Cancel Culture, part 3: Is that really canceling?

Let me refer back to Dr. Seuss just briefly, in how so many people have been defending Green Eggs and Ham -- a classic -- when that is not one of the books no longer being published. The things that people say when they are decrying "cancel culture" are frequently less than accurate.

It may not merely be a lack of sincerity. It is possible that people latch on to one detail, and then ignore others.

I will start with an example on the Democrat side, former Senator Al Franken.

There is a contingent that will tell you that because he took some pictures making fun of one sleeping woman on a plane that he was kicked out of congress by Kirsten Gillibrand  -- who might even be more to blame than Leeann Tweeden -- and because we lost such an important Democrat voice we need to learn from that and not bother Andrew Cuomo.

Except, that is not how it happened.

As of 2019, Franken has had 9 separate accusers. He could have appeared before the Senate Ethics Committee, but Senator Chuck Schumer gave him a deadline for resignation versus being censured and losing committee assignments. He chose resignation. 

Franken was replaced by former Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Tina Smith, who is still a Democrat -- one with no harassment allegations -- and who has since won one special and one regular election. 

Should Franken have taken the censure and allowed the investigation to exonerate him? The proliferation of accusers makes exoneration seem less likely. Resignation allows him to maintain a posture of wounded innocence, which would be unlikely to hold up to further scrutiny.

Should Schumer have given Franken more time? Possibly; I don't know what pressures there was on him. Again, exoneration seems unlikely, so not dragging out may have been best for Senate Democrats. I still think the resignation was the least damaging option for Franken.

Is it true that Democrats are the ones most likely to be held to account for abuse? Sadly, that is absolutely true. That isn't a reason for us to stop being better, though; we aren't nearly better enough.

It is also clearly not true that we cannot afford to be better. Franken may have been better known than Smith, but that is for his show business career. Television fame is no guarantee of good governance, which we already knew, but the lessons were painful.

It is interesting -- and to the point -- that Gillibrand has faced more backlash than Schumer for the pressure on Franken.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/al-franken-kirsten-gillibrand-2020-1014697

Instead of exploring that now, I am going to mention one other example.

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/amber-heard-was-never-enough-of-a-victim

Notice in the first quoted tweet, the Johnny Depp defender refers to "canceled", like that did happen to Depp.

The article focuses on how the court evidence clearly bears out that the abuse allegations against Depp are true. Amber Heard having also done abusive things does not exonerate him, though that is not the way that fans are interpreting it. There is a lot of food for thought about interpersonal violence there.

However, it also makes the point that even before court evidence about both parties having done abusive things, Depp was not canceled. He still had movie roles. I remember seeing him in a (racist and appropriating) cologne commercial.

He still had people defending him, far more than Heard. Is that because he is more famous, with the longer career?

Or might there be some trend, where who can absorb career damage and who actually does get removed and harmed and "canceled" somehow relates to the already existing patriarchal structure?