No. I respectfully do not. The viewpoint is malicious at the outset. It is surely ignorant as well. The ideas could be changed in any event.
What scenario are you imagining where someone is exposed to an idea but maliciously rejects it versus pure ignorance? Surely Archie Bunker had at least heard of the idea of racial equality. Meathead told him every episode. Where does it cross the line in your view?
Do you have real life examples of this? Because I can’t think of any. Offensive comedy where the point of the joke is “Haha, that guy is a terrible person” has carried Archer and Always Sunny through a bajillion seasons.
I have to propose works of art that were NOT MADE? How could anyone know that?
And, while I’m not familiar with the shows you cited, did they have simply bad views, but accepted by the powers that be, or REALLY bad ones? Because if it is the former, then my point stands.
Of course not. Shows that were cancelled early in or stopped development, etc would all qualify. Otherwise we’re just saying that there’s no shows about purple yeti ninjas because scary liberals won’t let them happen – prove me wrong. You can’t “expunge” shows that never existed in any form.
The closest I can think of was the Heathers reboot were people complained about the bully clique being made of up a fat girl, a minority girl and a genderqueer male. But that didn’t stop it from being produced (it was delayed multiple times because the story involved a school shooting and there’s rarely enough of a gap between real life events to make that not in poor taste). It did get released, and landed with a thud because it wasn’t very funny/good and you can watch it now if you don’t value your time so it certainly wasn’t “expunged”.
I mean, main characters made regular jokes about race, disability, sexuality, rape, etc. I guess no one was screaming “Kill all [minorities]!” or anything so it depends on where you set your bar.
To be fair you would have to include shows that would appeal to a niche audience but no director or serious actor would touch it because of the fallout. The rest of your post, while insightful, hinges on this misstatement.
If you don’t have any examples to support your statement “There must be an expungement of all contrarian views, even if the view, like Arch, is a piece about a mockery of his views”, that’s fine. I was able to come up with several examples of shows produced that mock main characters with “incorrect” views/statements and another of a show produced despite the outcry of the Twitter Liberal people.
I don’t think your statement is correct and would need actual evidence of this “expungement” instead of vague handwaving to give it any merit.
Are you dismissing the idea that because of the modern cancel culture that nobody has been restrained by the idea that if they wrote THAT script or directed THAT movie he or she would be scorned?
And again, I am not talking about absurd examples like a documentary about how blacks are systematically raping white women or how Hitler really had it right all along. I’m talking about relatively minor things that get torn apart by the supposed media because it didn’t meet the ever changing PC standard.
I’m saying that there’s no evidence that this is a regular issue or that there’s some great barrier above and beyond “Will this get ratings and be profitable?”. Shows that can present offensive content in an amusing way and make the subject of mockery the speaker (rather than their “target”) still get produced and can be very popular. While a show like All In The Family would need some rewriting just because it’s not fifty years ago any longer, I don’t believe that they would be impossible with a sharp script.
I agree. Talented writers and actors…err…acting in good faith could certainly make it work.
But I see a difference between a viewpoint being malicious vs. coming from malice. The former is about the viewpoint itself; the latter is about the motivation, intention, or character of the person expressing the viewpoint. You took @Bootb’s claim about the former and turned it into a statement about the latter.
@Polerius made a good point about top-down vs. bottom-up censorship. The First Amendment is about top-down freedom of speech: what the government permits. “Cancel culture” is about bottom-up censorship.
I cannot think of an instance of racism that does not come from ignorance. Then, therefore, it is not malicious under this definition. I fail to see how one can then call any instance of racism malicious. Even the two racist idiots who killed Emmett Till likely believed that they were doing a positive thing.
I understand, but believe that this tidbit is overused. Yes, the First Amendment only protects me from government censorship, not censorship from the SDMB or Twitter. This is trotted out at all times. The idea that free speech is important transcends the First Amendment limitations. Top down vs. bottom up is a meaningless distinction. If a person is muzzled, it really doesn’t matter to them who is muzzling them and the speech is suppressed either way.
Further, it is not simply people voting with their pocketbooks. It is not enough to say that they don’t like a particular movie and won’t see it. Cancel culture says that nobody else should be allowed to see it either.
Yeah, I have to agree. There aren’t really a lot of people out there saying, “People in group X are no less intelligent, successful, law-abiding, or moral than other people, but fuck them anyway.” There’s always an element of ignorance to it.
No. If the racists want to make a racist movie they’re free to write it, finance it, produce it, distribute it, and show it at the racist owned theaters in racist towns. No one is stopping all that. The problem is there aren’t enough racists in all of those steps to make it happen. There’s no cancelling going on, its just economics - find a rich racist to pay for all that it takes to make and show a racist movie and it’ll happen.
What you are saying is that all of these stakeholders must affirmatively embrace the content of the film. I don’t like violence, but I would have no objection to producing or selling a film that contained violence. Nobody would imply that anyone in the process advocates violence.
With racism or another unpopular to the left issue, the cancel culture implies that anyone involved in it endorses racism or the other unpopular to the left issue. There is no “live and let live” attitude and it suppresses viewpoints by threatening people’s livelihoods if they dare cross the left. That is dangerous.
I watched 48 Hours with Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte a few months ago on cable. Certainly mismatched buddy cop films can be and are still made. But I don’t think you can make one where one partner constantly calls the other the “N word”.
Tropic Thunder hilariously had Robert Downy JR as a dude playing a dude in black face playing another dude the entire movie. More problematic was the character of the mentally challenged “Simple Jack”.
You mean the movie about two owners of competing defunct businesses (brick & mortar books stores) catfishing each other on the internet?
And that aspect of the story (that he knew who she was before she knew who he was) was copied from The Shop Around the Corner (which I’ve seen) and may in fact be in Parfumerie (which I have not).
So, this story showed up in my Facebook feed yesterday.
A right-wing blogger had created a Confederate superhero character, and was pursuing making an independent, crowd-funded film, featuring that character. As Daily Beast describes it:
But, the apparently sketchy finance company (which described itself as offering “banking [to] the unbankable”), that had been entrusted with the $1 million which had been raised to fund the film, appears to have fraudulently spent the money, leading to the film’s cancellation.
The “Rebel’s Run” thing reminds me of the Daily Wire production company, now with a few “non-woke” mediocre movies under their belt in case someone wants to waste a few hours on conservative values porn disguised as action-thrillers. But, hey, ain’t no one stopping them from being made.
I suspect a show about an older Trump supporter clashing with his son-in-law Biden voter would work.