Podcast Summary: Smosh Mouth S1: #15 - Why Cancel Culture Should Be Cancelled

Introduction

In episode #15 of Smosh Mouth, released on May 29, 2019, hosts Shane Topp, Courtney Miller, and Ian Hecox delve deep into the pervasive phenomenon of cancel culture. Throughout the episode, they dissect its implications, motivations, and consequences within the digital landscape, particularly focusing on high-profile controversies surrounding YouTube influencers. The conversation is rich with insights, personal anecdotes, and critical analyses, making it a compelling listen for anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of online accountability and its broader societal impacts.

Understanding Cancel Culture

The hosts begin by examining the inherent issues with cancel culture, emphasizing the authenticity—or lack thereof—in online personas. Ian Hecox remarks, “[00:35] I think the problem is the content isn't genuine. When that veil is pulled back, fans realize like, oh, this person that I idolized is a monster. And then they freak out.” This sentiment underscores the disconnect between a creator’s online facade and their true character, a gap that often fuels the fervor of cancel culture when discrepancies are exposed.

Shane Topp adds to this perspective, stating, “[23:12] Yeah. We pretend it's reality.” This highlights the illusion of transparency that platforms like YouTube promote, where audiences believe they are witnessing unfiltered content, only to later discover the constructed nature of these online identities.

High-Profile Cases: James Charles and Tati Westbrook

A significant portion of the discussion centers around the tumultuous relationship between beauty influencers James Charles and Tati Westbrook. The hosts dissect the sequence of events that led to a massive backlash against Charles, initiated by allegations from Westbrook and further amplified by figures like Jeffree Star.

Shane Topp reflects on the situation, saying, “[11:08] That's still the problem,” referring to James Charles soliciting fans for nude content, which remains a central issue despite the surrounding drama. Ian Hecox concurs, “[11:06] Courtney Miller: Yeah, still the problem,” reinforcing the notion that underlying issues persist despite the public disputes.

The conversation delves into the motivations behind the accusations and subsequent defenses. Ian observes, “[18:25] It's been the gladiatorial games of the modern day,” likening the online battles to gladiator fights where spectators revel in the downfall of public figures. This comparison underscores the performative nature of such conflicts, where the primary reward is entertainment and social capital rather than genuine accountability.

Motivations Behind Cancel Culture

The hosts explore the psychological and social drivers that propel individuals to participate in cancel culture. Shane Topp muses, “[16:42] I think we all think a lot of us are just bored,” suggesting that the spectacle of canceling someone serves as a form of entertainment in an otherwise mundane digital existence. This spectacle provides a clear antagonist, allowing participants to experience a vicarious sense of justice and elevated self-worth.

Courtney Miller adds, “[17:14] Yeah. The amount that people unfollowed James Charles,” highlighting the tangible actions taken to "cancel" someone, such as unfollowing or boycotting their content. These actions serve as both a punishment for perceived wrongdoings and a means for individuals to align their support networks with their personal values.

Economic Incentives and the Entertainment Value

The discussion shifts to the economic aspects of cancel culture, emphasizing how controversy can drive viewership and ad revenue. Shane Topp notes, “[19:33] It works for now,” referring to how cancel culture temporarily boosts engagement and visibility for those involved. This view is echoed by Ian Hecox, who states, “[21:28] I think the only people that won were the people watching was YouTube,” indicating that platforms benefit from the increased traffic generated by such scandals.

Shane further elaborates, “[19:56] What is the public opinion of Jake Paul? Not that he's ever really seemed to care about the public opinion, but,” illustrating how content creators like Jake Paul leverage controversy to maintain or amplify their relevance in the digital space. The hosts suggest that cancel culture, while ostensibly about accountability, often serves as a tool for content amplification and revenue generation.

Critique of Online Authenticity and Representation

A core critique presented by the hosts is the lack of genuine representation by online personalities. Ian Hecox summarizes, “[22:43] Yeah, it's like the content isn't genuine. So then when that veil is pulled back,” pointing out that the disconnect between online personas and real-life behavior fosters an environment ripe for backlash when discrepancies emerge.

Shane Topp echoes this sentiment, “[23:19] David Dobrik vlog, He presents it as if it's supposed to be real. Obviously, it's completely so,” critiquing the performative authenticity that mimics reality without the inherent transparency. This performative aspect diminishes the trust viewers place in creators, making them susceptible to sudden and severe backlash.

Esports and Contractual Exploitation: The Tfue and Faze Clan Case

In a segment that deviates slightly from the main topic but remains relevant to the overarching theme of accountability, the hosts discuss the contentious relationship between esports personality Tfue (Turner Tenney) and his organization, Faze Clan. They highlight the exploitative nature of the contracts offered by Faze Clan, which significantly favor the organization over the individual streamer.

Ian Hecox explains, “[44:51] And this is the issue. So obviously when he first signed this contract, he was a very like, small streamer. And I'm sure the idea of any sort of substantial money sounded great, but I sure also didn't expect to be pulling in millions of dollars a year.” This situation mirrors broader concerns about the exploitation of content creators, where organizations profit disproportionately from the talents they recruit.

Shane Topp adds, “[47:24] We're super hard workers, man. Even Jake Paul and Logan Paul. I'm like, God, the work ethic is crazy,” emphasizing that the content creators are diligently working, yet contractual agreements prevent them from reaping fair rewards. The hosts critique the imbalance of power in such contracts, comparing it to “corporate indentured servitude,” where individuals are indebted to organizations that control their earnings and brand decisions.

The Role of Social Media and Public Perception

The conversation also touches upon how social media platforms amplify cancel culture, making it a widespread and influential force. Ian Hecox observes, “[27:01] Now, but now we're reaching a level of like the cancel culture where, where it's now pierced beyond people that care about YouTube drama,” indicating that cancel culture has transcended niche communities and entered mainstream discourse, affecting individuals regardless of their prominence.

Shane Topp comments, “[26:33] We used to just kind of watch video by video, but now people subscribe to someone and so if something happens, there's a lot of power there and going, oh, I can unsubscribe to you,” highlighting the shift from passive viewership to active participation in canceling influential figures based on their perceived transgressions.

Personal Anecdotes and Reflections

Interwoven with their analysis, the hosts share personal stories that humanize the discussion. Courtney Miller recounts an incident from her birthday party where misunderstandings led to awkward social dynamics, illustrating how personal interactions can be distorted and exaggerated in the public eye.

She shares, “[59:35] And then there was this woman that tweeted about it. She's like, I've been in these situations before where like I just went along with, with like this guy thinking that he dated me for this period of time,” reflecting on the complexities of personal relationships and the ease with which narratives can be misconstrued and amplified online.

Shane Topp humorously interjects, “[60:55] You're allowed? Oh, we've never said you're not allowed,” lightening the mood while still addressing the serious underpinnings of miscommunication and misrepresentation in both personal and public spheres.

Conclusion: The Double-Edged Sword of Cancel Culture

As the episode draws to a close, the hosts synthesize their discussions, presenting cancel culture as a double-edged sword that simultaneously seeks to hold individuals accountable while also functioning as a source of entertainment and validation for participants. They caution against the superficiality of online judgments, emphasizing the need for genuine accountability and a deeper understanding of the individuals behind public personas.

Ian Hecox concludes, “[22:43] I think it's really just like, people aren't representing who they truly are online,” urging listeners to seek authenticity and resist the allure of quick judgments based on incomplete or misleading information. Shane Topp echoes this sentiment, “[23:10] Yeah. We pretend it's reality,” reinforcing the importance of recognizing the constructed nature of online content and the potential pitfalls of cancel culture.

The episode serves as a thoughtful exploration of the complexities surrounding cancel culture, its impact on digital communities, and the broader implications for personal authenticity and accountability in the age of social media.

Notable Quotes

• Ian Hecox ([00:35]): "I think the problem is the content isn't genuine. When that veil is pulled back, fans realize like, oh, this person that I idolized is a monster. And then they freak out."

• Shane Topp ([23:12]): "Yeah. We pretend it's reality."

• Shane Topp ([16:42]): "I think we all think a lot of us are just bored."

• Ian Hecox ([44:51]): "And this is the issue. So obviously when he first signed this contract, he was a very like, small streamer. And I'm sure the idea of any sort of substantial money sounded great, but I sure also didn't expect to be pulling in millions of dollars a year."

• Shane Topp ([19:36]): "They all made those videos. They all got massive amounts of views. Then people were like, okay, where's the proof of all this crazy molestation, accusation, all this stuff? And then suddenly everyone's like, we've decided to all just be friends, and this whole thing is in the past now."

• Courtney Miller ([27:07]): "I think it's very interesting. Jake was just like, I'm gonna try a cancel video. I'm gonna try cancel culture, see if that'll. Because, I mean, him and Tana Mongeau have been making videos lately."

• Shane Topp ([35:43]): "[...] wait till you hear this maniacally. Yeah. It's strange. Have you ever seen somebody smiling while they're running?"

Final Thoughts

Smosh Mouth episode #15 provides a nuanced examination of cancel culture, dissecting its role in shaping online interactions and influencing public perception of digital personalities. Through a blend of analytical discourse and relatable anecdotes, the hosts illuminate the multifaceted nature of cancel culture, urging listeners to pursue authenticity and thoughtful accountability in an increasingly interconnected digital world.