Would you stop watching an entertainer if they got Canceled for bad real life actions?

Depends how bad. For instance, I'm not burning my Harry Potter collection because I don't like what Rowling tweets about trans people, but I don't really want to see Kevin Spacey anymore knowing he raped a guy.

I dunno, I haven't really been following that nonsense. I probably still consume works of people who have been "cancelled," but I haven't checked.

On one hand, I believe a society's key role is to slap down on people for being a twat. Humans, by their base nature, like to get away with things, so long as they face no consequences for it. It is therefore healthy and imperative for a society to call out people for being a twat and bring consequences to them for it. On the other hand, unfortunately, I feel like sometimes the rules are ambiguous, needlessly complicated, arbitrarily created and applied with no due process, and applied unevenly.

Personally, I keep my rules simple; such as "due and reciprocal respect for your fellow man." You break this rule, I'm just going to laugh and ignore you, I don't care who you are.

As a conservative, I can’t afford to cancel my favourite artists. Too many of my favourites actors or musicians would be on the chopping block.

For the most part though - I don’t really care who aligns with what. Most artists types have barely graduated high school. I’m going to be politically swayed by someone with a much lesser education than me? Not on your life.

No. What a person does outside of work is their business so long as it doesn't spill over into the quality of their work....

Probably be at the back of my mind, but not put me off the media as it's generally a group effort and because 1 person is an asshole (or more), everyone else shouldn't be dammed.

People's actions, provided I hear about them of course, colors how I see their work. For example, I can no longer listen to R. Kelly's music without thinking about how the guy turned underage women into literal sex slaves for his amusement. Frankly it wouldn't matter to me if the girls were of age, but it's a part of the entire picture.

Similarly, I can no longer watch The Cosby Show without thinking about the fact that Cosby drugged and raped a bunch of women. You can't have me watch a show designed to make someone look like a wonderful family man while I also know that dude is a serial rapist. It's like if you wanted to make a show about Jeffrey Epstein doing charity events for the groups of people he abused and/or made slaves of, it just would be disgusting.

So, I guess yes, I don't mind turning people off and no longer consuming the products that give them money if they turn out to be really terrible people.

Someone else mentioned Harry Potter and yeah, I'm probably not giving up Harry Potter because Rowling has outed herself as TERF, but I fully understand the trans people who believe that they cannot support Rowling anymore over her comments. It comes down to degrees of offense, and people have both different threshold levels and different topics that affect them beyond the brink of continued financial support.

Depends. I was never a fan of R. Kelly, Cosby, Ellen or Roseanne.
I enjoyed some movies that had Kevin Spacey in it. Even though it's alleged that he raped someone, I believe that he did it. I'll still watch stuff with him in it, but it's always in the back of my head that he's a sicko. Same when I'm watching things that Bryan Singer is involved with. I was watching House awhile back and saw his name in the credits. Kinda irked me.

No, I don't care.

@SOedipus: My buddy's wife's family for some reason were involved in bit parts in show business a lot. Two of his brothers-in-law had bit parts in "Addams Family Values" as two of the kids at the camp who hit each other's shoulders on the opening day scene. Their mother (his mother-in-law) was also in "Addams Family Values" as a patron at that cave restaurant they are in at some point.

Anyway, one of those brothers-in-law was also in "Apt Pupil" in a bit part at a relatively early age in his teenage years. He is one of the boys that sued Singer over the under-aged nude scene. Anyway, he pretty much despises the guy and often refers to him negatively, but he refuses to talk about the outcome of the case. Even his parents don't know at this point what became of it because it was settled with him after he came of age. He won't even say if there was a settlement, but the fact that he won't say it indicates to me that there was one. Anyway, the film's nude scenes themselves were, of course, re-shot with adults. If this had only been discovered after release, and the scenes had not been re-shot, it's possible the movie would have been pulled from distribution after the initial release.

Back to the main topic: I've wondered about this question about cancellation a lot lately, particulary around things people said at one time or posted on the internet all of the "woke" stuff awoke in our culture. I think intent has to matter, and I also think if that person has clearly changed or evolved and offered an apology, that this has to matter. I don't like when cancel culture behaves as if there is no way to redeem yourself for something in the past, especially when it's way in the past. People change a LOT. I can see something like this for recent events, but I really don't see why it has to be on-going for things that were simply said in ignorance way in the past when that ignorance has clearly dissipated or been replaced with. As for intent, if someone said something flippantly and didn't intend realize how acidic what he said was, AND offered an apology when it was brought to his attention, then I don't see why it should lead to a permanent disconnection.

I mean, dropping and shunning people over minor issues or even major issues that have been resolved properly is similar to cultic disfellowshipment/excommunication/disconnection behaviors. If we can't allow ourselves to evaluate intent, or cannot allow ourselves to evaluate progress, then I think almost no one could escape the event horizon of cancel culture -- all that's keeping many people from it is the discovery of something they said in their past.

Again though, I don't feel this way about people who are unapologetic for what they said, or in the case of a lack of intent, unapologetic for not making themselves more clear.

I've still never read or seen anything that made me think he molested children.

I like MJ , unable to hate him lol.

Not out of principle, and never just for holding an opinion, but it's not so easy to dissociate people from what you know about their private lives. Especially when their whole career revolves around being smiley and approachable.

Come to think about it, I feel uncomfortable listening to Michael Jackson music in public given what he did to a lot of children. But I was never a fan of his music so it’s not like I was going to buy it either way.

i dont give a crap in general what a artist does.

No, I still can watch a Chris Benoit match and that dude murdered his wife and son and killed himself the guy was a amazing wrestler.

Allegedly.

Depends on what they did.

There are different levels, but if I found out someone did something I found to be truly awful I wouldn't support them.

Yeah, same here. There's a difference between watching something with someone awful in it versus actively supporting them. It's not like I'm going to never watch something that had Kevin Spacey in it, but at the same time if he had new stuff I wouldn't support him by buying/renting it. Fortunately nobody's giving him work so it's not like I have to make that choice.

Time is a factor for me. Like if they are already dead. What's the point in kicking a dead mule? Hitler on the other hand...

I put no. Sure, depending on what it is it'll be in the back of my mind, but it's something I just get over.

Generally no, I don't care. I still watch Louis CK and so on.

I don't feel like giving in to the court of public opinion, so I may (or might not) be a bit more forgiving of people until they are actually guilty.

It's hard, though, a lot of good actors, musicians, and artists have disappeared without seeing a day in court.

I'm glad Trader Joes essentially said "**** you" to the cancel culture folks, I hope more follow suit.

I don't think Spacey actually raped a guy, that turned out to be nothing; the mom of the alleged victim "sanitized" a cel phone that had texts on it, so they essentially had no evidence and the case was dropped iirc. But you know, his career is over....so there is that *shrug*

Now, Bill Cosby on the other hand, that's a man that deserves to have his works burned and deleted.

But I agree with your overall sentiment; people can say what they want to say, and unless it is overt racism or something equally terrible, I will generally not care that much.

@mrbojangles25: Wait, what did Trader Joe's do?

Stood above petty SJW's is what.

So a white teenage girl started a petition online claiming how "offensive" some of Trader Joe's international food labels were and to get them canceled. The subject of this claim the white girl said was how offensive the Mexican food labels were by being called "Trader Jose's". Then this petition picked up big online traction by brittle SJW's calling it racist or whatever, whereas simultaneously the Hispanic communities and most people that actually shop at Trader Joe's responded back saying how they saw no problem in innocent cultural labeling and how it in fact was a source of smile and good fun because it is funny and effective labeling.

Trader Joe's responded to this petition saying they basically don't care about that and SJW's will not influence their branding when it works for everyone else, including the very people that the petition claimed to be offending.

So at the end of the day, leave it up to white people always being the ones trying to tell everyone else how not to be racist.

I refuse to listen to Michael Jackson since those two guys came out.

@jaydan: Oh man, good for Trader Joes!

No, I don't care what the decision makers say, I decide on my behalf. Even if I know a guy is a dick in real life, if he's a good actor it won't be a distraction. Same goes for musicians.

Depends on what they did.

What guys?

Trader Joe's tends to name a lot of their products after variations of "Joe" in those languages the products are inspired by. So for example if they sell salsa, they call it "Trader Jose's Salsa" or if they sell soy sauce they call it "Trader Ming's Soy Sauce" for example.

Well a short while ago they were accused of "cultural appropriation" (which in like 95% of instances is a totally bogus allegation) because of this, and they essentially said "No, screw you, we are not changing the names of our products. We do this for fun, with a good heart, and to celebrate diversity" or something like that.

And lo and behold it turned into a nothing burger, which shows us that all we have to say to pointless allegations from cancel culture twerps is "piss off".

just depends what they do

People that misuse cultural appropriation and are against it are also the true racists here and they don't even realize the kind hypocrisy it truly is. Irony is the fact people that tell cultures to stay in their lanes and mind their own business; take no part, interest or appreciation for other cultures, is actually a form of segregation.

It turns out to be the case, and unsurprisingly: the Hispanic community has spoken up saying there was no issue with the labeling and most just found it humorous.

Leave it up to a white teenager to start a petition like this. "Woke" ass white kids are not doing much of a service because they're still just speaking over everyone else and dictating non-issues and causing disruption. Historically the white race has a long history of being disruptive and these SJW kids are not doing themselves a service by still fitting under that mold.

Wade Robson and James Safechuck, they mDW a 4 hour documentary detailing the abuse they received.

I remember subsequent YouTube videos and sites debunking them as liars. Halfway through this one right now, although I'm only paying about 60 percent attention as I'm getting ready for work:

Edit: Nearly done. Yeah, at least one of them really seems like a liar who couldn't keep his story straight.

Haven't watched the following, but since you want to believe MJ is a rapist maybe you should.

I could probably find four hours of these videos if I really wanted. But being really long isn't impressive on its own. Seems like a really one-sided documentary made for people with no ability for critical thinking. Easy to convince such people when you only show them specific parts of an entire story.

Here's some more.

Leaving Neverland Exposed: The Devil is in the Detail

http://www.damienshields.com/leaving-neverland-exposed-the-devil-is-in-the-detail/

Not reading this huge piece, since I don't believe MJ is a rapist in the first place, but it might interest you. Love the picture, though.

@ezekiel43: Everyone has a choice in what they believe. I am convinced Michael Jackson is a paedophile.

If he wasn’t, then did he pay millions in an out of court settlement? Why did the police find naked pictures of children in a so-called art books. Why does he invite young boys into his bed?

Because he didn’t have a childhood? What BS! Literally millions of children work in developing countries missing out on a fun childhood, how many of them invite children into their beds as adults?

Thanks for calling me someone who cannot think critically!

You're welcome.

unlikely. nor do i think i'd particularly care if they stopped doing their work for whatever reason.

they're kind of like "entertainment widgets" in my head. if one breaks down for whatever reason, it's easily replaced.

Here's another good one, although I haven't watched the whole thing yet. No credibility.

Absolutely. I used to be a huge Louis CK fan and stood by his TV show as brilliant. Emphasis on used to.

@ezekiel43: You know those videos have a bias..........right?

You know Leaving Neverland is extremely biased and full of holes and written by somehow who's been shown contradicting himself in the past, right?

Also, I have to laugh at the idea earlier in this thread that paying out of court settlements implies guiltiness. No, if I was a rich man accused of something I didn't commit and the case was somehow still piling up, I'd consider that option too.

Two of the biggest names in my childhood have gone off the rails: Cosby and Jackson. I always found the Cosby Show to be entertaining until it brought in the little girl and her military father. The first four years or so always made me laugh. Does his guilt at trial change his humor during the television show, his comedy performances and a few films? I don't think so. Jackson? That guy could perform regardless of what allegations were levied against him and in his case, did he win one or two trials? The system gave him his day and he was victorious. Opinions aside, that factually proves SOMETHING.

Depends on what extent their actions have hurt others or how terrible their views are.

With how he said she said entertainment is now, the gossip blogs don't effect how I consume entertainment. Thank God.

I grew out of that after Chris Benoit slaughtered his family.

Even removing the fact that social media will cancel anyone for anything at a moment's notice, we have to stop looking at celebrities as role models. Just because someone's on TV doesn't make them better than the next person.

@ProtossRushX: Hard to say, really.

For example, i have a 20 hours save for Assassin's Creed Odyssey. I don't agree with what's been happening lately at Ubisoft, but does that mean i should uninstall and never play any of their games again?

There's also the issue of condemning someone as if they can never be redeemed. Obviously, some actions are heavier than others, but a lot of people affected by the cancel culture don't have their views or actions set in stone.

I think that says a lot more about us as a society, and how we need to look into better ways to handle our actions.

It depends.

Generally, if I’m going to be moved to the point of action in refusing to support someone due to what they’ve done, substantiation is required. Prove it, or make a very convincing case with an abundance of evidence. Don’t simply claim it and expect me to boycott or cancel someone. And even then, it needs to be a particularly heinous and destructive act that the individual shows no remorse for. People can change, and I’m not one to believe that simply because something has happened in the past, it’s exactly the same today.

**** cancel culture. It’s a culture that is 100% uncompromising and unforgiving, and worse yet, petty.