|
Post by Martini Girl on Apr 8, 2019 14:01:39 GMT -4
People whom I haven't liked in the past making controversial statements in the present just reiterates why I don't like them, and they'll remain 'canceled' (See women of The View, especially Whoopi Goldberg). If an actor/actress comes to the defense of someone who's in the hot seat (say Woody Allen), then I'll be anywhere from incredibly disappointed by their response, to disappointed, but I doubt I'd avoid all their movies in the future and 'cancel' them. So in that regard, Deeconsistent is right.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Apr 8, 2019 14:24:27 GMT -4
Internet cancellation does not ever seem to amount to real-world impact. It's a bunch of 20 year olds who don't buy things anyway and who don't follow through. As Tina Fey said, she does not feel compelled by internet outrage to issue apologies because internet jail is not a real thing.
Actual concert-attending, CD-buying country music fans? I can see how that would have a huge impact.
|
|
|
Post by Mutagen on Apr 8, 2019 14:48:17 GMT -4
Another recent parallel is what happened with Kevin Hart. He got so much heat for his homophobia that he was fired from his gig hosting the Oscars. But he also had a movie opening at the same time. The movie turned out to be one of his most profitable projects ever. The Youtube algorithm has been suggesting his web series to me since the new season started a few weeks ago and the guests seem to be much higher profile than they were in previous seasons. The point being that when Kevin was fired, it wasn't really a reflection of public sentiment, it was the producers gauging public sentiment the best they could. His career seems to be at a high point right now. I think this is a great example, but I think it's also an example of how fragmented audiences are today. The 2019 Oscars ratings were an improvement from the past year. How much Kevin Hart's firing impacted that is debatable, but it seems like the Oscars producers made the right call (or at minimum, a call that didn't do catastrophic damage) for their broadcast even if that did not reflect overall mass sentiment towards Kevin Hart. What's the overlap of people who are likely to tune into the Oscars vs. people who are likely to go see a Kevin Hart movie on opening weekend? That's not intended as a snarky question. Just that maybe increasingly there is no general "public sentiment" to reflect.
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Apr 9, 2019 17:56:35 GMT -4
The thing about the Dixie Chicks being cancelled is that it seems that some of it was motivated by the fandom, but some of it seems to have been organized (by DJs asking people to bring their CDs to public bonfires, etc.). It was also deeply tinged by misogyny. I think they are an extreme example of cancellation because most people I knew were still fans and agreed with them or thought they were free to speak their minds. I guess the people who turned on them felt more passionately than those who still enjoyed them. It seems like there was something...inorganic about their fall, as if they had enemies in the industry who were looking for a chance to bring them down. That doesn't really make a lot of sense though, because they were making a lot of money for a lot of people. There was a lot of gleeful spitefulness about their demise. I always assumed they would make a comeback, until I heard a very reasonable classmate talking about how sad he was that they were completely over. (And look at the state of country music today for women: Country Music Excludes Women, Especially Over Age 40, Study Finds. Let's bring the Dixie Chicks back! I think they still have something valid to contribute!). Yeah, the Dixie Chicks were really hit by an orchestrated effort by the Nashville establishment/country radio. If radio stations just sort of quietly stopped playing their music for a while (like they do when artist become "problematic"), I don't think the impact would have been as big. But radio stations coordinated events where their CDs were destroyed and people like Reba McIntyre would throw shade at them at events like the CMAs. They weren't completely over, really. They took a huge hit, obviously, but they continued to successfully tour outside of the US for several years and the album they released in the wake of the scandal won a ton of Grammys, which felt like the rest of the music industry telling them that they had their back. Then Natalie Maines wanted to take a break. And she took a long-ass break (I guess I can't really blame her, after all that was heaped upon her for a mild comment). I think that contributed to them being "over" in the eyes of a lot of people - they went quiet instead of capitalizing on their Grammy wins and their pivot towards soft rock. They did pop up appearances here and there over the years, but Natalie was never ready to go back into the studio or go back on tour until recently. Beyonce got their back, they did a very successful world tour 2-3 years ago (I went, the show was great), and over the past few months, they've been in the recording studio working on a new album with people like St Vincent, so it should be interesting (Follow Natalie Maines on Instagram - she loves to leak bits of their new songs to piss off their producer). So, good news - they are coming back! Just probably never in their original incarnation. Misogyny played a huge role ( and they knew it). I can't help but feel like it continues to play a role in how long country music held and in some cases, still holds the grudge against them (Beyonce invited them to that CMA performance, not the other way around). We hear over and over again how male stars quietly make a comeback (though it is much harder in the age of me too), but over a decade later, there are still people mad at them for saying "We're ashamed the POTUS is from Texas." Fan reaction certainly played a big role, but social media was not what it is today back in 2003, and the "cancellation" got a HUGE assist from the country music industry. Without Nashville pushing it along, I don't think it would have been anywhere as bad. And that's more than you ever wanted to know about the Dixie Chicks!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 0:08:31 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 18:39:58 GMT -4
I've seen "cancel culture" enact change. There was a massive uproar on YouTube a little over a year ago with a well known cosmetics brand and their launch of a foundation. It had an awful shade range that completely ignored black people, and YouTube was pissed. Major beauty-tubers came out against it and there was an organized boycott. And the foundation flopped, rightly so. And all of a sudden, most major makeup brands are making sure to have very inclusive shade ranges. So don't underestimate the power of the purse.
|
|
|
Post by seat6 on Apr 9, 2019 18:44:40 GMT -4
Oh, I’m always happy to learn more about the Dixie Chicks.
I wonder if social media could have cancelled the cancellation? For example, if fans like me (or big stars like Beyoncé) had been able to tweet support for them.
I’m also always happy to learn more about Stephen Colbert.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 0:08:31 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 21:31:24 GMT -4
People have already tried to “cancel” Colbert a couple of times, once on the old show years ago and once on the Late Show about two years ago. It didn’t take either time. The first time was a clear misunderstanding of a satirical joke, and the second was in reaction to a vulgar monologue joke that was construed as homophobic. I forget what he did about the first one but with the second one he did express his regrets at using such vulgar terminology.
And yet despite the use of a #firecolbert hashtag both times he remains on the air and incredibly popular. For me he’d have to say or do something truly heinous that was not a joke on his show for me to not like him anymore, and I suspect that’s true for a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Mutagen on Apr 10, 2019 7:55:11 GMT -4
But the other side of the coin is that I wish we could be critical without it becoming a "cancel" situation. Going back to Jon Stewart, I really grew to dislike the "both sides are equally bad and crazy" fallacy he often engaged in. Do I think it canceled out all the good he did? Do I expect him to be a perfect flawless saint? Absolutely not! But I think that particular attitude was really damaging and wrong even if it came from good intentions, and I wish as a society we were better at parsing the difference between criticizing an attitude and canceling a person. (Unless the attitude is just straight up bigoted or hateful of course, then of course #firewhoever gets no objection from me.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 15, 2024 0:08:31 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 5:56:34 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by americanchai on Apr 18, 2019 7:45:54 GMT -4
Ooh, I love them both. I agree that Graham is the king.
|
|