Cancel culture is fine in some cases

[theablekingedgar]

It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.

so why then is cancel culture bad?

 

[Maou]

Cancel culture shuns divergence of thought. Aka, once you seal yourself into one way of thinking, there are no alternatives based on your reasoning. One should accept that there is flaws in every reality, regardless of what one believes. One cannot know all the pitfalls of every scenario. That one way of thinking, isn't good.

 

[tony_goth]

Cancel culture or not, there will still be secret support for cancelled opinions as long as some people find them desirable. These opinions may get uncancelled in a near or distant future.

This kind of cancelling doesn't actually "cancel" any opinions except their mass visibility.

I really hate cancel culture, but something decent does happen from it because of the reason above : cancelled opinions will cease to be shared among people who don't know/understand these opinions, or only know/understand them superficially. Those who still believe in cancelled opinions will work on these opinions in a "private" way, like an uncentralized think tank.

 

[Red Memories]

If you personally cancel something to yourself and perhaps discuss your opinion, it is one thing.

the point of outrage or cancel culture is to take away others ability to rationalize and choose for themselves, which takes away freedom. For instance, I do not like Chris Brown's behavior and abusive nature so I do not support his career. If someone asks me, I will state why I dislike and do not actively look for Chris Brown cds. But if you listen to Chris Brown, that's your decision and your business.

 

[theablekingedgar]

Cancel culture or not, there will still be secret support for cancelled opinions as long as some people find them desirable. These opinions may get uncancelled in a near or distant future.

This kind of cancelling doesn't actually "cancel" any opinions except their mass visibility.

I really hate cancel culture, but something decent does happen from it because of the reason above : cancelled opinions will cease to be shared among people who don't know/understand these opinions, or only know/understand them superficially. Those who still believe in cancelled opinions will work on these opinions in a "private" way, like an uncentralized think tank.

it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?

 

[tony_goth]

it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?

What is wrong ? People and their opinions are not the same thing. But as most people seem to confuse them, it is the best interest of the people who don't agree with the opinions they wish to cancel, and who have the authority to cancel people who hold these opinions, to cancel that people. The opinion war is... a business, and businesses who can make competitors go bust will do it when it's their interest. Nothing really personal I think, even if it looks personal to people who know about the cancelling.

Thank you for helping me, I didn't think of that originally. I still think "wrong" things may have a "good" effect.

 

[theablekingedgar]

What is wrong ? People and their opinions are not the same thing. But as most people seem to confuse them, it is the best interest of the people who don't agree with the opinions they wish to cancel, and who have the authority to cancel people who hold these opinions, to cancel that people. The opinion war is... a business, and businesses who can make competitors go bust will do it when it's their interest. Nothing really personal I think, even if it looks personal to people who know about the cancelling.

Thank you for helping me, I didn't think of that originally. I still think "wrong" things may have a "good" effect.

Well from what I understand, it's when people get denied business or opportunities due to things they've said or done. In principle, I don't see much wrong with this. The issue then is the extent and nature of cancel culture.
Harvey Weinstein was rightly cancelled, but should he be accepted if he gets released from jail? Is it wrong to even disassociate from him? Many who oppose cancel culture say it is when to me that seems inhumane and unnatural. People hold a right to disapprove of actions, especially those which are harmful to others.

 

[Red Memories]

it's not opinions that are cancelled but people. and what's wrong with that in principle?

"Cancelling" a human being is actually kind of worse than cancelling an idea. Human beings have thoughts, feelings, and etc. and some of the things people get "cancelled" for is ridiculous. Sure, maybe cancelling someone like Harvey Weinstein wouldn't be such a bad idea, but say, the cancelling of people for saying stupid shit when they were 15 that gets pulled up just because they're famous now? Go ahead, lie and tell me no 15 year old says stupid shit. It sends them tons of hate, suggests the world was better without them, and moreless is a small gesture of "go kill yourself." Morally, it is actually not really okay.

 

[theablekingedgar]

"Cancelling" a human being is actually kind of worse than cancelling an idea. Human beings have thoughts, feelings, and etc. and some of the things people get "cancelled" for is ridiculous. Sure, maybe cancelling someone like Harvey Weinstein wouldn't be such a bad idea, but say, the cancelling of people for saying stupid shit when they were 15 that gets pulled up just because they're famous now? Go ahead, lie and tell me no 15 year old says stupid shit. It sends them tons of hate, suggests the world was better without them, and moreless is a small gesture of "go kill yourself." Morally, it is actually not really okay.

I agree in this case.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Child education and resources is an area that requires moderation and censorship because of developmental issues. They cannot process information in the same manner as adults, so I can appreciate the need for some of this. There is also a way in which it can be taken too far. The best example was Jerry Falwell trying to boycott Tinky Winky as being gay. It was because he carried a "purse" wore purple and had an inverted triangle over his head, which Falwell correlated with the gay movement. My understanding is that he supposed this would encourage children to form homosexual relationships later in life. That sort of bizarre leap is damaging to children.

Generally I think boycotting should be an absolute last resort and in most cases a problematic or potentially harmful idea, creative work, quote, etc. should be accompanied by discussion or additional information. People get very satiated over boycotts and it generally intensifies attachment to it. It creates polarization where some people boycott and fear and others embrace for all they are worth, neither based on reasoning. Instead open discussions where ideas are challenged is what society needs.

Boycott is now used as an intentional marketing technique with a lot of success. The movie "Plandemic" used it, many conspiracy theories rely on it to convince followers, politicians like Donald Trump uses it for his branding and constructed personae. It is one of the most effective marketing tools now.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

to my understanding, cancel culture as we know it in the west originated in marginalized communities. For powerless people, it was one of the few ways they could exercise power by refusing to buy or listen to product from musicians who had made racist statements. For example, Eric Clapton spewed a racist tirade against black immigrants to England during a 1976 show, so antiracists reacted by boycotting his concerts and music. It probably felt like a double stab in the heart coming from Eric Clapton, who had built his career on borrowing guitar licks and styles from black American blues performers of the past.

I'm against censorship and I don't like what cancel culture has grown into during the era of social media, but there is nothing wrong with people "voting with their wallets" by refusing to support people with whom they disagree. That's sort of the argument I see the right libertarians make when they say "let the market" decide. Well those people are deciding by taking an active role in the market, no? So I'd think the right would be all on board with this, since they're usually the ones who make big announcements on social media about cancelling their Netflix subscriptions whenever Netflix produces content they deem politically unpalatable.

 

[indra]

If you personally cancel something to yourself and perhaps discuss your opinion, it is one thing.

the point of outrage or cancel culture is to take away others ability to rationalize and choose for themselves, which takes away freedom. For instance, I do not like Chris Brown's behavior and abusive nature so I do not support his career. If someone asks me, I will state why I dislike and do not actively look for Chris Brown cds. But if you listen to Chris Brown, that's your decision and your business.

The most overt cruelty this universe has known - Busta’s greatest verse on a Chris Brown track 😑

 

[Dreamer]

It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.

so why then is cancel culture bad?

Biggest reason is the ambiguity left open here. What is deemed bad or toxic to our society and how is that determined? If one argues that it should be determined by the majority, then how does opposing thought come into the fray? How is the status quo challenged? Ultimately, I see cancel culture as a resistance to change and to a broader degree, a power struggle of the majority seeking to hold onto that power.

Will also note, that cancel culture isn't merely online bullying, but as we have seen in recent years, taken to such extremes in some cases as to publicly broadcasting someone's personal information out into the ether where one then must fear for their personal security and life, outside just one's livelihood.

As much as some might not like or value some of the outlying thought out there in the public space and might even find it repulsive, in the least, such divergent thought allows us as a society to reassess our own values on a fairly regular basis and determine whether said values and beliefs need realignment. Belief and values are just as interchangeable as anything else, granted on differing timelines than say, what your favorite food or color of the day is, but ties back to what I meant in saying cancel culture inevitably prevents change and progress.

 

[theablekingedgar]

Biggest reason is the ambiguity left open here. What is deemed bad or toxic to our society and how is that determined? If one argues that it should be determined by the majority, then how does opposing thought come into the fray? How is the status quo challenged? Ultimately, I see cancel culture as a resistance to change and to a broader degree, a power struggle of the majority seeking to hold onto that power.

Will also note, that cancel culture isn't merely online bullying, but as we have seen in recent years, taken to such extremes in some cases as to publicly broadcasting someone's personal information out into the ether where one then must fear for their personal security and life, outside just one's livelihood.

As much as some might not like or value some of the outlying thought out there in the public space and might even find it repulsive, in the least, such divergent thought allows us as a society to reassess our own values on a fairly regular basis and determine whether said values and beliefs need realignment. Belief and values are just as interchangeable as anything else, granted on differing timelines than say, what your favorite food or color of the day is, but ties back to what I meant in saying cancel culture inevitably prevents change and progress.

If people say or do things that are not conducive to the public good, then there is a consequence and reaction. People can think and say what they wish, but it doesn't mean others must agree. Or that those views are conducive to the common good.
if a noted actor said that women should be denied the right to vote, he can say that or think it. but then if studios refuse to do business with him, or he loses a large section of his public platform, is this bullying? I would at the least not tolerate this person and no see their films. I don't see that as wrong at all.
All communities have had this sense of regulation. I don't see why it's "oppressive" or "bullying". It's a natural consequence of interactions. I don't then get why this current thing of cancel culture being bad matters. Peopel who have been seen as dangers or threats to communities have always been exlcuded. Was outlawing people oppressive, or to past eras an effective means of criminal justice? It's the same rationale imho.
Yes, some facets of cancel culture go to far. But the basic principle - as "punishment" for bad acts or speech - is sound. IMHO at the least.

 

[anticlimatic]

Cancel culture is really only a direct threat to people on the left, from people who are even further to the left than they are. Nobody on the right ever gets canceled. Because nobody on the right is trying to pander to anyone on the left. Normally I'd say "fine, let the left eat their own," but if enough of their own do get eaten and the Borg becomes a uniform 50% of the country (and growing), there might be a problem for us as well. So knock it off.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Biggest reason is the ambiguity left open here. What is deemed bad or toxic to our society and how is that determined? If one argues that it should be determined by the majority, then how does opposing thought come into the fray? How is the status quo challenged? Ultimately, I see cancel culture as a resistance to change and to a broader degree, a power struggle of the majority seeking to hold onto that power.

Will also note, that cancel culture isn't merely online bullying, but as we have seen in recent years, taken to such extremes in some cases as to publicly broadcasting someone's personal information out into the ether where one then must fear for their personal security and life, outside just one's livelihood.

As much as some might not like or value some of the outlying thought out there in the public space and might even find it repulsive, in the least, such divergent thought allows us as a society to reassess our own values on a fairly regular basis and determine whether said values and beliefs need realignment. Belief and values are just as interchangeable as anything else, granted on differing timelines than say, what your favorite food or color of the day is, but ties back to what I meant in saying cancel culture inevitably prevents change and progress.

This is a very good post. On a related note, one of the roles that an artist plays in society is to question its assumptions and values, to be an iconoclast. This is very upsetting to society, but can also be very healthy. You can get the same reaction as a friend might get pointing out a problem to another friend. When they don't want to hear it or improve, they become angry and won't call back. It's a mini cancel culture that is an unhealthy dynamic.

There is also this constant problem of people projecting personal values as universal values, so that cancel culture can be the process of one will supplanting another. Who is to say what is 'good' or 'bad'. Once a person crosses another's person's boundary and rights, then they should be stopped, but when citizens have freedom and equality, then a range of values needs to be allowed a voice.

 

[Coriolis]

It's pretty basic that if a person does bad shit they can be shunned or looked down on.

so why then is cancel culture bad?

I had a similar thought. I had to look up "cancel culture" to see what this recent buzzword is even supposed to mean. The descriptions I found mentioned it is social or professional ostracism. Is that not warranted in some cases? A friend's teenage daughter was repeatedly raped by a family "friend" several years ago. He was tried, convicted and sent to jail, but he was also ostracised from various gaming and reenactment groups he had belonged to, not to mention our friend group. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

When it comes down to mob think and shaming others into taking part in the cancelling without letting them think and decide for themselves... That’s when it becomes a problem

 

[J. Starke]

I understand that a university wouldn't let a Nazi speak, but they started cancelling perfectly rational and well intended people, like Richard Dawkins for example. Universities should be a place where free speech thrives.

 

[Red Memories]

I had a similar thought. I had to look up "cancel culture" to see what this recent buzzword is even supposed to mean. The descriptions I found mentioned it is social or professional ostracism. Is that not warranted in some cases? A friend's teenage daughter was repeatedly raped by a family "friend" several years ago. He was tried, convicted and sent to jail, but he was also ostracised from various gaming and reenactment groups he had belonged to, not to mention our friend group. I don't see the problem here.

I would call that justice, not cancellation.

Cancelling someone usually refers to people screaming at someone for having said a racist joke when they were 15, and even after they apologize and discuss growing from it, they're still unforgiven and cancelled.

Outrage culture on social media is actually terrible. I consider these circumstances quite different. Often, cancel culture goes after things not really illegal or criminal but tries to make it so and takes away people's ability to choose for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Cancel culture is really only a direct threat to people on the left, from people who are even further to the left than they are. Nobody on the right ever gets canceled. Because nobody on the right is trying to pander to anyone on the left. Normally I'd say "fine, let the left eat their own," but if enough of their own do get eaten and the Borg becomes a uniform 50% of the country (and growing), there might be a problem for us as well. So knock it off.

I mean...this isn't totally true...there was a whole campaign to stop eating Goya beans lol.