“Cancel culture” is a disingenuous, bad-faith argument a failed, very destructive political party is desperately using to gin up votes, instead of taking a good hard look at itself and fundamentally changing.

“want it to exist but don’t think it’s as effective as it should be”

“Well, I can see why it would seem that way when you choose not to listen, empathize or recognize what other people say.”

I don’t think that’s really a fair comment but I’ll move on.

He got mad at me for “defending” Contrapoints recently as well, almsot as if he has a pattern of wanting to... be angry at people over small offenses and want them to be exiled from the discourse... almost like a culture he participates in.

I don’t see that as defending Rogan, I see that as saying the counterargument the AV Club had against Rogan wasn’t well constructed. Which you know, the AV Club...

Since Laserface is dismissing comments, you were right about the Rogan post as well-  mountain out of a molehill.

I do find that, when pressed, most of the people who insist that cancel culture “Does. Not. Exist.” when pressed tend to explain what they really mean is that they think it does exist but it’s a good thing (“it’s consequence culture actually”) or they want it to exist but don’t think it’s as effective as it should be…

“Cancel culture” is an illusion, most frequently conjured up exclusively by people who are utterly terrified of it for no particular reason, but in case you need more proof that it doesn’t exist: Kevin Spacey is back!

“Cancel” seems more specific. It’s not a general “comeuppance” taking any form, such as legal sentence, fines, prisons, etc. It’s a specific comeuppance : a more precise idea of erasure from (pop) culture.

“Cancel culture” is an illusion, most frequently conjured up exclusively by people who are utterly terrified of it for no particular reason

I don’t know if “cancel culture” exists or not. What is clear is that those who claim it does wish it not to, and those who claim it doesn’t wish it to.

Proving once again that the only thing dumber than Barsanti's writing is his facial hair.

So if Weinstein were a really nice guy, completely fair and ethical, never assaulted anybody, was a really crappy business man who lost all TWC’s money, had to declare bankruptcy, then sold off the company, how would these stars be any better off? Because the way I understand it, it’s the bankruptcy that gets…

One sales executive alleges she lost half of her assignments after the CEO replaced her with a former colleague from Playboy.

Whenever I see a Barsanti article I think of that one meme:

Suuuuch a weird take, dude.

“...learn a lesson about being more particular when choosing who they work with. maybe it’ll help convince those people and systems to change if they know that there are financial stakes to who they work with in addition to the ethical ones.”

Disney gonna Disney, but I’m not a fan of the practice (which Disney did not invent) of announcing projects that are in such an early stage of development. It’s a pretty cheap way of getting attention and then not really having to back it up with anything.

Yeah only every time I use the word though.

Anyone else still find themselves saying something is “a MAH zing”?