I mean, have you ever wondered why !reddit@lemmy.world has that banner?

Check my older comments too.

The WGA rules only prohibits writing for struck companies.

Also, you do realize WGA and SAG-AFTRA are two different unions, right?

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.

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.

"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.

Boycotting and harassing are two very different things, and "cancel culture" is a right-wing buzzword that conflates them.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He missed it they are his words.

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.

The real Nazis are the people calling me mean names and being rude to me on the internet just for having a different opinion.