- cross-posted to:
- antiwork@lemmit.online
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- antiwork@lemmit.online
- workreform@lemmy.world
Drew Barrymore and Bill Maher are now not resuming their shows amid strikes.
You must log in or # to comment.
If these scabs really need something to do to kill time during the strike, might I suggest moderating an online forum?
It’s fun.
thanks margot!
i really appreciate you taking the time out of your normally-busy schedule to just be in the river of shit with the rest of us. really makes us feel like our trudge work is worth some respect.
loved you in barbie, btw.
Hey, gotta try new things when you have time right?
Kinda owe it to you guys for me doing the movie promo here.
You did a Barbie promo on Lemmy?
I mean, have you ever wondered why !reddit@lemmy.world has that banner?
Check my older comments too.
I’m still not convinced you’re not someone roleplaying as Margot Robbie.
Does it matter? No one knows if you’re a dog on the internet.
No, I guess not. Woof!
Exactly. Can’t get canceled for saying dumb things on the Internet if I’m not verified.
saying dumb things on the Internet
You’ll fit right in, even if you are just somebody roleplaying as Margot Robbie
Margot Robbie is far too hot to hang around us goofballs.
Just grow weed and sell them.
deleted by creator
Ask our admins. I can handle the android comm OK, but just need energy to do some writing.
If you like, please help out Gabe at literature.cafe, he’s nice, and I do want to see more creative writing stuff here.
literature.cafe
Just federated!
just need energy to do some writing.
Watch it! You’re on strike, remember?
The WGA rules only prohibits writing for struck companies.
Also, you do realize WGA and SAG-AFTRA are two different unions, right?
Also, you do realize WGA and SAG-AFTRA are two different unions, right?
I didn’t actually, but it would still look bad if someone from SAG started writing their own scripts, right? Wouldn’t that still be scabbing(is that the word?)?
For those who don’t know:
Jack London, Ode to the Scab. 1916.
After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab."
“A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.”
“When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.”
“No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself.” A scab has not.
“Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British army.” The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.
Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class."
That is fantastic.
What did a toad ever do to anybody? And rattlesnakes are just being rattlesnakes. They’re polite enough to generally warn you to go away before they bite you.
Well, I think rattlesnakes used to be a lot more common. Like maybe you never got bit, but you definitely knew someone, or someone’s kid, that did, and they likely died in utter agony. Pretty much hunted them to near extinction, along with wolves. We go hard on earth.
deleted by creator
He’s one of the GOATs, how could they possibly hate him?
deleted by creator
Benedict, tbh, not the worst guy
Plus it was at the time of his betrayal the revolution looked like it was gonna fail. And he wouldve been right if the United States wasnt born of the same crack addled main protagonist syndrome Rome was born with.
Seriously the US and Rome are both the empire equivalent of a crack addled lunatic who has fought trains and won.
It’s why the right wing invented ‘cancel culture’, to try to demonize people banding together to change things. This kind of public pressure is a form of people-power. There’s a nasty side to it all, but this is an existential battle for the writers and a mild inconvenience to Drew and Bill. I know what side I’m on.
It’s only ok to ‘cancel’ if a trans woman promotes a shitty beer. Otherwise it’s a problem.
Bud light wasn’t canceled, it was boycotted.
deleted by creator
The worst thing about that is when people stopped buying it because they immediately did a 180 on it. And the media said it was all because of rightwingers even after the company did what they wanted.
Cancel culture is fucking terrible in most cases. Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.
Do you have any specific examples? I assume you must, since according to you, most of the cases are fucking terrible.
Well there were the Dixie Chicks getting canceled by conservatives for opposing the war. Probably not an example the fella you’re replying to wants to admit to, tho.
You could call it cancel culture or your could just call it pissing off your fanbase. This has always existed and will always exist. I don’t agree with the old dixie chicks fanbase but if they thought they could be antiwar and keep playing on country radio they were very misled.
Thanks for the assumption, saying that getting people to support a strike is a good thing is something most right-wing people do I guess.
Wanna add Sinead O’Connor to people harmed by right-wing cancel culture, for example? The list doesn’t even stop there.
Jenna Marbles? Kentaro Kobayashi? Pretty much anyone who got “cancelled” for stuff they said or did 10 years before?
People should be held accountable for what they’re currently doing, ruining a career for something that happened ages ago which no one at the time found wrong is just stupid.
EDIT: Meanwhile, can you tell me some other examples of cancel culture actually doing something good? Because looking at common examples it seems pretty much every time it targeted someone who actually deserved it nothing came out of that (JK Rowling, Chris Brown… even people like Hulk Hogan or Kanye West are still around and doing sold-outs)
Sounds like you’re complaining about the free market. People don’t like something that was unearthed about someone, so they don’t support them.
It’s not a matter of “not supporting”. Marbles was harassed into closing her channel and Kobayashi lost probably the most important job of his life. Those have nothing to do with the “free market”.
Who are these people? They sound like virtual nobodies. I doubt they were ‘cancelled’ by anyone. They probably said something very stupid and got kicked off some social media app or other. Or, worse, *gasp* demonetized! Better get selling more Soylent.
“I don’t know them so they must be nobodies”, ok.
Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?
“Cancel culture” is a bit of a loaded term and so the replies to you have been somewhat charged. Most people view the situations public figures find them in as just the necessary consequences of their actions. And like you, I agree that each situation should warrant a measured response from individuals based on the severity of the issue. It’s okay to not want to support people you don’t agree with, especially when the reason is agregious or harmful to others. The issue then is that everyone uses the same cudgel in the same manner for every crime regardless of severity.
But sure, if you don’t want to support someone for even the smallest of infractions, that’s your right. No one can take that from you. I may not agree but I support your right to do so. My only wish is that we at least give pause to think about the high bar for acceptable behavior we’re putting on public figures. I am as much for accountability as the next person, but I also think we’re humans capable of mistakes and capable of change. And right now, I don’t think a culture of grace is necessarily present online. We don’t have to tolerate hate or harm, but we can leave room for redemption. Maybe I’m being naive, I don’t know. But that’s my take.
Why do I have to support shitty people?
Again, as I said in other comments, I’m not talking about boycotting. You obviously shouldn’t support people you don’t like. But you also shouldn’t create online campaigns against them, unless they’re currently doing something bad and you want it to stop, which is not the case most of the time.
“Boycotts” are large scale campaign. Nobody cares if a few odd people don’t buy a product; it’s en-mass or it’s just belly aching. You’re making a distinction that does not exist.
unless they’re currently doing something bad and you want it to stop, which is not the case most of the time.
That’s the difference.
You want to stop buying Nestlé products because they are currently exploiting child labor? Nothing wrong with that, I’m on board. They need to stop.
You want to “cancel” a musician because of comedy videos on a Youtube he already stopped posting 3 years earlier? That’s just stupid.
So for example Harvey Weinstein gets a pass on all his shitty rapey behavior? How long in the past does it need to be? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ on shitty activities?
The Marbles woman did some shitty stuff. She agreed what she did was shit but issued the standard non-apology apology that she didn’t intend to hurt anyone with her shitty awful shit. Also she just quit. Apparently she made so much money it didn’t matter.
I have no idea who kobayashi is other than a guy who quit the hot dog eating competition.
If this is all you’ve got, it’s pretty thin sauce.
Weinstein did slightly worse than a blackface on youtube. The stuff he did would’ve been clearly seen as wrong even when he did them, it’s just that people didn’t know.
No one cared about a random youtuber painting their face for a satirical video in 2011. But suddenly when it got dug up 10 years later she was the most horrible person on earth. That’s just hypocrisy.
Kobayashi is a Japanese comedian that was chosen to direct the Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony. Suddenly a guy online posts one sketch from 20 years earlier where he mentioned the holocaust and poof, job gone. Because you wanted to be a little edgy on a comedy sketch about “stuff you can’t say on tv” on Japanese TV in 1998. Is that okay to you?
I think you are getting confused about the definition of cancel culture.
Definition one: Not supporting celebrities when their problematic actions come to light. This is the one that was made to prevent people from banding against or facing consequences for their actions.
Definition two: A harassment campaign where people bring up actions from years ago even when they changed, taking things wildly out of context, and calling out in bad faith to bully small-scale content creators.
The commentor is talking about definition one here, and it seems that you are talking about definition two.
Exactly. But there’s not really a distinction in the term.
I said it’s terrible as a whole, because actions taken in case one rarely have any considerable effect, while I can list a few for case two. If they were two separate terms I would’ve obviously been against the second definition only, but they’re all under the same umbrella.
Not to mention people can make bad faith arguments for both (“yeah we just found out that guy raped 27 girls last year, but after that we don’t know anything so he’s changed!” / “ok, the only racist remarks that person did were 40 years ago, but have they really changed or are they just hiding it?”) so the line gets blurry.
Overall, the number of “campaigns” that actually worked at “cancelling” a bad person is way too small to justify the harassment to all the other people. That’s why I think it’s not worth it, just support who you want, let people live their life and only harass them if they’re currently doing something bad (or if the bad thing they did in the past was straight-up illegal like the aforementioned Weinstein).
The article is literally about a case in which it has worked, which doesn’t fit your definition of it being bad.
And what I said was “Let’s not excuse it because of some rare cases where it achieved something good.” I’m not trying to frame this specific case as a bad thing, I absolutely don’t think it was.
unless they’re currently doing something bad
Ahh, this is his issue. He thinks that people should get a pass because they’ve gotten away with doing bad things in the past.
Essentially, if you don’t catch them in the act, then you shouldn’t get to criticize them or hold them accountable.
What a shitty take, probably from a shitty person who wants to be held to the same shitty standard so they can get away with similar shitty behavior.
I feel bad for those close to you that have to put up with that.
So if someone ever said something barely racist in a satirical context or whatnot and then went on to have a successful career by joking about less offensive stuff they should live in fear of that one thing getting dug up and their whole life crumbling in front of them.
Cool, I guess you’ve never changed your views on anything during your life, good for you. I mean, what’s the point of becoming a better person if the one mistake you did is forever etched in history.
That’s not what “cancel culture” is outside of the right-wing media network. I’m very staunchly progressive, all my friends and most of my family are left leaning, and we literally NEVER engage with “cancel culture” the way your media says we do. In fact, I don’t know a single person that has ever talked about canceling anyone, ever, as far as I’m aware. This, along with all the attempts to make it seem like the left supports perverts and killing literal infants is all part of a very, VERY obvious attempt to paint MILLIONS of people as some sort of boogeyman. People on the left react to you the way they do because you believe in and spread nonsense that only exists to demonize them, all from atop some kind of high horse made up of default human values, as if you’re proud of being a basic human (protecting children/property/public wellbeing). The right literally fabricates stories, then tells you millions of regular Americans support pure evil, and you guys eat that shit up every single time, not because it has any basis in reality, but because you’re addicted to feeling reviled by, and better than others.
I believe that every human has the ability to be rational and do good in the world, and I also believe that every human can be misled and manipulated into living a terrible fear-ridden life of baseless hate and paranoia towards others. Which kind of human do you want to be?
“Your media”? “You guys”? My guy I’m not right-leaning. I’m not even American, and if I was I would’ve wanted Bernie in charge. But I’ve seen a lot of times people facing backlash for stuff like that. Those news get on mainstream media as well (talking mainly about Kobayashi, Oyamada fits the definiton too but that’s way less excusable). Not to mention, if you follow content creators online you get to know about the backlash firsthand (like with the dumb #Jojisoverparty that luckily didn’t gain traction).
I never understood this view. What’s so terrible about not supporting people or things you don’t agree with? That’s what people should be doing.
It’s not about not supporting, it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
I’m all for not supporting people who don’t deserve it, I regularly do it too. But one thing is ignoring and another is actively harassing people for stuff they probably already forgot about.
Boycotting and harassing are two very different things, and “cancel culture” is a right-wing buzzword that conflates them.
Cancel culture is just a boycott that’s so effective, it’s disastrous to not at least compromise.
If you structure your life so you can be heavily impacted by cancel culture, you’re either a shitty person or surround yourself with shitty people.
Either way, it’s a win-win for everyone involved. They clearly don’t want to be together.
Most of the times I see the term in regards to people, not products/brands/companies, so I think the boycotting part is way less prevalent and rightfully called just “boycotting”.
I’ll admit I haven’t researched the origin of the term (and it’s probably on the same level as “woke” in number of different definitions), but to me it’s mostly about people saying or doing something “controversial” and getting harassed/ostracized for that.
And I say it’s terrible because when it affects fragile people, or generally people with a conscience, it works and ruins careers. When it’s towards ones like J.K. Rowling or Kanye West they just don’t care and keep working, making money like crazy while still being openly transphobic/racist.
it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
Oh you mean like Critical Race Theory, Drag Shows, and getting vaccinated?
Uhh… yes? Are you trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing nutjob? People who complain online about Drag Shows and Vaccines are not okay in the head, but what does that have to do with the discussion?
what does that have to do with the discussion?
What do examples of cancel culture being used for bad things have to do with cancel culture being bad?
Oh you meant people who get harassed because they complain about those things. I thought you were saying the opposite.
Well then no, it’s the opposite of what I was saying. Arguably everyone was on board with the fact that vaccines were good before covid, and then it became “controversial”. No one is getting “cancelled” because of a 10-year old tweet against vaccines, because if they tweeted that 10 years ago people would’ve already been angry at that time.
I’m talking specifically about the times a satirical thing from ages ago that no one cared about at the time gets dug up and ruins careers because if it was said now it would be problematic.
This discussion aside, I’m genuinely curious how much you fight back on posts supporting right-wing views vs. cancel culture.
Something tells me you try way harder to fight against one than the other, and when you’re called out you just say, “oh yeah that other thing is bad too. Trust me guys.”
Uhh… I’m pretty left-leaning you know. 1 2 3 4 5
Just because I’m against cancel culture it doesn’t mean I’m right-leaning. Even Obama complained about it. I don’t think there’s a single American right-wing view I share (no, not even about cancel culture because they love doing it as well), and probably the only American politician I like is Bernie.
Take a look at my profile and see if you find anything similar to what you’re “accusing” me of, you really got the wrong person.
it’s generating outrage online about stuff nobody cared about until the day before.
Kind of like the ‘f’ word? What about trans rights? Yeah, I remember when ‘nobody cared about that’ until, you know, they did.
We’re growing up as a species. You can choose to join us or get left behind.
You already have some catching up to do.
I don’t think anyone sane found jokes about Trans Rights funny 10 years ago, but yes, kind of like the ‘f’ word.
And what’s the point of “growing up” if mistakes of the past keep being brought up to you? No point in becoming a better person and supporting minorities if the one thing you said 10 years ago will still ruin your life sooner or later, right?
CANCELLED!
deleted by creator
“Cancel culture” is a catch-all slur. You can tell it’s effective because of how you phrased your post instead of considering who is being “canceled” and the reason for it. Bad guys are trying to catch a free pass by highlighting less serious offenses and calling it the same thing.
I don’t really see it like that, unless it’s something mainly done on right-wing circles.
If people don’t want to stay on Twitter or Facebook because of all the stuff their owners are doing, that’s not Cancel Culture, that’s just having a brain. To me, a response to serious offenses is definitely not cancel culture, you can’t “cancel” billionaires.
If not “cancel culture” though, what would you call what happens to those “less serious” offenders? Just “large-scale harassment”?
Double fuck you to the crew on top of the scabbiness.
“Y’all been out of work for months, have a gig that doesn’t cross a line. JUST KIDDING”
They should join a union.
If they’re not already IATSE (which I’d assume they are), how would that help here? IATSE members all over the continent are out of work right now, being represented doesn’t change that. Nor does it change how much it sucks to get jerked around by twits like this.
Your comment makes no sense.
IATSE isn’t part of the strike. Most likely because AMPTP would find a way to make American Gladiators with non-union labor, which would be a body blow to the union.
If you’re IATSE, you’re working right now, because the union isn’t on strike.
Edit: upon re-re-re-reading your comment, I now think you’re saying that the crew got fucked over, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Why are you under the impression IATSE is working right now?
But yes, main point was: crew got fucked over.
I’m so tired of PR filled apologies by celebrities. Eat shit.
Sorry for not wearing pants. :(
That’s OK Margot Robbie. We like it when you don’t wear pants.
deleted by creator
In the US, pants specifically refer to what the British call trousers, joggers, and pajamas. The US doesn’t use the word trousers to describe pants, but the latter two are used interchangeably with their respective word and pants.
Sometimes it is unavoidable unfortunately. Had to cross the picket line at the hospital where my grandma was dying.
TIL that Dancing with the Stars still exists.
Exists to reinvigorate the “careers” of terrible right wing chuds like tucker carlson and sean spicer. Garbage.
Clearly garbage, but gif of either of those guys dancing could be awesome.
And The View. i I unplugged and it’s amazing what I haven’t been missing.
Dude, survivor is still around. Reality shows don’t end, ever.
Well American Idol did end for a little bit.
Always be mean to scabs.
They’re still scabs for even thinking about a return. Fuck those pieces of garbage.
Pregress over perfection. Be glad they listened to the response and adjusted, otherwise they may as well have not bothered and gone ahead anyway.
this is why it kinda annoys me when people are like ‘posting doesn’t actually do anything’ – true, sure, but sometimes it kinda can, sometimes, and making your voice and argument heard is better than being silent
That’s like saying ‘communicating doesn’t do anything.’
It’s just a tactic from bad actors to convince people they shouldn’t be fighting back.
Posting definitely does things. It just needs to reach a lot of people and the right people.
Bill Maher wasn’t complaining about the “crystal generation” not long ago? He folded?
deleted by creator
Literally the only thing that makes Maher not a conservative in the US is that he’s anti-religon. In any other developed country, he’s comfortably a right wing conservative.
Plus, regardless of political leanings, he’s an asshole.
I could never put my finger on why Bill Maher pissed me off so much and has such a small audience compared to other so-called “liberal” commentators - it’s because he’s an asshole that pisses off the left and right equally, but for entirely different reasons. Thanks.
deleted by creator
Crystal Generation?
He said that millennials complain too much and are always on the brink of a nervous breakdown and how boomers needed to be in charge. So I guess one crystal by itself even though sharp isn’t much of a threat. But when they are together is pretty dangerous like the cave of swords in Mexico.
I wonder if you missed the part where we Millennials are on the brink of a nervous breakdown, because the boomers are in charge
He missed it they are his words.
Pick a scab and they fall off.
Calling people who are just trying to work and make a living “scabs” is dehumanizing language. Not surprising from the so-called tolerant left.
Go lick some boots
I’m hereby announcing that people who the left vilifies and dehumanizes with hurtful words like “scab” are always welcome to work at any of my businesses.
Your business is licking shit off boots
But it pays min wage so we should support this shitlicker.
None of my businesses are about boot cleaning, but even if they were, it wouldn’t be me doing it, it would be my employees.
Just so you know, the people you cruelly slander with such gross language as “scab” are actually some of the hardest workers. They don’t make absurd demands for more pay and luxurious pampered conditions, they just show up and do the work and take whatever they are given. The way it should be.
All I hear is the shit in your mouth from all the boots you’ve licked
You’re getting the boots trolled off you bro. Satire account.
You sound like you live in your mom’s basement
deleted by creator
Congrats, your business is now patronized by everyone the left hates. Enjoy all the Nazis
The real Nazis are the people calling me mean names and being rude to me on the internet just for having a different opinion.
deleted by creator
Guys, look at the username. I’m pretty sure this is a “character” account.
Yep, I recognize their username. I can’t tell if it’s trolling or satire.
I’m not tolerant. Strike Breakers are (generally) awful. We can come up with specific and contrived exceptions (“A poor single disabled ill mother of 9”) but that’s kind of irrelevant.
It’s a troll account. They’re intentionally making bootlicking comments everywhere to get a rise from people.
Multimillionaires fighting with other multimillionaires isn’t exactly what I think of when I think of scab vs union.
Some quick math to put things into perspective:
- 25,000 seconds = ~7 hours
- 40,000 seconds = 11 hours
- 75,000 seconds = ~21 hours
- 100,000 seconds = ~1.2 days
- 250,000 seconds = ~2.9 days
- 500,000 seconds = ~5.8 days
- 1,000,000 seconds = ~11.6 days
- 5,000,000 seconds = 57.9 days
- 10,000,000 seconds = 115.7 days
- 100,000,000 seconds = 3.2 years
- 1,000,000,000 seconds = 31.7 YEARS
Like it or not, the multimillionaires are far closer to us than they are to billionaires. It’s not even close. Even at 100,000,000 you’re far closer to the everyday person.
So yes, I consider a union of actors to be a union, even if the actors are making millions. Our common enemy is still the billionaires and corporations, who are wealthy beyond imagination.
Besides, actors tend to be liberal and do a lot of philanthropy. It’s probably because with all their wealth, they still feel closer to the common person and remember their upbringing.
Solidarity means all workers, even the ones who get paid too much. Don’t fall for the divisions that billionaires want to create.
It’s also important to remember that most actors aren’t multi-millionaires, only the famous ones are.
Yep. Actors who don’t have named roles probably aren’t making close to millions, maybe a couple hundred k at best. More likely less. Actors who’ve accumulated a reputation but are in things like TV shows or Netflix movies are closer to a few million. It’s why those actors, despite having popular acclaim, are still very down to earth.
deleted by creator
If anything, their wealth makes them incredibly powerful allies. They have influence and they’ve been able to take a closer look at the process. The actors striking gave the writers a much needed boost. It’s corny, but I saw a meme for Avengers Infinity War which portrayed the writers and the heroes struggling against the invasion in Wakanda, and then SAG leadership was Thor coming in and turning the tides. It’s obviously a joke, but I think it fits fairly well as an analogy. The Screen Actors Guild is a massive asset.
The investment accounts are an interesting point though. With how it works, a lot of Americans technically own little bits and pieces of the means of production, but not enough to influence things. I’d argue the famous actors probably don’t have much influence either as investors, despite having a lot more invested.
deleted by creator
Ah no worries.
And for sure, you can never be too careful.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Woo!
The multimillionaires that are supporting the union don’t are doing so because either A) it’s the right thing to do, or B) because the studios may inadvertently trigger the destruction of Hollywood because of greed. Whether because of altruism or mutual self-interest, it’s the right thing to do.
Sure fine whatever but it is stretching the bloody terms. There is a world of differenxe between a near minimum wage sheet metal worker whose family is on food stamps and someone who makes more in a year than most Americans earn in a lifetime.
That assumes that all actors and screenwriters make more in a year than most in a lifetime. In reality they work from job to job, paycheck to paycheck. I know a few people who work in production in Hollywood. They tell me that working on a tv show used to mean steady employment, but now can mean just 4 weeks of work for writers and creative types.
I dunno, seems like all the shitty actors and writers are striking.
Good thing, imo. The faster we can replace them with AI, the better.
