Cancel Cancel Culture

By Olivia Jaber

Although social media was built to unite people, to digitize and expand our social networks, it has become a weaponized mechanism that is isolating and dividing society through silencing and shaming. If you’re a conservative who is even remotely outspoken on social media, you know what I’m talking about. You may have even chosen to refrain from participating on social media because of what has been happening to those who have spoken out— cancel culture. The difficulty lies in a lack of distinction being drawn between committing actual injustices and proposing opposing ideologies. Unfortunately, though very different, the two are treated almost identically today. So what exactly is cancel culture and why am I proposing that we “cancel” it? A New York Times op-ed describes cancellation as “an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.” The editors at The National Review put forth that “the emergence of social media and a Millennial subculture [is] built on asinine coddling and infantile entitlement [which] turbocharged that censorious energy, creating what we now call cancel culture,” that targets ordinary people. People are demanding that opposing viewpoints and their supporters be de-platformed, fired, and their business boycotted (Goya for example) when they [the "victim"] feels offended or entitled. The debate arises when we start deciding between what should and should not be canceled. 

While it would be ridiculous to assume that actions don’t have consequences, the myriad of different words and actions constantly in question does not warrant the consequences that have ensued. Embracing cancel culture is leading to the deterioration of our society’s liberalism as the current list of abuses that illicit cancellation is problematic and obscure. Frankly, it depends on one persons’ feelings on any given day. In turn, the box for what is acceptable keeps getting smaller and smaller. With the risk of seemingly an “anything goes” mentality when it comes to what is considered worthy of cancellation, we must assess who is making the decisions to cancel and what the consequences are. After all, if we do not question the current state of cancel culture, our freedom of speech and expression will face new and limiting legislation in the coming years (see Ben Shapiro’s podcast “The Closing of the American Mind” for reference). In turn, the consequences are instantaneous and delayed. Instantly, there is less tolerance and more censorship, as it takes away the voices of ordinary people, and destroys the potential for discourse. However, cancel culture sets some very dangerous long-term precedents. 

Not only is cancel culture troublesome for the celebrities, influencers, and companies facing social pressures to apologize, but it is destructive to the ordinary young woman on Twitter or Instagram. The consequences of cancel culture are far direr for someone who does not have access to a publicist to reconstruct her life once it’s been ripped apart because of one tweet. While cancel culture is known as the popular practice of withdrawing support for “public figures and companies” for objectionable or offensive behavior and is “discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming,” cancel culture has expanded past celebrity targets and on to ordinary people, who diverge from the progressive narrative. Yes— cancel culture was undoubtedly useful in garnering attention to the crimes of R. Kelly, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein— but cancel culture has long since progressed from its noble roots. There is a tenable difference between Twitter canceling Harvey Weinstein— a convicted rapist— and Terry Crews for stating “all black lives matter.” Instead of focusing on whether or not cancel culture is successful, the debate should be centered around why our society is so eager to cancel people in the first place.

If a crime isn’t the same as a dissenting opinion, there should be no need to go in for the kill. Can we suddenly not send direct messages, and pull our friends aside, making room for discussion? Everything is so public because the Left cares too much about proving a point and maintaining power by controlling the narrative. Additionally, intolerance is breeding more intolerance. From a high ranking Boeing Executive resigning from his position and issuing an apology after an employee complained about an article he wrote three decades ago, to Halle Berry forgoing an acting opportunity, to a curator at the San Francisco Museum of Fine Arts resigning after acknowledging a need for diversity, while not wanting to discriminate against displaying artwork created by white men solely based on their race (Matt Walsh’s podcast “Cowardice Fuels the Cancel Culture” for reference), people right and left are canceled for offending others. Apparently, comfortability trumps freedom. 

It is frustrating to watch public figures fall from grace at the hands of cancel culture. However, it is more terrifying to see the mob go after normal young women like myself and my friends who might lose our careers, or opportunities because we’ve spoken our minds. While society has always been quick to judge a verdict before the trial even begins, cancel culture rarely pertains to legal situations. Canceling a convicted criminal is one thing, but when the mob equates “guilt” to anything outside the scope of a narrative, not a set of laws, a serious problem emerges. Not only is the mob no longer condemning acts, words, ideas, and beliefs, but the mob has ostensibly taken control of society itself. When justice and the concept of what justice entails are tied to a standard that can be moved at will, society loses its apolitical, judicious backbone. The constantly shifting court of public opinion is no substitute for the concrete court of law. This culture has led to the liberal mob establishing itself as the arbiters and gatekeepers of society, controlling companies and people at every turn. Anyone who disagrees must weigh their conscience with the probability of them losing their jobs, or being cast aside by society. 

The biggest irony of cancel culture is that it actively undermines its end goal of rendering society “more woke.” Canceling and by extension, silencing someone detracts from reflection and growth by halting conversation. Moreover, canceling tactics of public shaming makes cancellers the real bullies. An article in Marie Claire recalled former President Obama saying “this idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities… That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.” This behavior is explained by Psychologist Dr. Becky Spelman: when people hear things that they disagree with or are infuriated by, feelings of “moral authority” flood in, enabling them to tell the perpetrator “to shut up and sit down, or to ban them from public forums.” From stifling dialogue, to cancel culture’s police becoming more intent on canceling things that are “progressively less offensive,” Dr. Spelman asserts that this instinctive urge to cancel results in complete withdrawal while reaffirming echo chambers. With essentially no room for error, one misstep, and you’re sent to the online gulag. Being “canceled” isn't a reformatory stint in prison, it’s a life sentence with no chance of parole. 

This age we live in is one of censorship, no doubt. Writers and creatives felt the need to express their worries in a letter published in Harper’s Magazine. The letter many called controversial noted that “the way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away… As writers, we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk-taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.” Aside from creating hostile environments for creatives, cancelers pressure “mainstream institutions, which serve as society’s ideal curators, to adopt a much narrower definition of “reasonable” opinion” which means that “the new rules would exclude the viewpoints of many Americans”. In result, the nature of online cancellations coupled with the way social media is engineered has given an enormous amount of power to very few. Social media companies are deciding truth and fact. This great power comes with great responsibility— unfortunately, it is being squandered. The Washington Post published a piece that exemplifies how employees, both center-left and center-right, have become terrified in their work environments after witnessing editors being “fired for running op-eds written by conservative Senators… as professors were investigated for offenses such as ‘reading aloud the words of Martin Luther King;’ as a major arts foundation imploded because its statement of support for Black Lives Matter was judged insufficiently enthusiastic.” Cancel Cancel Culture, written by the Editors at the National Review, commented on The New York Times’ recent firing of an opinion editor for “publishing opinions,” alongside actively supporting censorship by condemning the children’s cartoon, Paw Patrol. These actions urged The National Review editors to recall the Left’s long-held mission to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 

Today, one tweet can end an entire career. An Instagram post that conveys your personal point of view on the problems with the Black Lives Matter Movement can put your livelihood in jeopardy. If we want a society filled with people that are reflective, and that do take responsibility when they mess up, a society that is tolerant, and does embrace a competition-of-ideas atmosphere, we should cheer others on to succeed and engage. We should remind society that even though you might have strong and public disagreements with an individual, say J.K. Rowling, for example, it doesn’t mean that they should “be wiped off the map for having a terrible idea.” If we don’t preserve the ability to say things we don’t agree with, one day someone won’t agree with you, and suddenly, you’ll too be subject to the liberal mob. In order to cancel cancel culture once and for all, we must stop bowing down to the mob and stop apologizing for seeing things differently when they do come for us. 

Photo via Star Tribune