Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sometimes, we cancel with a purpose.
I hate cancel culture. Everyone over the age of six has said something stupid on the internet. Those of us who grew up without it and then had it might be even more prone to it because we did not understand the permanency of said…utility.
But Chrissy Teigen crossed a line.
Over 10 years ago, Teigen said to Courtney Stodden, that she fantasized about her death. She regularly encouraged her to commit suicide.
If you don’t follow pop culture, let me give you a quick rundown.
Chrissy Teigen: hot swimsuit model, met John Legend on his music video set where they pretended to be in love, fell in love, married him, rode his coat-tails to A-list status. Courtney Stodden: Was the 16-year-old child bride of 50 year old Doug Hutchinson. If you suspect that there may have been abuse/grooming/all sort of badness involved, you might be suspecting correctly.
In 2011, Chrissy decided to be super classy when, whether having one too many and drunk posting on the internet or not, she posted, repeatedly to Stodden to kill herself.
Let that sink in. A child bride married to her acting coach. Clearly, there are issues. And Chrissy, a self-avowed feminist, took to Twitter to slut-shame and share with her the various ways she imagined her dying. She both publicly and privately shared her violent fantasies with the still 16-year-old Stodden.
While you might not like what young females do to manipulate men and you might not like promiscuity and speak out against it, I sincerely doubt that you are anything as twisted as the following descriptor:
Chrissy Teigen. Model. Feminist. Activist. Champion of women. Swimsuit model. Shamer of sluts. Accuser of child-brides. Hater of American-born abused women. Blamer of victims.
I’m surprised she didn’t tell Stodden that given what she wore, she was asking for it.
I do not like “canceling” people. I’m firmly against it. But Teigen has been asked, repeatedly, to answer for this. It has been ten years. Target sponsors her, she hosts TV shows, she has cookbooks, she’s the modern all-American young, cool, hip sexy mom.
It has been ten years, guys. TEN. Courtney is now an adult and has left the sham of a marriage.
But Chrissy Teigen still gets praised for being so “totally open” on her Twitter and “saying what she thinks” meanwhile we have a President who was banned because people’s feelings were hurt and the media accused criminals of killing police officers (didn’t happen). We have a new President with nice tweets.
But we still have the same old mean girl culture slut shaming when it strikes their fancy.
And I’m not here for it anymore. Sometimes when we cancel people, we cancel with a purpose. We cancel, not people, but their activities. I’d like for Twitter to suspend Teigen for blatant and chronic violations of TOS which she should not claim exception to. I’d like for Target to step out and say that this Nurses’ Week, they support women supporting women and that they will not allow a woman to bully a child, regardless of how they feel about them personally. I’d like for people (I’m looking at you Joy Behar, Beyonce, Madonna and Taylor “We All Have Crowns” Swift) to speak against it. I’m not saying to speak hatred. No. This is never the point and never the way to take care of these things.. But to speak against what it is and to speak against what has been done.
And to speak to true, genuine apology and commit to making amends to Courtney, but also to the girls who think this kind of brash speech is fun and cool.
She’s a damn mother. My mother would have…well, I can’t explain in words what my mother would have done. Regardless, I can say what all mothers know: adults should never bully children.
Be a mother. Grow up, Chrissy. Apologize, take your lumps. Do better. BE BETTER. If not for America, for your own damn kids who rely upon your sorry example to determine what good parents do.
Chrissy, you need to apologize and you need to do penance. Maybe work at a shelter for abused teenage girls? See if you can refrain from telling them how worthless they are for a little while?
Published in Culture
Wow! I’m a girl and I’ve heard of stuff like this but never saw it in real life. Just wasn’t a part of my world. I graduated from HS in1964 and I went to a lot of schools in my growing up years. Perhaps I was just oblivious?
Incorrect. What keeps us free is when parents grab their schmuck kids by the ears and drag them down to the other little kid’s house and make them apologize in front of everyone and then make sure the lesson sticks.
What keeps us free is when adults are held accountable for their actions because they’re adults. Again, I hate that I have to add, this means social repercussions. This doesn’t mean social repercussions for the victims. It means social repercussions for the adults that are punching down, because we, as a society, recognize that some things are objectively wrong.
I don’t think it was as prominent back then; it was certainly more subtle. Honestly? At that point, a lot of the bullying from girls had to do with appearance, socio-economic status, and race. When it was discovered, parents often chided the girls who were involved.
You do not recall anyone in high school making fun of the girls in band? You do not recall nasty rumors about which girls were easy?
Again, it was subtle and certain aspects were considered socially acceptable at the time (making fun of the fat kids, for example). I find it pretty hard to believe that girls have somehow suddenly become more socially aware and actively ostracize other girls more now than they did in the 60’s-80’s. I mean, look at the movie “Carrie”. Look at the movie “Heathers”. It’s only been in the last 20 years or so that social researchers have even bothered to distinguish the ways in which girls bully and how it is different from the boys.
It’s pretty horrible if you do your research.
And, for the record:
Teigen has decided to write a lovely Mea Culpa.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/05/12/chrissy-teigen-apologizes-courtney-stodden-bullying-twitter-dms/5061091001/
It’s very nice. Unfortunately, Courtney Stodden has noted that they are still blocked on Twitter and the celebrity’s people have not bothered to get in touch with her privately to apologize. The apology is mostly code for “Don’t Cancel Me Target”, AKA Doing The Minimum. Most likely Target insisted that she put something out publicly so that they can take the heat off of their brand. The Woke Mob likes Teigen and will likely forgive her the other time she has been noted as saying nasty things about a child (not nearly like what she said to Stodden).
It’s up to Courtney to accept or decline the apology.
But the point remains: is it really okay for adults to treat kids this way?
I think those all can be true.
What makes me nervous is when you’re using some of the exact same language that others use to justify internet censorship and academic spech control. I think there are some distinctions that can be made between the case you describe and those, but you didn’t make those distinctions.
I don’t think there is any disagreement about that point. The question is what to do about it.
There is. I believe what you advocated was for total freedom of speech. What I was advocating for was holding people accountable for the ways they talk to children and for having social consequences take place. I pointed out that sometimes people are “canceled” for good reason; a great person to “cancel” would be Roman Polanski or Woody Allen. They should be ostracized, despite their artistic prowess or what have you because they have done things that are abhorrent to civilized society. They should not be tolerated and given a widespread platform.
This is not at all the same as cancel culture for the sake of someone being politically incorrect. This is not the same as destroying someone’s livelihood, doxing them, and putting words/attitudes in someone’s mouth because you do not like who they voted for or the things they publicly say.
Yes, we can all vote with our dollar and with our feet. Yes, that does have a chilling effect on certain forms of speech.
However that is vastly different than what you and others have intimated: that holding people socially responsible amounts to “cancel culture” and unnecessary censorship. While I do not entertain violence for words spoken (even very, very ugly and hateful words), I think most people understand when a line has been crossed. I think that most people used to believe in societal consequence or time outs for adults by ostracizing them. While their speech was still free and people were still free to say many hateful things, we all know that for a very, very long time those words were only whispered privately or insinuated rather than projected or shouted. When people did discover such disgusting things, it held a social cost. Those people were not invited to parties. They were not treated with absolute welcome.
This was necessary and it was correct.
It is still necessary and it is still correct. Now, do we need it enforced by government? Do we need societal shame for not canceling someone? I’d say no. Vote with your feet and all that. But I think we need to understand the difference between mob mentality/cancel culture and just social consequences and I think we need stop equating one with the other. The slope is slippery, but we have been navigating it for a long time. It is no time for a free for all.
You accused me of saying or implying a lot of things I didn’t say or advocate. That is annoying and makes it difficult to have a discussion. But I agree with your last paragraph, at least.
I’m not trying to accuse you of anything. I was trying to explain to you how I interpreted what you (and others, I think I said that in my comment) said. Please, feel free to correct my misunderstanding.
However, when you say that my language is “the exact same” as those who justify academic censorship and internet censorship, it is difficult to interpret it other than to understand that you are also suggesting that I am advocating that or that I would support such things. If you are not explicitly saying that, it is pretty heavily implied.
Also, I might add, your anxieties about my word selection is your emotional reaction to what I said. It does not do much to speak to the content of what I said, merely that it makes you uneasy to read me using similar/ “the exact same language” as people that you disagree with so vehemently. While it is always a warning sign, it is sometimes a sign that a person is having an emotional response and perhaps should go back and read what was previously posted in a different tone or voice to attempt to see if anything could have been misunderstood or read into due to one’s personal experiences.
Again, please let me know what I was accusing you of so that I may clarify or double-down in true Chrissy Teigen fashion.
For example:
I have no idea where you got that.
70s: Carrie
80s: Heathers
90s: Jawbreaker
00s: Mean Girls
Things seem to be getting better. If nothing else, there is a steadily decreasing body count. No one at all died in Mean Girls.
I do wonder two things:
3. Why are my questions blue?
It’s an automatic formatting adjustment made to numbered lists. That is, I can tell you how it happens but not why it happens.
Unfortunately, the movies became more and more realistic.
The 2010’s one was probably “The DUFF”.
Again, I think those are pretty complex questions. If you read the articles I quoted, the parents apparently knew about the courtship(!) but felt that it was very appropriate, if intense. When it was disclosed how old she was (because he didn’t know), the parents still consented. Then, given the maturity of the relationship and their daughter’s “religiousness”, they decided to allow the marriage.
I think that we can see pretty clearly from all of this that things were not normal for her at any point in there. Therefore #2 is moot. If a child is allowed to be married as a child, it doesn’t matter if it was legal or that the parents consented. Yes, she should have been in high school (probably). The point is the same. Child marriage is still child marriage even if the child totally thinks that now she’s an adult.
I would also suggest that even if the laws change such that the child is legally considered an adult, that the child still be considered a child. For example, if a child were being abused and got pregnant, it is not uncommon in some religious cults for them to be married to their abuser. Fantastic. Now you have a 14 or 16 year old that is considered “an adult” for legal purposes and it is no longer considered child abuse. Then when that child gets pregnant, she can consent to her own abortion or medical care or denial of care services. As an adult. But having been a 16 year old that considered myself pretty mature, I can say that I was still not an adult and did not fully understand (at that time) the consequences of adult responsibility.
I might have said it earlier, but I think this is a very clear case of some misguided (at least) parents and some serious emotional damage.
I don’t think that’s an example. I think that’s the only thing that I’ve supposedly accused you of. You said:
The Reticulator @TheReticulator 5:43 PM PDT ⋅ May 12, 2021
The sticks and stones concept is what keeps us free, even if not true in every sense of the words.
I was pointing out that “sticks and stones” was a pretty lax view on things because it held no one accountable for their actions. You replied that it was what kept us free.
Therefore, it was fair for me to interpret what you said as countering what I said because freedom was more important than accountability. This is how I got the idea of “total freedom of speech” because your statement seems to make fairly clear that the victim of the free speech (or in this case, targeted harassment) has the responsibility to simply not be hurt, not react, and walk it off regardless of the social consequences.
I countered that it was an unacceptable stance and that there needed to be responsibility for words from adults toward minors, particularly with regard to encouraging self-harm. I never suggested that people should be restricted from saying mean things or being offensive. I do not know where you got the idea of me accusing you of anything; I simply rephrased and restated your positions as I understood them. You seem to not have liked my word selection and seem to have wanted me to give a disclaimer or put very specific distinctions on my understanding of personal responsibility. I am not exactly sure how I could have been more clear and not offended you by disagreeing.
I don’t like it.
But nobody cares.
I double checked and it’s not the only thing. You should have looked closer, at paragraph four of the same comment where you said the above. Also, an acknowledgement that I didn’t say or advocate for total freedom of speech and that it was not reasonable to assume that I did would be helpful.
I don’t want to be a jerk, and I certainly acknowledge that girl-bullying can be brutal (there’s not enough money in the world to entice me to repeat grades 6-8), but these bitchy celebrity Twitter fights are so small and so exhausting. The involved parties are always unpleasant and unappealing. I inevitably end up with the Iran-Iraq War quote going through my head.
I’m sorry, but without you quoting my offenses back to me, I really can’t guess what they are. Paragraph 4 of the same comment where I said one of the things you’ve quoted back to me?
I really do not know what I supposedly did.
Looked her up on Wikipedia (have never heard of her before). The entire article has been edited to refer to her in the third person plural. Giving us such sentences as “Bullies had reportedly attacked them and fractured their left arm and they felt unsafe.”
Maybe she should change her name to Smeagol.
Paragraph four of the comment where you posted, “I believe what you advocated was for total freedom of speech.” First sentence of paragraph four. The reason I’m not going to quote it back to you is I’m not going to have this discussion without careful reference to what was actual said. If I quote it back to you again, it’s likely to branch off into a new round of allegations.
Alrighty. I don’t understand what your situation is, but talking around a comment that started that way (and had been re-referenced) makes whatever you’re offended by unclear. Since I have been telling you, repeatedly, how I am interpreting what you say while you continue to make vague statements about accusations, I’m going to call it a day.
I’m sorry you were offended by my interpretation of what you said and felt that you couldn’t speak about it directly.
I don’t know what else I can tell you.
That’s your response to everything, hence:
There you go again. This time I’m offended by your claim that I was offended. :-)