Ah, Mech, how I knew you'd be so quick to take all the wrong vectors - especially "regardless of who" which, as we all know, should have been written "regardless at whom". Just kidding - grammar is the least issue in this regurgitation of the several determinedly unwoke go-to talking points with which I've no need to counter.

As for the critic, having taken down his review, let's see if he can/will rewrite it to say what he claims he really meant, and show how all those who contended his words as they were indeed misinterpreted what he wrote, which might suggest he's not the wordsmith his career choice requires; or, if he just doesn't bother, in hopes this all just blows over - which would indicate (to me, anyway) that people got exactly what he was saying and there's nothing else there.

As for the movie, I'm delighted that Turning Red is (otherwise) enjoying glowing critical reception - not only for the reasons most are celebrating, but for its showing out of Toronto, my home town.

Comparing these comments from other articles,

"Turning Red is a charming coming-of-age story with lovely pops of imagination and a refreshing lack of queasiness when it comes to its themes of puberty and adolescent sexuality."

"By normalizing – and even celebrating – one of life's most awkward phases, 'Turning Red' does something not often seen on film and television, especially media aimed at kids. It treats periods and female puberty as something to be embraced, rather than be embarrassed about."

"The red panda is a metaphor not just for puberty, but also what we inherit from our moms, and how we deal with the things that we inherit from them."

"Turning Red is Shi’s feature debut, a coming-of-age story following a Chinese-Canadian protagonist in the early 2000s. Her previous Pixar project, the short film Bao, also deals with a complicated first-generation-immigrant mother-child relationship, but she saw Turning Red as a chance to dive into those themes from the child’s perspective."

"Sandra Oh was 'thrilled' when she saw the script for Pixar animation Turning Red, which serves as a rare example of representation for the Asian-Canadian community."

"Pixar’s take on puberty is a beacon of light for little girls everywhere. Domee Shi’s Turning Red, the studio’s first feature directed by a woman, zooms in on the East Asian community of ­Toronto, specifically on a 13-year-old girl called Mei (Rosalie Chiang), to tell a story about embracing your wild side, making your parents proud and navigating destructive hormones."

with Sean O'Connell's review:

"The finest Pixar Animation features, in this critics’ opinion, play to a universal audience. We all imagined our adolescent toys coming to life during playtime, and feared the shadows that lingered in our closets or under our beds. By exploring those themes in Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., Pixar’s animators and storytellers constructed comedic yet emotional adventures that virtually everyone could watch and absorb relatable life lessons (some, depending on your upbringing, being more relatable than others)."

"Recently, though, Pixar has turned its reigns over to fresh voices, and given them the freedom to share deeply personal – though less universal – stories. Films like Onward, Luca, and now the studio’s Turning Red come from the heart, without question. But they also risk alienating audience members who can’t find a way into the story, beyond admiring the impressive animation that is the Pixar trademark."

"Also, when seen from a bird’s eye view, Turning Red plays like Pixar’s version of Teen Wolf, only with a female protagonist turning into a red panda instead of a wolf. Complete sequences are lifted directly from Michael J. Fox’s underappreciated comedy and translated into animation here. The result is a jumble of familiar ideas and manic energy that exhausted me far more than it entertained me."

"Turning Red’s target audience seems to be small, and incredibly specific."

"Yes, Turning Red embraces the awkwardness of a teenage girl experiencing the onset of puberty, something unexpected in a Pixar feature (though welcome, for its seemingly honest portrayal). Meilin’s mother, for example, stands outside her daughter’s high school class in one sequence and screams because she believes her daughter has forgotten to bring pads with her. No doubt, female audiences watching will cringe and chuckle along."

"Throughout Turning Red, Domee Shi and her co-screenwriter Julia Cho pepper in jokes and references that will speak directly to teenage girls, be it their bonds over sappy pop songs, or their heated lust for older teen dudes. Without question, Turning Red is the horniest movie in Pixar history, which parents no doubt will find surprising."

"I recognized the humor in the film, but connected with none of it. By rooting Turning Red very specifically in the Asian community of Toronto, the film legitimately feels like it was made for Domee Shi’s friends and immediate family members. Which is fine… but also, a tad limiting in its scope."

"Turning Red has a frantic energy and a manic pace that wears you out after a few minutes."

"Again, the protagonist is a hormone-soaked teenager who is trying desperately to quell every emotional fit, so as to prevent herself from turning into an actual panda. So by design, Turning Red needs to ramp up its nervous system and plug directly into the mindset of a young woman. It’s … a lot. It demands Turning Red to ramp up to an “11” and stay there. It wore me out."

"There’s an audience out there for Turning Red. And when that audience finds the movie, I’ve no doubt they will celebrate it for the unique animal that it is. In my opinion, however, that audience is relatively small, and I’m not part of it."

It seems like O'Connell has brought the wrath of the Asian community - especially the females - and all those who support them, upon him.

"How dare this white male criticize this coming-of-age film. He knows nothing about Asians or teenage girls going through puberty. Everyone should watch this film, there are many lessons to be learned. He should broaden his horizon and embrace his feminine side, instead of limiting his scope and letting his male hormones do the writing."

Is there going to be a new review from O'Connell apologizing for writing that article from a male perspective? Will we ever hear from him again?

@mechajutaro said:

In any event, O'Connell has apparently already made an apology.... This will either preserve his career, or trigger a reversal to his fortunes similar to the one Louis CK experienced when he self-abased in The New York Times, rather than flipping The Twitter Mobs two birds, then getting on with life

O'Connell's apology is not enough. They want him cancelled.

"A Turning Red review has Twitter seeing red. A CinemaBlend editor, Sean O'Connell, gave his opinion that Turning Red was an OK movie but he clearly wasn't the target demographic... and that lead to accusations of RACISM from Twitter and other bluecheck journos. And this includes some from rival Entertainment Weekly. This lead to CinemaBlend not only removing his review, but over-apologizing for it publicly. Yet Twitter is STILL demanding this dude's head. What... the... actual... eff."

"CinemaBlend publicly calls out the author and they're going to change their editorial guidelines so that this can never happen again. Peruvian-Mexican-American Yolanda Machado - digital editor of Entertainment Weekly, @CriticsChoice @LEJALatino - has started a campaign to have O'Connely fired and replaced by a more diverse editor."

CinemaBlend

@CinemaBlend

"We failed to properly edit this review, and it never should have gone up. We have unpublished it and assigned to someone else. We have also added new levels of editorial oversight. Thank you to everyone who spoke up. - Mack Rawden, Editor-In-Chief"

Sean O'Connell

@Sean_OConnell

"I'm genuinely sorry for my Turning Red review. Thank you to everyone who has reached out with criticism, no matter how harsh. It is clear that I didn't engage nearly enough with the movie, nor did I explain my point of view well, at all. I really appreciate your feedback."

Yolanda Machado

@SassyMamainLA

Replying to @CinemaBlend

This was written by your MANAGING DIRECTOR not some junior writer. As an editor, there is no amount of editing that would have erased the racism. What are you doing to make sure he is held accountable and this doesn't happen again? (has happened before!)

And your EIC @mackrawden needs to be aware that we're all watching and waiting to see what accountability will happen. Including perhaps- hiring a DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE crew at fair wages. I have to wonder just how racist you all are if that is the Managing Director."

@mechajutaro said:

As for the critic, having taken down his review, let's see if he can/will rewrite it to say what he claims he really meant, and show how all those who contended his words as they were indeed misinterpreted what he wrote, which might suggest he's not the wordsmith his career choice requires; or, if he just doesn't bother, in hopes this all just blows over - which would indicate (to me, anyway) that people got exactly what he was saying and there's nothing else there.

You could benefit from an upgrade to your wordsmithing also, Mus. The run-on sentences make your sentiments nigh impossible to decipher.

While I don't make a living by writing (hence it's less incumbent on me than what ought to be expected of a professional critic) and I don't have an editor working for me, I'm willing to hear you - dumb it down, shorter sentences, fewer syllables, gotcha. I trust you'll let me know if my writing becomes so simplified as to seem condescending.

In any event, O'Connell has apparently already made an apology....

Yeah. Let's hope this apology is part of a real learning moment, and not just placating. The real shame would be his not learning from this teachable opportunity. Apparently, the review for this movie was re-assigned, so he's not going to be required to reassess his thoughts on it and offer to the public for consideration, which may, unfortunately, provide less of an incentive for him to look more closely at his feelings and thoughts. Again, hopefully, he's genuine enough to do the work on his own.

Place your bets!

@wonder2wonder said:

Comparing these comments from other articles,

Is there going to be a new review from O'Connell apologizing for writing that article

The job of critiquing Turning Red has been reassigned, so he's off the hook officially, where Turning Red reviewing is concerned. I'd be quite interested to see if he does offer, of his own volition, a second review.

from a male perspective?

I think the key to interpreting this part of your comment is focusing on the "a", rather than the "male." He may be a male, but his perspective is his, individually; it does not represent "the" male perspective, and certainly not my perspective, me being a male, too.

Will we ever hear from him again?

I'm certain he's not losing his job over this. The tolerance for mistakes his demographic enjoys is plenty deep.

In Toronto, we had a Black man running the Board of Education. Respected by his peers, adored by his employees, and proven of his capabilities, he resigned under the pressure resulting from the discovery that he'd included several quotes in his dissertation without including academic credit to the original authors. The horror! Of course that was magnified to assassinate his integrity and character. Beyond stepping down in shame and disgrace, he's "taken full responsibility" and humbly recognizes his mistakes. Or, at least, so he said publicly.

Around the very same time (go figure!), we also had a mayor - a rich, white dude with a profile that included (but not at all limited to) being removed from a sporting event for being a drunken boor; part of a family known among criminal circles and elements (drugs, etc.); who drove through stop signs (violation), texting while driving (violation); who was caught on video hurling expletives and racial epithets while high on crack (crime - and, be clear, while "using" crack may not be technically illegal, it is illegal to "possess" it - to use it, you're most likely to be the one in possession of it at the time of use) which, for those who remember, gave Toronto a more dubious cycle of infamy on the late night talk circuits with its "crackhead mayor); who was connected with a guy who got thrown off a balcony (crime) (but wait, there's more - seriously, this guy was a piece of work) - yet, magically, never got fired. And he certainly did not step down, disgrace be damned (entitled, privileged people seldom feel shame, which is primary fuel for the double-down tactic); defiant, recalcitrant, never one to admit any wrongdoing, ever (you know, that whole double-down tactic) he sadly died in 2016 from cancer (I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone), while still in office (not as mayor, but as a ward councilor with its seat on City Council intact).

Recently, someone on this board asked me to demonstrate how white supremacy is all around us. I interpret this tale of two public officials as exhibit of the degree to which some people are afforded all the excuses in the world, no matter how egregious their sins; while others are destroyed over a comparatively small thing. This example is from Toronto, fitting since this thread is discussing a movie set in Toronto. But examples abound, for example, how frequently two people convicted of the same crime, with the same priors, can get two wildly different sentences, one getting months of suspended sentence while another gets 15 years. I could drone on about this...but I won't. It should be plain to any who are paying attention.

@wonder2wonder said:

Comparing these comments from other articles,

"Turning Red is a charming coming-of-age story with lovely pops of imagination and a refreshing lack of queasiness when it comes to its themes of puberty and adolescent sexuality."

"By normalizing – and even celebrating – one of life's most awkward phases, 'Turning Red' does something not often seen on film and television, especially media aimed at kids. It treats periods and female puberty as something to be embraced, rather than be embarrassed about."

"The red panda is a metaphor not just for puberty, but also what we inherit from our moms, and how we deal with the things that we inherit from them."

"Turning Red is Shi’s feature debut, a coming-of-age story following a Chinese-Canadian protagonist in the early 2000s. Her previous Pixar project, the short film Bao, also deals with a complicated first-generation-immigrant mother-child relationship, but she saw Turning Red as a chance to dive into those themes from the child’s perspective."

"Sandra Oh was 'thrilled' when she saw the script for Pixar animation Turning Red, which serves as a rare example of representation for the Asian-Canadian community."

"Pixar’s take on puberty is a beacon of light for little girls everywhere. Domee Shi’s Turning Red, the studio’s first feature directed by a woman, zooms in on the East Asian community of ­Toronto, specifically on a 13-year-old girl called Mei (Rosalie Chiang), to tell a story about embracing your wild side, making your parents proud and navigating destructive hormones."

with Sean O'Connell's review:

"The finest Pixar Animation features, in this critics’ opinion, play to a universal audience. We all imagined our adolescent toys coming to life during playtime, and feared the shadows that lingered in our closets or under our beds. By exploring those themes in Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., Pixar’s animators and storytellers constructed comedic yet emotional adventures that virtually everyone could watch and absorb relatable life lessons (some, depending on your upbringing, being more relatable than others)."

"Recently, though, Pixar has turned its reigns over to fresh voices, and given them the freedom to share deeply personal – though less universal – stories. Films like Onward, Luca, and now the studio’s Turning Red come from the heart, without question. But they also risk alienating audience members who can’t find a way into the story, beyond admiring the impressive animation that is the Pixar trademark."

"Also, when seen from a bird’s eye view, Turning Red plays like Pixar’s version of Teen Wolf, only with a female protagonist turning into a red panda instead of a wolf. Complete sequences are lifted directly from Michael J. Fox’s underappreciated comedy and translated into animation here. The result is a jumble of familiar ideas and manic energy that exhausted me far more than it entertained me."

"Turning Red’s target audience seems to be small, and incredibly specific."

"Yes, Turning Red embraces the awkwardness of a teenage girl experiencing the onset of puberty, something unexpected in a Pixar feature (though welcome, for its seemingly honest portrayal). Meilin’s mother, for example, stands outside her daughter’s high school class in one sequence and screams because she believes her daughter has forgotten to bring pads with her. No doubt, female audiences watching will cringe and chuckle along."

"Throughout Turning Red, Domee Shi and her co-screenwriter Julia Cho pepper in jokes and references that will speak directly to teenage girls, be it their bonds over sappy pop songs, or their heated lust for older teen dudes. Without question, Turning Red is the horniest movie in Pixar history, which parents no doubt will find surprising."

"I recognized the humor in the film, but connected with none of it. By rooting Turning Red very specifically in the Asian community of Toronto, the film legitimately feels like it was made for Domee Shi’s friends and immediate family members. Which is fine… but also, a tad limiting in its scope."

"Turning Red has a frantic energy and a manic pace that wears you out after a few minutes."

"Again, the protagonist is a hormone-soaked teenager who is trying desperately to quell every emotional fit, so as to prevent herself from turning into an actual panda. So by design, Turning Red needs to ramp up its nervous system and plug directly into the mindset of a young woman. It’s … a lot. It demands Turning Red to ramp up to an “11” and stay there. It wore me out."

"There’s an audience out there for Turning Red. And when that audience finds the movie, I’ve no doubt they will celebrate it for the unique animal that it is. In my opinion, however, that audience is relatively small, and I’m not part of it."

It seems like O'Connell has brought the wrath of the Asian community - especially the females - and all those who support them, upon him.

"How dare this white male criticize this coming-of-age film. He knows nothing about Asians or teenage girls going through puberty. Everyone should watch this film, there are many lessons to be learned. He should broaden his horizon and embrace his feminine side, instead of limiting his scope and letting his male hormones do the writing."

Is there going to be a new review from O'Connell apologizing for writing that article from a male perspective? Will we ever hear from him again?

Why didn't you indicate who made them & where they came from (the quotes above)?

@mechajutaro said:

While I don't make a living by writing (hence it's less incumbent on me than what ought to be expected of a professional critic) and I don't have an editor working for me, I'm willing to hear you - dumb it down, shorter sentences, fewer syllables, gotcha. I trust you'll let me know if my writing becomes so simplified as to seem condescending.

Nah; I started to find you condescending awhile back, when you wrote things like "At any rate, I've asked you nicely and in good faith. I appreciate when you contribute constructively and don't want to miss them by blocking you altogether - here's hoping you'll cooperate with me on this". .

I'm baffled how you take this to be condescending. I thought I was crediting you and appealing to your ability to take the high road. What do I know? But, please do not explain, don't need your explanation, I'm not arguing, you see it your way, I see it mine. Content to leave it at that.

I can only infer that you at least a few years beyond junior high, Mus;

Shucks, both my kids are a few years beyond high school. I will not bother going down the tangent of what people might infer from your obtuse posts. You can ponder that, or not, however you may be so inclined.

if so, that's quite sad that you still need to be told that expressing your thoughts in a concise, lucid fashion makes it easier for the rest of us to understand what you're saying.

"I still need to be told", eh? This isn't condescending? Perhaps your judgment needs calibrating.

Even professional editors expect those in their charge to understand basic principles of communication such as this

In all my years of writing, speaking, editing, key note addresses, newspaper articles...I've never been accused of needing to understand "basic principles of communication such as this." In fact, I've heard quite the opposite. Lots. From old people and young. From professors and college presidents to fellow students and my students. Coworkers, colleagues, and peers...

Perhaps I've plateaued. Or not made a successful transition to this new-fangled interweb online message board thing. Life is learning, never stop.

Come the next election people like Yolanda Machado are the reason Donald Trump will once again be POTUS.

@mechajutaro said:

I'm baffled how you take this to be condescending. I thought I was crediting you and appealing to your ability to take the high road

"I still need to be told", eh? This isn't condescending?

No more or less than thinking you were "giving someone a chance to take the high road" when they refused to censor themselves. Much in the same way Woke Illiberals have coerced Cinemablend into retracting a perfectly innocuous review of a f-cking Pixar movie, and badgered O'Connell into public self-abasement. Bringing this back around to the topic at hand, Mus:

It's condescending and tyrannical to force someone who clearly isn't a racist to utter words of contrition that they clearly don't mean, all because they wrote something that dissents from Orthodox Wokeness in some way. That sort of jacka-ssery runs contrary to the very concept of free though and fee expression. Just as it would be equally repugnant for the folks over at The Federalist to demand your cancellation, for regurgitating some Far Left platitude that vanilla conservatives find objectionable

When I asked you to change how you write, I was condescending...but, when you ask me to change how I write, it's not condescending? F you.

What you said to me in response to my condescension, I'm saying right back to you - I'm not changing either, so go ahead and block me. If it's fit for you to dish, it's fit for you to take.

Go hide in your safe place. Or whatever it is you determinedly unwoke spew at the woke lefties. Snowflake and all that. Blah blah blah.

@mechajutaro said:

@GusGorman said:

Come the next election people like Yolanda Machado are the reason Donald Trump will once again be POTUS.

Therein lies the tragedy of all this Woke nonsense. It actually undercuts the cause of textbook liberalism, by driving a large swath of everyday folk into the arms of a loser who has no respect for free trade and civil liberties. We all end up with less equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity as a result

"Don't beat me massah, we be good."

Yeah, it's woke's fault, driving everyday folk into the arms of...I can't even type this claptrap.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@mechajutaro said:

@GusGorman said:

Come the next election people like Yolanda Machado are the reason Donald Trump will once again be POTUS.

Therein lies the tragedy of all this Woke nonsense. It actually undercuts the cause of textbook liberalism, by driving a large swath of everyday folk into the arms of a loser who has no respect for free trade and civil liberties. We all end up with less equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity as a result

"Don't beat me massah, we be good."

Yeah, it's woke's fault, driving everyday folk into the arms of...I can't even type this claptrap.

You are angry because you know it's true.

You have every right to feel exasperation to the point where you can't complete a sentence.

I would say both parties have some blame in this. The critic for stupidly stating he cannot relate to a film because of it's specificities. I mean, Jesus, if you are going to say a film is bad just because you cannot relate to it then you are in the wrong business pal. But the twitter mob wrongly going after "A white guy" and bemoaning all of the times they had to sit through a film they couldn't relate to is equally as intolerant. I'm also of the mind that "cancel culture" or rather that it's existence is the anti-christ is horseshit. Completely overblown. The only people who got "cancelled" were people who got completely out of line, turned off a huge swath of their audience, and therefore destroyed their marketability, period. Ain't no one losing their careers over passing gas at the dinner table or jaywalking. If cancel culture really existed then people like Dave Chapelle or J.K. Rowling would be sentenced to the land of irrelevancy yet here they are, making more money on Tuesday morning before breakfast than most of us will make our entire careers. Cancel culture and Bigfoot have more in common than most people think.

@movie_nazi said:

I would say both parties have some blame in this. The critic for stupidly stating he cannot relate to a film because of it's specificities. I mean, Jesus, if you are going to say a film is bad just because you cannot relate to it then you are in the wrong business pal.

Hear, hear.

But the twitter mob wrongly going after "A white guy" and bemoaning all of the times they had to sit through a film they couldn't relate to is equally as intolerant.

I don't think so. I didn't read people saying that they couldn't relate, I read them saying we often have to be the odd ones out even though we still can say Ratatouille or Up were great movies.

I'm also of the mind that "cancel culture" or rather that it's existence is the anti-christ is horseshit. Completely overblown. The only people who got "cancelled" were people who got completely out of line, turned off a huge swath of their audience, and therefore destroyed their marketability, period. Ain't no one losing their careers over passing gas at the dinner table or jaywalking.

Hear, hear.

If cancel culture really existed then people like Dave Chapelle or J.K. Rowling would be sentenced to the land of irrelevancy yet here they are, making more money on Tuesday morning before breakfast than most of us will make our entire careers. Cancel culture and Bigfoot have more in common than most people think.

Was Kaepernick not getting a job in the NFL because he kneeled to bring attention to an issue not cancel culture? How about people burning Nike shoes because the brand endorsed an athlete that took a stand against police brutality? Not cancel culture? I guess that label is simply assigned to "them", the "others", while "we the good guys" can do exactly the same thing as the situation suits.

@mechajutaro said:

Was Kaepernick not getting a job in the NFL because he kneeled to bring attention to an issue not cancel culture? How about people burning Nike shoes because the brand endorsed an athlete that took a stand against police brutality? Not cancel culture? I guess that label is simply assigned to "them", the "others", while "we the good guys" can do exactly the same thing as the situation suits.

This was cancellation, and the examples you cite above are just as repugnant as every other last instance of cancellation that's occurred. We're in something approaching agreement here.....

Always a celebration when that happens! My point here, though, to be clear, was, those wailing against cancel culture had no problem cancelling people. The issue, therefore, isn't the act of cancelling, but the target of the cancellation. Cancel our voices = bad; cancel their/other voices = good. So, let's stop making a broad brush stroke issue of "cancel culture" and recognize the partisan approach to it as part of the discussion of it.

Cancel culture isn't anything new. The Dixie Chicks were cancelled in the 2000s for expressing thoughts about The Iraq Invasion that were unpopular at the time, and Bill Maher was fired by ABC during that same decade for also making some comments about our handiwork in Afghanistan. It's something that must be opposed, no matter who's being targeted, and who's being cancelled

I appreciate your effort to be unilateral here. Not sure I agree, for a few reasons. Again, it's not so much about being cancelled, but why. Isn't prison an expression of "cancelling"? If you hire someone to do a job, and they don't do it, are you going to keep paying them to not do the job? Of course not - but isn't that firing a "cancellation"?

And, as for "must be opposed", how? It's a free country. If you decide you don't want to buy/consume something because of...well, for whatever reason, that's your prerogative. If a bunch of other individuals also don't, that's their prerogative. If the accumulated weight of all that individual action is tickets don't sell for some show, what is to oppose? A bunch of individuals decided, all for themselves, not to buy something. Are you going to force them to buy something they don't want? Arrest them for not buying something? Seriously, mechanically, how does "oppose" actually work?

Don't confuse this with collusion. Like, say, a bunch of franchise owners all decide not to give this person or that group of people a chance. That's not a bunch of individuals deciding for themselves, that's anti-competitive behaviour, which flies in the face of all we worship at the altar of capitalism and free market enterprise.

Nor with discrimination. The same language of law that protects freedom of speech also prohibits not engaging an individual in free market enterprise because of several specific factors, such as gender or ability.

Back to "cancel culture". I'm sure there are people who will buy a ticket to listen to Bill Cosby. That's their free right. And there are people who will never buy another Bill Cosby ticket - is that not also their right? Sure it is.

As for people being fired, each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merit, unless it can be better understood within a wider context (like the #TimesUp wave of new sensibilities) - even still, worthy of civil discourse. Should Matt Lauer not have been fired?

I think better understanding the label of "cancel culture" requires more exploration of when/how/why/by whom it became a buzzword. As I understand it, as society has become more confident in its challenge to white male hegemony, the term followed the reticence against "PC" restraints, the idea that it was no longer okay for "locker room talk" to be considered normal or acceptable. As a group of people who had grown up accustomed to being able to say what they want about and to "others" (women, minorities, etc.) were increasingly being told "you can't say that", kick back was bound to happen, even as they continued to try to impose their language on others. Society has grown more confident, to challenge the hegemony with action, consequences, so that's getting a label.

I had a white friend tell me once that my use of the "n-word" was offensive to him. I asked him why; he said "well, if I can't use it, you can't use it." See what happened there? It was not about whether the word itself was offensive to him; it was that someone was telling him he could not use a word that they could. I told him what Ice Cube said on Bill Maher, "it's our word now, you can't have it back."

The wider issue here is, who has the power of words? It's a challenge of the status quo. Women may refer to themselves with "I'm a bad bitch", but a man sure can't (or, better not). Gay pride parade weekends often include a "dyke walk" or "dyke march" - they refer to themselves with such words, but those outside the community sure shouldn't. People who have been oppressed, threatened, and killed by people who used those words out of hate, fear or as a precursor identifying a target for the next lynching, are taking back words to disarm them, to challenge the power behind the use of those words.

When people, who grew up in environments where such words were used, especially to threaten the lives of those against whom they were used, it can be felt as a threat to their power if they lose the power over those words.

Thus the kick back. The status quo does not want to lose its position/power/advantage. Poor Stephen wailed out "You can't destroy Candyland. There'll always be a Candyland". Of course, he was defending a status quo on the wrong side of history, wasn't he?

Freedom of speech is a concept that was designed to free people from arbitrary power of a monarch. In the olden days, criticism of a king could result in you losing your head, just because the king didn't like what you had to say. Concepts of democracy established a fundamental right for citizens, who give their elected governments power, to be able to evaluate, criticize, and hold accountable those elected officials. Thus, constitutions would entrench that right, that a government has no right to limit what a person can say about it.

Those who focus on the American interpretation of this idea will recognize that the first amendment includes three pillars of this concept - freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. You can say what you want about the government; media is not an organ of the state, but functions to disseminate information to inform and empower citizens to hold government accountable (eg. Watergate); and you can't be made an enemy of the state just because your religious views differ from the state (which also empowers the concept of separation of church and state, there is no state religion, citizens are free to believe, or not, whatever they want. You can also get together with others, whether of like mind or other-minded, to talk about it (assembly), and you can address the government about it (petition of grievances).

Freedom of speech does not include hate speech. Conflating the two disingenuous - but very strategic - rhetoric.

Cancel culture is not, therefore, an attack on freedom of speech.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@movie_nazi said:

I would say both parties have some blame in this. The critic for stupidly stating he cannot relate to a film because of it's specificities. I mean, Jesus, if you are going to say a film is bad just because you cannot relate to it then you are in the wrong business pal.

Hear, hear.

But the twitter mob wrongly going after "A white guy" and bemoaning all of the times they had to sit through a film they couldn't relate to is equally as intolerant.

I don't think so. I didn't read people saying that they couldn't relate, I read them saying we often have to be the odd ones out even though we still can say Ratatouille or Up were great movies.

I'm also of the mind that "cancel culture" or rather that it's existence is the anti-christ is horseshit. Completely overblown. The only people who got "cancelled" were people who got completely out of line, turned off a huge swath of their audience, and therefore destroyed their marketability, period. Ain't no one losing their careers over passing gas at the dinner table or jaywalking.

Hear, hear.

If cancel culture really existed then people like Dave Chapelle or J.K. Rowling would be sentenced to the land of irrelevancy yet here they are, making more money on Tuesday morning before breakfast than most of us will make our entire careers. Cancel culture and Bigfoot have more in common than most people think.

Was Kaepernick not getting a job in the NFL because he kneeled to bring attention to an issue not cancel culture? How about people burning Nike shoes because the brand endorsed an athlete that took a stand against police brutality? Not cancel culture? I guess that label is simply assigned to "them", the "others", while "we the good guys" can do exactly the same thing as the situation suits.

As far I know Nike is very much still in business. As far as Kaepernick goes, he may be one of the few instances where you can say he got canceled because he did absolutely nothing wrong. But all these other instances of people crying cancel culture because they did something terrible and wonder why no one wants them to work for them any more is not cancel culture. It's called accountability.