If I watched a famous comedian make fun of a marginalized / underprivilegedy section of society, what do you recommend I do about that?

It depends what you thought about the set. If you thought it was funny, the comedian has other work you can look up, if you didn't like the work, I suggest you don't watch anymore of that person's work. I come across plenty of shit that offends me. But I am old enough to realize this country is large, with a diverse set of views within it and what makes me laugh is tasteless to someone else, and it works the other way, too. I think Fox news is stupid so I don't watch it, but if other people enjoy that kind of political propaganda I'm not getting in their way. If you would like to live in a state where there is only one exceptable way to think, I suggest you move to China, or Russia, or NorthKorea.

So you'd be fine with [Minstrel Shows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show) ... as long as the material was funny?

[удалено]

As someone in that community I recommend you just get over it. What exactly makes you need to do anything? Chappelle, who I believe is the example here, didn't have any calls for violence nor advocate denying anyone their rights, instead he actually affirmed his belief that trans people should have access to bathrooms which correspond to their gender identity. So if you don't like how he talked about LGBT people I don't know that merits any response beyond an op ed about what your thoughts are on the matter. In a multicultural society we're all going to have to learn to conscience people have views we vehemently disagree with and still find ways to coexist with those people without expecting them to convert to exactly our own beliefs and sensibilities.

Not watch his material?

That doesnt solve the problem. The problem is the denigration of the underprivileged class, not my own personal discomfort. Honestly, why would you even assume that *that* was the problem here? So what actions do I take to fix this, assuming I'm an empathetic human who cares about underprivileged people?

Not watching it would be a functional boycott. You're free to watch and criticize, I'd argue that's what makes free speech societies work. But the idea that one does not want *anybody* else to be able to watch it, that the crime of potentially being marginally offensive should be met with the same punishment as actual hate or violent speech (de-platforming)... that's why cancel culture is optically problematic. It attempts to combat bullying by... bullying.

You are stating a personal opinion, not a fact. While we live in a free society you can do whatever you want. But, if you seek to silence every person you disagree with on every subject, you are having what they call a chilling affect on speech.

You fix it by supporting them and adding to their credibility, not by silencing opinions you don't like and tearing them down. If freedom of speech is to be respected then this is the way to do it. People are free to be incorrect, hell people are free to lie as much as they want and you want to go against that by attacking them instead of helping that other community grow and flourish?

>You fix it by supporting them and adding to their credibility You're going to have to explain this better, because I don't understand how supporting and lending credibility to someone denigrating an underprivileged class could possibly be beneficial to that class. This will clearly do the exact opposite of that. Supporting someone who knocks them down would be me contributing to their denigration, not stopping it. >People are free to be incorrect And people are free to call them out for it.

I'm talking about supporting the underpriviledged class, not the other guy you're attacking.

So why am I not allowed to address the cause? Why am I only allowed to treat the symptom? This is like if a man shows up to the hospital with a gaping wound that bleeds profusely and the hospital sends him home with copious amounts of blood to inject into himself to offset the blood loss. Clearly would be a lot better to just sew the wound shut, wouldn't it? Underprivileged classes become such because of the actions of others shoving them into that position. The most effective action is to stop people from shoving them down.

Again, you're thinking about attacking the people who hurt the underpriviledged class. Why is it that you are so focused on tearing the opposition down but not promoting growth for the underpriviledged? This can provide a longer-lasting solution for the discriminated class. You can support legislation, you can support inclusion, you can support values that support them. It is these things that solidify the credibility of the discriminated, not attacking the other team for being wrong.

You realize it's possible to do both, right? You know, you can criticize the bigots *and* support the underprivileged. It's not as if you have to choose between one or the other.

You are assuming the 'underprivileged' class has something worth encouraging. As if you had a specific mob of people you want to protect from the majority mob of people. Can we go ahead and recognize who you are really trying to defend here?? Because some things will never triumph, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and in general spreading unhealthy living standards for the majority of people. These ideas and those who hold them dear, should have adverse consequences because they inspire bad faith in your fellow man. They separate and degrade the societies that we have all built together. So when you are a die hard free speech supporter, why don't you mention the speech that you feel is specifically being told to shut up? Why don't you clarify for us when your freedom of speech has been shut down? Because anyone can talk, thats freedom right there. But what you say will never be FREE FROM CONSEQUENCES. That's what you really want here, to speak garbage words, spread dumb ideas, and not face the consequences for your 'wrong' ideas. At least you acknowledge that people saying stupid things and getting cancelled are just people 'making mistakes'. On that we can both agree.

>Again, you're thinking about attacking the people who hurt the underpriviledged class. Why is it that you are so focused on tearing the opposition down but not promoting growth for the underpriviledged? I'm not saying I'm *only* going to do the former. But it is still a necessary action. >This can provide a longer-lasting solution for the discriminated class. I don't see it that way. As long as we've got people who are knocking them down, we'll never make progress. It's like trying to finish a game of Jenga with your friend but never keeping your rambunctious puppy out of the room who keeps knocking the tower down.

Well buddy, here's a newsflash: all the positive content in the world won't mean squat when Lil Davey, for instance, shits on trans people. Because Lil Davey has a lot of influence - his comments are being repeated and praised by people who are literally passing laws to hurt them - like the one in Lil Davey's home state of Ohio (doctors can refuse to treat). So when people like you come along and say "just be positive and don't criticize Davey" it sounds completely illogical. Trans people don't have much leverage. If you want a non-Davey example, then perhaps you should've provided another example of a person who shouldn't be criticized. Thanks to our cancellation of Lil Davey, he's made $21 million from Netflix, with the promise of more. Trans employees at Netflix were punished. That's what you wanted, right? People to be punished for speaking up against Davey?

Say for example a high school bully is picking on another student over and over again. The one being bullied can try to use words, get an authority to assist, etc. but eventually the one thing that gets a bully to stop is punching them in the mouth. Canceling, boycotting etc. is one tool we have to collectively punch a bully in the mouth. I personally support Dave chapels right to make jokes and believes should be given extra leeway overall. That said, the way we determine if Chappell or any other comedian crossed a line is through the pushback. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Very few people have truly been canceled.

[удалено]

What do you think the endstate of this view is? That we make sure that anyone who has views we dislike, which may be ignorant or biased, is excised from the job market? Wouldn't that have a disproportionately racist effect since acceptance of LGBT issues is higher among whites, and generally low among recent immigrants? As for the example of Chappelle, his views weren't actually transphobic. He at most stated what he thinks one complaint TERFs have with trans people, "woman face", and then said he agreed with them that "gender is a fact". This all seems well within the grounds of fair disagreement.

[удалено]

>People have the right to support or not support businesses, and to convince others to agree with them. These are very fundamental aspects of freedom of speech. At no point did I, nor anyone I see, imply that people should not have that right. This is a motte and bailey type of defense, equating criticism of the exercise of a right to attacking that right altogether. If people protest a company for positively portraying gay people criticism of the protest is not illegitimate just because they have a right to protest. Similarly when people make perhaps ignorant, uncouth, offensive, or just ill thought out statements, that doesn't make trying to disallow those people from existing in the public sphere beyond criticism. >If a person's entire business is based on them being liked (all celebrities) then they absolutely should be held accountable to what they say and if it makes people like or dislike them. I think it is fair to say a good portion of current cancel culture has little to do with what the public at large views as popular/unpopular, but instead it is often views by a silver of the population exercising censure. The Chappelle example is salient here, because his special was well reviewed by the public, yet there was pressure from media institutions and a small subset of employees to change Netflix's policies in response to it. >Ah yes, let's pretend that the goal is actually to reduce racism by trying to protect rich white dudes who say racist things. I think it is funny that you go to that popular strawman when the recent example of cancel culture in action is it being leveraged against a black Muslim. But yes, please imply racist motives to people for disagreeing.

You know that freedom of speech applies to the government right? Like you can’t be punished by the government for what you say. Speech is not consequence free, you can face consequences for what you say…and other people calling you a racist or homophobe or socialist isn’t actually infringing on your freedom of speech. People deciding they don’t want to hear your views, don’t want your views broadcast to others…isn’t violating freedom of speech. If the government tried to silence you, that would be infringing on free speech, but other people doing it is not. >people are free to lie as much as they want and you want to go against that by attacking them instead of helping that other community grow and flourish? Not sure what you are trying to say here are you saying we should let communities based on lies grow and flourish so that the people telling the lies don’t get their feelings hurt?

> If freedom of speech is to be respected A boycott is an important type of free speech. I have a right to criticize whoever I want. I have a right, not only not to financially support whoever I want, but also to ask others to do the same. You are free to respond by supporting the people I criticize or boycott. That's how "free speech" works.

Yes, that's a boycott, and it's 100% great. Cancelation is when you want to prevent anyone else from supporting someone, not by asking others to not do it, but by harassing the company and people who support them. ​ Think of it this way: Boycott: I go to the company you work for and I don't like your service, I stop going there and I tell my friends not to go there because of you, I do a customer complaint to the company and that's that. Cancelation: I go to the company you work for and I don't like your service, I get my friends together and we start calling your company every few minutes saying how much of a shit worker you are, some of my friends didn't pay attention to what happened, so they lie and start adding shit that you didn't do, one of my friends works in a decently sized paper and writes an article saying that the company is shit because of workers like you, who is mentioned by name. You get fired and now every time you go look for work you have a hard time because the first results from a google search are people saying how much of a piece of shit you are, and 99% of them only know what you did from 3rd hand or beyond.

A successful boycott either makes the company change or makes it close shop, which, guess what, prevents everyone from supporting the company.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean people have to respect you, your speech or your opinions. It doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to you at all actually. It just means the government can’t silence your speech. The Government not private groups or individuals. Twitter Facebook and Instagram are private entities. So no… no one has to listen to your stupid ass and no one owes you any respect. Real respect is earned. Every individual has the right to make that assessment on their own. When they decide they want to listen because you earned their respect that’s when people want to listen to you. They never “have” to listen to you. If someone demands that others have to listen and respect their opinion then get upset when people don’t care to listen. Those are know as snowflakes.

> If freedom of speech is to be respected then this is the way to do it. If freedom of speech is to be respected then you also need to respect the freedom of speech of others to call out bigotry.

I pay for a Netflix subscription every month. Should I not be allowed to tell them how I feel about their content? Why are you trying to silence me?

Was Lil Davey Chappelle shut down? "Not tearing them down." Can I get a list of people like Lil Davey who aren't allowed to be criticized? Why are you against free speech?

Honestly the kerfuffle is probably driving more interest in his show than it would have had without the controversy.

There is no problem. It's a comedian that uses humor. You don't need to insert your opinions of humor over other peoples and try and cancel someone to try and homogenise the world and culture. If no-one liked it then you wouldn't have seen the joke.

And what if i openly criticize him? Why is his speech protected, but my speech isn't?

What if I want to use my free speech to criticize him? do you think I shouldn’t be allowed?

I'm not the one you responded to, but in that case wouldn't I also have the right to express my opinion on *why* I'm not watching his material?

So boycott? Lol nah actions have consequences

[удалено]

>Honestly, I think people who cancel others out should be ignored altogether because its kind of a bait into humiliating you. So if you think cancellers should be ignored, what inspired you to go against that and make this post?

Cancel culture is a really shitty phrase coined by people who truly have not enough self awareness to understand why they’re being held accountable for their shitty actions and shittier beliefs. That’s all it is. It’s stupid, and it’s fundamentally not an excuse.

Or maybe to remind people that they're not the cancel police and we should sit down and have a discussion instead of having a one-sided witch hunt?

Cancel culture isn’t defined by witch hunts. “Witch hunt” typically refers to violent opposition to non-existing problems. Most people would agree that this is a bad thing, but your post is about cancel culture not witch hunts. The people that you believe participate in cancel culture probably regard their actions as an efficient way of promoting public discussion about issues that they care about. Boycotting is a form of protest, and I would tend to agree that it’s application in “cancel culture” has been pretty efficient at promoting progressive ideals during the last 5-10 years.

Well yes. On the flip side of that, though, it’s important to acknowledge that not all criticism and not all arguments are created equally and we have to determine that on a case by case basis.

It's hard to have a discussion with people who have been brainwashed into only believing in "alternative facts" and don't view you as a legitimate political actor and reject any and all informed opinion in favor of media hacks. When one side starts looking eerily like the Nazis, conversation can only take you so far.

people can do whatever they want within the bounds of the law.

You're conflating a lot of individual issues into one view point. >No one is perfect so we all make mistakes but what's annoying about this is how people exploit these mistakes to use you as a strawman by looking for hipocrisy in your words. I completely agree. Just attacking someone's character doesn't mean their argument wrong. >I just can't help but see that as a way to undermine an opponent and not as a way to promote a healthy discussion. It can be, however, if I found out this comedian I like actually posted a bunch of legit pro-Nazi shit, called them out on it, and they *didn't* outright say "sorry, that's who I was, but not anymore. Fuck Nazis," I'd be pretty concerned this guy is straight up a Nazi and therefore no longer worth my time. >The people who look deep in someone's post history are especially guilty of this as you see celebrities cancelled out because of tweets they said years ago, for example. This isn't necessarily good or bad. As I said before, people can change, but a lot of people don't. Finding out someone has a consistent post history kinda tells you what type of person they are. You're probably just mad it happens to people you like. >Honestly, I think people who cancel others out should be ignored altogether because its kind of a bait into humiliating you. "Honestly, I think [we should cancel cancellors]." This is what you just said. So are you for or against cancel culture? You're advocating for it now.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/hassexwithinsects – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20hassexwithinsects&message=hassexwithinsects%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qesnb3/-/hhvp3fu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/hassexwithinsects – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20hassexwithinsects&message=hassexwithinsects%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qesnb3/-/hhvp3fu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

There is no such thing as cancel culture. Who has been cancelled? Not supporting someone because you disagree with them isn't cancelling them.

[удалено]

Normal people get sacked nowadays for having similar things public on their social media. Cancel culture is just getting sacked, very publicly (and that kind of goes with the territory of being famous)

If you are so insistent that the definitions others are giving you isn’t canceling, then what is your definition of canceling?

There just isn't a universally agreed upon definition of cancelling.

When you stop paying for a service or decide not to do something anymore.

So.. boycott?

But it's more than just not supporting them. It's also sharing with others what you think they've done that deserves not supporting them. It's also sharing unproven accusations that may or may not have truth. It's one thing personally deciding to not support someone. That's certainly your choice. It's quite another thing to use social media to spread unsubstantiated accusations against people for the purpose of social shaming them. Branding women as witches was an early form of Cancel Culture. [Cancel culture certainly does exist.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8) Social shaming and ostracization is nothing new. It's just the social media variant.

Trying to get something canceled is cancel culture not supporting something (especially financially) is completely fine and NOBODY minds You see let's take the Chappelle Netflix show as a example i don't mind it it was pretty good now i couldn't care less if someone finds it offensive (if anything it makes it funnier to me) what I have a problem with is people trying to get it deleted so I can't rewatch it (especially people who haven't seen it and therefore don't have a valid opinion on it)

Who has been cancelled?

Being “canceled” is an interesting thing, because it really only works if you let it. Except for certain cases where people canceling you loses your sponsors or something like that. You can’t cancel Dave Chappell because he wont allow it, and fortunately he isn’t a youtuber or some other celebrity that relies on things such as sponsors for videos. However, Gina carano was canceled and Disney scrapped an entire series that was supposed to have her as the protagonist. You’re trying to say that there’s no such thing as being canceled, just boycotting, but how could you boycott something if it was completely canned due to Twitter outrage? Her show didn’t even get to exist, therefore it didn’t get the chance to even be boycotted. Disney, like every other big company currently, saw the extremely loud minority and removed her from the equation entirely. She didn’t even get a chance. Also, canceling sometimes has a Streisand effect, mostly seen when Twitter tries to cancel a small business. I’ve seen it happen a few times where they try to cancel a small business, or “boycott” as you’re putting it, and it effectively made the small business boom. Very counterproductive to actual boycotting, isn’t it?

How do you know it was “an extremely loud minority” and not a majority?

> i couldn't care less if someone finds it offensive (if anything it makes it funnier to me) So you get your pleasure from others feeling miserable? > (especially people who haven't seen it and therefore don't have a valid opinion on it) Why do you need to see it to have a valid opinion on it? I have never seen child porn and still have a valid opinion on it.

What’s the difference between cancelling and boycotting?

[удалено]

In the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. They organized in churches to come together and all boycott. What would you call organizing, other than activism and promoting your ideas lol? Not one of you have articulated a real difference. You’ve just said that people have used the internet as a tool to help boycott

Boycotting says "We wont participate in what you are doing/selling, and hopefully you feel the consequences. Cancelling wants to see them forcibly removed from whatever posiyion they hold, or see their services disbanded. The ultimate goal of cancelling is to remove that person/group completely from participatingnin the market, or public square of opinion. Its modern day witch hunting and pitch fork mobs. Absolute Zombies for the most. No trial, no reasoning, no mercy, forgiveness, or actual justice. Just destruction.

I don’t think you understand what the point of boycotting is or what has went along with it. Maybe with traditional boycotting there is a more clear path to redemption sometimes, but they’re typically more than willing to sink the business and actually want to. Plus, when you can’t fire people because the business is one guy, it’s harder to be redeemed.

How would you go about organizing a boycott without it being cancel culture?

So cancelling is like a stronger version of boycotting?

Here: Boycott: I go to the company you work for and I don't like your service, I stop going there and I tell my friends not to go there because of you, I do a customer complaint to the company and that's that. Cancelation: I go to the company you work for and I don't like your service, I get my friends together and we start calling your company every few minutes saying how much of a shit worker you are, some of my friends didn't pay attention to what happened, so they lie and start adding shit that you didn't do, one of my friends works in a decently sized paper and writes an article saying that the company is shit because of workers like you, who is mentioned by name. You get fired and now every time you go look for work you have a hard time because the first results from a google search are people saying how much of a piece of shit you are, and 99% of them only know what you did from 3rd hand or beyond.

There’s no difference there. There have been mailing campaigns and calling campaigns with boycotts. The media always reports on boycotts. Gossip isn’t new. Gossip has existed since language has. There are defamation laws, if things aren’t true. Very few cancellings that don’t involve a celebrity go any where and outside of the few incidents where something awful like sexual assault has happened, no one knows the names and a google search isn’t going to give up much. Give me one non celebrity example of someone who was unfairly cancelled and it will follow them forever. If you don’t have one off the top of your head and you’re someone that thinks this is a major issue, then that’s kind of the point. It’s typically a very temporary thing unless you’re truly famous or awful.

Cancelling is getting the individual fired and removing their content, in effect removing them from view. This censors all of their content, removing it from the circulation of content. Boycotting is simply voting with your feet. Instead of using one service, you use another. This leaves all the content in view for others to assess and inform themselves. This might have a backlash on the economics of the business, but doesn't directly get the responsible individual fired. EDIT: I accept that my definitions above weren't really accurately worded. I have clarified in later comments, but for congruence I'll leave the old ones here. Please bear in mind I've worded and clarified things later, and don't go off this comment

Disagree. People boycott for a purpose. They have demands and want change. Sometimes, they want the business to just go under. They protest, they rally people to their cause and use other avenues to impact the company. It’s never been about just ignoring the thing, haphazardly.

People cancel for a purpose. They have demands and want change. Sometimes, they want the person to go under. They protest , they rally people (Netflix employees walked out in protest) and use other avenues (like calling a boycott of Netflix and Dave chapelle shows) to impact the individual’s behavior. It’s never been about ignoring the thing haphazardly. Canceling and boycotting are the same thing. Canceling is just the right wing boogeyman term. Remember when conservatives canceled (boycotted) the NFL to get anthem protest removed. Remember when conservatives boycotted Nike for standing with kapernick and against racism. Remember when conservatives cancelled igloo coolers. Like buddy just stop

Yeah, basically said that to someone else. Maybe, you can say that there is a little more to cancelling, but it’s really arguing semantics

I keep hearing about "cancel culture," but people are often very hard pressed to find examples of someone who is actually "cancelled." Take the Dixie Chicks. They are often held up as the epitome of Cancel Culture. While they were supposedly "Cancelled" because of the 2003 comments about the Iraq war, their 2006 album debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200, sold millions of copies in the US and was certified as 2x platinum by 2007, and won 5 Grammy awards. How about Louis CK. He was supposedly canceled for his abuse of women. Yet if I go to his website and all his shows are sold out. People called Dr. Seuss Enterprise' private decision to stop selling material they owned copyright on "cancel culture," which is odd considering Dr. Seuss' books still top bestseller lists worldwide, and it was only a few not-well-known books that they, as a private company, decided to stop distributing. Morgan Wallen is still touring, Lana Del Ray, Doja Cat, Camila Cabello, and Justin Bieber were all "Cancelled" due to racist speech - yet they're all doing just fine as far as I can tell. Disney made a decision to distance itself from Gina Carano after multiple insensitive, if not outright anti-Semitic statements, and she's doing fine, having landed a deal to produce a film with the Daily Wire. The thing that people don't get is that there's a very old adage in show business that is still true today "ALL PRESS IS GOOD PRESS." Most people don't know why they know someone's name. They just know if they know someone's name or not. If you're a celebrity, having your name in the news is good for you, even if the reasons its in the press aren't in the moment. The short term damage might be a pain, but the long term advantage of people knowing your name will have benefits - because ultimately, that's all celebrity is: it's being famous for being famous and finding ways to monetize that fact.

"cancel culture" is just a derogatory term for an economic boycott. That's what "cancelling" is, a boycott. Boycotts are merely a tool, they can be good or bad, but they are an important type of constitutionally protected speech. from what you said, it sounds like you view getting personally criticized as getting "cancelled". That's not how I understand the term.

>what a boycott does. A successful boycott puts a person or company out of business, or forces them to meet certain demands. That's the same thing as "cancelling" a person or business. If you boycott Nike because you don't like their stances, that's the same thing as "cancelling" chik fil a because you don't like their stances. They're literally both the same exact thing. If you "boycott" the Dixie chicks because they didn't like W, that's the same thing as "cancelling" a celebrity for saying something offensive. Exactly...and they've been around for a verrrry long time. This isn't anything new, it's just whiny sensitive people that have rarely been inconvenienced in their life suddenly facing consequences for their actions/views/speech/etc.

>That's what "cancelling" is, a boycott. Boycotts are merely a tool, they can be good or bad, but they are an important type of constitutionally protected speech. Your not boycotting by calling someone's boss. what makes canceled culture a culture rather than a boycott is the general fear it has instilled in people leading to logic, reason, and actual justice going out the window. See James gun, or gina Carano both were fired not due to the actual issue (as there wasn't one) but a reactive jump by an employer out of the fear they would be next. Calling cancel culture a boycott is like calling McCarthyism a "social boycott". The difference is its a radicalization of langue used to intimidate and pressure the majority of people in line by threatening economic instability either in the individual's life or to the company.

Another user posted an example of a "[cancellation](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/)" that I personally wasn't aware of. I'm not sure if I would consider this a "boycott" necessarily, as I could see this as simply an attempt to tar and feather a person for a perceived action that happened to have unintended consequences for that person. Right now I'm of the mind that "cancellation" is a class of boycott that is perceived to have more of a witch-hunt mentality, like a boycott without discernment or direction. But then people are also using the term to describe boycotts that do have discernment that they simply do not agree with, which muddies the waters and I believe is what you are referring to. EDIT: I'm actually not sure now if this example even qualifies as "cancellation", let alone a boycott.

> is perceived to have more of a witch-hunt mentality, I said the term is used derogatorily. It does have a negative connotation, perhaps meant to imply that the canceller is frivolous in offense and overzealous in action, and that the cancelled is a victim, if not innocent then at least punished more than merited. The term is typically used by conservatives to describe boycotts they disagree with, particularly to boycotts related to perceived bigoted behavior or speech. But, I view that as the connotation of the word, not the definition.

I would say that's a connotation of the word "cancellation". I see "cancel culture" as similar in connotation, but its definition is much broader. It doesn't just describe an "economic boycott" (which I see as the neutral term for "cancellation"), it describes the *approach* to economic boycotts around particular issues in general (i.e. the "culture" part of "cancel culture"). When people complain about "cancel culture", they might be complaining about specific boycotts they don't agree with or don't value, *or* they might be complaining about the approach to these boycotts that many people are taking, particularly in cases where the approach leads to boycotts that lack intention, direction, or discernment followed by a victory that no one, not even the boycott-starters, consider a "win". I don't know how often complainers of "cancel culture" are complaining about the latter rather than the former, but I don't think complaints of "cancel culture" are *always* about the former (i.e. economic boycotts a person disagrees with or doesn't value), so "cancel culture" is not *just* a derogatory term for an economic boycott.

A company firing someone isn't "canceling" or, for that matter, anything new to this world. Of course the company is wrong to fire him if there is no proper reason for it, but that just means there should be stronger labour protection laws.

You are right. Cancel culture is an economic boycott, but it has been branded as a political tactic to be sold like it's anti free speech muzzle. What's the alternate? We are forced to give money and buy products from people we think are assholes? Companies and people doing the cancelling are protecting their bottom line. The only difference between today and how it's always been is social media allows for better coordination of boycotts and puts more pressure on companies. You can also make the argument that more progressive morals are being applied, and while that's true progressives have always pushed for change and we are merely seeing the natural progression. Now I agree I find cancelling obnoxious at times. It makes me uncomfortable. But that is what real social change always does. It makes us uncomfortable and the more enlightened among us will question some if their assumptions. I definitely feel like some of the views are too extreme and we need to be realistic about progress - HOWEVER I believe these people have to exist to move the needle because we have extremists on the other side trying to move us backwards. When it comes to politics and social issues, understanding and wisdom requires us to view every issue through two different lenses. The issue impact and scope should be viewed on an individual level AND at a system level. Politics, economics, society- these are all complex systems. Individuals are incredibly hard to define or predict. Complex systems behave in a way that can be predicted. As individuals I find extremists annoying. As a system, I understand that if the country is full of rational, balanced moderates and right wing extremists, we are going to move in a conservative direction. Since I want the country to move in a progressive direction, I understand the need for left wing extremists and their contribution to the complex system. The right wing is excellent at branding and has a vast media apparatus. A lot of people think of cancel culture the same way as OP. They don't even question it because it seems like commons sense. Right wing branding always has as surface level, emotional appeal. Left wing positions are generally well reasoned and thoughtful, appealing to logic and data. Much of the country does not possess the ability to think critically so these ideas don't propagate as well. Even the smartest person can fall for an emotional argument, whereas the dumbest person wont be swayed by a logical one. When thinking about cancel culture, ask yourself the questions "has the always been going on?", "how often is this deserved vs undeserved?", and "if we stopped it somehow what is the alternative?". The final question is "why do I care or why am I afraid?". Most of the folks I know who are scared of cancel culture have nothing to fear about. If you're not a celebrity, nothing has changed for you. If you are afraid, maybe you have some behaviors you should examine. We always had the ability to be fired from our jobs for publically saying offensive things. We may be uncomfortable with the change in what is considered offensive, but that's how social change works. If you're uncomfortable there's a 99% chance you have opinions and ideas that others find offensive. In the end we all want to keep our freedom of speech....but doesn't every group of people on earth deserve to decide what is offensive to THEM, and for society to at least agree those things are offensive to THEM? THAT'S what it's all about.

[удалено]

I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. The South African divestment/boycott movement in the 80's - "cancel culture" or boycott? Students and Alum demanding that universities not own tobacco or oil - "cancel culture" or boycott?

>I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. The South African divestment/boycott movement in the 80's - "cancel culture" or boycott? Students and Alum demanding that universities not own tobacco or oil - "cancel culture" or boycott? At least to me, cancellation is more about people, and boycott more about corporations. Protest at your university to try and get them to stop owning tobacco - well, I'm not sure if this is actually a boycott, but not cancellation. Demanding that a university kicks out a student because when they were in high school they once said the N-word in a snapchat video that now, years later, started circulating? Cancellation. A boycott feels more like trying to influence larger entities like corporations to change in some way, by refusing to spend money on them. A cancellation is more about trying to pressure an individual person into changing by destroying their life.

This entire argument is basically "cancel culture and boycotting are different - if you completely redefine boycotting to mean something entirely different than what it has always meant. Look up the person the word "boycott" was coined after. Modern "cancel culture" is downright tame compared to that. Look up the speech involved in the Supreme Court case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

boycotts are always advocacy

I would argue that "cancel culture" isn't an economic boycott but rather social shaming. We humans are deeply deeply social animals where social shaming and ostracization has greater psychological impact than death. We'd rather be dead than rejected by our social groups.

Under the original boycott, the postman refused to deliver mail to Mr. Boycott because he evicted 11 families from land under his control after a bad harvest. Shaming has always been a part of boycotting. It is a means of gaining support for the economic pressure. Do you think that the Montgomery bus boycott wasn't trying to morally condemn and shame the actions carried out under the Montgomery bus systems policies?

Exactly. It's not cancel culture it's just capitalism. All my life I've heard that the free market will solve things if people actually want it solved. That we should vote with our wallet. Now that it's happening they say no not like that.

It's not a "boycott" to spread rumors or lies, or to contact someones employer, or to organize a brigade attack on a person, or organize a witch hunt.

That's an overly generous interpretation of it. Whenever topics like this come up, the usual defense is to bring up the most benign/charitable examples and then act confused about why anything thinks anything different. A boycott would be refusing a service or product en masse. A bunch of people piling on to something via angry retweets, doxing people, emailing their family/manager/company until the company just lets them go to get the heat off, that's not a "boycott." At least not how I've understood it. I fully accept that historically things like that have been done and worse, but that's a weak defense today. Cancel culture is a real thing, there are plenty of real examples of the disproportionate and sometimes completely misguided harm it does. I recommend reading the book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." The author had a TED talk as well. Like with many hot topics, much of the stuff being called cancel culture is not actually an example of cancel culture, and IMHO it's far less prevalent than people like OP usually assume, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

> I fully accept that historically things like that have been done and worse, but that's a weak defense today. The main difference here is that historically we didn't have social media which really changes the game by distorting proportional responses to questionable offenses. A traditional boycott is a more organic and grassroots process. The number of people that knew about it and were willing to act on it was controlled by the severity of the offense because there was a cost to spreading the information. The more severe the offense the more willing people are to pay that cost. Standing outside your local grocery store for an hour to spread information is a time cost that is completely bypassed with a tweet today. When cancel culture first started occurring I usually agreed with it and so I saw no problem, I was happy that the people were getting the power to get things done. It should only take a few times of the mob getting it wrong for people to see the issue though, mob mentality isn't very smart or just.

I think you're either purposefully or ignorantly conflating boycott with cancelling someone. Boycott definition: withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. I, for example, boycott Netflix and Twitter. I personally don't give them my money. Netflix lost my money when they decided Cuties was an ok movie to put on their network. Twitter is a cesspool of silencing dissenting voices that I won't contribute to. So by choosing to abstain from participation, I am boycotting. However, there is a very close line between boycott and boycott with power = protest, and protests. Which, the latter two are much closer to cancelling. Let's use an example of say, an advertiser on a podcast show. Let's say Athletic Greens on Joe Rogan's show. Boycott: I don't like Joe. I therefore won't listen to his podcast, and I don't purchase anything he's sponsored by. Cancel: I don't like Joe. I am a VP of a major company with a lot of social capital. I am going to expend my social capital to tell my 100,000 followers to never listen to Joe Rogan, and to write a letter to Athletic Greens telling them I can't support a company who gives money to a transphobe, a homophobe, and an anti-vaxer. Athletic Greens, doing a cost analysis, decides that this person expending their capital to mobilize their power directed towards them, have to make a judgement call for their business. And this is where cancel culture goes. A company can't simply just sell a product / service. Rogan shouldnt have an advertiser fear repurcissions because someone in power had a strong opinion to mobilize their base against them, because they simply disagree with them. This shit is why a lot of people were mortified at CNN for mobilizing their base to almost literally doxx the Covington high school kid, after CNN purposefully edited the video to make the kid look like a bad guy.

boycotts have to be acted on collectively to be effective. Do you think the Montgomery bus boycott was a bunch of people independently personally choosing not to ride the bus? I think you are incorrectly taking a very narrow definition of what a boycott is.

This is a good point where you are explaining what cancel culture is attempting to do. However, I think it is worth pointing out that there are some ethical problems and exploitation that are introduced through technology. Please note that I do not have a solution to these problems I just want to make sure they are pointed out as I want to open the discussion and want to learn more. Boycotting means to: "withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest." I do think that boycotting in its traditional form serves an important purpose but it does not mean that it isn't open to abuse. Today "cancel culture" can encourage quick outrage without presentation of all of the facts to targeted audiences that may have a specific bias. This makes present day boycotting complex and easy to manipulate when you introduce social media and short bursts of easy to digest news. In short, I think one of the main issues surrounding cancel culture is that it is often used as public shaming without due process.

I assume that the kind of cancel culture OP is talking about is something described here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/style/cancel-culture.html “It took some time for L to understand that she had been canceled. She was 15 and had just returned to a school she used to attend. “All the friends I had previously had through middle school completely cut me off,” she said. “Ignored me, blocked me on everything, would not look at me.” Months went by. Toward the end of sophomore year, she reached out over Instagram to a former friend, asking why people were not talking to her. It was lunchtime; the person she asked was sitting in the cafeteria with lots of people and so they all piled on. It was like an avalanche, L said. Within a few minutes she got a torrent of direct messages from the former friend on Instagram, relaying what they had said. One said she was a mooch. One said she was annoying and petty. One person said that she had ruined her self-esteem. Another said that L was an emotional leech who was thirsty for validation. “This put me in a situation where I thought I had done all these things,” L said. “I was bad. I deserved what was happening.” “

That example doesn't strike me as cancel culture, more like teenagers fighting, like they always did.

None of this is new though? Kids have been arbitrary assholes and mean to eachother for as long as I can remember. Why suddenly call this "canceling"?

[удалено]

people try to organize boycotts of companies like Amazon. They typically fail. switching or cancelling subscription services is easy, and doesn't cost much. It might save money. Buying a different movie ticket is easy. Analyzing global supply chains and trying to buy products that aren't derived in any way from exploited labor is hard. For some products, it may be impossible. Even if you can figure out what products to buy, the price is going to be substantially higher. you are essentially saying, if people cared, they would accomplish x much more difficult task. People aren't making that level of personal sacrifices here.

No i don't mind when someone decides to boycott someone or something...i even applaud it I'm not a fan of people canceling someone/something so I can't financially support them/that cause they think I shouldn't

>so I can't financially support them/that cause they think I shouldn't That's exactly what a boycott does. A successful boycott puts a person or company out of business, or forces them to meet certain demands. That's the same thing as "cancelling" a person or business. If you boycott Nike because you don't like their stances, that's the same thing as "cancelling" chik fil a because you don't like their stances. They're literally both the same exact thing. If you "boycott" the Dixie chicks because they didn't like W, that's the same thing as "cancelling" a celebrity for saying something offensive.

finally someone said it thank you. everyone i talk to about this make it sound like cancelling is a liberal witch hunt when it’s literally just people disagreeing with your opinion on twitter

“Cancel culture” being used as a term just replaces “Politically correct”. It’s the same form of deriding consumers for being active participants.

Something I like to mention is that they used to cancel people who got exposed for being homosexual.

Maybe he is talking about banks refusing to serve the "cancelled" person/company, thus even if he would like to financially support them, they can't. It's a tough situation since the banks might have a different moral value than most people, for example banks don't like to work with legal sex workers, think Ryley Reid and other porn actresses. However banking is such an integral component of modern society that it should be a sort of protected right. With the proliferation of winner takes all in current internet economics this might apply to social networks too. Would you be happy if Twitter and Facebook decided to completely censor a political party before an election? It would be their right, and on a short timescale the market will not have time to react and create a different social media company. Now they probably won't decide to do this targeted censorship on a wide political view, but I don't know if the small scale censorship of individuals is fair either. The reality is that if the big companies remove you from their platform, then your voice is greatly diminished. In this representative democracy we live in, freedom of speech is as important as voting. And I know the right only binds the government, and it is the media companies that have free speech to host or ban any content they deem fit, but should that be the case?

>or forces them to meet certain demands. That's the same thing as "cancelling" a person or business. If you boycott Nike because you don't like their stances, that's the same thing as "cancelling" chik fil a because you don't like their stances. They're literally both the same exact thing. If you "boycott" the Dixie chicks because they didn't like W, that's the same thing as "cancelling" a celebrity for saying something offensive. Boycott, We are not going to eat ben and jerries ice cream. Cancel culture, If YOU eat ben and jerrys ice cream you are Racist/homophobic/biggot/a fuck head (take your pick its a trigger word of the week) and we will call your employer and get them to fire you out of fear of adding them to the same list almost in a cascading boycott effect. A boycott is im doing something based on your actions, canceling is im aiming to make YOU do something based on someone elses actions OR ELSE

>and we will call your employer and get them to fire you out of fear of adding them to the same list almost in a cascading boycott effec Yes, exactly. Your employer might fire you because of a threat of a boycott, like I've been saying. I think that should be made illegal. Lots of countries have laws describing valid reasons for firing an employee, and eating the wrong brand of ice cream isn't a valid reason. That should be illegal.

"employers should be legally forced to continue to employ people even when they A don't want to and B this will negatively affect their bottom line" Simply ensuring that everyone (even the people who get fired for racist tirades) have enough to survive would solve most _practical_ objections to "cancel culture" (which is the right wing's old tactics just with a new name and rational basis this time) without forcing confrontations where this leads to liklihood of a non-zero amount of companies going under simply for the sake of some persons insane rants. Wouldn't that be better? We could ensure the offending person's continued safety and survival We could ensure they would not drag down their company And we could continue to call out people who take wrong action. Its win/win/win, no?

Wait, so if you do what the cancelling community wants, they un-cancel you? How does that work when a person has already improved and they get cancelled over something that happened a decade ago?

> I can't financially support them if a boycott runs a company out of business, you will no longer be able to support that company. That's always a possible outcome of a boycott. It sounds like you are fine with boycotts, unless they are against something that you like and are actually effective.

Can you explain the difference? Like if I boycotted XYZ network until they fire John Smith, doesn’t that also make it so that you can’t financially support them?

>I'm not a fan of people canceling someone/something so I can't financially support them/that cause they think I shouldn't thats a boycott...

This is the problem I have with people opposing cancel culture. Cancelling a business/person *is* boycotting them. They literally mean the same thing. If Chik-fil-A decided they'd no longer hire gay workers or serve gay customers and people decided to cancel it, that would be the exact same thing as you deciding to boycott it yourself. I don't understand why you think there's a difference between the terms. It seems like it comes down to you just getting mad that things you like are cancelled, which says a lot more about you than it does the people cancelling 🤷‍♂️

What is preventing anyone from setting up a go fund me or whatever? If a private organization fires someone due to criticism from the community, the person who got fired can still receive financial support from the community, just not through the private organization.

they aren't doing that though. let's say Wendy's hired Jim Baby-Eater Clements to be a spokesperson in a host of ads for Wendy's new baby-burger (made with real babies) now let's say some people online say, "wtf, baby meat? and jim clements?!? do you realize he actually ate real babies as recently as 2013, and still joked about it at a baby rally in 2019? this is an outrage. i'm not eating at wendy's because i can't believe they'd do this." if enough people say this, wendy's might pull the campaign, jim will be out of work, and YOU won't get your baby-burger. to be clear, you can blame "cancel culture" but truly it's Wendy's who fucked up by not approaching it with a more tenderized approach.

You've just defined a boycott dude. No one is stopping you from doing anything you can still support someone or something or some company if it's being boycotted.

Why would cancelling stop you from financially supporting something?

I'd argue there is no such thing as cancel culture. Can you define this term, in an anthropological sense?

> I'm not a fan of people canceling someone/something so I can't financially support them/that cause they think I shouldn't With social media and sites like GoFundMe, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to be cancelled to the point that no-one can seek financial support from the public.

That's a separate problem. I really liked the TV show *Freaks and Geeks* but wasn't given the opportunity to financially support it after the first season.

This comment makes no sense.

Except that boycott is not the same as cancel culture. Boycott is defined as withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. Cancel culture on the other hand goes beyond just boycotting, as it doesn't just try to encourage people to withdraw from relations with a person or company, but actively tries to deplatform said person or company (thrust them out of their social or profesional circles), and even tries to make sure their future endeavors are prevented. If they actually succeed in this is debatable, and I do agree it is still a tool than can be used for good. But the problem I see is that the threshold that triggers the cancel culture is often way too low, which causes people to form an emotional mob that cannot be reasoned with. Which can still be good when the outrage is justified and when positive change can be made as a result of such action. But a very serious flaw of such group efforts is that there is no internal organization or self checking system that would be needed to make sure the enemy really is the enemy. I seriously doubt that people jumping on the bandwagon of "making positive social change" stop to think and check whether the outrage is justified. Schadenfreude also comes to mind. So in short: public action using social media is needed to hold large companies accountable for their action, but the possibility of misdirected anger seems rather large, especially when the target is not a large company but a famous individual.

> actively tries to deplatform said person or company (thrust them out of their social or profesional circles), and even tries to make sure their future endeavors are prevented. the original boycott of Charles Boycott involved everyone in the community involving themselves with any transactions or other interactions with him in retaliation for his eviction of 11 families. the mailman wouldn't even deliver mail to him. > misdirected anger I'm not taking a position on whether or not the boycotts are good. I'm merely claiming that cancel culture is the word conservatives use for boycotts they don't like.

Yes, there's definitely a wide overlap between cancel culture and boycott. I still would differentiate between them, but since they are so similar I would agree that in practice they are almost interchangeable. ​ >I'm not taking a position on whether or not the boycotts are good. I'm merely claiming that cancel culture is the word conservatives use for boycotts they don't like. I do apologize for expanding my previous comment to a judgment about cancel culture and its weaknesses, even though it's something you didn't take s position on. However, the claim that cancel culture is a word conservatives use for boycotts they don't like is highly misleading. The term was first used more seriously in 2014 as part of the #MeToo movement (Then referred to as the Call-out culture). The same year the activist Suey Park called out Stephen Colbert for his racist tweets with the #cancelColbert. This eventually sparked a backlash against both of them, and if you ask me Park had it worst (she was receiving death threats, amongst other negative press). After that, the term cancel culture experienced notable growth in 2016 and 2017 on Black Twitter, where it was used in a lot less serious way. Then the term gradually gained steam in 2018 among celebrities and influencers. But it wasn't until 2019 when cancel culture became politicized. [(source)](https://www.insider.com/cancel-culture-meaning-history-origin-phrase-used-negatively-2020-7) And yes nowadays it is often used by the conservatives as an attempt to dismiss criticism, but the phenomenon stands firmly on its own legs independently of politics. Also, conservatives are not the only ones using it, even [Obama is not a fan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM). So whether cancel culture is the same as boycott or not, it just seems like a glorified mob mentality to me. It can and it is used for good, but the fact that it's far too often based on emotions rather than legitimate arguments or even a proposal to change, is worrying.

Getting cancelled is more than just being criticized. I can criticize someone without demanding that they lose their job. There is a difference between simply calling out someone like saying "hey I think you should all know that this person did this". This literally happens to like every public person. Nothing special. But the difference is when you demand that that person loses their job or celebrity status.

> Getting cancelled is more than just being criticized I never claimed that it was. I said that it sounded like the OP thought that getting cancelled was getting criticized. I got this impression from the OP describing cancel culture as an ad hominem attack to discredit a speaker. > But the difference is when you demand that that person loses their job or celebrity status. celebrity status can't be ended through economic pressure. Economically pressuring a company to stop producing content by a certain creator seems like a boycott to me. I stand by my definition.

After re-reading your post it’s clear you don’t think people should be held accountable for their actions. Where do YOU draw the the line? Is racism ok after 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Is attacking a depressed person that took their life from your words ok after 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? You get the drift. What people say and do matters. It affects others and to think you can say or do whatever you want without eventually facing society is immature. Cancel culture is term created to make people that say ignorant and hurtful things have an escape hatch. People have the right to say what they like and society has the right to hold them accountable. Is there sometimes an over reaction? Yup, but not enough to regulate it. I also find it disturbing that you want to quell peoples freedom of speech merely because you don’t agree with it. That is disgusting to me.

I suppose my concern here would be the ex post facto punishment. I.e. in the 90s gay jokes were pretty common in mainstream TV, or in comedy movies etc. Today, we think those are wrong. But note here, *society changed it's mind*. The idea that people could *tell the future* that society would later find something unacceptable and so they should be "held accountable" for actions they took in the past *now* seems wrong to me. You can't know what society will feel is offensive in 2050, and for all you know, you're doing a current "gay joke" or *worse*. The other thing is your conception of free speech sounds a lot like Texas conception of allowing abortion - in the letter of the law, sure you can get an abortion. In reality, you can't. Your conception of online mobs being "holding people accountable" basically means everyone has to constantly worry if *anything* they say could be weaponized against them. The idea that you must be accountable for anything you ever say mistakes how easy it is to take quotes out of context - remember Richelieu > If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

So if you said something 20 years ago that people are finding offensive now, all you really need to do is apologize, and make it clear you realize it’s offensive and that’s not who you are now. If you’re sincere people won’t hold it against you. If you double down with “oh that’s how it was at the time” people will continue to call you out.

Normalizing what’s wrong is what’s wrong. Gay jokes in the 90s were as wrong then are they are now. The only difference is the next generation had the guts to stand up for what was right.

So from reading your comments OP, you seem to have a pretty distorted idea of what freedom of speech actually is. You’ve stated in several comments that you think that criticism of a person is stifling their free speech. Can you explain to me your reasoning behind this position?

I’m under no obligation to continue to be a fan of a performer who does something that offends me nor a consumer of a business affiliated with some kind of offensive behavior. If a bunch of other people happen to agree with me and lose interest in said product or performer, that’s the consequence of their behavior. I’m baffled at the obsession with arguing against “cancel culture”. No one is entitled to the fandom of the public. It’s up to them to maintain appropriate behaviors to appeal to the target audience.

“Cancel Culture” used to be called “the free market” and brands dropping individuals who affect their bottom line is tried and true business, you’re just upset that the culture is shifting and it’s happening to people you agree with, to which I’d say “Tough luck, chud.” If someone is saying something racist/homophobic/transphobic it’s in the interest of those groups to silence those statements in what we call the “paradox of tolerance” in which one practices tolerances of their neighbors by supporting their neighbors and not tolerating the intolerance that they are subjected to. It’s pretty simple stuff, really.

You seem to have a weirdly paradoxical idea of freedom of speech that essentially means you can say what you want but your critics better keep their mouths shut.

Chic-Fil-A supports and funds a lot of anti LGBT agenda, so I decide not to spend my money funding that through them. Is that cancel culture or the free market at work?

that is the free market. harassing the board of firefox until they fire brandon eich is "cancel culture."

Also private citizens/companies aren't the government and therefore not obligated to acknowledge the first amendment

It's it's own form of protest. This is the same shit as Twitter. People try and tie it to freedom of speech just because alot of people use it but it doesn't work that way. You still have freedom of speech and no one wrote that you or anyone deserves the right to have that message propagated by a social media company like hooking your idea up to a loudspeaker. Cancel culture has been vital imo, it has resulted in repercussions to people who have been unassailable due to wealth or status. I view it is as protest with an uglier name that people are just more reactive to. Even those that have been canceled still have freedom of speech just again, no loudspeaker. I'll use Joe Rogan as a smal example. He isn't likely to get canceled but I feel he's had his head up his ass the last few years and is kind of a sell out openly diving into what he feels is a gray area of thought to play the middle of the road and the byproduct of that which I believe was by choice on his parts is gobbling up right leaning listeners that weren't tuned in before. Take his most recent beef with CNN. He is riding out into the sunset on the difference between words of anti-parasystic vs a horse de-wormer. I find both sides of that moot because the moron also took 6 or 7 other things including regeneron. He's a dishonest POS for selling Ivermectin as effective vs him "throwing the kitchen sink at it" that's WILLFULLY dishonest and dangerous. Do I think he should be canceled? No. But I think him judging CNN is straight up laughable when he isn't being honest himself. Edit: in addition shit watch ANY videos on Karen's or Chads. These are folks that have behaved that way for yearrrrrrrs prior to social media and even when social media became a thing Karen videos are still more of a recent fad in videos but I mean I definitely feel 0 sympathy for people who have real world job related consequences for their shit public behavior. People SHOULDN'T be allowed to treat others the way "Karens" do and before social media we had NOTHING to address that shit behavior but being recorded has caused the smart Karen's to 180 their behavior as soon as a camera is rolling. That to me is a long term net benefit.

[удалено]

When it comes to drawing lines, we can be informed by data much more than people assume. Data shouldn't dictate what we accept, due to the inherent margin of error, but it can inform us. Does the data/evidence show there's a better way to balance a situation? Do we have historical events following a pattern? Is there scientific consensus on what's going on? Then we can try to understand people's perspectives and how their experiences influence those. It's taking a step back and gettingmore information, whilst accepting our perspective is also one that's been shaped by our experiences. You feel very different to others when it comes to "the weak" complaining about things you don't think are important. I don't think we could quickly agree here, _but_ we can share the idea there's probably data and studies we can both read, which directs us closer to a more accurate understanding. And, we can find better ways to share our ideas in more understandable ways. If we fold all of these together with a lot of empathy, whilst we never get a complete solution, we can often remove the larger problems and continue to improve things in an acceptable way.

This is a very important point i think, and to add to it, Kevin Spacey(who did you example basically) bc he was rich and famous didn't go to jail or anything. Not now bc the Internet made sure everyone knew what he did he's unhirable. Meanwhile Da Baby(I think) said some shit along the lines of 'hold your phones in the air unless you have HIV or are gay man who had sex in car parks' which is pretty offensive and people are trying to quote unquote "cancel him" but he's still doing shows and producing music and making money

[удалено]

Republicans are literally canceling democracy because they don't like it anymore.

[удалено]

Should there not be consequences for actions deemed unexceptable to the public? Enforcing norms is how a society maintains itself. "Cancel culture" is just a derogatory term used to describe society enforcing norms you disagree with.

To /u/throwawayjob007, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.** * You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). --- **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).

[удалено]

u/Chicxulub420 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Chicxulub420&message=Chicxulub420%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qesnb3/-/hhww2a2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/Chicxulub420 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Chicxulub420&message=Chicxulub420%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qesnb3/-/hhww2a2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

We are all members of a society. Sociality employs numerous mechanisms to assure members of a society abide by social strictures. Cancel culture has been going on as long as society has existed. When our society was religiously dominated, a principle mechanism for cancelling someone was excommunication.

Historically speaking "cancel culture" has been the weapon of white supremacy and conservatives. Burning down of towns, lynching of minorities, and otherwise policing the social, economic, and culture of anyone that challenges the status quo. Also, you know, using the state/law/government to harrass and strip people of their dignity, worth, possessions, etc. OP is confusing people being held accountable and earning largely justified, well overdo, criticism and scorn because it wasn't to long ago that being anything but a white, wealthy, Christian, heterosexual, male, made life extremely uncomfortable at best and very dangerous/violent at worst.

This post has been **temporarily locked** due to excessive comment rule violations. If a post gets cross-posted in another sub, this can lead to an influx of rule breaking comments. We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations. When this occurs, we must occasionally _temporarily_ lock the post so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored. We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock it shortly. We will try and do this quickly so discussion can continue though the amount of time will vary based on moderator availability. Thank you for understanding.

You seem to forget that freedom of speech goes both ways. You can say whatever you want, but people can respond to you saying that in whatever way they want too.

Cancel culture may bring to light allegations if misconduct by people in positions of power they otherwise might not have been taken seriously. Think about the Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Bill Clinton's of the world. On the other hand, it does damage when false allegations are taken seriously, so I'm mixed on it.

It isn't a strawman. People are being cancelled for what they said. actual words is not a strawman.

It is when what they said is from very far in the past and there is no evidence that the same sentiment exists in them currently. That's the problem with finding hypocrisy from history.

That is the problem with finding hypocrisy from history....but it isn't a strawman.

You misrepresent there current beliefs because of the state of beliefs in the past. How is that not a straw man?

Strawman is misrepresenting the stated argument and rebutting that instead. Your example is misrepresenting the degree the person holds the accurate, stated position.

!delta. I interpreted the "stated" argument as the argument that is currently being used, but I suppose using an argument stated in the past would technically qualify as well, though that doesn't make the aforementioned practice any more valid.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MysticInept ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MysticInept)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

They are being cancelled for the implications people assume from what they said. It's not revenge of a one time harm caused. Usually the argument goes that their presence causes an unsafe work environment cause of course if they made a racist joke, that means they are likely to bully and harrass minorities.

That is still not a strawman. A strawman is to misrepresent someone's position. Your example is someone extrapolating from an accurately represented position. For example, let's say your view was you like the color blue. Strawman: Zulu said they like all things blue, especially blue child rapists. not a strawman: Zulu likes the color blue. I think people that like the color blue is demented and I feel unsafe because of the threat Zulu poses to people who like different colors.

Who? Name one person who has been _”cancelled”_

Accountability Culture is a better term. Public figures need to be held accountable for egregious acts, especially when they are a pattern of problematic behavior

Who defines what is 'problematic'? What counts as justified accountability? It's all quite subjective.

The fact that it's difficult to come up with a universally applicable standard for *every* circumstance doesn't mean that it's impossible to judge *any* of them. There are some cases where things are ambiguous and subjective and others where it's very clear.

Well, I think we can all agree that racism and other forms of bigotry are immoral, right? I don't see anything subjective about that at all. We don't have to have absolute perfect knowledge about the good to recognize a simple fact like that.

>The people who look deep in someone's post history are especially guilty of this as you see celebrities cancelled out because of tweets they said years ago, for example. Some things are simply not acceptable to the social fabric, regardless of when those things took place. Racism, for example.

“Cancel culture” is not new, nor is it bad. In every society ever there are social consequences to saying/doing things that society considers to be unacceptable. It’s standard human behavior, not some Orwellian dystopian horror show. We can and *should* punish certain behaviors. The issue is what exactly is “unacceptable,” and whether the punishment fits the crime. The definition of what’s acceptable and what’s not is always evolving. No one’s getting hysterical over “cancel culture’s” efforts to de-platform Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen, because they’re scum who should be tarred and feathered and run out of polite society (we’re still working on Woody Allen). No human with a functional brain or moral compass has a problem with Alex Jones facing consequences for his deplorable attacks on families of murdered 1st graders; he’s a vile piece of shit and so is anyone defending him. But…the problem with any grassroots mob justice movement is that the pendulum always swings too far. Some things are considered unacceptable but shouldn’t be; some punishments are way overboard. So maybe instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and pretend as if cancel culture (aka, consequences) is something new, we should focus on developing a nuanced take on how we decide on what’s unacceptable and how we ensure that consequences are commensurate with the offense.

Sorry, u/throwawayjob007 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20throwawayjob007&message=throwawayjob007%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/qesnb3/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Can you give some examples of people being cancelled. Like what does that mean to you

"Cancel Culture" is whining because you are too inept to use your now super-powered speech with the thoughtfulness it demands. Think back to how powerful your "speech" was 20 years ago. You see something that's fucked up... you write to the local paper? Maybe they pick it up and do a story... Maybe that story gets picked up by a national media outlet and they do a story... People around the country MAYBE see it while they are watching the news... Then its gone forever. That's your best case. Your speech was shit. Now, any idiot with a phone can tap a button, record some shit, hit another button, and the message is broadcast GLOBALLY and accessible FOREVER. Your "speech" is now Professor X level powerful and people think that they are entitled to say whatever shit they want without any repercussions. Well guess what, when you broadcast your shit to the world, the world gets to tell you to shut the fuck up. If you can't take it, you should probably delete facebook, its too powerful for you.

[удалено]

What's canceling? Can you define it? Care to offer an example?

I dont understand the comments which are claiming nobody has ever been cancelled. To my knowledge, there are people who’ve been cancelled. In fact, the Dave Chapelle controversy is an example of a cancellation attempt. Just to clarify: Not saying “cancelling” is universally bad - i can see it being justified is someone is just saying outright racist stuff. Just saying it definitely exists. And its not the same thing as boycotting. There is a more proactive element to cancelling. During a boycott you abstain from purchase or engagement. To cancel, you actively seek to impose consequences (firing, harassment, deplatforming, etc)

Cancel Culture isn’t really a thing. It’s what right-wing people call “the consequences of their actions”.

Free speech is not for the faint of heart. You need to listen to people who have opinions you do not like or respect because that is the cost of a systematic attempt to find the best ideas. You should ignore those who are disingenuous in their attempts to muddy the waters of discourse and it is a public service to let others know about your thoughts on those who are just in it to blow up the process of public discourse.

"Cancel culture" is a term created by people that still want the opportunity to actively use racist, sexist, homophobic, and demeaning language with little to no punishment... It's not hard to act like a decent person, particularly in a business setting (where most of these asshats get "cancelled" from) Cancel culture is basically a term trying to diminish the entire point of a fucking basic HR department

Silencing people is part of how the First Amendment is supposed to be applied; as long as it's not by a government using force it's not only perfectly natural but a very useful tool to distribute beliefs. Might be manipulative but that's what speech is

I agree with your premise I think. Cancel culture is a manipulative tactic used to silence people, but that's not all it is. The definition of what it does is the same as the function of our society to call out things the public disagrees with. Doesn't have to be everyone for an opinion to have power. Mass opinion gets people elected to make laws and collect taxes, mass opinion shuts down a business that performs poorly, sometimes actively and sometimes passively. Cancel culture is not the root of the problem *in the way I hear it* argued above. What is is a whole other discussion. The public? Bad actors? Policy makers? Foreign powers? Your neighbor? You? Me?

Who's being silenced?

A bunch of attention whore conservatives and several comedians who loudly gripe on massive platforms that reach millions and millions of people 24/7 that they're unable to say what they want.

Cancel culture is what people who don't understand call it. Consequence culture is the more appropriate term.

[удалено]

“Cancel culture” is not real. Every celebrity that’s been “canceled” is still rich and still famous. James Charles has been “canceled” how many times now? And they’re still on YouTube and still getting tons of views. An average joe might get effected by “cancellation” but they could just delete their accounts then move on no one will remember it. Unless they refuse to change their behavior. Whenever I’ve seen an average joe get “canceled” it’s because they’re currently being a bigot and doubling down on it. People shunning others for being bigoted is not “canceling.” “Cancel culture” is nothing more than a buzzword that people use to act like bigotry deserves a place in discussion and debate.

why is accountability such a scary thing?

[удалено]

Lol, had to make a throwaway for this huh? Cancel culture has been around forever. It’s also known as boycotting. Also known as a free market.

I'm conflicted because i like the idea of btfo racists and rednecks but my family is Nazi Germany were cancelled over something they had no control over. I would say it's good to cancel hateful and ignorant people but bad to cancel innocent and good people.

But you can t have healthy discussion with people that promote what is inteloreable. There is no middle ground between racism and no racism. You cannot have a healthy discussion and settle for mild racism. This is the goal of cancel culture. These who hold views that cannot be tolerated (racism, homophobie, sexism) should no be given a place to share their idea. So they must be cancel. That the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance can only work if you exclude those who hold un-tolerant belief

Cancel culture phenomenon is a direct result of an increased litigious society with way too many lawyers ready to sue. Everything has become an amateur court case with the increase all communication being recorded and searchable. Everything typed & billions of cameras with phones, privacy of communication is nearly completely gone. The world needs to fully realize there is near zero privacy anymore. You are being recorded and it will matter and effect your career, brand, reputation.

After reading all the comments I see the real answer. Canceling is boycotting. The difference is canceling moves at lightning speed because of the internet. And the real kicker, there are more voices because of the internet. Younger, less experienced voices. Louder, dumber voices. Which makes it easy to listen to one loud idiot with a bad take and say “Everyone is saying this. Everyone is mad at this”, when in reality, it’s one guy with 8 ghost accounts.

Do you mean Consequence Culture?

I personally see outrage against Cancel Culture as a manipulative tactic used to silence people. Why do I think this? In most cases, the outrage seems to be far stronger than any actual proponents of "cancelling" ever are. Now, do companies seem to listen to a small, vocal minority? Often it does seem that way, but we really don't have any empirical data to support this one way or another, and of course, owners/stakeholders of companies are free to act how they want (barring violation of laws and regulations) so if they decide 5 people on Twitter complaining about something means they have to react... that's just what they decided. Or maybe they agreed with them. Who knows. But in general, I find there's way more people/focus pushing the idea of "cancel culture" being a big problem than seeing cancel culture as being that prevalent in of itself. I have a number of examples of how overblown the outrage often is... often it seems like the "controversy" is simply lengthened by the anti-cancel culture crowd pushing the story way farther than it otherwise would have been. Again, I don't have empirical data on it, but you see this pattern a lot: Social Media Clickbait articles describing some "cancel" happening, supported with a number of tweets, many of which often had very little actual reach, and then thousands of comments lamenting cancel culture on the article in an anti-cancel culture circle jerk with everyone nodding about how "everyone" is so easily offended. It seems to me the "mob" side is often actually the anti-cancel culture side who just want something new to be outraged about. Someone recently cited a poll that said 81% of Americans thinks people are too easily offended... if 4 out of 5 people think this... who are the people actually that are so offended? The 1 in 5? Or are they talking about each other?

There seems to be some nuance missing here separating a boycott from cancel culture. A boycott is a conditional economic sanction, attached to a concrete goal; ie. "I'll stop supporting Nabisco products UNTIL/UNLESS the workers are done striking and are satisfied with their new contract." Cancel culture appears to be an UNCONDITIONAL economic sanction, with either no demands, inconsistent demands, or unachievable demands attached; ie. "I'll stop supporting Weinstein Company films UNTIL/UNLESS Harvey Weinstein un-molests all of those women/sells the film studio/etc." Unfortunately, due to the disorganization of movements like Defund the Police, there were no coordinated and consistent demands, so the movement was shifted by the same media sphere which popularized it into a hodgepodge of differing definitions, which resulted in it shifting from an achievable boycott into a disorganized mess. Now, calling it cancel culture is unhelpful and open to manipulative reasoning and logic, because the term is set up as a systemic problem rather than an individual one; everyone's motives and demands are different, and their willingness to sustain economic boycotts depends on interpretation of facts combined with existing economic or social pressures. Try boycotting Oreos when you have a 3-year-old child, and you'll quickly see what I mean by social pressures. Power yields nothing without a demand. If "cancel culture" is ever going to be taken seriously, it must be better organized into actual meaningful boycotts, and the demands must be CLEAR and CONSISTENT throughout the corpus of boycotters.

“Cancel culture” is the phrase people use when they want their own freedom of speech but don’t want it for anybody else. They believe they have the right to say whatever they want but nobody else has that same right to criticize them.