6 ms·

Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. Ano

Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. Another issue is that organizing a boycott took enough effort that it took conviction about the reason. With cancelling it's dogpile at the drop of a hat, leading to the thread of cancelling is leading to a stifling of speech.

threatofrain 6y ago
The mechanism underlying boycotts and shunning is the exercise of free relations. The thing which takes boycotts and shunning from individual water droplets to a flood is public conversation, whether over the web or elsewhere.
Kednicma 6y ago
I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is no way to cancel them other than to not purchase goods and services from them, since the typical company cannot be bought out and dissolved the hard way. So, who are the public figures that the article wants to talk about? When we actually dig in, we find a few journalists who were fired for various causes. Did the public cause them to be fired? No, their employers caused them to be fired. Does the public owe them employment protection? No, their union owes them employment protection; we the public owe them tax-funded unemployment benefits. The fact is that jobs are so important in this country because we have next to no social safety nets and we have institutionalized a lack of empathy and a desire to see the weak struggle and perish. As a result, when somebody's job is threatened, their very life is threatened. Should we endorse this sort of histrionic mania, or should we fix our society so that people are not starving if they do not report to some corporate overlord? And once we've taken this massive step back, then by what measure should we punish corporations who unfairly punish their employees? Well, by not purchasing their goods and services! So we are indeed back at the concept of boycotts. Please do not confuse any of this with actual shunning, as practiced today mostly by religious cults. If a public figure finds themselves suddenly without as much of an audience as they expected, then that is not at all comparable to a private person finding themselves bereft of their closest and most intimate relationships.
munificent 6y ago
> Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. You could characterize the Industrial Age by saying that it was the time where the primary way people interacted was by making and buying physical goods. Boycotting severs that connection. In the Information Age, the primary way people interact is by making, sharing and consuming information. Cancel culture—deplatforming people and organizations on social media—severs that connection. In some ways, it's the same act, just translated to the currency of the time.

threatofrain 6y ago

The mechanism underlying boycotts and shunning is the exercise of free relations. The thing which takes boycotts and shunning from individual water droplets to a flood is public conversation, whether over the web or elsewhere.

Kednicma 6y ago

I am not talking about shunning in the sense of social disconnection, and neither is the article. First, let's note that, for companies in particular, there is no way to cancel them other than to not purchase goods and services from them, since the typical company cannot be bought out and dissolved the hard way. So, who are the public figures that the article wants to talk about? When we actually dig in, we find a few journalists who were fired for various causes. Did the public cause them to be fired? No, their employers caused them to be fired. Does the public owe them employment protection? No, their union owes them employment protection; we the public owe them tax-funded unemployment benefits. The fact is that jobs are so important in this country because we have next to no social safety nets and we have institutionalized a lack of empathy and a desire to see the weak struggle and perish. As a result, when somebody's job is threatened, their very life is threatened. Should we endorse this sort of histrionic mania, or should we fix our society so that people are not starving if they do not report to some corporate overlord? And once we've taken this massive step back, then by what measure should we punish corporations who unfairly punish their employees? Well, by not purchasing their goods and services! So we are indeed back at the concept of boycotts. Please do not confuse any of this with actual shunning, as practiced today mostly by religious cults. If a public figure finds themselves suddenly without as much of an audience as they expected, then that is not at all comparable to a private person finding themselves bereft of their closest and most intimate relationships.

munificent 6y ago

> Boycotting is an economic mechanism, "cancelling" is a social one. It's not just not buying things associated with a person, it's completely shunning them. You could characterize the Industrial Age by saying that it was the time where the primary way people interacted was by making and buying physical goods. Boycotting severs that connection. In the Information Age, the primary way people interact is by making, sharing and consuming information. Cancel culture—deplatforming people and organizations on social media—severs that connection. In some ways, it's the same act, just translated to the currency of the time.