4 ms·

“Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but i

“Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. I think the truth is the majority has no appetite for the culture wars and mostly doesn’t want to be out of step with “normal” - their default lack of conviction is often mistaken for tacit support by both sides of an issue.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> “Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. Your comment made me curious, and I found out Politico took a poll: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe7.... 46% think cancel culture goes too far, 10% thinks it goes not far enough, 18% say 'neither', and 26% don't know. The kicker, however, is that Politico defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for a public figure or a company". That is the softest, most benign definition I can think of and it notably excludes all of the ordinary people who were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign. It strikes me as almost pleasant--"we're angry with you, so we're going to go away and leave you be!". I think for a more reasonable definition, and especially when primed with specific incidences of cancellation (especially ordinary people who lost jobs), far more would disapprove. I don't want to quibble about definitions, but I'm expressly not concerned about celebrities "losing support" and much more interested in low and middle class families losing income and healthcare. I think "cancel culture" mostly just works because it takes society some time to collectively identify a problem and organize to find a solution. At present, there are at least a handful of bills in the pipeline of various state legislatures to combat cancel culture, all of which would be horrible from perspectives of free speech and academic freedom (the best approach I can think of is to strengthen employment protections and take away the bullies' stick). The point is that just because political opposition hasn't organized yet doesn't mean that the majority of people are ambivalent or supportive.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  You seem to assume people accepted the definition and ignored the term. Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. They came close actually. 53% said "people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public" was closer to their opinion. Only 31% said "There should not be social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people because free speech is protected" was closer to their opinion. How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. Sure, it’s not a very good term. No argument from me. > Social consequences Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? When I think of social consequences, I think “you might lose friends”, not “you won’t be able to pay your bills and your kid won’t get the treatment she needs to survive”. > How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes. I’m guessing anecdotes are the best we have. I doubt anyone has numbers because employers are rarely going to be forthcoming that they fired their employee because they were afraid of the Twitter mob. Moreover, it’s not just the people who are fired, but the people who self-censor for fear of losing their jobs. Personally I don’t understand why this is controversial. Surely we can all agree that Twitter mobs shouldn’t hold sway over people’s employment in order to suppress dissent? How much fear and chilled speech is optimal for a democratic society? Even if you think critics exaggerate the impact of cancel culture, can’t we all agree that canceling is vile, there’s too much of it going around, and we should condemn it and if necessary neuter it by passing employment protection laws or regulating social media or similar?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? Of course it is, when employment is not a right but a privilege granted by society. Exceptions regarding protected groups aside, no one has the right to embarrass their employer and potentially negatively affect their image or customer relations and keep their job. That is functionally no different than bringing shame to one's household or community.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> “Cancel culture” works because a majority goes along with it.. if it really was just the shrill minority everyone frets about everyone could ignore them, but it’s also lots of persuaded people who either agree or don’t disagree strongly enough to ignore them. Your comment made me curious, and I found out Politico took a poll: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe7.... 46% think cancel culture goes too far, 10% thinks it goes not far enough, 18% say 'neither', and 26% don't know. The kicker, however, is that Politico defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for a public figure or a company". That is the softest, most benign definition I can think of and it notably excludes all of the ordinary people who were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign. It strikes me as almost pleasant--"we're angry with you, so we're going to go away and leave you be!". I think for a more reasonable definition, and especially when primed with specific incidences of cancellation (especially ordinary people who lost jobs), far more would disapprove. I don't want to quibble about definitions, but I'm expressly not concerned about celebrities "losing support" and much more interested in low and middle class families losing income and healthcare. I think "cancel culture" mostly just works because it takes society some time to collectively identify a problem and organize to find a solution. At present, there are at least a handful of bills in the pipeline of various state legislatures to combat cancel culture, all of which would be horrible from perspectives of free speech and academic freedom (the best approach I can think of is to strengthen employment protections and take away the bullies' stick). The point is that just because political opposition hasn't organized yet doesn't mean that the majority of people are ambivalent or supportive.

pseudalopex 6y ago
You seem to assume people accepted the definition and ignored the term. Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. They came close actually. 53% said "people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public" was closer to their opinion. Only 31% said "There should not be social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people because free speech is protected" was closer to their opinion. How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Try asking about withdrawing support for a public figure or a company without calling it cancel culture. Sure, it’s not a very good term. No argument from me. > Social consequences Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? When I think of social consequences, I think “you might lose friends”, not “you won’t be able to pay your bills and your kid won’t get the treatment she needs to survive”. > How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes. I’m guessing anecdotes are the best we have. I doubt anyone has numbers because employers are rarely going to be forthcoming that they fired their employee because they were afraid of the Twitter mob. Moreover, it’s not just the people who are fired, but the people who self-censor for fear of losing their jobs. Personally I don’t understand why this is controversial. Surely we can all agree that Twitter mobs shouldn’t hold sway over people’s employment in order to suppress dissent? How much fear and chilled speech is optimal for a democratic society? Even if you think critics exaggerate the impact of cancel culture, can’t we all agree that canceling is vile, there’s too much of it going around, and we should condemn it and if necessary neuter it by passing employment protection laws or regulating social media or similar?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? Of course it is, when employment is not a right but a privilege granted by society. Exceptions regarding protected groups aside, no one has the right to embarrass their employer and potentially negatively affect their image or customer relations and keep their job. That is functionally no different than bringing shame to one's household or community.