Cancel culture is terrible because the goal is to destroy people who hold unpopular beliefs. It not enough to refute the belief. The transgressor must be punished with the full fury that internet-enhanced social pressure can bring to bear. The goal is to punish and destroy.

Shaming and social opprobrium can work in a community where there's interaction between the parties. This also allows for grace and restoration. It doesn't work in the global twitter-verse.

Civilization is the ability to live in peace with people that aren't like you - you may disagree with them, disapprove of them, or dislike them, but you don't seek to destroy them. We seem to be losing it.

I find the "I can say whatever I want, it's just words" to be an immature stance to hold. Words hold power, and power can be used or misused. We know words hold power; otherwise protesting wouldn't work, MLK's letters from a birmingham jail wouldn't matter, even the very constitution itself would be pointless.

So if that power is being applied to harm people, there needs to be a check on that. I fully agree it isn't the government's role to play that part; it's society's full, universal, democratic decision what to do with it.

The final result is "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you". If you don't like the worst that the so-called "cancel culture" response can bring you, then the solution is relatively simple: choose your words carefully and own them.

That might be fine, if that were the way it worked. In practice, though, it seems more that it's a minority forming a howling mob that brings the heat.

> "if you say something so upsetting that you can get a large group of people to use their own words and freedom to associate to harm you in return, then that's on you"

I prefer the legal system to mob "justice".

Which has, when you really think about it, very little power. Consider this: the nebulous "cancel culture", with all its fury, didn't cancel the Rosanne reboot. ABC execs did.

you don't seek to destroy them

Who is getting "destroyed"? Getting fired from a job is not getting destroyed.

You should be more worried about what people in positions of power are doing rather than what nobodies on Twitter are saying.

They're not being killed, of course, but I think the word destroy isn't out of proportion for having one's livelihood and reputation ruined. Otherwise you could just as easily say "Who is getting destroyed? Being put in prison for a little while is not being destroyed." That would be the natural next step, after all.

The people who have been in prison (Cosby, Weinstein) might have had a different outcome, but that's because they were arrested and placed on trial, which is a function of the legal system, again, not the work of angry tweeters. If you're saying the justice system is at the whims of "cancel culture", you're just being silly.

What I said about prisons was unclear, sorry. I was trying to imagine what the next escalatory step would be after getting someone fired. Perhaps it would be putting them in prison. If so, someone would be making the same argument again: it's not as if their life was destroyed just because a few angry tweeters got them jailed, they'll get out soon enough, and so on. The point is that there are degrees of harm. Just because it could be worse does not prove that harm isn't severe.

But it does not mean that most people share the sentiment of the intolerant minority. To address your example of you and your boss, in most cases it's more as though your boss doesn't care what you said, but someone shows up to your place of work and makes them care by being more unpleasant than the consequences of firing you.

It's the old paradox of the tolerant society writ large. I think the 'cancel culture' narrative is the early stages of mainstream culture working out where to draw a border around what accommodations an intolerant minority can and cannot expect of the majority.

If it stopped at people they were actually associated with, then you may have a point. That's not the reality of the situation though, because people will stir up outrage mobs who have no association with you, your employer, your school, etc., and harass them until you are punished for what you said.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't cases where it won't be used irresponsibly, and if what you mean by decrying "cancel culture" is simply a question of responsible application, then that's fine. I object more toward the concept that people shouldn't be free to say or band together in a fight against someone's words and anyone associated with those words, especially if that association can be reasonably made to indicate tacit approval.

I'll use a Tucker Carlson example here since it seems to be an appropriate contemporary choice. Tucker Carlson says something that some consider to be exhibit A under "dog whistle racism". People are outraged, but they're just normal people; they have no powerful media entity providing them a soapbox to directly counter his words on an equal playing field. They can counter his words in various social media posts or essays or blog entries or what have you, but regardless of how excellent the content is, it'll never have the same punch as a man with a TV show.

So instead they look at the advertisers; these advertisers buy ad slots during specific programs, trying to get the most eyeballs on their product. They KNOW what they're buying; they don't just say "Hey, Fox, run this ad for me at some point and here's my millions of dollars for it". That's too much money and they want more control than _that_. So they specifically choose a slot.

In the best case, they may not be aware of the things Tucker Carlson may say. In the worst case, they are absolutely aware and choose to stick with him no matter what.

What's the best use of your time if you want to rebut someone's words, in this case? If you can't get a powerful media corporation to give you the same soapbox as Tucker Carlson, no matter how excellently you've rebutted his point, you're in a bind. So the best thing you can do; the biggest bang for your buck, is drag him back down to your level. Without media backing, Tucker Carlson is just a guy. A guy with a blog who says crazy shit. And the only way he is going to lose that backing is if the advertisers wise up to how toxic he is. They choose the slots, remember? It's reasonable to conclude that continuing to support Tucker Carlson's show is tacit approval of the things he says, especially when there is no retraction.

I don't see the downside to this at all. It wouldn't matter if it were Tucker Carlson saying racist things or Rachel Maddow saying white fragility things. You are entitled to your thoughts and your words and you can speak them all you want, but you are NOT entitled to a soap box, nor are you entitled to association or support from others. On a fundamental level, I believe people try to say entirely too many things without having the backbone to own them, and trying to suppress ramifications only gives them more reason to say outrageous things without taking responsibility for them.

It is graceless, faithless, trustless, bigoted and suspicious towards past generations, unanchored in history, and sought for the purpose of personal moral status more than the perceived rectification of injustice.

On the one hand, we have a Tucker Carlson character doing, well, Tucker Carlson things. People got upset, started listing off all the advertising relationships on his show, and raised a ruckus. This isn't some ancient history scenario, it's happening now, in real life.

On the other, we have slaver statues being dumped into harbors in England. This is way more in line with your comment.

Are you lumping them both together into cancel culture? They seem pretty different in many respects to me, though they do share some characteristics as well. I'm trying to understand and would appreciate your thoughts.

I mean, I'm still wildly against statues of slave traders, but to me they're different topics entirely.