I found out earlier this week that one of my favorite podcasters, Mike Pesca, host of The Gist has been suspended indefinitely for unspecified reasons surrounding a debate about whether or not it is ever okay for white people to use the n-word, in any context, even when directly quoting somebody else's words. The weird thing is that it seems as though Pesca, a white man, is being suspended not for actually employing the n-word himself, but for arguing in an internal Slack chat that the mention-vs.-usage debate is not so clear cut (neither is this story -- Slate and Pesca are mum on it, while an internal investigation is under way). He did, apparently, say the word twice in 2019, both times in a non-pejorative manner, in unaired interviews, but Slate already knew about this, and did not discipline him (also, other Slate employees have used the word this way without punishment), so it's all a bit confusing as to what exactly Pesca did to warrant a suspension. Is it now a punishable offense to even have a discussion about a word's acceptability? How can an institution even set standards if this is the case?
Anyway, it's a bummer, as I really like his show. As I said above, the details are kinda sketchy, but it does seem as if he's being victimized by the type of illiberalism decried in the (in)famous Harper's Letter that caused such an uproar (in certain circles) last summer. I never commented on that letter, because I never really worked out how I felt about it. But I've found myself slowly coming around to the side of the signatories, and I think I'm finally all the way there. Also, I never commented on it, because I struggle with the vocabulary to talk about it. Every time I try to express my thoughts on the matter I end up resorting to terms like "woke" and "cancel culture," both of which I loath (but still use sometimes). "Illiberal leftism?" That's the best I got so far.
Certain publications, like Slate, which I enjoy, seem to be moving toward this illiberal leftism, whereby adherence to an intangible, greater social justice good is given favor over truth, common sense, and the good-faith exchange of ideas. HuffPo already went this route years ago, and I've found it mostly unreadable since then. I really hope Slate doesn't follow suit.
Of course, none of this means I agree with the right-wingers who crusade against their version of "cancel culture," which is actually just holding people accountable for the terrible shit they do and say. The Jim Jordans of the world are worse than the illiberal lefties many, many times over. The thing is, "cancellation" is neither inherently good nor bad nor is it binary as the name implies (one of the many reasons I hate the term). Different people deserve to be cancelled to different degrees. You have to take it on a cancellation-by-cancellation basis. Harvey Weinstein should be in prison; Donald Trump should never be allowed to hold public office again; Matt Lauer should never be on TV again; Dr. Seuss's racist books should be removed from school libraries and the non-racist ones should stay; Gina Carano should be on the next season of The Mandalorian (or not, I'm ambivalent about that one); Al Franken should be given a shot at redemption; Ice Cube should be ignored; Mickey Calloway should be fired; Michael Jackson should be allowed on our playlists, as long as we feel kinda guilty about it; so on and so forth.
It's a line, or rather a series of lines, and where we set these lines is what matters. The lines are moving, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, and I want to push some of the lines back in the direction they came from. I can't tell you exactly where the lines should be, but I can tell you where they shouldn't. Life is nothing but the sorites paradox repeated ad nauseum.
Alright, I might have lost the thread there at the end, I'm not sure. It's late here, and I'm getting a bit punchy. That's one of the unfortunate things about getting older. My brain gets tired so much more quickly now than it once did. I used to be able to pull all-nighters with the greatest of ease. Now, if it's after 9:30 pm, I struggle to produce coherent sentences. Although, come to think of it, I also used to sleep until noon everyday, whereas now I usually wake up at 8:00 am. That probably has something to do with it too.
Well, that's all for this week. But before I go I wanted to give a shout out to a new (for me) podcast I found in the wake of the Mike Pesca brouhaha. It's called Block and Reported, and they did an excellent episode on this and other topics.
Until next time...
So the Gina Carano debate... my take is Disney is a private corporation well known for being extremely protective of its "brand" and anyone who works with Disney (I'm sure) has to sign contracts indicating they will represent "the brand" as dictated and if you do/say things while employed by Disney that are not on brand, they are, of course, going to cut their ties and distance themselves from you. I see her firing as Disney asserting their right to protect their brand and it's very likely she was in breach of contract. I think this ultimately works in Carano's favor too as she is now no longer contractually constrained by Disney and more free to express her opinions such as they may be.
ReplyDeleteAlso in Carano's case, it may be she was contributing to a toxic work environment since the creators of The Mandalorian speak often about how important diversity, inclusiveness, and representation is to them.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have heard some people come out and say that she's really nice in person, but, like I said, I don't have a big problem with her getting ousted. It's showbiz -- actors get written out of series all the time. If Disney or The Mandalorian higher-ups want to do this to protect their brand or in support of diversity or what have you, so be it. That's their prerogative.
DeleteAlso, she had a pretty inessential role. (There are only two essential roles on that show and one of them is a muppet.) If I had never heard about this, I probably would not have even noticed her absence from the next season.