- Apr 20, 2020
- United Kingdom
No. Cancel culture does not exist. Cancel culture is a word people like you have appropriated to demonize forms of speech you don't like, because you can't admit that you, like everyone else on this planet, have deeply held opinions on what you think people should be able to say and express in public. The difference is that instead of admitting that you just don't want people to be mean to people you care about or sympathize with because it offends your delicate sensibilities, you have to invent a special category of speech that is somehow special and exceptional in the degree of harm it causes, and the definition of which is so vague and meaningless that it can conveniently expand to cover literally any form of expression you personally don't like.You did. Cancel culture is the antithesis of that.
We are all past buying it. We see what you are doing, even if you won't admit it to yourself. Even putting everything else aside, the fact that you think people getting mad at Richard Dawkins for saying weird, borderline racist things on Twitter is some kind of offence against free speech really says everything we need to know about how warped your definition of free speech is.
And now the definition magically contracts again. Cancel culture includes threats of violence now (something which never occurs in speech otherwise) and therefore it is entirely reasonable to treat all actions that you deem to be part of cancel culture as threats of violence. It's magic, isn't it. Normally, we wouldn't think that telling an old man on twitter that he's being kind of racist, or even calling for someone to be fired, was a threat of violence, but because we've magically put all these things into the category of "cancel culture", suddenly they can all be linked to violence. Wow, this doesn't have implications for free expression at all.Cancel culture, by definition, ensures that speech is regulated, is less safe (see the numerous instances of threats of physical violence against speakers), and is, yes, less free by extension.
Do you know how often I've been threatened with violence just for being in public space? It's a lot more times than I've been physically attacked just for being in public space, and I've been physically attacked several times. The idea that violence and threats are not a part of public space, that it has to be some outside phenomenon which is in no way tied in with the kinds of attitudes and beliefs people tend to get "cancelled" for expressing, is patently untrue to a lot of people. Those people might well ask why it is that they suddenly have to worry about the threatening implications of things they say, or whether the beliefs they hold might be loosely associated with violence, when that's literally what already happens.
This has been a recurring theme for me throughout this discussion. I feel like you are only just now seeing the world that many people have always lived in, and apparently it terrifies you so much that you have to make up some special category of super bad things to put it in. It's not though. This is life as many people have always experienced it. If it horrifies you then good, maybe that should be a call to action.
We always were in a giant free for all. You just never noticed until now.You somehow have an idea that the heckler's veto (among other things) is somehow making things safer, and...freer. I mean, okay, you want to argue that people have the freedom to shut down other people's freedom, in which case, we're in a giant free for all.
But your opinion is so, deeply relevant to so many other cases which you've felt compelled to tell me about. Where are all those grandiose assumptions about the inner mentality of random people on the internet, and guilt or innocence of those involved. What's the difference here? Is the issue that you, on some level, think it's immoral to challenge authority figures, because that increasingly seems like the deciding factor in a lot of your views on things.My opinion is pretty irrelevant to the case you described.
That was the tweet that actually got Gina Carano fired from the Mandalorian.I'm sorry, who's typed that?
I mean, you've spent literally dozens of posts laying into them and trying to explain how universally and singularly evil they are, so no. Clearly they don't.And do the mobs have to behave like adults, or do they get a pass?
However, people commenting online generally aren't public figures and thus have no built-in responsibility to the public that has put them in a position of visibility and trust. That's kind of how celebrity works, for better or for worse. Being in the public eye means that people care about you, it means you become an important part of the lives of people you've never met, and that can be a double edged sword. It means sometimes you have to be the person they need you to be rather than the person you actually are, because that's the bargain you made when they let you into their lives, and if you break it they will be hurt.
It seems that way because you've deluded yourself into thinking you're arguing for a different position to the one you're actually arguing for.It's so weird, you're going back and forth with your arguments.
No. That's really not what I said.Your first post was a case of one person apparently overturning UK law, but your last post is the statement that no one person has such power.
I think you need to read more closely. The reason I stated that one person brought the case is firstly because that's kind of how tort law works, someone needs to be able to claim that they have suffered harm which requires redress and in this case it was one person, albeit a person who, as I pointed out, was funded and very clearly set up by a political pressure group. The second point was to emphasise how weak the case itself actually was, because normally no one person would be able to secure a judgement like that. The point I was actually making was that public discourse in the UK is so completely messed up that such a terrible result, a result that has caused enormous harm and probably very literally lead to preventable deaths, is really not surprising. The judges in that case had no particular expertise or knowledge of the issue they were being called on to judge, and thus it's reasonable to suspect that their perspective on the case was influenced by the wider discussion going on around them. Authority figures are not automatically reasonable, they do not automatically have greater knowledge or understanding because they are big important people. They are as vulnerable to rhetoric as the rest of us, and they are capable of doing far more harm if the wrong rhetoric is allowed to dictate their opinions.