...On 'Cancel' Culture

[Elvis]

After brainstorming, here is a list of major threats to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of political expression emanating from systemic power centers and powerful actors and institutions in the United States, Britain, and other "Western" countries:

Outstanding rundown, good cheat sheet for debate.

[liminalOyster]

.

ON THREATS TO FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS

After brainstorming, here is a list of major threats to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of political expression emanating from systemic power centers and powerful actors and institutions in the United States, Britain, and other "Western" countries:

- Treatment of Assange, Snowden, and Manning.

- Recent treatment of other government and corporate whistleblowers.

- The many arms of the surveillance state and its recent explosive growth in scope, depth, integration, legal cover, sophistication, and power potentials.

- The corporate-owned surveillance society: corporate collection of comprehensive and finely-grained data about everything everyone does at all times, with its chilling potential on speech; corporate moves toward establishing a more open system of Western-style "social credit ratings" like in China; online sorting of access to platforms, power and services by proprietary systems governed by unpublished algorithms.

- Direct corporate power over speech: the power of the corporate media and social-media cartels to determine whose speech and what views are favored; their power to block out and censor dissenting and outside views; to define what counts as a political issue and what doesn't, and to set the terms of political debates; and to designate what is and is not to be labeled as "propaganda," what qualifies as "conspiracy theory," as "fake," or as a "state propaganda" outlet, always basing these judgments on inconsistently applied criteria related to their own interests and unrelated to valid, coherent definitions of these categories.

- The routinely violent and extreme police response to protest and assembly, especially to those protesting police conduct and law enforcement and carceral policy.

- Actual movement fascists, movement racists, and like-minded persons shooting at protesters, running them over with cars, doxxing and threatening their lives, etc.

- The attempted designation by the government (and various patsies and interest groups) of a loosely-defined political stance against 'fascism as a primary enemy' (a.k.a. 'Antifa') as terrorist, inherently violent, or a powerful conspiracy in its own right. (This is one kind of current Red Scare.)

- The many other direct threats of actions against journalists made by the present administration and other high-ranking political figures.

- The push over several years to defame, block and censor those who do not conform with the general #Russiagate line, and cause them to lose their jobs, contracts, and venues. (Another kind of current Red Scare.)

- The so-far frighteningly successful push to block and censor those who express condemnation of Israeli actions or support for the BDS movement as necessarily "anti-Semitic," and to cause them to lose their jobs, contracts, and venues. (Yet another kind of current Red Scare. This is how the lion's share of the academics who have been terminated for political statements recently actually lost their jobs, but it is not a problem identified by anti-"Cancel Culture" signatories.)

- Recent state laws and federal regulations that make punishable, among other things, the publication of photos taken at factory farms; establish harsh prison sentences for blocking traffic, 'trespassing' on oil pipelines (including on your own land), or interfering with vaguely-defined 'governmental administration'; and give immunity to drivers who run over protesters.

- The hidden icebergs of the espionage-corporate complex: activities of state, state-backed, state-corporate, state or multi-state intel, and corporate-funded think-tanks, fronts, lobbies, PR and marketing outfits, infiltration efforts, cooptation efforts, and private "public service" or "non-governmental" initiatives, who engage in contracted propaganda operations, political manipulations, unannounced "nudges," and other activities in which they do not openly disclose themselves as agents or beneficiaries of their respective sponsors, and do not make clear their actual agendas. This is another potent form by which wealth controls, manipulates, misleads, suppresses, and chills political speech.

- Rigging and fraud in elections, lawmaking, and regulation: The dozens of ways in which regulation, legislation, and elections (the last being ostensibly the most important political expression available to the people) are now more openly and shamelessly rigged than ever by money; more money; yet more money; corporate lobbies; political machines; geostrategy and natsec lobbies; systematic voter suppression on a perpetually larger and ever-bolder scale; control by corporate media and its advertisers of public agendas, spins, and air-time granted to views, spokespersons, and candidates; planned scandal/crisis/distraction operations; strangleholds over primary and general election procedures and abuse thereof by the "major" parties; forced winner-take-all logic and moral shaming favoring the two "major" parties; gerrymandering; the inherently corrupt practice of legislative seniority; disinfo operations and fake scandals, and more. (And, presumably, through the use of proprietary black-box voting machines that are both riggable - from the inside - as well as hackable from the outside.)

- Organized panic campaigns that present any of the above, or other major threats to free speech, not primarily as functions of systemic features and power-groups operating from within the system, but as "attacks" on the system practiced by agents of vaguely defined foreign entities like "Russia" or "China," or by mysterious non-existent cabals of various kinds, or by annoying angry college students.

I hope that lends perspective to the relative importance of 'Cancel Culture.' I'm sure this list is missing one or more items that also, generally, merit far greater concern. I wish it was unnecessary to add that this is not meant as an endorsement of 'Cancel Culture', however exactly we may define the concept. Nor is this a denial that some people have been unjustly treated and harmed by persons practicing what we might accurately call 'Cancel Culture.'

Nevertheless, I submit that if those who decry 'Cancel Culture' do not, with equal or greater vigor, also decry any of the items on the above list, they are exposing themselves:

a) as concernment liberals who do not understand or who wish to obscure the structures and sources of real power in our societies; or,

b) as persons striking faux-courageous stands against easy and relatively safe targets, like angry college students, usually on behalf of a (right-wing) political agenda; or,

c) as professional performers. artists, pundits or others who, for whatever reason, feel more threatened by audience rejection than by structural power and structural violence.

Independently of motive, however, they are

d) willing to function to buttress the established relations of power and violence in the Anglo-American or "Western" societies, by helping to engender a peripheral distraction from real power centers and bigger issues threatening freedom of speech and political expression in general.

.

Thank you Jack.

Also, Nick Cave lost me over Israel and thus forced me to acknowledge that he stole all his best ideas from Mark Stewart (or, really, the Birthday Party did from the Pop Group). OTOH, Mutiny in Heaven is an opus motherfucker of a song. And I can think of no higher value (or one I'm willing to champion, at least, than *mercy.) FWIW Nick's teenage son died tragically a few years back. I have no reason his Israel bullshit was specifically due to this but I'm willing to allow that some weird personality changes, transient or otherwise, are much more likely following grief and trauma.

[JackRiddler]

As though to illustrate, Facebook, which shouldn't have this kind of power, now bans QAnon. No doubt FB feels some heat from those who would regulate it -- Harris has been prominent in calling for such measures -- and is steered by its censorship committee, which includes Atlantic Council, etc. It's also trying to figure out which demographics to please, and which are dispensable. (How come there's never a warning with these people? Zap! Hundreds of thousands of posts, rightfully belonging to their authors, deleted.) Some liberals or leftists (who supposedly correspond at least in part to the so-called 'cancel culture') cheer for this. (Bet you some signatories of the 'Cancel Culture' letter like it too, since it's a move against 'conspiracy theory' and 'violence' or Russian influence or whatever the justification is.)

THEN, the later headlines inform that FB also banned anarchists and a bunch of 'antifa'. Oops! Some of the aforementioned liberal/leftists/cancel culture-ers will now twist up to justify that also. Not all, note: it's a confused landscape. This is a partial picture of how it goes. The real problem is the concentration of power to decide in these highly centralized for-profit entities without any real principles other than shareholder value; the ways these are tied into the state; and, in the state itself. The state in turn is not run by a single logic currently (other than the tendency to grow surveillance and control potentials generally), but is home to a riot of entanglements with said for-profit entities and other private interests and spook milieux, as well as open political conflicts and at least one party openly calling for something that qualifies as a form of fascism in all but name.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Indeed, Facebook and Twitter are 2 good examples of corporate entities unilaterally deciding what should exist or not, at least as far as typed content.
On the surface, some of these decisions may seem sensible, at least to a segment of the population.

This may be a prelude to larger aims beyond the confines of social media accounts.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Much as I enjoy his music, he lost me when he decided to play in Israel, against the honest and reasonably expressed wishes of those on the receiving end of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In any case:

and it may be that we are heading toward a more equal society

Who is he kidding?

.

Was not aware of his event in Israel; echo your sentiments there.


"A more equal society."

- why is there any hint that we'd arrive there, if we've yet to do so as a species?

Certain native tribes, historical or contemporary, may be exceptions. Welcome thoughts otherwise.


Back to the core point, though - i'd like to fast forward to the time when the thought-stopping refrains of cancel culture lead to the inevitable counter.

The cycle of culture.

So is this cancel culture in action?

Neither of us are calling to 'cancel' anyone or anything; merely expressing opinions. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your point?

For me to 'cancel' Nick Cave (which I certainly do not advocate. I believe Harvey also mentioned he'd still listen to his music regardless of his political stance/non-action, etc), I'd need to proclaim as much via, say, Twitter -- repeatedly, and if I'm really ambitious (self-righteous), start a 'social media campaign' clamoring for others to 'cancel' him (stop buying whatever he's selling, ignore his content, etc..).

The roots of cancel culture are in judging everything about a person by their actions in one particular aspect of life. Or at least holding those particular actions as somehow more important, in terms of people's reactions than anything else. So for example, some people insisting biological sex is a binary not a spectrum miss out on positions because of that opinion. Even tho they may evolutionary biologists making statements that are factually accurate.

If your first reaction is to frame someone who makes art by their violation of your political standards then you are following the same path even if you aren't being as much of a jerk about it or exercising as much power to enforce your opinion on others as some people on Twitter.

I can see real similarities there even if they make youse feel uncomfortable.

[Joe Hillshoist]

As though to illustrate, Facebook, which shouldn't have this kind of power, now bans QAnon. No doubt FB feels some heat from those who would regulate it -- Harris has been prominent in calling for such measures -- and is steered by its censorship committee, which includes Atlantic Council, etc. It's also trying to figure out which demographics to please, and which are dispensable. (How come there's never a warning with these people? Zap! Hundreds of thousands of posts, rightfully belonging to their authors, deleted.) Some liberals or leftists (who supposedly correspond at least in part to the so-called 'cancel culture') cheer for this. (Bet you some signatories of the 'Cancel Culture' letter like it too, since it's a move against 'conspiracy theory' and 'violence' or Russian influence or whatever the justification is.)

THEN, the later headlines inform that FB also banned anarchists and a bunch of 'antifa'. Oops! Some of the aforementioned liberal/leftists/cancel culture-ers will now twist up to justify that also. Not all, note: it's a confused landscape. This is a partial picture of how it goes. The real problem is the concentration of power to decide in these highly centralized for-profit entities without any real principles other than shareholder value; the ways these are tied into the state; and, in the state itself. The state in turn is not run by a single logic currently (other than the tendency to grow surveillance and control potentials generally), but is home to a riot of entanglements with said for-profit entities and other private interests and spook milieux, as well as open political conflicts and at least one party openly calling for something that qualifies as a form of fascism in all but name.

While I pretty much agree with everything you've said. When this topic comes up outside of here I'm usually pointing out actual threats to freedom of the press, whistleblowers, anti association jaws etc etc.

One thing tho. Facebook and Twitter are private entities. They are not the commons. They aren't like putting your soapbox down in the park then ranting away. They belong to entities whose sole concern is making a profit for their shareholders. So freedom of expression is secondary to their actual reason d'être.

They are a symptom of Neo liberalism and the privatisation of human existence.

That some people confuse them with an open society is another problem I guess.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

If your first reaction is to frame someone who makes art by their violation of your political standards then you are following the same path even if you aren't being as much of a jerk about it or exercising as much power to enforce your opinion on others as some people on Twitter.

I can see real similarities there even if they make youse feel uncomfortable.

I disagree, but in doing so, I will not cancel you. I support your choice to post faulty opinions here.

[Iamwhomiam]

You know, Joe, I don't think I've ever disagreed with anything you've shared with us over the years, but I strongly disagree with you here, where you wrote,

hey are a symptom of Neo liberalism and the privatisation of human existence.

I'd say they are not a symptom of Neo liberalism but rather, a well planned intelligence gathering tool necessary for orchestrating their plan now decades in play. Employing subcontractors to act as their frontmen, they allow them to become enriched selling information they already have, but not all they have on certain "persons of concern." 'They' and 'them' being the world's intelligence agencies,

I don't really disagree with that last bit, "the privatisation of human existence," but I see it more like the impersonalzation of humanity.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This can go on a number of threads here:


https://mondoweiss.net/2020/09/zoom-can ... el-groups/

Zoom cancels panel featuring Leila Khaled amid protests from pro-Israel groups

Zoom announced that it will deny its services to San Francisco State University today to block an online panel featuring Leila Khaled from happening with its software. Pro-Israel groups, including one partially funded by the Israeli government, are taking credit for the cancellation.

Zoom has announced that it will deny its services to San Francisco State University (SFSU) today and block an online panel featuring Leila Khaled from happening with its software. As a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Khaled was connected to two plane hijackings that took place in 1969 and 1970.

The event (which was titled “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice & Resistance”) was to be sponsored by SFSU’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies Program and the Women and Gender Studies Department.

A statement from the company to the group reads, “Zoom is committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations, subject to certain limitations contained in our Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions, and anti-terrorism laws. In light of the speaker’s reported affiliation or membership in a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, and SFSU’s inability to confirm otherwise, we determined the meeting is in violation of Zoom’s Terms of Service and told SFSU they may not use Zoom for this particular event.”

The event was protested by a number of right-wing, pro-Israel groups including The Lawfare Project. The Act.IL app, which targets the BDS movement and is partially funded by the Israeli government, has taken credit for helping to cancel the Zoom event:

Israel’s app (via telegram and press) is taking credit for pressuring Zoom into cancelling a stream of Leila Khaled’s lecture at SFSU, is pushing for the lecture itself to be cancelled. pic.twitter.com/2zZ1GXHThG
— Behind Israel's Troll Army (@AntiBDSApp) September 23, 2020

Michael Bueckert, a PhD student in sociology and political economy at Carleton University who tracks the app online, points out that its users have sent emails to the California State University Board of Trustees and informing them that they “may be violating US law by supporting a terrorist.”

Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA, tweeted, “This is what happens when we subcontract our universities to Zoom: they decide which events are acceptable and which aren’t. It’s outrageous.”

People who signed up for the event received an email from organizers, saying that they expect the school to “uphold our freedom of speech and academic freedom by providing an alternative venue to this open classroom.”

The framing of this in the Times of Israel is markedly different in tone:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/zoom-said ... la-khaled/

[kelley]

Equity is the goal.

When I hear 'equality' I reach for my revolver.

[Harvey]

Equity is the goal.

When I hear 'equality' I reach for my revolver.

To shoot the dictionary with?

'Equity' is almost fully colonised by interestingly orthogonal meanings. (If not opposite.) I wonder if the additional work involved to rescue prior meaning from current usage, actually increases or decreases its value? (ha ha) Besides, what essential difference do you see?

[stickdog99]

Much as I enjoy his music, he lost me when he decided to play in Israel, against the honest and reasonably expressed wishes of those on the receiving end of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

LOL. Is this supposed to be some sort of ironic take on cancel culture?

One false move and Cave "lost" all of us righteous-minded folks?

[stickdog99]

IMHO, almost all of us, including myself, have all fallen in the trap of canceling (stoning) people for their political failings (religious heresies).

Even though regular people struggling to survive are far from perfect, they are not the cause of our rapidly failing social structures. Our corrupt leaders and their billionaire masters are the cause of our rapidly failing social structures. I refuse to cancel anybody who does not make a habit of vilifying (and/or blaming society's problems on) regular people.

[Harvey]

Much as I enjoy his music, he lost me when he decided to play in Israel, against the honest and reasonably expressed wishes of those on the receiving end of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

LOL. Is this supposed to be some sort of ironic take on cancel culture?

One false move and Cave "lost" all of us righteous-minded folks?

Not really. More of a 'final straw' and my personal opinion. If you think I ought to pay some attention to his views, by all means make your argument, I'll certainly listen to it.

[stickdog99]

OK, then here is my argument. His views stand wholly on their own, totally outside of any personal disdain he engenders in you because of his resounding failures on your political litmus tests.

Cancel the views. Stop canceling the individuals. If we are ever going to change anything for the better, we will need as many imperfect allies as we can muster.

To put it another way, cancel culture litmus tests have been successfully weaponized to turn "We are the 99%" into "We are the morally and politically infallible 1%, and if you are not, then fuck you forever and ever."

And the more self-righteous we are about our own political beliefs, the more we tend to condemn others harshly for failing to adhere to our Top 100 Political Commandments. And so we end up canceling Shahid Buttar, Alex Morse, Dave Chapelle, Bill Burr, John Lennon, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Nick Cave, Howie Hawkins, Eugene Debs, RFK, RFK, Jr., Malcolm X, MLK, Jr., etc., etc., etc.