This is my opinion below, as the modern usage of "cancelled" is subjective to a degree.
I'm sure all of us have heard "It's cancelled" about a show or movie in a newer way than it was once used. Instead of literally meaning a project has ended or been shelved, it is more of a personal assessment and declaration of detachment by the individual making the claim. It applies in less conventional ways now to people and brands as well.
The extremity of the qualifications for something being cancelled seem to vary now. Back on Twitter, you'd get the sense that someone like Kevin Spacey was indeed cancelled as all notable opportunities of his for his future have seemed to dry up after his online cancellation. Some fellow progressives here on Era have contended that term and idea is just flawed all the way, as Spacey didn't retroactively lose his wealth (I don't agree with that being a barometer for cancellation, but like I said, there's some subjectivity). Some on Era point to people often stated to be cancelled like Louis CK, being a prime example for why cancellation isn't real - he still has an audience of some kind. I again can't say that restriction means to me he wasn't cancelled - his level of influence, fans, and opportunity is significantly lower than it was as far as I can tell. That to me means he was definitely cancelled by a lot of people. But then some contend that cancellation by some people and not others is not cancellation at all - if they are left with something then it was never cancelled. At least that's how it seems to be discussed when I'm reading recent posts arguing about it.
For a while, it was a pretty uncontentious social term. It is still popular on social media and in hashtags, and I still hear it from my closest friends when they learn something they find unacceptable about someone's behavior or views. "He's cancelled."
The usage was a pop culture moment. Racists, predators and bigots were tainted by the term when being alerted to the public's disapproval of their behavior. Articles covered it and tried to explain its new usage.
But this year I saw backlash, mainly when browsing Era. Searching through thread titles, the first usage of "cancel culture" for a thread title was this year. In September we had a couple large threads placing doubt on the idea. This was the biggest:
Just today I saw a mention of cancelling someone and then backlash against the term being brought up.
At first these backlash threads were weird to me. There had been a more positive thread pointing out the power of "cancel culture" and how it's enabled minorities and women to bring light and conversation around people and activity that once might have quietly stifled them instead. I thought the same - that cancelling someone is just a simple shift in bad things getting called out as bad and losing some of their influence over previous followers as a result.
I got even more confused by posters here who would say stuff like "cancel culture isn't real" and "can you define cancelling someone?" and "show me someone who has actually been cancelled" without any clarity on why they were trying to undermine a common usage of the word.
I searched a bit more and found some ideas about the backlash. It seems like it boils down to a fear that the usage of "cancelled" has been rolled into the term "cancel culture" and progressives don't like this because it is being conflated by bad people with stuff like "PC culture" and "outrage culture" in which the progressives who are trying to make positive awareness and change are being painted as oversensitive, reactionary, and even recklessly oblivious to potential mistakes and harm.
And I guess I could understand that concern. It is true that there are people who think behavior from people like Louis CK or the owner of NeoGAF are not wrongful or think that heavy handed persecutions caused by easily influenced progressive tribes are what make up the backlash. It's true that some people are saying sometimes call-outs and cancellations seem misplaced, to which some on era will reply no one has ever been cancelled and the term is a scapegoat to hurt progressive discussions against bad behavior.
So then I'm thinking the backlash makes sense, but it seems detached from its founding presence on social media and from people I know. It seems like people still like to say people are cancelled and over - typically not in bad faith, as they generally really are expressing intent to detach and call out the subject they're addressing.
In all, I'm ok with the backlash even if I'm not sure about whether it's on to something by cancelling the term "cancelled." I just wish people were a little more clear about why they personally think fellow Era members should avoid validating the term, rather than a snarky post suggesting the person bringing up what they feel is a real thing is actually just ignorant of the real truth that cancellation never happened.
The usage of the word is still prevalent by people using it in good faith and who think it does have worthwhile power in the right cases.
I'm sure all of us have heard "It's cancelled" about a show or movie in a newer way than it was once used. Instead of literally meaning a project has ended or been shelved, it is more of a personal assessment and declaration of detachment by the individual making the claim. It applies in less conventional ways now to people and brands as well.
The extremity of the qualifications for something being cancelled seem to vary now. Back on Twitter, you'd get the sense that someone like Kevin Spacey was indeed cancelled as all notable opportunities of his for his future have seemed to dry up after his online cancellation. Some fellow progressives here on Era have contended that term and idea is just flawed all the way, as Spacey didn't retroactively lose his wealth (I don't agree with that being a barometer for cancellation, but like I said, there's some subjectivity). Some on Era point to people often stated to be cancelled like Louis CK, being a prime example for why cancellation isn't real - he still has an audience of some kind. I again can't say that restriction means to me he wasn't cancelled - his level of influence, fans, and opportunity is significantly lower than it was as far as I can tell. That to me means he was definitely cancelled by a lot of people. But then some contend that cancellation by some people and not others is not cancellation at all - if they are left with something then it was never cancelled. At least that's how it seems to be discussed when I'm reading recent posts arguing about it.
For a while, it was a pretty uncontentious social term. It is still popular on social media and in hashtags, and I still hear it from my closest friends when they learn something they find unacceptable about someone's behavior or views. "He's cancelled."
The usage was a pop culture moment. Racists, predators and bigots were tainted by the term when being alerted to the public's disapproval of their behavior. Articles covered it and tried to explain its new usage.
But this year I saw backlash, mainly when browsing Era. Searching through thread titles, the first usage of "cancel culture" for a thread title was this year. In September we had a couple large threads placing doubt on the idea. This was the biggest:
Just today I saw a mention of cancelling someone and then backlash against the term being brought up.
At first these backlash threads were weird to me. There had been a more positive thread pointing out the power of "cancel culture" and how it's enabled minorities and women to bring light and conversation around people and activity that once might have quietly stifled them instead. I thought the same - that cancelling someone is just a simple shift in bad things getting called out as bad and losing some of their influence over previous followers as a result.
I got even more confused by posters here who would say stuff like "cancel culture isn't real" and "can you define cancelling someone?" and "show me someone who has actually been cancelled" without any clarity on why they were trying to undermine a common usage of the word.
I searched a bit more and found some ideas about the backlash. It seems like it boils down to a fear that the usage of "cancelled" has been rolled into the term "cancel culture" and progressives don't like this because it is being conflated by bad people with stuff like "PC culture" and "outrage culture" in which the progressives who are trying to make positive awareness and change are being painted as oversensitive, reactionary, and even recklessly oblivious to potential mistakes and harm.
And I guess I could understand that concern. It is true that there are people who think behavior from people like Louis CK or the owner of NeoGAF are not wrongful or think that heavy handed persecutions caused by easily influenced progressive tribes are what make up the backlash. It's true that some people are saying sometimes call-outs and cancellations seem misplaced, to which some on era will reply no one has ever been cancelled and the term is a scapegoat to hurt progressive discussions against bad behavior.
So then I'm thinking the backlash makes sense, but it seems detached from its founding presence on social media and from people I know. It seems like people still like to say people are cancelled and over - typically not in bad faith, as they generally really are expressing intent to detach and call out the subject they're addressing.
In all, I'm ok with the backlash even if I'm not sure about whether it's on to something by cancelling the term "cancelled." I just wish people were a little more clear about why they personally think fellow Era members should avoid validating the term, rather than a snarky post suggesting the person bringing up what they feel is a real thing is actually just ignorant of the real truth that cancellation never happened.
The usage of the word is still prevalent by people using it in good faith and who think it does have worthwhile power in the right cases.
