy and I normally expect better from Lindsay Ellis.
You have a right to say whatever you want at home. Saying it at work brings their employer into it. By not firing them, they are condoning the behavior. We can't trust that people will "be punished" because they never are. If you are racist, violent, sexist, you will face responsibility for you words if we can force it upon you. You don't just get to be horrible and walk away unscathed. Canceling someone is boycotting them. Boycotts are the ONLY effective protests. THAT is why the right fears them. They fear losing money, they know they are horrible, they don't want to pay take responsibility. It is antithetical to what they are... which is why you can and should ALWAYS use this weapon against them.
Barely even covered the fact that there are different reasons people are getting cancelled like Kevin Hart and Dave Chappel. Using Teagan was just an easy prop for the solution you were wanting which was “yes it’s good as long as we do it this way”. And what of people getting cancelled over political support? No mention of that or wether it’s justified. Wisecrack took an easy way out.
Vengeance toward someone we don't know can never be satisfied, and they can never be forgiven, as they aren't a person to us, they are a only a concept...so it's impossible for them to suffer enough. It's better to admit that we do not know any of these people, and treat our relationship with them just as abstractly - which is to say with a lot less invested emotion. We may feel like ScarJo or whoever 'knows' us, but they don't, and we don't know them, literally at all. They are icons in our minds, not family, not friends who love us. This extends from superstars on down to me right here in this post. It's better to admit I'm not actually real; I am an idea that you agree or disagree with. I'm an idiot, I'm a genius, I should f$ck off. You like me because you feel the same way, you hate me because I don't. All these emotions in you are valid - they are yours - but none of what kicked them off is real. I am not a person; this is only text. Forget me, spend time with those you love, and choose things that make you happy. And if you write back, know you are writing to no one in particular - then anyone who reads it might really hear what your saying.
Wow, this is the single most interesting and well-written comment I ever read on UA-cam O:
I haven't thought of "cancelling" through the lens of parasocial dynamics before, but that's an interesting interpretation.
I feel GITS written all over this coment and i love it.
My. Mind is blown
@Daniel Thron I don’t know “you.” I know the “you” that I’ve constructed in myself. This speech feels straight out of Evangelion,
I've seen so many critiques of Cancel Culture, but this is the first time I've seen someone offer an alternative.
I mean we had an alternative before, it’s called talking and communicating..
@@edamitep1533 when has that ever been a thing?
@@FireTrainer92 happens whenever people don't just see the person they are talking to as The Other.
Holding the websites liable openly?
Like if youtube can delete my channel all the same as someone who uploads cp, who are they to make that equivalency? If they think they're in a position too they need to be held for the liability of the cp. Period. This isn't an argument this is basic law
Otherwise I'm a person online and off and I want a trillion dollars reimbursement. I've been banned many of places, I don't even need UA-cam's money specifically to be Jeff Bezos rich right now
And that's the moral imperative others have to come to themselves. Would you rather your personhood be respected online? I can see why. You are entitled to your free speech, but know if UA-cam isn't cancelling you, the government will. Which means more fed surveillance, more taxes going to that surveillance, serious criminal charges off of things that lead nowhere. But you are a person. And it's not youtubes job to tell you you're not
OR you hold the website liable. They do damage control kinda like now but moreso. Probably turn off all comments. Forums will always exist, they always have, and at least your average stupid normie will finally comprehend who to actually blame. Sure you'll have to deal with these child grooming Reddit and discord jannies, but the feds are their problem, not yours.
@@fusiondog77 so like I said when has that not been a thing?
If we can not allow for people to make mistakes, grow past those mistakes, and accept their apologies for those mistakes, we are all very, very screwed.
People just like drama
True, but also "sorry 'bout that, it was a long time ago" doesn't always make for a convincing apology. Unfortunately, we can't mind-read, so we have to use imperfect measures to determine if someone's apology and assurances that they're a different person now are believable.
@@unvergebeneid people just need to realize that it's not their place to judge complete strangers. We should just leave social punishment to the people who actually know these people, like their family, neighbors, or acquaintances
@@hebercluff1665 so not hold people in power responsible?
@@unvergebeneid is a celebrity really a person in power? They're not. If a person does something horrible, they should just go to jail. If it's not a crime, then it's enough if the people close to the wrong doer shuns them.
Frankly, trying to punish a complete stranger is a bad idea because you really don't know what actually happened. Just because some lady claims a man raped her, that doesn't mean uninvolved strangers get to jump in and ruins the man's life.
You see, there are plenty of false accusations about these kinds of things, and it's disgusting how easy it is to get the public to ruin a man's life like this.
Listen, if a man is truly guilty of such a crime, take him to court and put him in jail. Leave it up to the law.
The only exception to publicizing a person's wrongdoing is if it's a politician, since we vote these people in, and public opinion actually matters.
Sadly, cancel culture often punishes those who have little fighting power against the mob. A high profile celeb wont be in financial ruin and will likely bounce back. A neighbor who used racist jokes years back on the hand will become unemployable. It is really sad how people are judged for past misconduct because it upholds the belief that people cant grow or change.
I been accused of sexual harassment without proof or details of the claim to prove my innocence, luckily, I been fighting these false accusations back and despite being banned from two chats, I haven't been cancelled
@@DreamsOfDior do you believe in changes or punishment? Cause if someone is racist, you want them to change, if you are publicly shaming them, you are not only giving them a chance to change, but you can either make that person double down on their bad beliefs or cause them to be suicidal, if you don't want to give them the chance to change, you are as bad as the person you are cancelling
@@DreamsOfDior
I bet you've never done anything wrong in your life.
@@Lilliathi most people done bad shit in the past, I told someone "I hope you get cancer" in the past, I learned from my mistake and learn to be a better person
What scares me more isn't people getting canceled for past actions, but for present ideas, especially when these ideas, unpopular as they are, actually contribute to the cause many so-called advocates claim to be fighting for.
Someone: **Did/said "bad"**
Social Media: **Call out**
Someone: **Apologizes for wrongdoing**
Social Media: "Admitting guilt and apologies because they got caught, therefore evil and needs to be cancelled"
-------
Someone: **Refuse to apologize**
Social Media: "Deny guilt and responsibilities, therefore evil and needs to be cancelled"
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I guess like was mentioned in the video its also about opening a dialogue with those you have wronged and not just apologizing.
@@_Atzin ding ding ding ding. OP just wants it to be that so bad. Lol
But some apologies are accepted. Jenna Marbles apology vids were accepted. Shane Dawson’s wasn’t because man’s is a psycho. Teigan’s wasn’t because she’s been doing the same thing on Twitter for like ten years, ppl don’t believe she’d change. Dababy’s wasn’t cuz he doubled down like twice and kept the harmful lyrics up. Some ppl’s apologies are accepted if they do some other action with it
Exactly. That's why it's best to stand by your words, and refuse to apologize in the first place. You'll be damned either way, but at least then you'll have your integrity.
@@NecroPyroLion Considering Atzin just further blamed the hypothetical cancelee, it would seem that yes, it is that bad.
You know what they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not enough to have good intentions, you have to go about them right.
I wouldn’t even go as far as saying the intention is good. In a lot of cases it seems quite malicious to me
Which is at best difficult and at worst impossible the longer-term we consider the goal.
To use the example of Teagan. She bragged about spending 10k on a bottle of wine, during the second "once in a lifetime" economic collapse. She, and the other rich people aren't going to be facing any serious repercussions for this. We see the rich escape any restorative justice all the time. The worst she's facing is mean tweets. When the powerless are continually victimized, we have to get any kind of justice we can. If that means we hurt her pockets via boycott, or hurt her feelings, by letting her know our displeasure at trying to get a minor to commit suicide, so be it. As the oppressed, we have a duty and moral obligation to fight oppressors any way we can.
To judge people by your personal opinion is not " good intentions" they are thinking they are superior and have greater moral standards.
But if they were to be judged or question they become very defensive and nasty.
Showing their true intentions as this is personal for their own self worth .
@@lancebiggerstaff2660 troll 🙄
This was also discussed in one of your videos about Black Mirror.
People want blood instead of justice but are too afraid to get their hands dirty.
I would. But I don't want to anymore
@O. M. You. I like you. You're a smart bean
@O. M. People say shit like this and it falls on deaf ears
People don't need blood, people don't need justice. They need directives, especially the ones at the bottom. They gain these by watching awful TV, ideological-circle youtube videos like Wisecrack and living their lives without seeing any form of pluralism, believing whatever anyone says.
if there was a app where you could murder someone canceled people would do it. give an easy anonymous way to do it on a twitter app everybody will do it people are vile
"Is cancel culture harmful?"
Iunno ask Socrates. he was literally put to death by the masses because he questioned people too much.
I think he was just put to death by order of Athens government, not its masses, because he was pointing out big flaws of the Athens government. The people where split because he was making valid observations, but in the end he was ultimately proven right about how corrupt and closed minded they where.
@@rogerreger9631 : That’s a slightly unfair interpretation of Mr Sake’s use of the term, “the masses,” don’t you think? His point is perfectly valid, without need of correction, and he obviously understood the issues involved? Yes, it was a hit job, by a few corrupt men. But, the jury was literally over two hundred people strong, each representing their clans and family’s interests. While Socrates had friends among the wealthy, educated class, he was generally unpopular enough for this to happen to him. And his defence more or less sealed his fate, ensuring his popularity was at an all time low among the people of Athens, by the time the jury returned their verdict.
In actual fact, not one person sitting on that jury actually expected Socrates to die at all. They all knew his rich friends would bribe the guards and smuggle him out, and they more or less left the door open for him to escape. They were as shocked and saddened by his death as his friends were. But, that’s because they didn’t understand his (Asperger driven?) character, or his commitment to his principles, which included his obedience to the letter of the law. He chose to accept his death sentence, to make the point that no one should obviate the law, and that their law was wrong. Something of a game going on, for sure, “They’ll miss me when I’m gone,” mixed with a touch of, “Now they’ll be sorry.”
But, he was right, because he knew each of them, collectively and individually, better than they knew themselves. And his final act was to show them the recklessness of mob mentality, and rule by mass consent. He spoke at great length about it to Plato, if his dialogues are to be believed?
I’m only saying all this, not to say you were, “wrong,” in any way, but only to suggest that approaching your contribution from the point of view of a, “correction,” was unnecessarily patronising, maybe? It certainly invites, “defence,” when the point Mr Snake made was 100% correct, for all intents and purposes. I’m not accusing you of, “obtuseness,” merely that there was a friendlier way to add your knowledge? . . .
Thomas is in the truth, remind yourself that athen condition's was totally different, it's label itself as a democracy but in truth only less than 10% was actual citizen who had the chance to have juridic/executif and legislatif power and only 10% of those 10% had the majority of the power. Socrate himself was among the most powerfull citizen of Athen, an ancient militar general who was plotting for real (so is execution isn't as unfair that people make it look to) a coup. IF socrates accept to die rather than be exile, or to pay (they give him the choice, he was way too powerfull to be put to death directly), is cause it's just pointless to keep living in those conditions (he was one of the greatest ennemy of all the foreign states so no hope in that) and lost almost all his friends, his drip and social status, as an old men makin it pointless to try.
>be Socrates
>get called upon by what you interpret as a divine task of knowing ones self by questioning how well others know themselves and the things they claim they know
>the questioning via the socratic method was so effective that it pissed hundreds of people off including people in high places of authority
>Athens, a literal democracy (not a constitutional republic like the U.S.A.) has a process where the PEOPLE can literally vote to exile someone every year just because they don't like them.
>Athenian court is literally just a back and forth of he said she said and most of the time winning is only due to bribery or straight up ass kissing and pleading
>socrates does neither of these because he obeyed the law and made it a point to not only stick to his values, which he though pleased the gods the most but also made an example of how corrupt pure democracy is.. "Tyranny of the Masses
>literally challenges a couple of his accusers to debate him on this and publicly BTFO's them
>Plato, one of Socrates' greatest students decides to dictate tons of anti-Democracy ideas to HIS students and in his debates, inspired by the death of his teacher.
yeah, it was totally just a couple of rich guys my mistake, there was no blatant mob abuse in Athens how could I be so silly?
@@rogerreger9631 "I think"? do you actually know?
@SIMON "it's label itself as a democracy but in truth only less than 10% was actual citizen who had the chance to have juridic/executif and legislatif power and only 10% of those 10% had the majority of the power. Socrate himself was among the most powerfull citizen of Athen, an ancient militar general who was plotting for real (so is execution isn't as unfair that people make it look to) a coup."
I am pretty sure Lacadaemon their neighbor also commented on Democracy and it's flaws. Bribery and higher corruption does not change the system entirely if it isn't made official and public that these are now law, and Socrates while a veteran had no money to his name and his very mission angered everyone. like my prior post people got voted out and exiled in Athens on feelings because the masses didn't like them as a way of providing a vent for the people. I have my examples and they are available on in the accounts of Socrates by Xenophon and Plato, where are you getting your sources that say he was planning a fucking Coup?
Great video, guys! I think we also should be discussing ways to overcome the "algorithm based" social networks, which certainly have some responsability in fomenting public rage (for profit lol)
I recommend a video bu the channel Cue22 about this. Not disimilar to this vid
ua-cam.com/video/_da4-acFX_A/v-deo.html
That's unavoidable. People have different tastes. No good would come from UA-cam recommending an anti-vax conspiracy theory video after watching a more leftist take on it. It would be like being recommended an anti-car video after watching a video about how great cars are. It makes no sense. The problem is far deeper. It lies in people's inability to think for themselves and determine fact from fiction. I've been on the internet for more than 20 years, since I was a preteen, and I listen to all sorts of contradictory takes with no issues. I have times when I delve into conspiracy theory black holes. I have friends on both sides of the isle that I often discuss difficult issues with. The difference is that I'm not easily swayed by memes or (arguably worst of all) sensationalist TV shows and "documentaries".
The problem has nothing to do with the internet or algorithms. The problem is stupidity.
Wow, a nuanced discussion on a complicated issue. This is why I'm subscribed
It completely missed the point and used lazy definitions to keep from criticizing people on their own side of the political isle.
Nothing complicated here: don’t let people bring you down online bots very simple.
A simple and politically correct discussion on the topic. Complete opposite of nuanced.
It'd be nice if they did
I consider your assessment of this video wrong, and believe the video is uninformed nonsense.
It barely scratches the surface of how authoritarian and malicious cancel culture is. Wisecracked here just takes it for granted that the targets of cancel culture are the wealthy and well-known, that the anger expressed towards the target or the ones doing the cancelling are reasonable, that the targets punishment is deserved, and the entire act isn't an evil demonstration of power.
Here, Laci Green did a much better video on Cancel Culture:
ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
Honestly once you realize cancel culture has like 3 different definitions the conversation gets a little easier…
Care to explain? Bonus points if you can do it without value judgments on the users.
LMFAOOOO you would THINK the conversation gets easier, but we both know it very well might not
@@Mahaveez Not sure I can do it without ANY value judgments since this is subjective, but it’s reduced since what situation fits what will vary person to person. Cancel culture can be used to…
1) Deplatform unambiguously harmful people like R. Kelly, ensuring that though he can still make or sell music, he isn’t able to use profits from it to directly harm underaged girls like he has.
This is closest to boycotting, a good old American tradition. I’d argue a good use since it centers on objective harm reduction, people putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to their morals so to speak.
2) Call out or deplatform people some believe are toxic but others don’t.
This is more ambiguous since not everyone will agree if the person is WORTH canceling, if they’ve been bad enough to warrant it. It has the ability to backfire, giving the person being cancelled publicity while making a mockery of those doing the cancelling and therefore their cause.
It can stop helpful conversations that could lead to learning. Sometimes someone acts how they do because they don’t know better. Other times they don’t care and others still it’s out of spite. Sometimes this form of cancelling CAN be good, other times harmful. It entirely depends on who you ask. Much in the same vain as “everyone is being too sensitive until someone does something that offends ME personally.”
3) Dog piling, doxing, and attacking people for things they did in the past-even if that person’s changed. Or inflaming simple misunderstandings by defaulting to the least charitable interpretations of what was said. Also subjective and ambiguous.
It definitely kills any educational conversation, involves more gossip and reflexive groupthink than thoughtful research, and honestly seems to be for more self-aggrandizing purposes on the part of those canceling than it is helpful for the people they’re supposedly defending.
When people complain about cancel culture (in good faith) they’re usually talking about this group.
@@RoseEyed Im stealing this explanation 👍
@@RoseEyed Concise and to the point. Amazing.
It seems to me that cancel culture isn’t about justice at all it’s about being aloud to bully someone cause it’s a good cause (in their minds as a justification) and having power over someone’s life
like pro lifers?
@@ELMAGNIFICO101 Pro-lifers are worse because they harass and slut-shame pregnant teens, murder doctors, and bomb abortion clinics. Cancel culture just types insulting messages and boycotts celebrities and corporations.
@@darlalathan6143 or getting people fired for cracking their knuckles in a way that resembles an okay sign?
@@jasonbelstone3427 The ok sign is very well established as a white supremacy sign...
Have you ever seen a black diver? Yeah, didn't think so...
It’s possible to tank through cancel culture by not reacting to it. A lot of adult cartoons writers have managed to do this. The internet is toxic and thrives on pain and bullying, so being unreactive is usually the best counter in the interim
Case in point: Noelle Stevenson compared to Kevin Smith
They can take only what you give them. Give them NOTHING.
Pewdiepie always bounced back over this. He said sorry moved on and stuff went fine
Mankind would rarely admit even if intensions were good or bad that they have created a monster.
that doesn’t work when the platform itself is held in moral hostage(or financial hostage by those that are powerful),
“if you dont cancel this person on MY behalf then you must be against MY views and you(the platform) are supporting the one i want to cancel”
Cancel culture rarely affects celebrities significantly, few experience more than a momentary hiccup. It primarily affects average people who happen to catch the attention of society at large and they often face serious repercussions.
And there is a difference between one being held accountable for their words and actually being cancelled. The interpretation of which is which is often dependant on who the definer likes or dislikes.
Calls for cancellation are not only righteous indignation, but also chances to attack people who one wished to harm prior to their missteps.
Oh shut up commie
This is why i am not active on social media. Life is so much less stressful and I'm loving it!
Ur literally on UA-cam in the comments section tho lol
This is a form a social media....
Same! I think a lot of people's anxiety they feel comes from having to process all of the negative opinions, perspectives and conflicts from social media posts and comments. It's a lot of information to take in and process and our brains don't seem to be adapted to handle it all.
@@silkhunter1058 it ain't Twitter so there's that
@@TheHuggybear516 then off Twitter and Facebook. Much better life
I was just thinking about this earlier today… “Social media: guilty until proven innocent.” Glad there was a video made about it today.
In most cases, despite the facts that prove you innocent, you're still considered guilty.
Is social media the problem, or the fact that so many ppl won’t ask more questions?
So, a woman who tried to get a minor to commit suicide is innocent?
Media guilty: innocent proven until social.
@@pretikewl76 you can straight up shoot someone in the face on camera and still even then you’re given a fair trial. It doesn’t matter how guilty you feel that person is. It’s not your job and I’m glad it isn’t.
Well I mean we could just not install Twitter and Instagram in the first place
I've never had Twitter and still strong about not having it. Too much toxicity
You less petrol, less fire... nah it'll never work
Even then I think cancel culture will persist. Back in the middle ages people were humilated in thr town square for breaking laws. People even back a few decades ago were being attacked by tabloids and having their lives ruined by media frenzies. We crave detroying people humilating them and making them feel worse then they already feel.
Black Mirror’s Hated In Nation comes to mind when I think of cancel culture
Weird, I was also thinking of a Black Mirror episode while watching this, but a different one (White Bear)! It addresses the way society dresses up the punishment/humiliation of someone who's done wrong as entertainment.
Morals include that our technology is impacting our empathy and that all behavior online does need consequences.
Awesome idea. One critique is that it’s hard to imagine how restorative justice could occur on social media platforms that are built to create and promulgate the very outrage and public shaming that drives cancel culture.
So then don’t have justice happen on social media. Keep it between the offenders and the victims. Of course social media was made to inflame fights and cause drama, but justice probably shouldn’t happen here.
@@kohlcooke8789 lolol, when you keep in between just the party hurt and the party doing the hurting, how is there any justice? if no one knows what that person did, how can they make informed decisions on how and if to interact with them?
@@constantreader1422 how about this: either the offender or the offended releases what happened AFTER they have already talked. As in, the offender and victim meet up, seek restorative justice and consequences. Then, if it works out, the offender (or the victim if the offender is too cowardly) can come forward and address the situation and what happened at the meet up. Or, if the meet up didn't work out, then the victim can come forward and the offender can get the hate they deserve. That way, it gives it a chance to work itself out before the rest of the world gets involved.
@@kohlcooke8789 that sounds more traumatic to the person, as i was in that pretty much that exact situation before and it looked bad that i tried to work it out with them first rather than telling everyone. so, milage may vary. it doesn't seem good to place the onus on the victim to go about it "the right way" when they have been traumatized. at least, it doesn't seem like it to me.
@@constantreader1422 well the victim can have a therapist or friend there, to show the clear balance of power and not make it even worse. idk, just an idea
Companies need to stop firing employees at the slightest whiff of a scandal. It only emboldens the online mobs.
Seriously, whatever happened to the disclaimer:
"These people's opinions are their own and do not reflect that of (insert company name)"?
Customers are fickle. If they find that anyone in the company doesn't fit their moral agenda they won't use said company and tell everyone else not to use them either.
Companies now have to look like the shining beacons of morality to keep the customers coming.
Unless you're like Apple or Amazon.
@@SD-tj5dh An online mob has the attention span of a 5 year old. And in this perpetually connected society, there's a new scandal every minute. So threats of boycotts are empty threats.
There is a chance that a sexual predator would try to seek retaliation on whoever told on them. They wouldn't have a lot to lose. That seems like a danger for everyone at the workplace.
@@hongquiao that may be so, but 5 minute attention spans are an eternity if your company is trading on the stock market. Anything that looks anything but perfect will crash stock values and damage the company severely.
The world is shitty and fickle about everything and looking like beacons of social justice as a company keeps shareholders happy and their customer base as wide as possible.
@@SD-tj5dh So you're saying that capitalism is the root cause of cancel culture?...
That actually makes sense!
Ah, Cancelling, a fancy name for bullying.
This one is tough for me. There's someone in my past who did monstrous things to me. I escaped from them. While I definitely don't want retribution, I also don't see any means of restoration or transformation: in my case, what they did was (at least partially, and who can say how much, overall?) the result of mental illness.
Given the nature of their illness, I don't think it's possible for them to ever see what they did as wrong, or to ever even be willing to have an honest dialogue.
I'd definitely be in favor of good, across the board mental health services for those of us here in the USA. That would absolutely keep some of the cases like mine from happening. But it wouldn't bring me any closure, and it wouldn't help my abuser to face reality. Perhaps we might have to face that, for some cases, justice (in any reasonable form) isn't even a possibility.
This person sounds similar to the effects of narcissists I've seen hurt others in my life, though certainly not to preclude other mental troubles that may get in the way. I know in psychology, the example of narcissists that I'm relating to what you said with, can actually change with good environments and the help they need. There may be those rare few within society that just wont be able to be saved through good efforts. But like with an individual utilizing violence, anything beyond restorative/transformative justice efforts should certainly be held back for last resorts, even if they may well be necessary at some point. Pain is dumb and I'm sorry to hear about yours.
The important and scary discussion point that must be made in this case is this; Do we really have free will? If you think about it, there is no such thing as a purely internal experience or thought, every single last thing about you has originated from outside of you, your parents, friends, community, media you watch. You can't know what you don't know, and so you base your reality and everything you believe and think based off of an insane amount of calculations you have made in your life with the thoughts implanted in you since birth.
The mental illness and other such things in that person's life inevitably lead up to and determined their actions, as all else in the universe is determined. A few examples:
A star cannot pop into existence, it needs a nebula, which needs a ton of matter heat and energy to gather in one area.
Is a coin flip random? Yes, but actually no. Everything about a coinflip; the weight, the angle it lays on your fingers, the force of the flick of your thumb, the air density, the angle it hits the ground, all of these things are based on the laws of physics, which are deterministic, not the laws of because I say it is random. But, because we as humans cannot perceive the answers or begin to try and calculate everything involved, we cannot know the outcome or how it got there until after it happened, thus for all intents and purposes, the coin flip is random.
If a coinflip machine with all of the necessary scientific instruments where able to calculate all of those things in real time, you would see that it could perfectly know what the outcome is before it happens, again, proving that random cannot exist, and that everything is determined.
If everything is determined, are we even morally responsible for the things we do? We want others to be responsible for their actions, but if everything in us is predetermined by things in the past, how can we ever truly say punishment is right? If anything, education, and righting past wrongs and becoming better should be the focus of wrong doings. However then we enter endless philosophical debates about brainwashing, treating humans like robots, and many many other things branching off from that.
I am not saying what happened to you is right, I am not saying that person is a good person and shouldn't have to have some correctional activities, but this is an infinitely complex subject, and all I know about you or that person is seven sentences.
@@CuRoss Thanks, and - yeah, the person I'm referencing is a toxic narcissist. That's not the problem though: this is a person who often experienced trauma-related fugue states, memory lapses, and near-complete divorces from reality, during my time under their heel.
Years of good, qualified psychological therapy and psychiatric help hadn't been able to help with those issues - at least by the time I finally left.
And, of course, compounding that is a family DEEPLY rooted in societal image and heavily invested in pretending everything is alright, all of the time. These are the people that SHOULD make sure my old abuser is staying grounded in reality and getting good help, but they're all too willing to go along with false realities that better suit their collective public image.
For me, the choice has been to move on one day at a time and really try to take the wisdom and positives from my experiences, while letting go of the poison where and when I can. And, back on the original topic, I don't feel like justice is what I need - at least right now. I don't know what form it could take, or how it would improve my life, at any rate.
Life, away from the abuse, and in a place where I can put myself back together as a stronger, healthier person, is good enough. Actually, it feels pretty darn good, most days of the week, even if it took a long time to get here.
@@paladinrose Your maturity and reason is astounding and I salute you. I'm guessing your outcome is on the order of 1% of cases of induced trauma.
Notwithstanding, one could argue that the resolution needs to happen with the caretakers. In the same way you can't hold a child accountable when it's a result of parent negligence, you can't really hold someone not in control of their mental faculties accountable.
Just spitballing, I'd say the best outcome would be the mentally ill person to be in treatment (perhaps permanently depending on the illness) and the caretakers to be confronted in an attempt for closure on some level. It's not ideal, but it might be the best you can expect.
The situation is you'll never get the satisfaction you desire even when they get cancelled. The only thing you can do is move on from ground zero. Sounds easier than it is. But it's possible.
An actual nuanced take on "cancel cultrue" good on ya
If only Cancel Culture WAS Nuanced...
@@Ramsey276one you missed the fucking point
This take on cancle culture is so bad I can only believe it was written by political activists who are scared someones going to take their favorite club away.
@@GusOfTheDorks pretty much.
“Restorative justice” is just a bullshit “easy on crime” theory. It has nothing to do with cancel culture
@@obo2999 oh they went that far? Good God help us all. I barely got past their explanation of cancle culture. Which is insane because no one has an issue with a person not patronizing a buisness. It's more the harrasment campaigns and attempt to make sure you are unable to live any kind of life after the fact that people are upset about.
Public shaming used to be a useful tool for keeping the a-holes of society in line but now a-holes find other a-holes with similar opinions online and the algorithms reinforce their opinions by feeding them content they like. Social media sites should be required by law to give people alternate views occasionally so people don't end up slowly creeping toward the extremes like so many do now.
That's a lie and you know it. It's almost always been used by the very 'a-holes' you're referring to in order to get rid of people they disagree with; just ask Socrates.
_Oh wait._
I get what you’re saying, I think, but public sharing also used to keep heretics, homosexuals, skeptics, and many other groups in line. I don’t think it’s the best mechanism of justice. That’s not to say that it’s never appropriate, I just don’t think it should be thought of as an ideal option
It wasn't, back then these barbaric methods had no effect on the crime rate, it even had an opposite effect because people were so afraid of the punishments that'd they commit even more "crimes" in an attempt to avoid the punishment. Look at many European countries and see that crime rates go down a lot as the justice systems are rebuilt towards rehabilitation not punishment.
@@Eagle3302PL Did I say rehabilitation was bad? No. Public shaming works to keep most people on the right path but for those that do still commit crimes I agree rehabilitation works far better than just locking them up for years. I'm aware of the Scandanavian countries building rehabilitation complexes for minor offenders so they don't become hardened criminals like those in the US often do once they go to prison. They do work but you still need prisons for the people that are so screwed up in the head that it would take decades of therapy to fix them. There comes a point where it's too expensive for long term treatment and if they've done terrible things like multiple murders or many violent crimes they might not deserve help.
"an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" wasn't actually supporting retributive justice. contextually it was advocating limiting it to equal punishment.
it suggested; if a guy gave you a black eye, you couldn't kill him but you could give him a black eye back
@@chase-warwick to clarify if you didn't get it the first time, retributive justice was around before then. hammurabi's code was a limiter to how much punishment could be doled out.
@@chase-warwick No, you're missing his point. It's not retributive, it's about restricting retributive justice. You're talking about the most rudimentary existence of laws at a time when there was none prior.
It's like talking about the prison system prior to the stance of being rehabilitative than punitive, of which William Penn of Pennsylvania's namesake set in motion.
Before that the focus was on punishment. The CONCEPT of rehabilitation simply did not exist.
Hammurabi's code was basically giving offenders rights similar to our fifth amendment rights to not be tried for the same crime twice.
The problem with cancel culture or mob justice is that it has no limitations and that you can be repeatedly punished for one action multiple times and in excess of the crime, and this is even BEFORE you get to the other things our bill of rights protects, like innocent before proven guilty, a right to trial before a jury of your peers, ect. and that has even YET to touch upon rehabilitative justice over punitive ones.
So you can argue it is a matter of retributive justice by hiding behind a definition and literalism (a common tactic these days), but in context and what and when, it's actually about setting up rights for the accused and the first instance of setting up limitations on justice.
nice to see someone actually familiar with the old boy Hammurabi's chill pill
Helen's hosting feels like the most natural progression after Jared. Like Obi-Wan becoming the better Jedi Master after Qui-Gon
So true. Michael is a great sub, but Helen is right in the pocket.
Uh.. no. At least in your example. But yes, her and Micheal taking center stage after Jared left is definitely feels natural and it rocks!
Speaking of Jared- has anyone seen his new channel and his interview on why he left wisecrack? While he and the team may not talk a lot, it’s a relief to know he left on good terms/wasn’t cancelled and nothing nefarious took place.
@@Dapper_Dad what's his new channel?
One of your best videos by far. Wisecrack’s nuanced takes on divisive subjects give me hope for humanity.
People who hadn’t had their voice heard most of their life feel they are being heard when they “cancel” somebody and have randoms like their tweet lmaoo
The real wisecrack is always in the comments
You say "lmaooo", but you're right; there's a seriousness to it. There's a huge amount of injustice that occurs day to day, and many people have so little power to do anything about it. So lashing out against the ennemi du jour, deservedly or not, provides a tiny sense of control. There's a catharsis to it.
@@Dracalis Perhaps their outrage can be harnessed for a plebiscite election, to make or change laws, even constitutions? They could vote not only for politicians but department heads, executives, and company policies. This would give cancelers the power they want.
I like this. I like this a lot. It's not the tired right-wing whining/ fearmongering nor the tired leftist mob mentality, rather aims to actually tackle the issue and offer a solution that helps society.
Exactly I'm on the left and I love this because I don't feel insulted
This is what adults do: they find solutions and try to help society change from those flaws
However, this is proof that all humans are just huge adult babies
@@mansamusa8410 as long as your feelings aren't hurt, kiddo.
@@mansamusa8410 same. I'd consider myself fairly left, but I'm glad this wasn't just another instance of "the right sucks" or "the left sucks" and just a fairly apolitical, yet analytical take with sociology in mind
It's a pipe dream though. Most people are tribal little demons that want to destroy others to improve their own social status. This would all be solved if people just didn't get involved in things that don't have anything to do with them, but we all know that ain't happening either.
Where have BEEN? I was worried they’d cancelled YOU, Helen!? So great to see you back! Maybe I’m just missing your vids when they come out? But it feels like you were gone for a long time? ✌️
I love this video’s focus on the consequences felt by both the victims and the guilty, with an honest effort to consider what might be best for everybody. Contrasting retributive and restorative justices prompts the audience to consider what they actually hope to achieve once the conversation is over. This is useful.
I think, however, there is one key consequence of cancel culture, for better or worse, that this video fails to acknowledge: deterrence and self-censorship. Public hangings, for example, were not purely retributive; they were public for a reason. If a man was hanged for blasphemy, the publicity of the horrible consequence resulting from his politically incorrect behaviour served as a deterrent against future so-called blasphemous utterances by forcing everybody else to self-censor before saying anything that might read as offensive to God. This is the true weight of cancel culture. The cancelling of Chrissy Teigen, like a public hanging, affects everyone, not just her. When somebody like that gets labelled “beyond redemption”, the rest of us are effectively deterred from engaging in anything that would appear similar to what she did for fear of facing similar consequences, even if our words are comparatively innocent.
So who gets to choose what behaviours are beyond redemption? It seems to me that the judgment isn't done with any sort of ethical rigor, but is rather left to the populist court of public opinion. Now, if we were just talking about twitter activity, this might be okay, but it seems that many of these attitudes have bled into the workplace and just about every other institution in North American society. I'm sure many people have ethical questions that they do not feel safe sharing with any but their most trusted confidants, purely because they fear the social consequences of raising such questions. This is the weight of self-censorship. Such people haven't done anything wrong. Yet why do they feel the weight of the consequences? Why are attitudes like curiosity and hesitation being deterred?
I don’t think cancel culture is going away because it was always kind of here, just with different faces (I’m thinking of the Red Scare. I’m thinking of scientists under Hitler’s Germany who withheld academic findings that went against the populist belief in differences between races. I’m thinking of any Chinese citizen who discredits Beijing. Etc.). But I hope that by placing more emphasis on alternatives like restorative justice, the innocent bystanders of cancel culture will feel more comfortable engaging in public discourse in honest and productive ways.
While I don't have the mental fortitude to navigate the field of razor wire that is this comment section...
Solid video, Wisecrack. "Justice" needs an overhaul and restorative justice seems like a productive direction to explore.
No, "justice", in this context, is just a concept here meant to peddle a false solution to a problem of people wanting to feel morally superior. Its, in a sense, stealing the spotlight and diverting away to a pet solution.
Here, a better video about cancel culture, from Laci Green:
ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
You didnt talk about the worst thing of cancel culture. It always assume the person being cancel as guilty and ruin their lives without first ensuring they are guilty.
I feel like the main issue with cancel culture is that there isn't exactly a middleground except just shutting up.
Because most criticisms of cancel culture are by people who have no issue with cancel culture they just feel like people are getting cancelled for the wrong reasons.
When Kaepernick started to kneel the people who usually spend all day decrying cancel culture essentially cancelled him. At the same time they get upset when Nazis get cancelled on twitter.
“Nazi get cancelled” oh you mean people who vote differently from you?
People like you are why cancel culture exists. Kapernick can’t be criticized right, but let’s shame anyone who disagrees with you into depression or suicide. How “progressive”
@@obo2999 noone argue with this guy.
He chose to miss the point
@@vVAstrAVv fuck off kid. I didn’t miss shit. 😂
I’ve seen enough of peoples hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. Sorry if you can’t handle it being called out
The people who hate cancel culture now were using it for the past 1000+ years before the script flipped.
@@obo2999 The problem is how you instantly assumed you were included into the Nazi demographic. If you're not a Nazi then why does his comment offend you?
That's a long-winded way of saying that psychotic Twitter mobs ruining someone's life over trivial things probably isn't what justice looks like.
No but ruining a feminists life by lying about her is a good thing, Sargon?
@@alexsmith2910 That sounds based.
“Cancelled” is one of the newest terms to be added to the social-media-slang dictionary. ... According to Urban Dictionary, cancelled i “to dismiss something or somebody; to reject an individual or an idea.” Essentially, this practice encourages a community to blackball, isolate and shun an individual from society, for past speech, certain personal belief, even something as small as a joke or video game character they like, ect.
This nasty stuff has GOT to stop. :( We can't keep continuing to control people. When will this craziness end? We need to at least make some rules for it.
An apology almost never helps against cancel culture. they want you to get fired from your job and banks deny you service over a tweet they deem heresy.
Never apologize.
Haha, I was literally going to start talking about Harmon. Watching him talk about it was transformative for me. I'd never believed an offender before, and it was so staggering to honestly believe someone who hurt someone could want to actually own up to it and not just avoid accountability. It both helped acknowledge where I've wronged others, but most importantly it also opened the door to potentially forgiving people who deeply harmed me. I really respect Dan for that, and am grateful he was willing to do that so publicly, not as a performance but a demonstration.
Why bother? People are trash anyway, just don't interact with 'em.
"I'm so sorry" is not an apology, a change of behavior is.
cancel culture can be summed up in two ways atleast for me
hypocrites trying to call out other hypocrites or flawed people trying to call out other flawed people
Contrapoints also did a great video where she breaks down the process of cancellation.
Very interesting.
Also, Lindsay Ellis.
That's gonna be nonsense that the losers use to defend cancel culture.
Same with Cue22 !! Such an underrated channel
@@bobthetroll
?
Don't promote political extremists.
The first step toward any Justice is to identify who's the victim.
We can't really do that on social media.
Both types of Justice that are exposed in this video have clear perpretator and victim and this line is very very blurry when it's just people arguing on twitter.
If cancel culture did anything then the people being cancelled wouldn't be complaining about it on the biggest platforms the human species has to offer.
Canceling is a neat replacement of living in a 1st world country where functional law exists and represents people's will. That's why you have to promote it as bening "withdrawing support" when it's the "societal effect of coordinated, selective, and unequal... withdrawing of support". Forcing the punishment to be unaccountable. It's a good sequel to legislation being overtly punitive with only safeguard being jury system that can let you off the hook on the basis of proper fee-fees. Cue anybody who like to scream words ending at -got at their opponents, they're all just same people with same methods. When it's fashinable to vilify being big, when it's fashionable to vilify being fab.
Kinda hard for the ones that were kicked off said platform to complain about it publicly, right?
@@Lilliathi Except there is always another platform. If they're kicked off social media that isnt being canceled, unless you also think being fired is being canceled. There is ALWAYS another huge platform that will host them, and if you get hosted you cant claim you were canceled. Can anyone name one person who actually got canceled and didnt deserve it?
Hey, question op, What did Emmanuel Caffery do that justifies his cancelling?
@@sboinkthelegday3892 How do you manage to spend so many words saying so little?
Honestly I see CC overall as the equivalent of the outrage at everything during the 80s. Just like it pushed rebellious kids towards liberalism then, this might push the new generation of kids towards even more extreme conservatism in the future.
the current social justice crusade sooooo reminds me of the 1980s-90's religious right....
What the lady also should have mentioned is that on top of taking responsibility and give an apology, the offender(s) should also say WHY they did what they did. It doesn't change anything, but it does help the victim(s) understand why things was done and help said victim(s) find closure and not have to constantly ask themselves: WHY did they do it?
It also helps the offender(s) think of what they have done and possibly give them chance to truly feel the weight of their action and then do their best to make things right the best they could.
Basically:
1. Victim(s) say what was done to them and ask questions;
2. Offender(s) say why they did what did;
3. Victim(s) finds out the reason(s) why they had to go through what they had gone through;
4. Offender(s) takes responsibility and gives an apology;
5. Victim(s) finds closure knowing what they now know and having have confronted the offender(s) and can move on with their life without having to look back;
6. Offender(s) (if sane enough and can feel genuine remorse and regret for what they have done and don't have any mental issues) is given a little bit of time to realise the full weight of their actions;
7. Offender(s) after dealing with the full consequences of their actions is given opportunity to make things right as best they can in a controlled manner;
8. Offender(s) is given a second chance in life in whatever form said chance comes in.
Better option: Don't interact with people. Completely sidesteps this entire waste of time and effort and saves everyone the grief involved.
@@CoralCopperHead That's another way of doing things, but it is better to deal with a problem than let it sit and let it become a bigger problem then it needs to be.
One thing also: its SUPEr easy to always see people dig more and more into the bad, but whenever it seems actual care is done to redeem and change, it always goes under the rug. A weird kinda phenomena that im sure isnt new, but frequently annoying.
I think it's abundantly clear that the only logical course of action is to abolish social media.
Contra points offered this as a solution on the Bad Faith podcast. Great to see restorative justice gaining more traction
being falsely accused of something and the only way out is to accept "restorative justice" ever heard of the UDSSR? :D
I’m glad this isn’t a “cancel culture” doesn’t exist video. I feel gaslit every time someone says that to me.
Glad you've covered this topic. I've been thinking about this for some time because it seemed odd how people kept thinking this behavior was new. I've also done some reading on retributive justice, it's a topic I think everyone should look into.
Unfortunately, I don't think restorative justice really works in this context (the internet) because,
A. Most things people get "canceled" for are not for illegal, let alone material crimes, the crimes are usually too subjective (like an unfunny tweet or an opinion).
B. A lot of "cancelations" are not often aimed at specific individuals, meaning that there is no way to get a proper consensus on how the offender should be accountable for their actions.
c. There is no real "community" on the internet, therefore no community to be accountable for. It's been observed that when people don't view others who they interact with as "people" when on the internet, which makes sense since seeing a profile picture never invokes that same amount of empathy as seeing an actual person, even when you fool yourself into thinking that you've formed a para-social relationship with someone. You are just projecting yourself onto someone else.
This is the most Wisecrack video ever.
“Wildfire replaces California??” Ha!
I'd be really interested to see you guys explore this topic further. Keep up the great work!
More specifically, I think there should be another video done on the different usages of the term, since there are so many ways "cancel culture" is thrown around in media. I agree with the general premise the retributive justice aspects can be harmful, but I think in some ways the idea of "cancelling" has some merit in the sense that it seems that the law doesn't always hold people/groups/companies accountable for actions or statements which we find unethical, immoral, etc. A major downside of living in the information age is seeing bad things happen and feeling powerless to do anything about it. The only tool the average internet-user has is to be a small part of a larger collective voicing their dissatisfaction with a particular practice or behavior.
Setting aside the reverse-bullying that can often arise from these movements, I find the idea to be quite similar to the entire concept of "voting with your dollar", i.e. that you don't support businesses/people that don't adhere to your ethical standards. I'm not sure about the specifics, but to me there isn't that much difference between "boycotting" and "cancelling". While this could easily be applied to the spread of misinformation as well, the internet is particularly good at spreading information quickly, so it can lead to greater awareness of bad behaviour that most people wouldn't have heard about just a few decades ago.
I am literally constantly afraid that my irl friends will cancel me irl for accidentally saying something or doing something I don't know is bad. Because I am not in the best headspace, that could really do a number on me, and it scares me. Especially since I want a job in the entertainment industry.
Then you really have bad friends. My friends would never cancel me, because I said something "bad". Look for better friends.
those friends are ASSSSHOOOOOLES. trust me
This video completely avoided discussing the kind of cancel culture of most concern. People becing canceled not for doing anything, but just expressing opinions the cancelors don't want to hear. The intent is not retribution but silencing.
Like who
Depends on the opinions. Care to define someone unfairly being canceled vs someone who had it coming?
Agreed. Our society is like 1984 by George Orwell in a lot of ways. 2 minutes hate, propaganda in everything, the altercation of our english lexicon (political correctness), redefining reality & history, and much much more. We even have scapegoats (ex. Goldstein) that we still talk about 6 months down the line… You know who I’m talking about. At the end of the day, the media and oligarchs have all the power and the people are just the proles, idiots, living their lives in the fake and immoral reality. We can’t even define the word woman anymore. Damn.
@@michalis75 In a society where speech can be considered violence, opinions can get you in big trouble. Chrissy T told someone to kill themself. That is a lot different than an opinion I think. I think that society should tell her, that isn’t ok. But to cancel people for things they said years ago, YEARS AGO, that is a bit much in some cases.
@@jfs6470 *Tell em you've never read 1984 without saying you've never picked up the book*
With companies, sometimes it's the only way to get more than an offhanded mumble of dispassionate apology and a quick return to business as usual.
So instead they just crucify the nearest scapegoat and continue doing the same damn thing. Sounds solid.
@@Laurentus sounds like some ss shit to me
The boycott would then restart until reasonable change is made. Otherwise, they need to find a new market. Meanwhile, a competitor can take this opportunity to cater to the disenfranchised and perhaps steal away some market base.
@@niuguber Pretty much any company that allows the Chinese to build their products (ahem, anyone who isn't Samsung) should have been boycotted a while ago.
In my mind, companies are total fair game for cancel culture. It's pretty much how capitalism is supposed to work, you vote with your dollars.
Why did you say absolutely nothing about cases when someone was fired from work and ostracized based on false accusations? Cancelling is just lynching without any repercussions for the mob. Most of the mob doesn't care for any form of justice, or victims(or if there are any), they just love the power.
Granted a lot of ppl have been fired for nonFalse accusations so I don’t think it’s people being power-hungry. False accusations are going to happen, just kinda gotta check the info beforehand which is hard to do in an internet world where you
Pay attention for four seconds.
@@TubemastaC not gonna happen, majority of people only see headlines and follow the bandwagon, if this actually happened, cancel culture would've been less toxic.
@@Web720 Hah, imagine people not being toxic.
*reads title*
"I sure hope so..."
Same
Theres no alternative, or "another way".
Laci Green's assessment of cancel culture is more worthy of being heard:
ua-cam.com/video/7_y3ktQ4F9s/v-deo.html
This is a fantastic video. The arguments here do a fantastic job of expressing my views on the subject in a clear manner and does an excellent job of backing it up with historical and philosophical sources.
I think this is immediately my favourite Wisecrack video yet.
I work with restorative justice for 5 years now. And I LOVE this video. Thank u so much.
"I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them." -John Hammond
This
Alright... What mistakes did Emmanuel Cafferty make?
Will his "cancellers" be made to pay, and how so?
this is so dumb lmao
I blame people for being people.
Cancel Culture be like
Twitter: your Canceled
Me: What did I do
Twitter: You said a slur
Me: it was 10 years ago tho
Twitter: "if I shot someone and get caught 10 years later, I still shot that person"
Me: 10 years ago that word was not a slur
Twitter: Your canceled we don't care
Me: Does not care a keeps uploading videos
I am sooo tired of this shit being talked about WITHOUT also bringing up people being wrongfully cancelled by way of false accusations and the subsequent band wagon
Exactly!
Cough cough (Gina Carano)
@@rcdune7132 Emmanuel Cafferty
Restorative Justice isn't groundbreaking because we did this in elementary school.
The fact that as adults we have to give it a label and treat it as such a big deal is actually indicative of one simple truth:
Kids are wiser than adults, sadly and ironically enough.
Bully culture. Its how bullies watches every move you do hoping you slip something that will give them the opportunity to harass you to the point of suicide.
Cancel culture is among other things, an anti-bullying movement, against workplace bullies such as Ellen Degeneres and Joss Whedon.
@@darlalathan6143 cyber bullying a bully just generates more hate creating more bullies. Its a never ending cycle.
If your definition doesn't include going after people's job then I don't think it's a very useful definition to be honest.
I agree, her example also didn't cover those who were falsely acused of something or those who simply had a "bad" opinion. It leads people to be afraid to speech as she stated earlier in the video.
@@nannerhannah3268 Yeah and that is what cancel culture really is at least the way I see it. its usually people wanting someone cancelled for an opinion they dont agree with or a mistake they had no idea about ( people fired for the "white supremacist" ok hand sign). Theres a difference between people doing real bad shit and getting fired or whatever for it and people being cancelled for an opinion
Doesn't it? If retributive justice is about trying to punish people, wouldn't going after their job fall into that category?
@@TheNatew97 not if it prevents them from getting a job in the future, or tanks their business or gets them kicked out of the company they started
@@TheNatew97 That assumes that going after someone's job even meets the standard of retributive justice, and I think very often it doesn't. I would argue that the legal systems in the US and Canada mostly are retributive justice, and while imperfect, it's better than sheer mob rule without due process. Twitter ganging up and going after someone's job (rallying people to contact the accused's employer for example) for something they said is closer to mob violence than it is to anything resembling justice. In my opinion.
Having said that, I wouldn't consider some of the examples they gave as "retributive justice" either. It's retributive, but not justice. In reality, most of our legal process is retributive justice, it's not just witch burnings a century ago or what happens on twitter. That's the point I'm trying to get at here.
Lastly of course, I do agree that restorative justice is what we should be aiming for anyways though.
Cancel culture will remain so long as the platforms that facilitate it continue to reward shallow interactions while disincentivizing those that are deep and meaningful.
11:00 this idea only makes sense within the wider society and saying we have to divert attention away from people's bigoted statements to structures is suggesting that we can't do both at the same time. Cancel culture primarily exists on social media so of course it's focused on individuals.
Well, slacktivism and hacktivism are online protest groups. There are "pedo-hunters" who impersonate children, lure and publically expose child molesters. There is also crowdfunding, The former can and do attack systemically bigoted institutions, with online petitions for social change and hacking the offending corporate and government computers, respectively. These could join the pedo-hunters in petitioning and hacking for change in Catholic and public schools, to prevent child abuse. They could crowdfund for survivors, social welfare, prison, and mental health reform, preventing hate crimes and police brutality.
yeah, which is why it's so useless.
My model on issues that don't involve me is: I can have an opinion, but I can't have a vote
Very interesting point on how cancel culture interferes with the restorative justice process - by only serving punishment we dont address the victims in situations nor do we address the offenders in conflict owning up to their participation in situations.
Perhaps there is a difference between someone saying something that you find offensive, and someone saying something evil. Perhaps intent should matter.
I would really love to see a follow-up discussion about the sleeping giants and/or other "cancel" success.
i want to #cancelcancelculture.
Equivocating bullying with shaming is ridiculous.
What about context? Or innocent until proven guilty? Or overzealous persecution? Or even a simple misunderstanding? My problem with Cancel Culture is the lack of nuance.
The issue I see with “transformative justice” is the question of transformation into what and who decides what that justice looks like, how it’s implemented and where any resources the transformation requires comes from. Restorative justice simply rectifies a situation to a previous state where transformative changes the situation to a third form. This transformative justice paradigm is predicated on the existence of an objective good which society cannot agree on (especially in a heterogeneous society like the US).
yea this is interesting to me. the examples of transformative justice seem to be based on the idea that justice = victim forgiving perpetrator. why should that be an ideal to measure justice against? is it really in the best interest of most victims to actively go through that process with the people who have harmed them? it feels very similar to the one-sided idea of christian "forgiveness" that places the onus on one party to forgive, based off of some abstract virtue.
if that helps some people heal, then they should really be encouraged to do so. but the idea that that's somehow the "better" or "right" choice seems like absolute bullshit to me, and a great way to put victims into a further damaging process.
I'm not sure anyone has to agree. Placing focus on the victim makes them the arbiter, in large part at least. Once the offender has exhibited change such that the victim is satisfied and can forgive, justice is considered met. Because who else has a greater stake in the matter? The enforcement apparatus is basically just there to push for authenticity and prevent the perp weaseling out of things or conning the victim.
@@twistedtachyon5877 That's the issue -- people are often accused with no actual victim to step up. At that point, the people who are upset _cannot_ be satisfied because there's no satisfaction to be had.
I've cancelled my orders a few times before
Love this, especially as a believer in Jesus Christ, who also taught to practice restorative justice. Keep up the great videos!
The problem with cancel culture is that too often it becomes about self-righteousness for people doing the cancelling and ends up targeting those who have the least power and influence because they can be damaged the most easily. The cancelling often pays little to no regard to what that offence was, the context surrounding the offence, or the offenders point of view, or any attempts at making amends. People have lost their jobs, businesses, social standing, have had themselves and their families come under threat of harm, and all because of the collective dog-piling of Internet Puritans who can call themselves "brave" whilst hiding behind their screens. This is the problem with cancel culture and why it is so difficult to offer a restorative solution.
I highly appreciate the fact that there isn't any Ads in this upload once so ever.
Cancel Culture seems extreme… until you realize that Chrissy Teigen is the worst case scenario… basically an anomaly. Most people who are “canceled” like Roger Ailes, Nick Cannon, Andy Rubin (from Android), and Louie CK either get paid wildly high severances or return to the business just like normal.
When you consider that, cancel culture itself almost feels like a boogeyman that is demonized to escape any semblance of accountability, which this video demonstrates CC as not being very good at anyway.
Good to hear Louis CK has his TV show back and is doing big venues again.. oh wait.
Yes, rich celebrities are all that affected either way, but you don't hear about the normal people who lose their job over a naughty tweet.
@@Lilliathi Louie is selling out venues, just because they aren’t huge (as far as I know) doesn’t mean his career as ended.
Also, people can’t cancel the smaller people over a naughty tweet because those people don’t have following that warrant the attention. So the only way they get canceled is from their own employers… which is how it’s always been since social media started.
@@ChanningChea
Louis was doing TV shows and massive venues. His career has been severely damaged.
Of course it's always the employers afraid of backlash that do the firing.. you think the twitter mob shows up to someone's work and tells them they're fired? There's been numerous unknown people who's tweet went viral and got them fired because the mob was outraged about it.
Hey, have you heard of a guy called Emmanuel Cafferty?
at this point when people get "cancelled" they show 2 tweets about the person made by a clearly unhinged person. Doesn't really scream validity to me
Right, and then everyone cries about cancel culture being this omnipotent bully
People definitely make it bigger than it is and blow it extremely outta proportion
If the two people have a high fanbase, chances are their ideas about a cancelled person can spread
I highly recommend to everyone who's interested in this topic to read into the forms of consensus democracy and consensus justice that are used in the independent Kurdish region of Rojava! That's how true progressive politics look like!
lol, democracy is just soft communism. Private property and markets are a better solution. To hell with “consensus”.
@@seanwieland9763
Private property and markets without democracy is just feudalism. Hope you enjoy being a peasant, because you don't look fit for combat.
The biggest problem with this video is that it assumes that the Cancellation is Legitimate - and most often it is NOT legitimate. It is Person A says something that Person B disagrees with, and offends Person B. Person B moves to punish Person A for saying what they said. In the vast, VAST majority of cases, Person B has no relation to Person A in any way, shape or form beyond the two of them existing on Twitter simultaneously. And what Person A says is rarely as cut and dry as even what Tiegen said to Stodden. Not to mention there is very few cases where Person A has actually targeted an individual, like Harmon did to Ganz. So these examples are very unhelpful in this discussion.
So where this video goes wrong is it skips the step of determining if there is a LEGITIMATE reason to Cancel Person A, and skips right to assuming that Person A deserves to be Cancelled, and figuring out how to better Cancel them. Which leads to the solution of changing the culture that led to Person A saying what they said and not directly cancelling Person A, which is... nice? Okay? I agree that's a better way to do it... when there is a legitimate case to be made.
But that case has to be made first, and right now the only thing that makes the "case" is that enough people with Power decide that that is the case. It's no different than a village in 1690 saying that the old woman who lives just outside the border is a Witch, and she must be burnt alive because she happens to have a physical deformity on her face and she's very good with medicinal herbs. Person B said Person A is a WITCH, and we all believe Person B, so BURN THE WITCH! (newsflash: Person A .... ain't a witch...)
We collectively have a bad habit of assuming that we understand the situation at hand, and things are often presented to us in a misleading way. People don't compensate for the ignorance of others, and in doing so, act in their own ignorance. Nothing good can come from Cancel Culture.
I had an interesting conversation some time ago about cancel culture and comedy with a friend and the final point we reached was
"if Jeff Dunham and achmed the dead terrorist is the most popular entertainer in the middle east it's clear people will except offensive if it's funny.
-then why was Jerry Seinfeld canceled?
-maybe people realised he's not funny"
The way I see humour is that it doesn't equal funny, but merely the intention to be funny to an audience, whether that audience be 1 friend or millions of people. No one joke will ever appeal to everyone in the world, so why must some be punished if others get a free pass? That is selective enforcement, and inherently unfair. Intention is the biggest key word here, intention separates a stereotype joke from genuine hate speech, context is another massive key point people refuse to see.
When you remove intention, and by extension, context, you are able to manipulate the message into whatever form you want it to be. That is why text only communication can be so dangerous, you don't know the person on the other side, you don't have all information (intonation, inflection, emphasis, body language, environmental context), it is so incredibly easy to misinterpret simple sentences. Just yesterday I hade a mini comment chain where another person and I continuously thought the other was arguing with each other even though we were both agreeing with each other, funny in small scale, downright terrifying when dealing with angry mobs.
If we say that it is good when a victim ends up befriending their abuser, are we placing a moral obligation on the victim? Something along the lines of "we've decided that it'd be best if you could just forgive them" therefore "you should forgive them".
We must prepare ourselves for the potential outcome that the victim does not want to lend forgiveness, and maybe this is a lack of virtue, but it is human.
Missing the point of the video, mate. The point isn't that the victim should forgive and forget, the point is that we should focus on righting the victim's circumstances and mitigating their pain, and find a way for the perp to make amends, rather than just lob them into jail or completely ruin their lives forever by canceling them.
@@Laurentus Yeah, I understand high school level philosophy. What I did is called "contributing to the conversation" instead of "mindlessly listening to words" which you may be more familiar with.
I'm talking about how amends can't always be made. This is a fact, it can't and shouldn't always be avoided. It can only be accepted.
Your literal words were that the video was arguing the victim should forgive, when that is not, at all, what was being argued. Clearly your high school was less successful at teaching you comprehension skills than philosophy, since you've decided to take the obnoxious and insulting rhetorical stance.
@@Laurentus I said nothing even close to what you're claiming.
For starters, I repeatedly said "we". The video isn't arguing anything - it's presenting. I'm not arguing with the video - I'm adding onto their presentation, adding a notable consequence.
There is more to conversation than debate. Expand your social capacity.
I agree with everything EXCEPT befriending the murderer of a family member. That just feels fucked up wtf
I agree with you that sounds wild as fuck. I'm extrapolating here, but if the murderer feels genuine regret at their crime. If they apologized to the family and acknowledged that their apology can't bring back their loved one, but they will spend their life trying to make things right. Maybe the family could forgive them, but it still seems like a wild stretch. The only other alternative is if the murder was accidental manslaughter and like the previous example they feel truly sorry about their crime.
Judicial/Retributive Punishment serves the state (and the molding of society in the projections of law maker).
Picture it: A whistleblower gets 25 years, a drug drug dealer (or nonviolent possessor) gets 10-30 years, a tax evader gets 3 years, a police officer convicted of an unjust killing gets leave without pay and a recommendation to other stations.
And the CEOs and executives of pharmaceutical and oil companies under fire? Well.. picture it, and you can imagine why if anybody would grow discontent and disillusioned with the legitimacy of the state and its judicial system. They'll become new targets/threats to said system.
As someone who's worked in a school, I can say that restorative justice does work... but only if the perpetrator actually cares. Otherwise they don't take it seriously and in public school there really isn't the consequences in place to make them.
I feel like people especially use cancel culture when perpetrators seem untouchable, like they'll never face other consequences. It's a sign, possibly, of how little we trust the various authorities we have in place who actually do have the power to do something besides dogpiling.
The issue isn't with any system of justice, it's with the fact that we're human beings. If you want to avoid people being jerks, then your only option is to avoid people, period. Works for me.
I think there's an important distinction between "cancel culture" and "call-out culture" that's missing here.
Canceling someone is usually a transaction between the powerless and the powerful. What can we, the powerless, do to hold powerful people accountable? Not much, but we can ignore them. Chrissy Tiegen has been condemned to the life of a multimillionaire, but now with fewer followers.
Calling people out, though... you nailed it. Excellent video.
Nope. It's all just cancel culture and the majority on the recieving end are not wealthy or powerful. Nice mental gymnastics tho.
You only see the celebrity cases. Plenty of people have been fired from their jobs over having the wrong political opinion or making an offensive joke on the internet.
13:18 Murder is a or one of the most unique crimes. The damage inflicted could not be compensated. So,in this case, I believe restorative justice is just an oxymoron.
Meh, some people deserve to be cancelled. Like Lebron James for tweeting "You're next" with a picture of a police officer who saved a black women from being stabbed to death.
The moment you say “someone deserves” you open a can of worms because at that point everyone’s opinion matters
@@NotShowingOff This
@@NotShowingOff Such a prominent public figure like Lebron James should stay out of politics and not speak so quickly and harshly before he has a full understanding of the situation. BTW even after hearing the full situation he still stands by what he said.
@@ThisIsY0SE so suddenly we are making the freedom of speech, conditional?
This has nothing to do with government.
This is culture. You want ppl who disagree with you to not be very powerful or influential. It doesn’t work that way. The Twitter culture is very inflammatory and reactionary, but that’s because of the culture of the country and the world in general. Lebrun James lives in the world as does everyone else. He experiences a life very few will experience but at the same time experiences a life that we all experience.
@@NotShowingOff Freedom of speech includes inciting violence? Because threatening a police officer for protecting someone seems... not ok.
This is one of the most articulate discussions of cancel culture I’ve seen. Plus, I’m really happy to see RJ discussed in a lifestyle context
10:00 BASED.
Retributive justice isn't justice. It's a fundamentally selfish search for emotional catharsis regardless of whether the material outcomes are better or not.
Restorative justice can be a good "first strike"/first offense route. The problem in scaling it up to the criminal justice system is that offenders have a certain level of criminal thinking where they lack some level of responsibility, upto and including anti-social or sociopathic thinking. For lower level offenses and juvenile justice, I see it working. Higher level probably does require punishment.
Yes the people who harm others just for the sake of it should definitely still remain locked up tho.
That goes against literally all evidence of human behavior, for the sake of emotional revenge.
@@krokodilegrundee5101 all evidence of behavior??? Have you ever worked with offenders? There are some amongst them who have no remorse, who dispell any sense of responsibility, who would gladly do the crime again if they could. They cannot be fixed, let alone by restorative or transformative justice
@@gocubs1815 That is actually a common psychological response to punitive justice. When people are punished it makes them feel as though they are the victim. Their persecution is more recent in their memory than the action that they are getting punished for, so hatred for the punisher outweighs any sense of remorse they might have for the thing they are getting punished for. This sense of post punishment bitterness can be even stronger for people who are punished for crimes that they didn't even commit. This is a part of the reason that so many people who have been incarcerated especially in America which has a very brutal way of treating prisoners often go on to commit crimes after being released. A bigger reason for that is the lack of opportunities for decent paying employment for people with criminal records, but that is a separate discussion. My point is that punishing someone, whether or not they committed a crime, never makes someone feel more remorse for the crime, but rather makes them feel fear, helplessness, self righteous anger, and a deepening hatred for whoever they consider responsible for their incarceration which can be either the state, or in some cases their original victim. Restorative or transformative justice can provide an option for bypassing this vicious cycle, and cases where it doesn't work usually come down to perpetrators in need of serious mental health assistance which, if we all received consistent mental health assistance a lot of crimes probably wouldn't be happening in the first place.
@@DangerDags tl;dr my masters degree and 10 years as a psychologist, mostly with addicts and SPMI say you just copied and pasted something from a website so you can feel good about being right
Every time, every time miss the mark when talking about this. It`s not about retribution or justice, people like feeling superior than others, they feel powerful by mobbing an acceptable target, it`s about being permitted to be cruel, and this is what happens when it`s made socially acceptable. Trying to rationalize it won`t help, it`s something that needs to be found unacceptable.
You should watch Lindsay Ellis’s “Mask Off” video. It’s great!
Only Twitter can call someone a genocide supporter and a racist because they had an opinion about a Disney movie.
Also contrapoints cancelling video.
And if I may add a lesser-known third video, The Storyteller's video about cancelling is also pure gold
Contrpoint's video was better. Lindsay Ellis' lack of self awareness, calling cancel culture "the beast" at the end of it was cringy and I normally expect better from Lindsay Ellis.
@@Norrieification I think Lindsay can be forgiven for that, given some of the things she addressed in the video.
You have a right to say whatever you want at home. Saying it at work brings their employer into it. By not firing them, they are condoning the behavior. We can't trust that people will "be punished" because they never are. If you are racist, violent, sexist, you will face responsibility for you words if we can force it upon you. You don't just get to be horrible and walk away unscathed. Canceling someone is boycotting them. Boycotts are the ONLY effective protests. THAT is why the right fears them. They fear losing money, they know they are horrible, they don't want to pay take responsibility. It is antithetical to what they are... which is why you can and should ALWAYS use this weapon against them.
Barely even covered the fact that there are different reasons people are getting cancelled like Kevin Hart and Dave Chappel. Using Teagan was just an easy prop for the solution you were wanting which was “yes it’s good as long as we do it this way”. And what of people getting cancelled over political support? No mention of that or wether it’s justified. Wisecrack took an easy way out.