4 ms·

For the other non U.S. readers: > The act of canceling, also referred to as cancel culture (a variant on the term "callout culture"), describes a form of boyco

For the other non U.S. readers: > The act of canceling, also referred to as cancel culture (a variant on the term "callout culture"), describes a form of boycott in which an individual (usually a celebrity) who has acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner is boycotted. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Call-outs_and_cancellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Call-outs_and_c...

throwaway894345 6y ago
Usually I hear this term in context to attempts to doxx or have someone fired, and while the cancellation of celebrities garners more press, it's due to the notoriety of the victim--probably many more non-celebrities are canceled (and usually with worse consequences unless good and decent people intervene). It's the climate of fear, not the criticism, that people take issue with (we're not talking about "criticism culture" after all).
- iron0013 6y ago
  Yeah, but the “climate of fear” arises only because powerful people with prominent platforms are afraid of being criticized. And criticism is protected speech.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    This is utterly disingenuous. 1. Cancelling targets anyone who fails to adequately toe the progressive party line. Sometimes those people are "powerful" relative to any individual mob constituent, but often they are not (for example, the hispanic worker at the California utility company who was fired for making the "ok" gesture without realizing that it offends progressives). 2. Cancelling isn't criticism, it's harassment, usually by doxxing or trying to get someone fired. Criticism is perfectly fine, cancelling goes beyond criticism. 3. Focusing solely on the power dynamics minimizes the moral issue, which is that slander, harassment, and bullying are abhorrent irrespective of power dynamics (although yes, being 'powerful' means you're better capable to weather the injustice). 4. Not only is cancellation wrong on an individual level, in aggregate it creates a climate of fear which affects everyone whose views are unapproved (although as the mob realizes its power, it increasingly goes after its own for astonishingly trivial offenses). For those lovers of "power dynamics", it should be noted that this climate of fear disproportionately affects the powerless (who could have predicted that an angry mob would be more invested in its own destructive catharsis than the people it purports to care about?).
    - iron0013 6y ago
      Everything you just said is either wrong or a lie.
chrismcb 6y ago
I don't this definition is accurate Often times the victim is not a celebrity. And it isn't a "boycott" a simple boycott would be fine. But what happens is people go after the victim's job. Trying to get them fired, kicked out of school, removed from the board, their talk canceled, etc.

throwaway894345 6y ago

Usually I hear this term in context to attempts to doxx or have someone fired, and while the cancellation of celebrities garners more press, it's due to the notoriety of the victim--probably many more non-celebrities are canceled (and usually with worse consequences unless good and decent people intervene). It's the climate of fear, not the criticism, that people take issue with (we're not talking about "criticism culture" after all).

iron0013 6y ago
Yeah, but the “climate of fear” arises only because powerful people with prominent platforms are afraid of being criticized. And criticism is protected speech.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  This is utterly disingenuous. 1. Cancelling targets anyone who fails to adequately toe the progressive party line. Sometimes those people are "powerful" relative to any individual mob constituent, but often they are not (for example, the hispanic worker at the California utility company who was fired for making the "ok" gesture without realizing that it offends progressives). 2. Cancelling isn't criticism, it's harassment, usually by doxxing or trying to get someone fired. Criticism is perfectly fine, cancelling goes beyond criticism. 3. Focusing solely on the power dynamics minimizes the moral issue, which is that slander, harassment, and bullying are abhorrent irrespective of power dynamics (although yes, being 'powerful' means you're better capable to weather the injustice). 4. Not only is cancellation wrong on an individual level, in aggregate it creates a climate of fear which affects everyone whose views are unapproved (although as the mob realizes its power, it increasingly goes after its own for astonishingly trivial offenses). For those lovers of "power dynamics", it should be noted that this climate of fear disproportionately affects the powerless (who could have predicted that an angry mob would be more invested in its own destructive catharsis than the people it purports to care about?).
  - iron0013 6y ago
    Everything you just said is either wrong or a lie.

chrismcb 6y ago

I don't this definition is accurate Often times the victim is not a celebrity. And it isn't a "boycott" a simple boycott would be fine. But what happens is people go after the victim's job. Trying to get them fired, kicked out of school, removed from the board, their talk canceled, etc.