Is cancel culture real or is it just a right-wing myth?

Personally, I think it does exist but it's niche and massively blown up by the right. Conservative YouTubers seem much more obsessed with university social science departments than anyone else on the planet. If you complain about being 'cancelled' it's the fastest way to get a book deal but then if you criticise the government of Israel you get called an anti-semite.

BTW, most of the 'free-speech absolutists' on this site will never read this post because they have blocked me. Oh well.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User Best Comment

I believe it’s real, but frequently misapplied to situations that are better called something else. Is it “cancel culture”, for example, to fire someone for any reason other than inability to do their job? Does a company have a right to protect its reputation and enforce its own rules (and fire people if they violate them, even if what they’ve done is not illegal)? Is it "cancel culture" to exercise economic freedom and boycott a business whose practices you don't support? A lot of what gets called “cancel culture” is just the equivalent of an audience booing someone on stage. It isn’t “cancel culture” to be poorly received or criticized. It’s just as “canceling” to say we can’t react negatively to someone or their content.

It’s not new for people to be shunned or blacklisted, but I think what “cancel culture” refers to is the relatively recent social media-inspired phenomenon of a public person doing or saying something stupid or “problematic” and then being removed from their job or having their reputation ruined (and often very quickly without much introspection). I’ve always been someone who can separate art from the artist. I’m not going to stop listening to Wagner because he was an anti-Semite or stop watching Woody Allen films because of the allegations against him. I think what alarms people about cancel culture is that often it involves allegations only (no proof of any wrongdoing), it involves the dredging up of old content that the person has since disavowed and thus perpetuates the idea that people cannot escape their past or redeem themselves, and the swiftness and ruthlessness with which it happens.

I also believe that referring to it as a "culture" is appropriate given the recent instances of "self-cancellation" where entities (like the Dr. Seuss estate) censor themselves or their own work in anticipation of a "cancelling mob" that may never have actually been gunning for them--nonetheless the culture is such that this is even a concern. But as others have pointed out, the idea that this exists only on the left is patently false; right-wing "cancellation" is attested from the past (particularly on the part of religious conservatives going after elements of culture they view to be debased and sacrilege) and occurs now.

"Cancel culture" is intellectual laziness. It's removing something before you can engage with it rather than engaging with it honestly and fairly.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User Really good post. Thank you.

[quote] I’ve always been someone who can separate art from the artist. I’m not going to stop listening to Wagner because he was an anti-Semite or stop watching Woody Allen films because of the allegations against him.[/quote]

I would say the same of JK Rowling. She has views that could kindly be called 'gender-critical feminism'. Less kind people have called her a TERF and a transphobe.

It doesn't mean the Harry Potter books are shit now. If people want to stop reading them because of her views then that is their choice though. This hits on your other point that so much is called 'cancel culture' when it's just criticism. Legal free speech, access to platforms, and freedom from criticism are often lumped together in this narrative. She is still selling millions of books in spite of being 'cancelled!'

Personally, I don't really even like boycotts as a tactic in most circumstances and I am usually againts no-platforming. I think the most important thing though is to call out the bad faith in much of this narrative.

MistyCee

@SW-User [quote]
I’ve always been someone who can separate art from the artist. I’m not going to stop listening to Wagner because he was an anti-Semite or stop watching Woody Allen films because of the allegations against him.
[/quote]

I used to firmly believe this myself, but Woody Allen has seriously got me questioning this.

SW-User

@Burnley123 @MistyCee It comes down to personal choice and tolerance. My mom considered herself a fan of Bill Cosby back in the day but can't stand to look at him anymore because of what he did. I can certainly understand that and wouldn't judge or fault anyone for wanting to disavow a person and their oeuvre because of their bad actions. We all draw a line, just in different places.

As for Rowling, I think some of what she says isn't quite accurate (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has said similar things and received similar backlash) and it's perfectly valid to criticize and debate her, but the reaction is such that we are not actually discussing and engaging with the issues they are bringing to light. We are saying we [i]shouldn't[/i] discuss it, that anyone who dares to criticize the mainstream narrative around trans people is a TERF/transphobe and should be silent. That's when it begins to go from criticism to "cancel culture".

And as we've seen with Rowling, that kind of reaction often causes the person to double down, become more obstinate, and further stifle any opportunity for honest discussion.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@MistyCee Yeah. I wouldn't advocate his work being removed but I certainly feel uneasy watching his movies now.

SW-User

@Burnley123 I will admit that "Manhattan" (the movie in which he dates a 17-year-old) is a problem for me now. I don't know that I would want to see it again.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User [quote]As for Rowling, I think some of what she says isn't quite accurate (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has said similar things and received similar backlash) and it's perfectly valid to criticize and debate her, but the reaction is such that we are not actually discussing and engaging with the issues they are bringing to light. We are saying we shouldn't discuss it, that anyone who dares to criticize the mainstream narrative around trans people is a TERF/transphobe and should be silent. That's when it begins to go from criticism to "cancel culture".
[/quote]

I guess it comes down to the question of whether you consider her views legitimate. I mean, it's no longer permissible to talk about homosexuality as a sexual perversion or to link homosexuality with pedophilia but these things definitely were seen as valid views in the past. When does a divergent political opinion cross the line into discrimination? In this case, it really is a fine line.

I'm not one to shout at people on social media though. Shaming and outrage are terrible tactics at persuading people. I have no time for people doing that, even when they hold views which I agree with.

SW-User

@Burnley123 I'll admit I don't know what her views are in full (only heard them summarized recently in a podcast episode) but that's a good question. There are certain areas of discussion that have "closed" and I have no problem with that and immediately dismissing someone who proclaims 19th-century views of racial superiority (or less contentiously, that the sun revolves around the earth), but some of what Rowling and Adichie bring up, e.g. the different lived experiences between trans women and biological women, is legitimate. The points just have to be dealt with individually.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User Yes. My own view is that to define biological women's 'experiences' in contrast to trans people is (sigh, hate this term) problematic. It comes from the anti-trans rad fem views of Germaine Greer and others that the existence of trans people is undermining for women. I.e. if a man can transition to a woman more easily than the other way around, is that undermining the sanctity of womanhood? If anyone can be a woman but it's much harder to be a man, then is that not medical operations enforcing inequality?

Why I can't buy into this is that trans people are probably the most marginalized group on the planet. Suicide rates are high and many suffer massive discrimination. Gender dysphoria is not an intentional attempt to undermine women, nor does it really impact on the lives of women.

Greer's views I mostly otherwise agree with and Rowling has said that she is against trans discrimination. Though it's maybe a bit like me saying I am against racism but we need to do more to listen to the experiences of white men.

It is a fine line between a view which I disagree with and a discriminatory view.

BetweenKittensandRiots · 36-40, MVIP

@SW-User I was not big on Bill Cosby's enteraiment but I was so politically active and outspoken against the death penalty which I remain against today that i knew about his kid and that he had joined muder victims familly members against the death penalty and on THAT basis Always admired the man- and then the stories came out.

at a time when I was growing more and more feminist in my ideals.