i think any critique of cancel culture needs to remember where it came from: Black women and the mute R. Kelly movement. when used as intended--people using the power they have to hold accountable people who otherwise wouldn't face consequences--it can work as a tool. it makes me frustrated that we've lost sight of that in the ten-ish years since that really took off
3 weeks ago (edited) | 46
Honestly I think it depends on the race of the person being cancelled. Notice how Bill Cosby and R. Kelly were effectively cancelled, but Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are still being praised. They’ve all committed awful acts, but only a certain skin color gets a pass.
3 weeks ago | 10
i think that being cancelled is arguably the best thing that can happen for a public figure’s career. automatic views, attention, and news coverage. for most, any publicity is good publicity. i don’t think cancel culture works at all— it just makes people keep talking about formerly irrelevant celebs and giving them clout
3 weeks ago | 4
It 100% depends on the situation, and hell...even in the situation where it is used correctly (When someone s*xual abuses other people via the power they hold like Diddy) I struggle to call that cancel culture, but rather consequence culture. Where as cancel culture seems to love to go at someone who may have said some offensive stuff 10 or 15 years ago when they were stupid teenagers/little kids and people who find out about it just now decide to hold that against them, despite the fact that they recently showed no signs of that type of behavior they had when they were younger.
3 weeks ago (edited) | 7
I voted for sometimes because it really depends on the case. Sometimes it can hold people accountable for their actions, but other times it hurts more than it helps.
3 weeks ago | 0
I think the audience matters. A textbook example is someone being caught saying racial slurs. If their primary audience is white conservatives then I think it would fly, but if their primary audience is that racial group itself then I think the black lash would be more severe.
3 weeks ago | 1
I'd say Natalia Kills got successfully canceled, but people like Logan paul are a prime example of why it doesn't work.
3 weeks ago | 3
I guess it just depends on the situation. Some groups complain about cancel culture; however, they are in the business of cancelling whenever they see fit.
3 weeks ago | 0
I've seen it change exactly nothing in the 6 years I've been an adult to see it go down lol
3 weeks ago | 1
imo it def depends, if someone has a younger audience (like logan) an audience that knows theyre awful, or is too big/iconic (like Quinton Terintino defending roman Polanski) alot of these big names get away by never addressing controversy
3 weeks ago | 0
i dont belive cancel culture is effective cuz why do i see James Charles or Jeffery star having a flourishing career after all the shit they did . it annoying
3 weeks ago | 0
I mean, only the creator themselves or the police can cancel someone? And gosh I wish the police would cancel certain people.
3 weeks ago | 0
Cancel culture is what the cancelled call it when people mention their terrible behaviour - it isn't a thing at all 😑 No one has been "cancelled" they all still have their million dollar mansions they're fine
3 weeks ago | 0
not really because half of the time it's just people saying it at the moment and even though the audience will know what the famous person did, that famous person will still have a platform because no long-term action was taken to remove that platform permanently. I probably didn't explain it well but it's something like that And for some reason they all become republican?
3 weeks ago (edited) | 0
Julia Boateng
does cancel culture work?
3 weeks ago | [YT] | 55