Monty Python Comedian John Cleese Cancels Himself “Before Someone Else Does”
summit.news
summit.news
Colleges were hotbeds of posturing and hypocrisy then as they are now. College kids are typically in the most radical years of their life, when they have the most freedom and desire to redefine who they are. They largely don’t have any money or accomplishments, so the big way up the social ladder is posturing and value signaling. If you’re more spiritual, more woke, more radical, then you get attention from your peers.
I don’t know what else to say, except people should spend more time hanging out across age groups, and people in college will eventually burn out of it. More people should take gap years, it lets it really sink in the reason why you’re in college in the first place, and it gives you more of a sense of how worthless posturing can be.
For these reasons and others, the college circuit is a real beast.
These things come and go in waves, and people have short memories.
Honestly, I’d go further. First, college students are and have always been extreme. Getting too riled up about it is frankly blasé. Second, contrary to the pearl clutching we live in a golden age of free speech. You can say all kinds of shit online now that would’ve gotten you literally lynched a few decades ago in some places. On the right and the left there has been an absolute flourishing of the kind of speech that “respectable” society chilled out even during my childhood, the idea that free speech is in trouble is utterly unfounded. Never mind how much easier it is to speak your mind anonymously, something that was reserved only to the kind of people who could get op-eds in the past.
What I think is actually happening here is that the kind of cultural and economic elites used to speaking at the people are suddenly finding them speaking with the people, and they’re not enjoying finding out what the people really think. In fact the only threat to free speech I can see is the very people whining about the “woke mob”, who are trying to connect online criticism with actual violence.
But the idea that 1960s UC Berkeley was not “extreme” is ahistorical. Hell, UC Berkeley protests have their own Wikipedia page, just for the 1960s:
Also there was Naked Man:
I had friends who were members of fraternities or sororities, and they were far more strict on a daily basis. That structure also seemed to work for people who were more accustomed to family as a public persona. The scope of their mistakes were perhaps more broad.
And then... there were the co-operatives. The communes. More rules and work duty, usually better living conditions than the dorms.
Finally, perhaps, there were the Streets, which at the time were very densely packed with people in urgent need of psychiatric care. De-fund the hospitals! 1980s.
For all that, nudity was a real stretch. It was rough, and it was weird.
I'm glad 1960's students made progress, especially with respect to difficult issues like apartheid.
I'm equally glad (and I'll bet most share the same view) that students might want a more objective look at, for example, the Israel/Palestine conflict.
The issue is the authoritarianism of the context, and the cancellation/derision of those who don't share the same view, and other ridiculous postmodernisms, such as literally removing photos of previous graduates (i.e. mostly white men) because it's offensive to the sensibilities of those who think it contravenes a positive learning experience. [1]
Cleese is exactly right. Very few are concerned with the 'good faith' arguments of any group. It's the intolerance displayed by some camps that is the problem, not their arguments.
[1] https://thepostmillennial.com/university-removes-alumni-phot...
That’s some kind of ahistorical, mythologized idea of what the UC Berkeley protests were like. They may have started out with good intentions, but they turned into parties, and the parties turned into riots. It was civil rights protests, LSD, mace, riots, free love, and firebombings.
You can’t just pick out the civil rights part of it, the part you like, and pretend the other parts didn’t exist.
Taking a step back and looking at the typical behavior of college age radicals, this current cohort is pretty mild. Any attempt to mark them as uniquely strident and aggressive is pretty ahistorical. Call me when they start building and mounting barricades.
Basically back then it seemed not only sincere but useful. Even if you were only doing it to show of, you were doing some good and risked some social cost. If you do it today you do no good and do not risk anything.
It’s hard to imagine being in that situation, but I think the better move would be to show up anyway and call their bluff.
By not appearing, he's made international headlines, which is the point. If he were to have appeared, probably nothing would have happened.
As a result, the student's union has changed their tune a bit, so at least he's had some impact.
The broader point Cleese is making is that he's been poking people in the eye for generations, but now there's a 'new establishment' keen to try to deride him and his peers and that he's taking the same position now, as he would have 30 years ago.
There's a famous debate between him and a very conservative intellectual regarding the 'Life of Brian' and it's religious implications, I'm looking forward to that debate in 2020.
The term 'woke' is a bit needlessly incendiary, but it's fully within his perogative.
Cleese is on the right side of history.
I love the topic too, a comedian whining about "cancel culture."
So great. Sparks joy. Definitely not a tired subject, more please!
If someone is impersonating a bloody dictator in order to advance their evil views, then yes you should not give them a platform.
If they're doing it to skewer them - isn't that good? Mockery can be an effective social tool.
- Because their IQ is low.
That and plus everything in woke culture that touches on sex reeks of juvenile prudishness.
Not exactly a tale as old as time, but it's at least a live thing in the early 90s.
But he was cancelled.
He didn’t assault anyone. He’s just a pervert.
Definitely "cancelled" :eyeroll:
The issue with cancel culture isn't that people can't decide to not patronize a comic. That's always their right. You can choose to not watch a comedy special because of any reason that is important to you. Just understand others may decide differently, and they also deserve to have the choice of who to watch.
There is a difference between choosing not to watch a comedy special, and getting so outraged that you need to prevent others from watching the same special.
Louis did not say things that were considered not politically correct, he did a thing that falls under reasonable definitions of sexual assault. This is distinct - Louis does not have "bad opinions", Louis did something abhorrent. Louis didn't get "cancelled" for "wrong think" or however people want to phrase this right now, Louis got dropped from his bookings because he assaulted people.
There's a line somewhere, and there's grey areas, but, to be clear, again: Louis CK committed sexual assault. That is why he got dropped from venues, from specials, etc. - because the people who host those venues and produce those specials decided they did not want to support a man who committed sexual assault.
But I'm troubled by the idea of people just concluding that he commited sexual assault when he hasn't even been charged with that, there was no fact-finding process at all, and people are basically inventing their own legal definitions and deciding what someone is guilty of based on public accusations.
We have courts and investigators to make these determinations for the public at large, where people are put under oath, facts are gathered according to rules evidence, there is cross-examination and testimony from all sides, etc. You know, all that rule-of-law stuff so that people are not condemned or punished unjustly.
What I am not in favor of is trial by internet where people who are either not impartial or do not have access to all the evidence, decide to mete out punishment on their own. Of course such people can decide for themselves what happened and then choose not to patronize whomever they want, but those are personal opinions and don't carry a high truth value, nor should they be used to try to deprive someone of the right to seek their own audience and continue making a living.
> and the third is that Louis admitted to the allegations.
Did he? AFAICT he did not admit to anything that would rise to the level of sexual assault. If he did, and there was a confession to that effect, he certainly would have been prosecuted as that would be an easy case. Also a high profile case that would put a feather in the cap of any prosecutor.
For example, there was no admission of forcing anyone to do anything, and without that, you are not going to get to sexual assault. In fact, no one was locked in a room, unable to leave. No one was held down or threatened with bad repercussions if they left -- at least that is not something he admitted to. He also said ahead of time, "I am going to do X". And still no one left. Perhaps they felt more awkward leaving than staying, but again that doesn't get you to sexual assault.
This goes to your second point - what he did (that is known) wasn't actually illegal. It was antisocial.
Now the question is, do we want to avoid antisocial comics? I mean, maybe. Some do, some don't. But my position is that we shouldn't try to intervene and prevent the comic from being able to find their audience. Let each person make up their mind about that, instead of forming coordinated pressure groups that lobby to deplatform those they deem antisocial.
> But I'm troubled by the idea of people just concluding that he commited sexual assault when he hasn't even been charged with that, there was no fact-finding process at all, and people are basically inventing their own legal definitions and deciding what someone is guilty of based on public accusations.
Are you saying that we can't discuss and come to our own conclusions until a criminal trial has completed? Because that is just not workable. People will always talk, that's part of free speech. If you're upset that they came to a conclusion that you don't agree with, that is also free speech.
> We have courts and investigators to make these determinations for the public at large, where people are put under oath, facts are gathered according to rules evidence, there is cross-examination and testimony from all sides, etc. You know, all that rule-of-law stuff so that people are not condemned or punished unjustly.
Yes, and all of these are very important when the state is going to punish someone. To hold this up as a bar before we can discuss something is an anti-free speech position for you to take. The only way to restrict discussion to those things that the state has done fact finding on would be to massively curtail the right of the public to discuss basically anything anywhere close to a possible crime. This is obviously incompatible with the first amendment, and also probably completely unworkable in practice too.
Also, I find it really quite distasteful how you're drawing a direct parallel between people tweeting mean things or not going to his shows to the state locking someone in a concrete cell for years. They are very different things.
> Of course such people can decide for themselves what happened and then choose not to patronize whomever they want,
Right, but you just spent the past two paragraphs talking about how we should wait for the courts, and how those who aren't impartial shouldn't hold a "trial" for him. These two things are mutually incompatible, you must pick one and not both.
> nor should they be used to try to deprive someone of the right to seek their own audience and continue making a living.
How exactly did they "deprive someone of the right to seek their own audience"? Be specific. Because I don't think you actually know.
Louis has legal options if his rights were actually violated. If the accusations were lies, he could sue for defamation. If someone encouraged a venue to illegally break his contract he could sue the venue for breach and the other party for tortious interference. Bet he has not done either of these things, nor have you alleged any facts consistent with either case.
Rather you've hand waved around the idea that choosing to not see him and whining on Twitter is somehow an interference with his rights. The implication is that something must be done to stop the mean tweets and force venues to continue booking him against their will. This is a pretty direct and weak argument against free speech and free association, which is sadly consistent with what I've seen out of the anti-"cancel culture" crowd.
Absolutely not, opposing and trying to overcome cancel culture does not violate anyone's free speech. No one is being muzzled and told they cannot speak. Cancel culture simply being opposed as with any other political discussion does not violate anyone's freedom of speech.
After all, you’re saying you oppose “cancel culture”, surely that opposition has to take some form somewhere, right?
Presumably, those groups mainly would try to increase awareness and support free speech (get in the news, post articles like on this site, encourage activism like what John Cleese did, etc.), while others might lobby the government to oppose/support laws around freedom of speech. As I originally stated, this is all entirely self-consistent, as long as everyone is free to speak.
And that’s where my alarm bells started to go off. I have never heard an anti-“cancel culture” bill that doesn’t end up being authoritarian and anti-free speech gobbley gook. After all, the only solutions here are to restrain the free speech of the “mob”, or to restrict the free association rights of businesses and other people.
It’s always very poorly thought out, unconstitutional junk that’s at best thrown out to sate the culture war crowd with the desperate hope that the courts will strike it down before we’re stuck with the actual consequences. At worst, it’s actually an authoritarian push by cynical politicians who hope to use it as a cudgel to beat their opponents with the power of the state.
They're perfectly compatible. I'm perfectly fine with angry mobs screaming "FIRE THAT GUY AND NOBODY EVER HIRE HIM AGAIN!!" or things like it all they want. I just don't want anyone to obey said angry mobs.
As an aside, I really hate it when people call twitter “angry mobs”. It trivializes the actual horror of what an actual angry mob can do.
To think that 'he does some shows' means he's not 'cancelled' would be to miss the point.
Whether he deserved to be cancelled or not is another question - but he had is shows cancelled, TV show bookings, roles, future roles, any mention in pop culture outside of his cancellation etc..
When you make a career out of appearing 5 times a year on nightly talk shows, daytime TV, the occasional SNL, TV role - and then all of that 'goes away' - then that's what we call 'cancelled'.
Louis CK was a tricky one because he did something questionable, that said, the details are also kind of odd and there's nuance to it.
Louis CK went from being B/C list celebrity, TV/Comedy Start, Netflix Specials, massive sold out tours promoted on national and international media ...
... to being shunned by the entire media establishment, no TV deals, no appearances, and doing many fewer shows with a tiny fraction of the audience.
If he were not cancelled, his Netflix appearances alone would be worth $25-75 Million, just in the last few years, probably the bulk of his earnings.
His income dropped by 100% for several years, and is now probably less than 10% of what it was.
"he term is watered down to meaninglessness."
His career and personal identity were totally dismantled.
His brand value is nil and future income prospects are a tiny fraction of what they were.
What kind of person would see this as a 'meaningless' distinction?
Honestly the question comes down to how frothy people have to be to not understand the obvious materiality of the situation.
Furthermore, he wasn’t “cancelled” for saying something distasteful or forbidden, people stopped liking him because he was credibly accused of sexual assault. The proper word for that is “scandal”.
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
Aside from literal prison terms (Bill Cosby) I can’t think of anything that actually truly cancels comedians.
The ones who complain the loudest seem to be getting bigger and better work, so I’m honestly not sure what their complaints are founded on: but I might be missing something, of course.
Yes, a prison sentence has a certain je ne sais quoi about it that makes comedy clubs reluctant to schedule you, at least until you’re released.
He’s also, you know, 84 years old and incredibly wealthy.
But it might be hard to distinguish those two cases -- a few clubs/publishers/etc. might refuse to book you, and that could cause your audience to dry up.
People think cancel culture is a new thing. Before there was a politicized term for it, specific incidents were just called “scandals.”
It seems like a truly case by case basis as to whether it sticks or not.
EDIT to add: the cultural Right has been attempting, with mixed success, to “cancel” people for decades. McCarthyism, the Satanic Panic, and ruining the careers of country singers who criticize Republicans all come to mind. None of this is new and none of it is unique to the modern cultural Left. It’s just different cultural criteria and different targets.
Let's hope the tide turns and that it turns fast.
Probably only a single Comedian in the entire world, Dave Chapelle, would have walked the line he did and gotten away with it. The backlash against his Netflix special would have probably tilted against any lesser person, and that would have been it for their careers.
No regular comedian could conceivably try to do that without enormous risk, and that's the point here.
I don't think that comedy is a particularly bad place for cancellation, it's the rest of entertainment and pop culture.
Oh no! Cleese chose to make social commentary about cancel culture, without passing the script through the approval bureau of kevinh.
It was exactly as insane as I would have expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eddie_Izzard#Gender
Apparently the Wikipedia crowd cannot comprehend the nuances in 'Sometimes I use one gendered pronoun, sometimes the other.'
(Personally, I felt like it would have been the most respectful and true to his comedy if the article had switched gender for every other pronoun)