What do the Spanish themselves say?
Cancel Culture
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Well the guy who posted the tweet in Spanish says it's repugnant.
Yeah it’s a tricky one. If they’d done it the other way round (flamboyant gay man transforms into monosyllabic grumpy shmuck before a snack gets him back to his usual outgoing self) then nobody would have a problem with it.
This seems a little excessive. Public apology from the publisher and author, who has had to promise to rewrite her memoir about teaching after being dragged over the coals on Twitter for “racist and ableist tropes” :
Struggling to see what's excessive about that? She used offensive phrases, was rightly criticised and decided to update it, so as not to offend people. Seems pretty fair to me.
Almond shaped and chocolate coloured is racist now too? Seems descriptive more than anything? And in the case of almond shaped, I think it's a compliment?
I somehow doubt anyone would really care about this outside of the Internet. Though I have no empirical data to back this up.
I guess we disagree on the definition of “offensive phrases”. Assuming the quotes in the Guardian article are the absolutely worst things she wrote anyway.
Yeah, it seems extreme. Almond eyes racist? I've never heard that nor even imagined that. However, I have heard comments about descriptive skin tones because some lit professors have said that in older novels the assumption was the default skin tone was white so usually it was only people of color's skin tone depicted in vivid, sensory terms. White skin was never described so the "chocolate" descriptors signified the other.
And the autistic part, I see that more as an uncomfortable, honest confession. I don't see that as "ablest trope". In fact, I think its probably better in the long term if people felt free to confess their actual feelings and admit to uncomfortable truths.It's like admitting you are an alcoholic first before truly being able to accept help.
Hardly a revelation to suggest autistic people can be difficult to be around. It's in the definition of the disorder.
The racial comments don’t offend me but I will say that as a 30 year old black man who grew up in a mostly white area, being constantly differentiated by your skin colour (or continent of origin in this case) gets very exhausting. I’m not being patronising, and in truth, it’s not something I can except non minorities to understand, but from my own experience, it’s something that made me very self conscious to the fact that I was different from my peers growing up, so it’s something that I think teachers at the very least, should avoid where possible.
I can also see why stating that someone is
“so small and square and Afghan with his big nose and premature moustache” is offensive.
Referring to autistic children as “unselfconsciously odd” and “jarring company” is pretty ridiculous though, it’s already difficult enough for people with these conditions without renowned authors perpetuating that sort of stigma.
Without seeing the full context they were written it, those comments look pretty offensive in isolation.
Exactly. One of my mates is only a bit on the spectrum, but can be an absolute headache to be around at times.
So can I with my adhd brain though.
I know parents who split up because their autistic son was so difficult.
If she was referring to every single kid on the autism spectrum that way I can see what you mean but if she was only referring to those two specific kids she had in class then I don't think it's fair to call it an "ablest trope" or offensive. I have a few friends that have worked as autistic kid helpers in schools and some of the kids do things like punching the helper randomly (and they are 10-12 so it can actually hurt or even cause damage) or do things like inappropriately grab body parts like breasts or even in one case I heard about, try to shove their hand down the helpers pants. I certainly think it's fair to call some individuals "jarring company". I don't feel like a disability should automatically make someone immune from criticism. Like all people, some are difficult (or more) individuals, ya know?
Almond shaped eyes should be complimentary but describing someone as chocolate is usually not appropriate. While not necessarily negative it tends to be overtly sexual which leads it into racist territory because historically blacks were seen as more promiscuous than whites.
The "jarring company" bit seems very unkind and selfish. People should be careful about how they describe this.
I see where you’re coming from but I just find it unfair to tell people who are literally painting pictures using words alone that it’s offensive to allude to the colour of someone’s skin.
I’d need to see the autistic comments (and all the other allegedly offensive content) in context but I think they’re reasonable descriptions. Which could only come from someone who is used to spending time with people on the spectrum. They’re potentially unkind but she takes the edge off by saying how much she enjoys their company.
The whole thing smacks of a very small number of people finding offence where none was intended, kicking off a social media pile-on, which ends up with more and more attempts to dig out every last remotely problematic sentence and make sure the author/publisher gets absolutely crucified over not very much at all.
I understand the reasoning, but in this case it seems like a literary flourish more than anything.
Same as the part on autism. Without context calling an autistic person jarring company is quite rude, but as someone else mentioned this sounds more like a confession.
Personally I can always get behind the reasoning of these things, but do think parts of it are going beyond reason. Literature should be viewed in it's context. Always within reason of course, mind.
Last edited:
Chocolate is a sensual food. Applied to describe someone's skin it also sensualizes them. With the historical context it's pretty clear this shouldn't be acceptable.
Like I said the autism description is unkind at worst and you'd expect someone with any writing ability to be able to express the notion she does, which is probably quite matter of fact, more eloquently.
It's a bit worrying, she essentially described me and she is seemingly hungry. 
I understand the reasoning. Also don't disagree with the bit on eloquence. I just don't think a massive online pile on is justified in this instance.
A massive pile on, no, probably not. This seems like a scenario where an older person is using terms they are familiar and comfortable with but are maybe no longer appropriate. And while a pile on certainly seems to have happened, I think the following is a good result:
We can hope the author has learned a few things and that those who expressed genuine concern that this kind of language and use was published have some satisfaction.
Yeah for sure. I think the most important thing is that people in general talk to each other about these things and try to understand why things can be hurtful and respect it.
She can write what she wants but when she chooses to publish, then know she is open to criticism. And some of the passages from the book I've seen are really crap.
It seems to have been written as an Informative and communicative memoir rather than a Romantic fiction, so over and above any literary criticism it's worth highlighting that that type of language is being freely published by a big publishing house, in that space. Drawing attention to it doesn't seem particularly censorial.
The report in the Graun suggest she acted like an arsehole (lying, attacking, doubling down, the usual shit) on social media and then apologised for that, rather than for the work itself.
I didn't see anyone calling for a rewrite (though there might have been some) so that seems to be her own decision. And the original is still available in all good book stores or what these days we call Amazon.
And you can support both freedom of creative expression and be critical of that which has been expressed. I support Tarantino's freedom to continue to use racially offensive language in his films, at the same time as supporting and largely agreeing with Spike Lee's continued criticism of the regularity with which Tarantino uses the language.
It seems to have been written as an Informative and communicative memoir rather than a Romantic fiction, so over and above any literary criticism it's worth highlighting that that type of language is being freely published by a big publishing house, in that space. Drawing attention to it doesn't seem particularly censorial.
The report in the Graun suggest she acted like an arsehole (lying, attacking, doubling down, the usual shit) on social media and then apologised for that, rather than for the work itself.
I didn't see anyone calling for a rewrite (though there might have been some) so that seems to be her own decision. And the original is still available in all good book stores or what these days we call Amazon.
And you can support both freedom of creative expression and be critical of that which has been expressed. I support Tarantino's freedom to continue to use racially offensive language in his films, at the same time as supporting and largely agreeing with Spike Lee's continued criticism of the regularity with which Tarantino uses the language.
The good news is there's no such thing as cancel culture and no such phenomenon exists
'Entitled' Travel Blogger Deletes Instagram Profile After Getting Roasted For Holding an Empty Parking Spot by Standing in it
https://www.ibtimes.sg/entitled-tra...r-getting-roasted-holding-empty-parking-59673
https://www.ibtimes.sg/entitled-tra...r-getting-roasted-holding-empty-parking-59673
Good - she sounds like an entitled arrogant arse.
Doesn't own a car, tries to claim a parking spot. Wonders never cease.
One down, just another few hundred million or so to go.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
'My TV show got taken off because I'm a muckraking bottom-feeding cnut. I'm being silenced, there is literally no way anyone can hear my voice and point of view, it's a physical impossibility these days because I've been utterly cancelled', whined Kyle on primetime radio.
Him, Morgan, Grimes and the rest of this mob are pure evil.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
amazing how out of touch it is possible to be
Is this cancel culture, as in canceled by the public, or an employee violating employer's code of conduct?
Quite.
‘Chocolate coloured skin’, ‘so Afghan with his big nose and premature moustache’.
And people are whining about her being pulled up on it… ffs gimme a break.
I wonder if all those whining about it have raw bacon coloured skin…
Obviously when reversed the utter repulsiveness of talking in such a casually objectifying way is made starkly clear.
Yeah some people are so determined to be perceived as anti woke these days they become completely ignorant to the feelings of others.
“Skin the colour of raw bacon” would be a shit analogy. But not remotely offensive. Maybe go with some sort of cooked pork product instead? Rhymes with salmon? Again, not remotely offensive but a better analogy.
Gammon is used to describe people of a specific mindset - thick bastards with either overt or covert xenophobic and racist leanings. It isn’t a phrase used to just casually describe people with pink coloured skin. As you well know.
The point, which again, you well know, is that casually describing a human being as a food type based on their skin colour is offensive, idiotic and objectifying.
If people did to you, repeatedly, you’d quickly understand how disgusting a phenomenon it is - so, yeah, be thankful they don’t :-)
She didn’t describe anyone as “a chocolate”. She said someone had skin the colour of chocolate. The same way as saying “skin as pale as snow” or “lips as red as rose petals” or any number of fairly standard literary analogies to help describe what someone looks like using words alone.
Gammon is about someone who is not only white. They’re middle aged and angry (usually about feck all). And their skin goes a darker shade of pink while they’re ranting. It’s a funny/good way to describe a visual image we all know well. The fact that food is being used as an analogy certainly doesn’t make it racist or offensive.
Without meaning offence, you clearly don’t understand the issue that you’re talking about here (or are being wilfully ignorant due to you possibly being a covert racist), and going ‘round in circles in such conversations is truly exhausting!
We’ll agree to disagree.