> If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated.
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 still disagree; people are using free speech and freedom of association to counter your words. You may not like that they're countering it by telling your employer or employer's business partners that "we treat your continued association with InitialPerson as tacit approval of their words", but that still is a fundamental right.
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's dredging up history (and for once, 'dredge' is exactly the right word), and relitigating it with the presumption that everyone at that time recognized the same issues as we do now in our perfected, enlightened minds.
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.
I feel like we're talking about two wildly different things.
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.
They lie at the same roots, don't they? Different people at different level of engagement in different arenas, but acting on the same baseline ideas. Whether ten years ago or centuries ago, rummaging through the past is the same, only some of the results have more immediate effect. Many times that person was in the wrong, but may have learned since. Many times, only selective views on the person are presented, to shape a narrative of evil. The same tools, the same motivations, just in different contexts and scopes.
Again, I am not talking about 10 years ago, I'm talking about 10 hours ago or 10 days ago. I realize time is a continuum and that's why it gets wonky, but surely people can respond to something someone has said now, with their words and freedom to associate, and not try to conflate that with judging slave traders by today's standards.
I mean, I'm still wildly against statues of slave traders, but to me they're different topics entirely.
That much can be fair. How often is it that the offending statements were only just made? Does that make up the majority of cases? Is the impulse based on any different reason?
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.