Feigned outrage and cancel culture need to face the facts...
SPONSORED / PAID FOR BY DTC (DEFEND THE COMICS) SPECIES: HOMO SAPIEN TAXONOMY: a.1.43.Luke.19.1971.OT. TYPE: 1ST PERSON EXPERIENTIAL
INDICATIONS AND MEDICAL DISCLOSURE:
ZEITFRO® (alkaline antifreeze [ALF]) [dosage/instructions: taken after scone and coffee --read below-- 2x per day or otherwise directed by a medical doctor; limit: three doses per day]
INDICATIONS AND DOSAGE: ONE READING HAS BEEN CLINICALLY PROVEN TO SHOW SIGNS OF HELPING TO HELP, OR POTENTIALLY TRYING TO HELP BUT FAILING OR RECEIVING A PARTICIPATION BADGE FOR TRYING, ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR INCLUDING HATING AS DISPLACEMENT OF SELF-LOATHING OR SELF-LOVE (AKA SCHADENFREUDE), SYMPTOMS CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE NARCISSISM, ENNUI, ANGER MANAGEMENT DISORDER, AND NTDWYTFOCS [also known as ATW (ACUTE TIME WASTING) SYNDROME, OFTEN LINKED TO CHILDHOOD CRUELTY TO SMALL ANIMALS AND LIFE-LONG PATTERNS OF SOCIOPATHIC BEHAVIOR].
PARENTAL WARNING: UNCENSORED THOUGHTS CONTAINED BELOW, SOME OF WHICH MIGHT CAUSE SEIZURES, 'HOT DOG' FINGERS, ACUTE RESPIRATORY FAILURE INCLUDING POPCORN LUNGS, PINPRICK MACROECONOMIC BUBBLE BURSTING, THE ABANDONMENT OF ALLIES OF CONVENIENCE AKA 'MILD GENOCIDAL SYNDROME' (MGS and gluten-free), CARDIAC EPISODES, PANIC ATTACKS AND HALLUCINATIONS FEATURING CAMEOS BY BILL COSBY, RON HOWARD, GLORIA ESTEFAN, KEVIN SPACEY, HEART (the WHOLE band), R. KELLY AND ALL THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS OF YOUR YOUTH. ANYONE WHO HAS DIABETES OR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION SHOULD CONSULT A DOCTOR BEFORE READING THIS ARTICLE. THOSE WITH GENDER APHASIA OR WHO WANT TO CHANGE GENDER ARE ALSO ADVISED TO WEAR 3-D GLASSES BEFORE READING BELOW THIS LINE OF TEXT. FURTHERMORE, FWIW FOR ALL WHO HAVE THE FOBLO VARIANT OF COVID. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME WITHOUT A 'SPOTTER.'
How about this comment from my mom's friend sitting next to me, a half-Jewish woman who worried about offending by clicking "play" on Netflix on the now-infamous Chappelle special?
"I don't understand what the controversy is about..."
Well, yeah - that was the best outcome I could've hoped for when I pressured two aging hippies, activists who pushed for the Gloria Steinem / Helen Ready phase of feminism. But they also participated in the stuff that led MLK and Rosa Parks to fight hard for their place at the front of the bus. Full disclosure - one is my mother. The other is a woman I'll just call Bob (challenge parenthetical: use Hitchhiker's Guide to grok the Bob reference) so that nobody cancels this blue-haired beauty. Bob danced with Mama Cass and performed with the Rockettes. She is half-Jewish.
Archie Bunker is top of my mind as I write these words, and I know that Norman Lear knew what he was doing with that comedy. But he's a Space Jew (jk… duh).
What did Bob say to me when Chappelle's confessional comedy canon-fire finished with a punchline about sucking dick?
"I don't understand what the controversy is about..." -- Bob
Who'll be the hero of the inevitable swing of the pendulum towards some kind of true north -- fucking David Chappelle. I won't use that N-word here, because I'm not allowed. I don't want to be aborted before the fetus becomes human, and I'm not brown like Chappelle. Actually, I will use it - he's a Bad-ass N - as in Nostradamus. A hard one who tells the truth. And we can all learn from his truth.
Protestors at Netflix Dave Chappelle Walkout Los Angeles Times
All this is to say - Chappelle is a good lad, for real. He's not just a comedic genius. He's a man who fought against all odds, a scrapper (like my mom and her friend) looking to break the chain of privileged control of wealth and do his mfg thing. He knows his people and his history - and not just the black part of it all. And he is funny as fuck.
Here's the thing about it: I personally believe that America is *UN - FUCKING - AMERICAN* right now, and Chappelle fired a giant warning flare into the sky, an S.O.S. We need to talk, laugh, discuss things. We should not look for "gotcha" moments and reasons for hating one another.
We don't all need to be homogenous robots praying at the altar of some sort of C culture of silliness. Why work if you can whine? Nah. People want to work. We need to be human. Humans are tribal and we will have bias. And then there's this -- stereotypes contain both truth and danger. Not forever-truth but truth that comes from history, from epigenetic behavior that crosses culture and art and charisma and bloodlines stretching back to Africa. That's why I want to say this: Chappelle is our Nostradamus. If we look back years from now and identify a cultural inflection point, we will need a person in charge of that moment. That's kind of the way we catalog history.
Excerpt from new Rasmussen poll rasmussenreports.com
If you can't beat them, join 'em. Check out this newly published poll. These polls are super corrupt, I know. Just do the math. I mean - who wants jury duty or has time for this b.s.? Well-and-so, facebook including instagram - might be the altar to pray at for popular opinion. But… err… why is everyone on facebook talking about what they had for breakfast and trolling for self-confidence from busted-up spaghetti code companies run by self-loathing geeks? I mean, who died and made Zuckerberg the foremost expert on how to be social? Sheesh - he comes across as the kind of dude who not only got shoved in the locker at high school but actually deserved it.
On a serious (not 'suck my dick'... tsk-tsk) note, I will also say this about Mr. Chappelle: he's worthy of comparison to the great comics who came before - everyone from Groucho to Gleeson to Lenny Bruce, Pryor, Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Rock, Tina Fey, and we cannot forget Carlin. But here's the thing that might be more important - he really feels. He's not out to judge, but to connect with everyone from trans people to the waiter at the fancy places he frequents. He's an empath - and not in some kind of bullshit X-Files way.
He's someone who keeps score according to a personal moral code that he cannot ignore and which informs his craft. That makes him a full-blown creator of literature and art who will be remembered for a long time to come. He's a storyteller and social commentator on par with some of the greatest - Oscar Wilde, James Baldwin, Dick Gregory, Lou Reed, Michael Lewis, Malcolm Gladwell, David Sedaris, Jay-Z, Regina King, Kendrick Lamar - type of writers and thinkers.
His (he / him / his) comedy is part of the new literature we need to consume, because by doing so, we learn.
Thanks, Chappelle, for the S.O.S. We've got to save this fucking ship.
Dave Chappelle draped in the American Flag
Some songs as a p.s. [warning: internet connection and decent speakers required]:
True to Myself - Ziggy Marley
What a Wonderful World - Louis Armstrong
Thousands are Sailing - The Pogues
Same Love - Macklemore
Street Fighting Man - Rolling Stones
Daydream Believer - The Monkees
Why Are You On Facebook - Van Morrison
Dirty Boulevard - Lou Reed
Girls - Beastie Boys
Democracy - Lumineers
Rain Street - Pogues
Angel of Harlem - U2
Black Boys on Mopeds - Sinead O'Connor
Lonely Teardrops - Jackie Wilson
River - Leon Bridges
Boycotts and blacklists are tools conservatives perfected — they just don't like it when the tables are turned.
I don't want to alarm anyone, but...THE LEFT IS CANCELING MR. POTATO HEAD THEY'RE CANCELING DR. SEUSS, AND NEXT THEY'RE GOING TO CANCEL YOU!
It turns out that the political Left in the US is actually made up of various literary estates and multi-national toy corporations that are intent on destroying your cultural values by erasing the biological sex of a plastic potato and ending the publication of racist caricatures in some obscure books you were never going to read. But these are just the latest instances of what the Right-wing outrage machine has identified as a violent attack on free speech.
What happened to the era when a governor could get away with years of sexual harassment and assault? Do they hate him because he's not "progressive" enough?
These days it seems like a person can be canceled just for spreading dangerous misinformation and comparing herself to a Jew in Nazi Germany. These days it seems like anyone who disagrees with the liberal, Leftist, Hollywood elite position that trans people deserve rights and respect — and aren't a fundamental threat to womanhood itself — gets relegated to the dustbin of history.
Or, rather, they get to keep their immense wealth and cultural influence, and they win a Russell award for their "bravery" but a lot of people are mean to them on the internet. Which is basically the same thing.
Conservatives are so concerned about this trend that the theme of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was "America Uncanceled." But it may shock you to learn that "cancellation" was not always the refuge of the Left alone. In fact, once upon a time Right-wing Americans were all about cancellation for such heinous crimes as "opposing a war" and "being gay."
Here are nine times that conservatives proved they love "cancel culture."
In the end, it's almost as though we all "cancel" people whose views are offensive to our values. By shunning voices and ideas we find repellent, we make more room for the stuff we like.
It's a tool for affirming and perpetuating values we agree with — whether of inclusion or of bigotry. It's just that conservatives are the ones who perfected that tool, and they don't appreciate it being turned against them.
"Calling in" is a good alternative to callout culture when you're engaging with someone close to you, or someone you feel may be open and receptive to change.
Not only is cancel culture ineffective, but it can actually deter change, deepening divisions instead of building relationships that have the potential to change minds (and eventually, the world).
A new and improved update to cancel culture and its emphasis on "calling out" might be "calling in." But what does it mean to "call someone in"—and how can we shift over from the cancel culture we're so deeply entrenched in, towards a calling-in mindset?
What Is Calling In?
The term "call-in" has been in use since as early as the 1480s, when the phrase "call in" meant "to summon someone for help" or "to enlist (someone) into service." The term changed meanings over the centuries—and now most of us know it in the context of calling into work or calling into a radio show.
In modern social justice contexts, calling in is about using problematic, offensive, or insensitive infractions as opportunities to invite people to learn, grow, and change.
Calling in is often best applied within social justice circles or communities where people already know each other. In communities, where everyone knows they're on the same page but some people might slip up from time to time, calling in can be a great alternative to cancel culture, which often derails potential connection and leads to an end of the conversation rather than a beginning.
In social justice or activist circles, it can be damaging to overemphasize infractions rather than using them as stepping stones for growth. "What happens when thousands of people who all 'get it' come together and everyone knows something about 'the work'? We lose all compassion for each other. All of it," writes Ngọc Loan Trần.
"Most of us know the drill. Someone says something that supports the oppression of another community, the red flags pop up and someone swoops in to call them out," Trần writes. But what happens when that someone is a person we know — and love? What happens when we ourselves are that someone? And what does it mean for our work to rely on how we have been programmed to punish people for their mistakes?"
Sometimes cancel culture can even feel punitive, reminiscent of the heavily surveilled and policed culture that most of us are trying to escape. On the other hand, calling in can promote restoration and dialogue.
When and Who to Call In
When deciding whether to call out or call in someone who has committed an infraction, it might be helpful to think about the purpose of a callout. "If someone is more interested in seeing the subject of a call-out punished or shamed for their mistake, versus seeking to hold someone accountable for their problematic behavior and looking for a productive solution, it's probably not the best idea (for you or your community) to call someone out," writes Kyli Rodriguez-Kilo.
Instead of publicly shaming, it might be a good idea to privately engage with the person who committed an infraction before antagonizing them.
Before calling someone out, one might ask: Who has the power in this situation, and what will happen to the person who is being called out? It's also important to ask whether one's callouts are coming from places of experience and care, or whether they're meant to signal one's own benevolence to other folks. Might our energies be better placed in, say, mutual aid or organizing rather than in canceling others for no reason?
Despite the fact that calling in can be useful anywhere and at anytime, many definitions of the term propose that the people we should be calling in are friends, peers, coworkers or other people we respect enough to devote time to educating and changing. Calling in is a great option for communities or groups already on the same page, or for people with privilege or who have the time, resources, and energy to educate others. Still, calling in won't be applicable to every situation.
Who (and What) NOT to Call In
Calling in doesn't mean that anyone has to tolerate threats to their identity, race, gender, or other personal and non-malicious characteristics. It also doesn't mean expecting that a pleasant conversation will address centuries of oppression.
It's very important not to mistake calling in as a pathway to tolerance of racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive behaviors. It also doesn't mean people shouldn't get angry about their own oppression, and it doesn't mean that white people's hurt feelings (for too often, this is what it all comes down to) should be prioritized in any way. Sometimes, callouts are necessary responses.
"Tolerance" has long been used as a way to shut down legitimate critiques of dangerous cruelty, and even violence—and remaining complicit and silent are obviously not the objectives here.
Some people truly deserve to be flat-out canceled and kicked out of groups because they present threats to other members of groups. Plus, no one should feel pressured to explain why they deserve human decency, and explaining complicated social justice concepts can take far more energy and time than many people have on a daily basis.
It's okay to be angry in a f*cked up world. It's admirable to fight for change and to refuse to tolerate ways of being that threaten others' livelihoods.
Call-out culture and public "cancellations" may be necessary and effective when the person needing to be canceled is a famous or otherwise inaccessible person, or someone who has failed to change their ways or who presents a direct danger to certain people or groups.
There's no precise binary between calling out and calling in; the two are part of the same spectrum. Maybe calling out and calling in can exist alongside each other in a constant give-and-take.
None of this process—of healing, of fighting oppression, and of holding each other accountable—will be linear or straightforward, but clearly, many of us have a lot of time and energy to spend calling each other out online. Maybe a bit of that energy can be siphoned towards shaping a better future.
We're all getting something wrong when we view political correctness as fundamentally opposed to free speech.
Few issues have divided the nation further than the free speech vs. political correctness debate.
In addition to deepening the gap between conservatives and liberals, the debate tends to fracture the left, leading to dissent from the inside. This stems in part from the fact that many older liberals simply can't wrap their minds around the idea of political correctness.
Political Correctness: Censorship or Part of the Fight for Equality?
Critics of political correctness equate it to censorship, which they see as a threat to the all-American ideal of unbridled freedom. For most liberal millennials and Gen-Z kids, however, political correctness is about freedom, just of a different sort. It's really about shutting down hate speech and supporting marginalized communities.
Nowhere did this divide become clearer than in one of my lectures in college, a postmodernism class with a professor who I'd always seen as uniquely brilliant (and who also happened to teach a lesbian erotica class). She lost a lot of my respect when—as a white woman—she insisted that there was nothing really wrong with a white person saying the "n" word in solitude, prompting one of the few people of color in the class to raise her hand and ask: "Why are white people so desperate to say that one word?" The professor responded with a lecture about free speech and the insubstantiality of language, a response that felt misguided and totally out of touch.
This generational divide appeared again when prominent feminist and author Margaret Atwood published an op-ed critiquing the #MeToo movement. "My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones," she wrote. "They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing." In short, Atwood was critiquing the #MeToo movement for the same reason that many people critique political correctness. They feel that restricting one's language, or giving the benefit of the doubt to and prioritizing the voices of certain demographics, is infantilizing or threatening to other demographics' freedoms.
On the other hand, many young liberals understand that political correctness is an important part of the process of giving respect to groups that have been and are still systematically oppressed. This political correctness can take the form of prioritizing people of color's voices, or calling out offensive speech—even, or especially, when it's the product of ignorance, or when it's conducted out of earshot of the people it might hurt.
What Toni Morrison Knew: Political Correctness and Free Speech Can Be the Same Thing
What we all need to understand is that, among other things, the left's internal war over political correctness and free speech actually presents a chance for generations to learn from each other. Defenders of political correctness might realize that sometimes, accidentally offensive language can present a valuable educational opportunity—though this is definitely not always the case, and no one should be required to educate others about why they deserve basic respect.
Older proponents of free speech, for their part, can realize that political correctness, safe spaces, and the like ultimately come from places of compassion. At their core, they are efforts to achieve a more equitable world.
Perhaps it's too starry-eyed to imagine that older allies could learn from younger people who refuse to accept middle-of-the-road policies or veiled racism, but some older people have certainly embraced progressive worldviews. "Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge," said Toni Morrison in a 1993 address about political correctness. Morrison, whose wisdom stretched far beyond the blind spots of her generation, was a supporter of what political correctness stands for, though not of the implications of that specific term. In a later interview, she added, "I believe that powerful, sharp, incisive, critical, bloody, dramatic, theatrical language is not dependent on injurious language, on curses. Or hierarchy."
In short, freedom of speech is not contingent on the ability to use offensive language. We can be free—in fact, we can only be free—when all of us are free, which will only happen when language that demonizes or injures certain groups is purged from acceptable discourse.
Ironically, the book we were discussing that day in my postmodernism class was Morrison's Beloved.
Image via the Washington Post