I wish this were true, but I think for a lot of cases conservatives really have nothing to fear as far as the social hierarchies in America being weakened by the media blacklisting problematic celebrities.
I think the point of the conservative attack on all of the media-centric attempts to address bigotry are to talk about how dangerous “cancel culture” is, in order to trigger subconscious fears of white guys that they could lose their privileged status as a result. I think while it varies based on different marginalized groups and different aspects of race/gender etc. relations, in a lot of cases, the focus on rooting out bigotry in the media isn’t actually a major threat to the real structural bigotry.
I think a big example is systemic racism against black people - the root of most of the problem is that our country is rigged to make it extremely difficult for black people to gain wealth and power. Removing high-profile media figures who say or do overtly racist things doesn’t actually solve that problem.
I think the main reason all of the “cancel culture” rhetoric is so often used on the right is that white guys are seeing their opportunities deterioriate along with everyone else in the past decade. I think the real thing conservatives are afraid of is that more of their base will realize that it really doesn’t fucking matter if a handful of Dr. Seuss books aren’t for sale anymore and turn their attention to real issues.
I grew up in a racist household. I’m sure I said racist shit all the time. I’m really glad there was no Twitter at the time to memorialize it, and I’m fortunate that I’m judged for what I believe now and not what I believed when I was a teenager.
That is true. Never mind concerns about justice or effect on how employees feel right now, the business decision by the Suits is heavily influenced by the idea of what if at any time it did become brought up when dealing with a current issue. “You knew this person had this history and yet you let them carry on”.
Really, as others have mentioned, what she loses is a plum position that is very public-image sensitive. The kind of gig that’s easy to lose for any sort of past screwup. Now, if six years down the road every time McCammond so much as sends out a resumé Twitter starts going “Company X is looking at hiring her!!”, then, OK, I’ll say some people other than her have a problem. My feeling is that it will become “McWho?”
I wonder though, if those on the Right in their “defense” of Carano and McCammond and others are not actually calling more attention to what was their respective fuckup, and it will not be necessarily as sympathetic as they obviously expect.
Does “letting someone move on from their past” necessarily entail “supporting their appointment to any job they want”?
Because AFAICT, McCammond has been “moving on from her past” just fine throughout her quite impressive career. After her 2019 apology for and deletion of her old tweets, for instance, she continued to work in journalism and seems to have been largely well thought of. Even if Teen Vogue has decided that her past anti-Asian racism makes her not the best fit for the public face of their magazine, it seems likely that she’ll continue to “move on from her past” in her career.
This is a chief reason why generalized laments about “cancel culture” are typically so unconvincing: they rely on vague exaggerations about “punishing” and “ruining lives” and “refusing to let someone move on” and so on, in order to make the outcome sound more vindictive and catastrophic than it is.
No, I wouldn’t necessarily say that, but how those comments resurfaced and were used against her matter. I think more people on the ‘right’ side of this issue need to assess that aspect of this discussion more carefully.
So you’re saying that no matter how many times she apologizes, she can never supervise a person of Asian descent because of something she said when she was 17?
Just, wow. I knew this board was pretty progressive left, but this is nuts.
If a guy gets drunk and beats his wife, he’s a wife beater.
We’re in agreement on that, right ?
If he had years of therapy, would I want him dating a female friend of mine ? Eh, no. Lots of other choices who never laid hands on a woman in an unwelcome way.
I have a family member who’s screwed everybody over for money. He grouses to this day that there’s just ‘no path to redemption’ for him. Well … twice (or 35 times) shy.
Your statement was awfully absolute. I haven’t seen anybody say there’s no ‘path to redemption’ for somebody in these cases, but … is asking them to take that path really so
No. I’m saying that the feelings of the staff should also be taken into consideration. Focusing solely on McCammond is myopic and unfair to the staff. There is another side to consider, and it frustrates me that people don’t care about the staff.
I had mentioned James Gunn before, but now I see a critical difference. James Gunn had the support of his colleagues. I believe it was reported that the stars of Guardians of the Galaxy were against his firing. That’s not nothing. Ms. McCammond does not have the support of the staff. Again That’s not nothing
The thing is, the job we are talking about is editor-in-chief for Teen Vogue. Teen Vogue isn’t some vacuous teenybopper magazine. It’s geared to older teens who are “woke” a.f.
Right now, the lead articles include a piece on how the media perpetuates racism against Haitians, another on how Asian women, particularly sex workers, face deadly myths on who is worthy of respect plus profiles of a Navajo skateboarder and a Ghanaian singer.
While I do not believe that a flawless “wokeness” record should be a prerequisite for most jobs, I’m saying I think editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue is probably one of those exceptions.
And if you want to talk about cancel culture, remember how Fox had their own little cancel massacre of newscasters insufficiently loyal to the party line - including Chris Stirewalt, the analyst that made the early (and correct) call on Arizona for Biden.
And don’t forget, Trump was in the process of gutting the civil service protections for Executive Branch employees, and was getting ready to fire all the Democrats and never-Trumpers - hundreds of good people that did nothing wrong but disagree with Trump. If you want an honest discussion about firing people over “incorrect” political opinions, I suggest starting there.
I just don’t think that “99.9% of the workforce not woke enough to edit Teen Vogue, including one person that really wanted the job” is newsworthy.
I acknowledge that the right engages in cancel culture – I expect self-righteous hypocritical shit from the right. I’m disappointed when I see it go too far on the left.
Why should I as a potential Asian employee of hers trust her when she says she has changed? I have only one life, only one career; an editor has an enormous, potentially irreversible influence over it. Why should this one person get a chance when any number of people who don’t have to be forgiven could also be given a chance? Let her work as a grunt like the rest of us.
As a man, why should I trust a divorced woman who says “Fuck men and fuck marriage!” She should never have a management job ever again unless she’s only supervising an all-female staff.
Kimstu, I have long admired your way with a post; you are erudite without being abstruse, analytical without being overly dense, and concise without being simplistic. The above post was a pleasure to read (even if you do have the paradoxical habit — all too ubiquitous these days — of applying the characterization of “conservative” to reactionary radicals).
I understand nobody has said this; what I’m getting at is how this unfolded – you all in your rush to be woke keep missing the point.
A teenager – a fucking teenager – posts insensitive shit - ten years ago.
Years later, without any evidence she has recently posted anything like it, is confronted about her old insensitive tweets, and apologizes for them, disavows them, and deletes them.
A few years later, she thinks she has moved on, but no, someone digs up these old posts post-deletion and throws it out there again that she’s a hatemonger.
Tell me, what keeps this cycle from repeating itself?
“Nobody has said she can’t ever get a management job again.”
“Nobody has said she can’t supervise or work with Asians again.”
Okay, but what the fuck do you say about what has happened, and how does this cycle not keep repeating itself? How many times must she apologize before she’s qualified to work with Asians again? I’ve put it out there several times now and none of yous’ can give me a straight answer.
I find it interesting that libs (and I’m one of them) argue against three strikes your out laws and minimum sentencing guidelines because they’re too harsh – I agree. A life sentence for a few grams of smack is extreme. So is a life sentence for a few quotes of insensitivity.
shrug I’m guessing you don’t remember everything about your teens. Or maybe you and your friends really were that spectacular. I guess it’s possible that I lived in a hive of scum and villainy. I worked with teens for a while and while I love them and admire their exuberance they are on the whole more idiotic than adults.
I respect your position but at this point there’s no value in continuing. I will rarely hold anyone accountable for something they did as a teen. You will. Neither of us will change.
