5 ms·
There's a middle ground here, but the argument you're making is essentially the same for the rule of elites as arbiters on what constitutes good faith and ratio
by nsriv 4y ago
There's a middle ground here, but the argument you're making is essentially the same for the rule of elites as arbiters on what constitutes good faith and rationality on a society. These are emergent properties that come from free speech, and it's frustrating to me that free speech advocates aren't making this argument. I'm cognizant of Twitter occupying this mindshare as a "public forum" while being private, but even then, "canceling" is an emergent seizure of power, and while damaging, all the arguments decrying it seem off the mark to me.
- switchbak 4y agoCertainly there is room for some form of group response to bad behaviour. The Will Smith slap is a good example of something that was fairly roundly condemned, and I think we had sufficient evidence from which to form an opinion. Interesting to note the lack of 'accountability' forced on him in this case however. Not sure where your 'rule of elites' angle into play here, good faith and rationality are things that are debated and roughly agreed upon within societies and institutions (perhaps I do agree with your statement "These are emergent properties that come from free speech"). My point(s) were explicitly that: - Cancellation often happens with ill intent from bad actors: partisan, one sided policies that don't apply to 'their side'. You'll see little in the way of due process, benefit of the doubt / chairitable intepretation. - That combined with reactionism and little desire to combat base stereotypes, makes an easily weaponizable army. I found Jonathan Haidt's description of cancel culture to be on the mark. It's all about intimidation: Not just for the one being cancelled, but of everyone else who's watching. It's a prelude to a wave of self-censorship.