
Americans tune in to ‘cancel culture’ – and don't like what they see - Reedx
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/americans-cancel-culture-377412
======
supernova87a
I have to admit I only recently tuned in to "cancel culture". Up to now it was
just something vague that I thought you lived with in Berkeley.

But recently it feels more personally relevant (and dangerous) as it has moved
from repudiation of celebrity / repugnant-level inflammatory opinions to
people's everyday legitimate questions and doubts.

It says to me "even you, average person, need to be careful and edit what you
say for fear of having your life upended for saying the wrong single word
about something". People getting fired from jobs for one badly phrased comment
or a moment caught out of context on video. Or fired or forced to resign for
not being all-caps in favor of the latest movement. You feel danger in airing
partially formed or not-fully-onboard-with-the-movement opinions, aside from
the most trusted friends.

Maybe it's just magnified out of proportion because it's in the news so much.

The problem is that people so vehemently believe they're right, on both sides.
It's not that the underlying sentiment doesn't have some merit -- it's that
the person or movement believes they cannot be wrong, and anyone disagreeing
must be the embodiment of evil. Especially when movements become so symbolic
(none of us can know all the details, we advocate for symbols), how can we so
confidently think that we are completely right about that symbol and what it
implies we should do? When was the last time you were fully onboard with
everything a symbol represented?

Our culture has become dominated by (or has incentivized) such extreme views,
because that's what it takes to make the news. And of course, it's dominated
by people who have _partial_ knowledge about a situation and think they're
right _in theory_ \-- but that's the most dangerous position to be confident
about. I used to take positions like that too. But I found that reality is
much more complex than expected.

It's hard to be a moderate voice against passion. You tend to think that
people with such deep feeling (if they're rational people) tend to be angry
about something legitimate. But it has gone to the extreme that every issue,
no matter what proportion, has risen to outrage.

This isn't healthy. The point is to make progress. How do you have progress
when the details and nuance can't be discussed rationally for fear of being
labeled a non-believer? Silence = complicity? Most people are silent on an
issue, you just made them co-conspirators, not contributors to the solution.

People can't be outraged about the entire world, all the time, and cause our
society to swing from issue to issue like this, and anyone who is moderate or
questions how such a movement is getting to its goal gets pilloried.

------
btilly
Cancel culture are witch hunts organized over social media.

There is a good comparison to be made with McCarthyism. Other than the
political identities of those wielding the tools and those targeted, what is
happening today is the same.

In the end Arthur Miller stopped McCarthy with a play about the Salem witch
trials. That play introduced the phrase "witch hunt", and McCarthy was
defanged by the transition from fear to mockery.

We need a new Arthur Miller.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
> We need a new Arthur Miller.

100%

I'm convinced the only way to effectively fight it is through comedy.

It was noticeable and bad when I went through college around 2010. But now
it's been intensified as the same people I saw in college (those storming
university offices until speakers they found "dangerous" withdrew) begin
moving into the urbane, bien-pensant, privileged stations at media
institutions, etc.

This recent Ryan Long video really hit the right tone I think.

Laugh at the tyrants and they're disarmed.

[https://twitter.com/ryanlongcomedy/status/128520849751747379...](https://twitter.com/ryanlongcomedy/status/1285208497517473793?s=20)

------
godelski
The big problem I see is discussed at the end of the article. Language is
difficult to interpret and many times we misinterpret one another. When
communicating we have a certain amount of assumptions we make about the other
person's argument. If these are in good faith these tend to go smoothly,
although there's always hiccups. The problem I see is that we're in a hyper
partisan environment so the assumptions we are making about others' opinions
are extreme. For example there's two assumed positions on immigration: let
everyone in vs kick everyone out and build a wall. Of course the vast majority
of people believe something in between (because both extremes are pretty
unrealistic) but that's hard to determine without good communication. If
you're pro DACA and you talk to someone that is pro restrictions you are
likely to assume the person holds the extreme version of build a wall and kick
everyone out (as in White Nationalism) despite that they probably have a more
nuanced viewpoint. I believe this is happening because 1) the news is showing
us these extremist people because it generates more hate, and thus more
views/clicks and 2) people are co-opting some of these terms to dog whistle so
it is hard to distinguish who is dog whistling (aka a white nationalist) vs
who is oblivious to this context and using it in earnest. Which if it is
latter, presuming they are the former makes it more likely that they turn to
the former because you back them into a corner where that's where they can get
support from.

This all, I believe, comes down to a phrase I have been finding myself repeat
more and more.

> There are three components to communication: What is meant, what is said,
> and what is heard. They don't have the all be the same thing.

So I think we need to better train ourselves to try better at hearing what was
intended and trying to say what we mean. In addition we need to stop turning
to this reactionary based news, I believe this is why many (including myself)
have turned off social media. Having lived in many parts of the country what
I've learned is that everyone, no matter how simple their education is, has a
nuanced view on everything. But I've also learned that trolling people,
exaggerating arguments well beyond their merit, and "winning" have become more
and more acceptable. There's a lot of people who just want to "get 'em" with a
sick burn instead of having a conversation. I believe this is where we have
broken down (and yes, I do think this is all related to the cancel culture).

~~~
slowmovintarget
I agree that we need to be better listeners.

I disagree that this is the reason for cancel culture. This isn't about
misinterpretation. It's typically about bad-faith interpretation. There's a
very deliberate effort to destroy anyone who disagrees in the slightest from
an ideology. When you disagree, anything you do or say will be construed,
regardless of how tortured the reasoning, as meaning what the cancel-mob wants
it to mean, in an effort to destroy your life.

This is straight out of the revolutionary playbooks. "Rules for Radicals",
Lenin's brand of Marxism, Mao's Cultural Revolution...

This is not "oops, they misunderstood." It would be a much smaller problem if
it were that.

------
recursivedoubts
There is a reflexive aspect to this discussion in that cancel culture can't be
discussed openly and honestly, for fear, valid or not, of being cancelled.

It will be interesting to see what the long term effects of this are.

~~~
godelski
Interestingly enough the post itself is being shown as flagged. Kinda ironic
if you ask me.

~~~
ardy42
> Interestingly enough the post itself is being shown as flagged. Kinda ironic
> if you ask me.

Eh, flagging isn't "canceling." I flagged it because many people can't help
pontificating against some straw man of theirs whenever they see some culture
war term, and that's pretty obnoxious.

~~~
godelski
In that case why not downvote the comment and move on? I think the article did
good by mentioning, though I wish they dived deeper on this, that these words
have very different meanings to people and that the assumptions we make about
peoples' perception are often inaccurate. Personally I wouldn't flag a post if
the conversations are off topic. Just downvote the off topic comments and move
on. The difference I see is flagging a post says "the post should be removed"
which is more similar to what many think of "cancel culture" while downvoting
says "you have your opinion, but I disagree."

Edit: WOW that was quick, but fair. You're entitled to your opinion.

~~~
ardy42
> In that case why not downvote the comment and move on?

No one can downvote posts. Only comments can be downvoted, and then only if
you have enough points.

> Edit: WOW that was quick, but fair. You're entitled to your opinion.

I also can't downvote replies to my own comments, so I hope that wasn't
directed at me.

~~~
godelski
> No one can downvote posts. Only comments can be downvoted, and then only if
> you have enough points.

I don't see this as an issue because posts fall off the front page quickly.
Using the flagging feature as a form of downvoting seems, to me, as an
inappropriate equivalent because flagging acts more like a super downvote and
is more intended for notifying of posts that need to be removed because they
violate rules in a certain way.

> I also can't downvote replies to my own comments, so I hope that wasn't
> directed at me.

Not directed at you (no one can downvote replies). It was just funny that less
than a minute after posting I got a downvote. I had a good laugh and this was
more intended as funny and not an attack on anyone. Sorry if it came off
differently.

------
Kednicma
I don't want to be the preacher yelling that nothing is new under the sun, but
I feel like I'm reading an article written by somebody who doesn't know what a
boycott is. I feel like the only major difference is that boycotts were
traditionally supported by voting blocs, but these "cancellations" seem to
cross party lines. Otherwise, though, isn't this the same sort of outrage that
folks had had last century when African-Americans chose en masse to not spend
money at establishments whose management they found to be acting offensively?

~~~
jedimastert
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
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.

------
perl4ever
The politico article links this, to their credit:
[https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-
can...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-
culture-boycotts-firings/index.html)

------
jjk166
“the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and
companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or
offensive."

Imagine unironically arguing that public figures and companies should be
actively supported despite doing objectionable and offensive things.

~~~
istorical
Imagine not understanding that there may be some disagreement about whether
something 'considered objectionable or offensive' is truly objectionable or
offensive, having problems with shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to
canceling people, or believing there may be some gray area in anything in the
world.

Look, we can do this back and forth all day unless we all agree there is
nuance to anything - including cancel culture. There are great applications of
free association (the benign aspect of cancel culture) and there are poor mob
justice applications of cancel culture. Let's not pretend the issue is black
and white.

Or in other words on one end of the spectrum you have moral progress and on
the other end you have witchhunts/mccarthyism/moral panic.

~~~
jjk166
> Imagine not understanding that there may be some disagreement about whether
> something 'considered objectionable or offensive' is truly objectionable or
> offensive

And this is really the crux of the issue. If I find what you have done to be
objectionable or offensive, it shouldn't matter that there is debate about
what society at large considers objectionable or offensive, you have lost my
personal support. If lots of people also consider it objectionable or
offensive, and they all subsequently withdraw their support, that's how things
are supposed to work. You don't get to decide what other people get offended
by, nor do you get to decide how long it should take them to get offended by
it. If my support is valuable to you then you shouldn't do those things which
I say offend me for fear of losing my support. If you don't value my support,
then you are free to ignore my cancelling of said support. This is what it
means to live in a free market of ideas.

Let's not pretend that this issue is some complicated and nuanced situation.
There have always been weirdos out there who get vocally offended by dumb
things - maybe you pissed off a bunch of flat earthers by having a globe in
your profile pic - and nobody cared. The reason people are concerned about
cancel culture is that they recognize that some of the things they have said
or done or plan to do could legitimately be considered objectionable and
offensive by a significant number of people, and rather than choosing to
address their own behavior they instead choose whine about how unfair it is
that people don't unconditionally support them.

~~~
Normille
>> whine about how unfair it is that people don't unconditionally support
them...

There's a difference between 'not unconditionally supporting' someone who
offends you and, mob-handed, hounding that person, their associates, their
employers in an attempt to have them ostracised, sacked and their life ruined.

~~~
jjk166
Imagine you went into a McDonalds and the cashier called you a racial slur. I
think it would be perfectly reasonable to tell people that this happened and
why it offended you. I think it would be quite reasonable if other people
agreed that such behavior was unsupportable. I think it would be perfectly
reasonable to request that McDonalds take measures so this sort of thing
doesn't happen again. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for others who
are also appalled that this happened to do the same. I think it would be quite
reasonable to stop frequenting McDonalds if they instead did nothing. I think
it would be quite reasonable for McDonalds to make the requested changes for
the sake of not losing those paying customers.

Now let us consider the reverse. Would it be reasonable to say that you
shouldn't tell anyone this happened to you? Would it be reasonable to say no
one else should be able to form an opinion on this? Would it be reasonable to
forbid you from asking McDonalds for any sort of change to address the issue?
Would it be reasonable to force you to continue frequenting that McDonalds if
it didn't? Would it be reasonable to forbid McDonalds from firing their
employee for a decision they had made which McDonalds considers to be wrong?

No, there is no middle ground between forcing people to support things and
them being free not to support things; it's a boolean situation. Cancel
culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom
to not support things.

Sure should a situation move beyond people just complaining on twitter -
perhaps people start doxxing or inciting violence - then that is unacceptable.
But that's not what we are talking about here. If you have the freedom to say
what you wish, they have the freedom to denounce you for what you say. If you
can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out to begin with.

~~~
raxxorrax
I remember an article about how the knitting community got "into a purity
spiral". I don't think criticism can be brushed away like you try to do. I
wouldn't want to cancel you, even if I think your position is objectionable.

~~~
jjk166
If you say and do things you are proud to say and do, then it is easy to brush
off criticism. If a community goes into a purity spiral and deems something
I'm proud of to be wrong, they're doing me a favor expelling me as I want no
part in it. Again, consider the flat earthers - their criticism means nothing
to me because I am proud of supporting science, and I will continue to support
science regardless of any consequences.

Criticism only stings when it is valid. If you say or do things you're not
proud of, and someone calls you out on it, you can't simply ignore it, you
have to address it, and that may be uncomfortable if not downright painful.
However it is not the fault of the party laying valid criticism that you feel
uncomfortable. You did something you are not proud of, and this is merely the
consequence of it.

If you have a problem with my position, I strongly encourage you to tell my
that it's hurt you, tell me why, and suggest how I should behave differently.
This goes for both the person I'm replying to and anyone else who might read
this. Assuming you're a reasonable person, I do not wish to make you feel
uncomfortable, and if I have I would like to change my ways so I won't do it
in the future. If you simply assume I'm an asshole and say nothing, then I
will have no opportunity to rectify the situation, and I will go on just
being, at least in your eyes, an asshole. Now if your objections are dumb, I
may very well ignore them and continue being what you view as an asshole, but
in that case I will be doing so with pride, and you too can continue to hold
your position with pride.

A system where everyone expresses their minds and we all bear the consequences
of our actions is much better than one where we bite our tongues and hope that
everyone else does as well.

------
throwawaysea
Cancel culture isn’t a recent trend - there are entire websites dedicated to
cancel culture on college campuses, such as
[https://www.thecollegefix.com/](https://www.thecollegefix.com/). Free
thought, free inquiry, and open debate are under attack from those that want
only their worldview to prevail. It is a direct threat to a free society and
much has been written about it recently from Quillette
([https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-
campai...](https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campaign-to-
thwart-free-inquiry/)) and Harper’s ([https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-
and-open-debate/](https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/))
and others. It's become so extreme, that there are now even people trying to
cancel Steven Pinker, famed author of bestseller books like "The Better Angels
of our Nature" ([https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/the-forehead-
slapping...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/the-forehead-slappingly-
stupid-attempt-to-cancel-steven-pinker/)).

I’m not sure how to fight back except to create direct consequences for those
pursuing cancellation. Perhaps we need to shame and demand the firing of
everyone who signs such letters (those who demand censorship and cancellation
of others).

------
mywittyname
Young people have different views from their parents and grand-parents, new at
11.

Cancel culture is just the stupid name given to the eternal "kids these days"
complaint. Old people get pissed off when young kids discover and begin
leveraging their political capabilities. This really isn't very different from
complaints about rock & roll, hippies, or any other previous instances of
young people using their economic influence to shape the views of society.
Elvis shaking his hips on TV seems so quaint today, but lots of middle-aged
and older people of the era found that highly offensive.

I'm getting to the age where I'm about to flip into the old man category here.
But for now, I'm happy to see that young people aren't going to let assholes
push them around and are fighting back with the tools they have available to
them. There are loads of teenage girls out there who are half my size with
twice the courage.

~~~
bsagdiyev
Yes, getting a Mexican-American fired for unknowingly making a hand gesture is
just "kids these days". It's so simple!
([https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-
ove...](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-
racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/))

~~~
godelski
From my understanding this specific gesture was turned white supremacist
through 4chan's efforts to turn mundane and everyday things into hate symbols
"because it'll be funny." [0]. It should be noted that this is more than just
the okay symbol and they are trying to co-opt everything until everything is
meaningless [1][2][3][4][5][I could go on, seriously]. They literally see this
guy getting fired as a success because now people are using hate symbols and
don't know it.

> __DON 'T FEED THE TROLL __

[0] (ok)[https://mashable.com/article/ok-hand-gesture-hate-symbol-
ant...](https://mashable.com/article/ok-hand-gesture-hate-symbol-anti-
defamation-league-white-sumpremacy/)

[1] (LGBT flag)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/f1g3m1/anon_creates_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/f1g3m1/anon_creates_a_hate_symbol/)

[2] (#) [https://www.rt.com/news/460490-4chan-hashtag-symbol-
nazism/](https://www.rt.com/news/460490-4chan-hashtag-symbol-nazism/)

[3] [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-okay-to-be-
white](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-okay-to-be-white)

[4] (milk) [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-
sci...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-
dna.html)

[5] (larger list showing co-option of several symbols)
[https://www.wired.com/2017/05/alt-rights-newest-ploy-
trollin...](https://www.wired.com/2017/05/alt-rights-newest-ploy-trolling-
false-symbols/)

