Oh, give me a break with all the whining about cancel culture!
Cancel culture used to be called social exclusion/ostracism, and it has been how people police themselves against undesirable people in pre-internet communities where most everybody knew everybody. If you were considered an ass, eventually the only person listening to you was you.
Not saying this as a value judgement, just that this practice is ancient.
While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you.
> While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you.
This conception of "cancelling" has little relation to how it actually happens, where the offending messages are often spread as far as possible first. If the goal is not to listen to someone, muting/blocking is almost always an option. Cancelling is trying to convince everyone else to shun the person as well often with misleading or reductive narratives about what they said/did and use of guilt by association.
My favourite example is Contrapoints getting cancelled for featuring a short VoiceOver by a controversial trans person[1] in a video.
It reminds me of Plato's Apology. It is the dialogue where Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth. The end result is the citizens of Athens convict him and his options are to drink hemlock poison or ostracization. He chooses death.
I think it is worth deeply pondering why a man as wise as Socrates would choose death over ostracization.
> It reminds me of Plato's Apology. It is the dialogue where Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth.
Plato's Apology was not meant to be a wholly accurate account [1]. It's a partially fictional, philosophical account meant to demonstrate Socrates' intended message. But I digress.
> The end result is the citizens of Athens convict him and his options are to drink hemlock poison or ostracization.
My understanding is that Socrates chose death where he had the option of requesting legal exile, which in the context of "cancel culture" is not nearly the same as social ostracization.
As for why Socrates would choose death, a superficial search gave me possible explanations (e.g. "death is not so bad" but more formal [2] or moral integrity toward family/friends [3]) that didn't center on the personal suffering or cruelty of exile or ostracization. I would add "moral integrity toward sticking to the truth" as another possible explanation (though I'm not entirely sympathetic to choosing suicide for any of these explanations).
The point of Plato's dialogues (whether fictional, based on a real-story or otherwise) is to encourage thought and not to forward a conclusion with the aim to stop thought. I encourage people not to outsource their own thought to Wikipedia (or other sources).
As the comment I was responding to suggested, ostracization is ancient. Ancient enough that it is the topic of one of the most famous dialogues by one of the most famous philosophers.
I will add that the Apology is quite short and freely available online. It is worth the quick read, Then, as I suggested, I encourage people to deeply think about why Socrates chose death (rather than accept quick answers in HN comments).
Can you please point me to the text where Socrates chooses death over exhile?
I have read Apology of Socrates in its entirety[0] and a few text analysis and I can find no evidence of this. It seems to me that Socrates suggested a fine[1], and it was his prosecuters which argued for death[2]
He states that he won't accept it as part of his argumentation (See passages 37c, 37d):
> And if I say exile (and this may possibly be the penalty which you will affix)
One commentary I read suggested that it wasn't uncommon for political opponents to bring these kinds of charges against people in order to silence them. The idea being the accused would end up groveling and begging for their lives, promising to hold their tongues. It is assumed by the reader that Socrates could have done this and used his military service as a form of pathos. This passage implies that he will do neither, beg for clemency nor accept exile.
One could read the passage as Socrates giving up hope in humanity, for he goes on:
> I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that when you, who are my own citizens, [37d] cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would want to have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely.
But, as I have implied, seeking simple answers in Plato is literally going against the point.
edit, also 38e:
> But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defense, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death.
Sorry I dont agree with this analysis. There is no need to try to read between the lines of Socrates intentions here when there is very specific passages which state them:
> Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes?
Which is to say, the plaintiff. No different than in court today where the prosecution asks the court for a sentence that is up to the judge to decide. And just like our own courts the defense can offer a counter proposal, which Plato goes into a discussion why he won't do that (well, he proposes a fine which would clearly not satisfy the crime he was accused of). The entire next passages are his reasons rejecting the likely mercies he could be offered (and would be expected to plead for).
Just like making a plea for a guilty sentence comes with the expectation of a potentially lighter sentence in our own court systems, a plea for extenuating circumstances during sentencing is often made by the defense. For example, an elderly person requiring care may avoid prison and plead for home arrest.
Now imagine the circumstance where pre-sentencing, facing a recommendation of the death penalty from the prosecution, the defendant stands before the judge and explains in great detail why he won't accept any of the potentially lesser sentences he might get, rejecting them one by one. That is explicitly what Plato is showing Socrates to have done.
Consider: does it makes sense to argue against a more lenient sentence when your life is on the line, especially when it is likely you would receive it? Why would Socrates seemingly act against his own interests?
Yes, this is what I originally stated, that it is his prosecuters arguing for death.
You seem to be ignoring the passages where he explicitly suggests a fine as the sentence, however you may also argue that he does this in jest/sarcasm.
Yes he argues against exile etc, but in no way does he ever suggest death is a prefered option in my opinion.
I would argue his suggestion of a fine isn't to be taken seriously. The options of imprisonment, exile and death are the reasonable alternatives.
Let's examine your opinion here, which of course you are entitled to. Socrates could have three opinions: Exile is worse than death, exile is equivalent to death, exile is better than death.
Let us consider the first case, where Socrates actually believes that exile is better than death. You could make the argument: Socrates would choose exile but he is too proud to beg for his life. That is, his subsequent explanation as to why he believes a life of exile would not be worth living is a ruse. It would render the famous line "the life which is unexamined is not worth living" as just pure cope. Actually, we are to see Socrates not as a principled man but rather a vain one. Otherwise, how do we explain his refusal to argue for that which is better? You could argue: Socrates is not wise as we have been led to believe in countless dialogues by Plato, but rather a fool who does not speak honestly.
Maybe you have a better argument for that case? I would be interested to hear it.
But if we take his explicit rejection of the option during his counter-plea at face value, it seems unreasonable to stake the position that he thinks exile is better than death (although, you may decide to hold that opinion and even forward a better case for it than I have).
That leaves the two options: Socrates thinks exile is equivalent to death and Socrates thinks exile is worse than death. I think a case for the first is possible but a stretch.
But let's not worry about resolving that, since Socrates attacks the problem in a different manner:
> When I do not know whether death is a good [agathos] or an evil [kakos], why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?
It seems clear to me that Socrates is saying: I know that exile is bad but I do not know that death is bad. If you do not see that as a preference towards death over exile then I would like to hear your counter argument.
edit: I will add, since it may not be clear or obvious to some, that the logic that separates the final two options only applies when the initial option (exile is better than death) has been removed. Which is more or less the question that Plato (and my original comment which kicked off this thread) wants us to ask: why would Socrates discard that first option?
You convieniently left out the next part in your quote.
> why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil? Shall I say imprisonment? And why should I live in prison, and be the slave of the magistrates of the year—of the Eleven? Or shall the penalty be a fine, and imprisonment until the fine is paid? There is the same objection.
He was not talking about exile at this point, but every punishment which is considered evil[kakos], shown by the fact that he mentions fines and imprisonment immediately after. He goes on to mention exile third after these 2. This leads me to believe he thinks death is better than any punishment, as death is the only punishment which contains an unknown.
After mulling the outcomes of imprisonment, fines, and exile, he settles on proposing a fine (be it in sarcasm or not).
In my opinion there is nothing specific about death vs exile here, only a man showing he is not afraid of death.
> Socrates could have three opinions: Exile is worse than death, exile is equivalent to death, exile is better than death.
You know what? He could also have the opinion that death is better than a kick in the testicles, but in the same way it is not mentioned in this text ;)
> This leads me to believe he thinks death is better than any punishment
The fact that he proposes a fine is strong evidence that he doesn't (and is one reason it may be included at all, to counter this assumption effectively). Nor would he reasonably think a slap on the wrist would be worse than death. I don't think your use of "any" in this context is appropriate and only serves to advance your case rather than engage honestly.
> He could also have the opinion that death is better than a kick in the testicles
Again, as I have said time and time again, Plato is asking us to consider particular alternatives to death. He spends one sentence on imprisonment and then two large paragraphs on exile. That is evidence of the relative importance he places on the specific alternatives. Note he does not bother addressing your "kick to the testicles" opinion. Perhaps you can write an essay on that which will stand the test of thousands of years of consideration.
I think you are committed to exile in a personal sense and you are refusing to engage with this dialogue as it was meant in order to avoid facing its implications. I am sorry to treat you so cynically and I wish you luck in your continued intellectual journey.
Possibly he was anti-democratic, and was put on trial by the democratic government in troubled times (the Spartans had only recently gone away) because he was a threat, and he declined to be exiled by ostracism (from ostrakon, a clay pot, because pot shards were voting tokens), that is to be voted out, because he had no respect for a democratic process.
Instead of guessing you could read the dialogue where Socrates outlines his reasons in detail. But that doesn't mean you should accept his reasons, since the point is to feed your own curiosity rather than accept hand-fed answers.
Sure, but if your guess is "He probably hated democracy so much that he would rather die than accept it" (correct me if I'm implying something other than your meaning), then you should probably read the dialogue to check and see if that guess is reasonable based on the context provided.
Not in my opinion, but it isn't for me to decide. I want to encourage people to keep thinking. It is possible to consider many motivations for Socrates' decision, and the goal is to encourage the consideration of a wide array of possibilities rather than guess at one.
Where he has Socrates saying dismissively "perhaps kill me or banish me or disfranchise me", as if those are all just as bad (well, they all ruin his life of hanging around Athens harassing people philosophically), and saying that the Athenians will only hurt themselves if they by any means get rid of him.
As I quoted above, in 37c, 37d and 38e, Plato insinuates that Socrates had the option of groveling for his life. He explicitly refuses to do so.
Why would he choose death before groveling? As he states:
> But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defense, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death.
Was he overly proud? Did he want to be a martyr? Had he lost faith in humanity? Did he want to challenge to process of law that was practiced in his own time, believing that justice in disputes between independent parties could not be adequately served through a majority vote?
Further, what would you do in that circumstance? Say you had a deeply held belief yet upon expressing it publicly you found yourself thrust in front of the entire city being taken to account with your own life on the line. Would you beg, promise to never mention that belief again in order to save your life? Would you accept exile and seek a life in another city, away from your friends and family, at the mercy of foreigners/strangers who you have no connection to?
Would you have voted for Socrates death? Would you have argued they accepted his proposal for a fine? Would you have attempted to persuade him to beg for the option of exile or clemency for a promise of silence? Would you vote to acquit?
Of all of the principles worth dying for, why did Socrates choose this one? Are there any principles that you hold that you would choose death over silence?
We live in a time where people want to skim Wikipedia for easy answers, like skipping to the back of a text book looking for the answer. Plato is giving questions, not suggesting answers.
You were considered an ass by people that actually knew you. The internet lynch mob takes a 30 second clip of a person they don't know and demand that the person have their life destroyed.
> While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you.
Does this also justify hundreds or thousands of people calling your minimum wage employer trying to get you fired?
> Cancel culture used to be called social exclusion/ostracism, and it has been how people police themselves against undesirable people in pre-internet communities where most everybody knew everybody.
Even if this were true, its application was typically reserved for people already infamous for doing something heinous, eg. murderers, despots, thieves, etc. Social media virality has applied this to individuals whose worst crime was maybe making an off-colour joke. The disproportionate response to the transgression is what most people dislike about modern cancel culture, and I don't think this disproportional response was that common in the past.
Let's look back at who these "undesirable people" who were being excluded/ostracized were throughout history, shall we, and see how well your "While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you" dismissal holds up.
You can certainly ostracize people who don’t deserve to be ostracized, but it doesn’t follow from that that all social ostracization is inherently bad. Freedom of association and freedom of speech can be used for bad ends as well as good, like most freedoms.
I don't think anyone decides that as such. Organizations and individuals decide who they do or don't want to associate with. If it turns out that very few people want to associate with you, then you've been ostracized. Your question is like asking "Who decides which people should be friends?", or "Who decides who should be popular?"
Hmm? There are laws against some forms of discrimination, but organizations have freedom of association just as individuals do. For example, political affiliation is not a protected class, so (in some states and some contexts) it is perfectly legal for a private company to decline to hire someone on the basis of their political views.
Thinking in terms of the US constitution and the laws built on top if it, ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not.
> ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not.
So its fine to fire all black people to ostracize them? No, of course not, so no you are wrong here, there are more limitations than that, people have rights protecting them from a lot of ostracism.
> This works because people can choose to not be jerks, but they can't choose to not be black.
What if they could? People can change gender identity nowadays, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that people could change their phenotypical characteristics (transracialism is a hotly debated topic).
Ostracization is an absolutely critical tool in the marketplace of ideas.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that the dynamics of the Internet have made some tools more or less suitable for purpose as what they used to be, but the idea that we can just assert "no ostracization" is flatly insane and totally antithetical to the marketplace of ideas.
Like I said "Not saying this as a value judgement, just that this practice is ancient."
Heck, downvotes here in HN are basically the same thing. If a statement doesn't comply with both the explicit rules and implicit assumptions and culture here, it will be downvoted to oblivion. And it is one of the major mechanisms that HN uses to ensure this site remains useful and relevant even with the large number of participants.
Just because something applies some negative pressure on diversity of thought doesn't mean it necessarily "leads to a monoculture and echo chambers."
If you're in a car that's going way too fast, do you tell the driver not to touch the brakes because it "leads to us never reaching our destination?"
Anyway, we're currently seeing the reign of the "cancel culture is the big problem" crybabies. Turns out they just thought the state should have the power to decide who's allowed to have an opinion.
Except this is not the case. If someone whom half of the country thinks is the best person to become their president could get "cancelled" and blocked from twitter, it is hard to argue that he got cancelled the pre internet way where no one wants to listen to him.
Cancel culture today for both parties is not form of not listening or even social exclusion, but kind of active shaming.
1. Some people definitely deserve to be cancelled/ostracized/socially punished.
2. Social media cares about engagement, not right and wrong. If content of a type is sought for, content of that type will be made.
3. Social media has trained people to simply react to the perceived message - "Oh, give me a break with all the whining about cancel culture!"
4. Concern trolling is very real. Social media is a low trust environment. You have no reason to think of me as a serious person, or take the time to engage with my reasoning.
5. Shame is incredibly motivating, but the shamer does not get to choose the direction that shame moves the target. You can certainly say that they are reacting wrongly, but you are not their parent/priest/custodian.
6. Once enough people are made to feel shame, they may band together. You are free to say that this is morally wrong or detestable.
7. This is all very very unsatisfying, so people usually take a more satisfying offramp and just blame someone. Blame and responsibility are very very slippery topics. Blame is about moral satisfaction and dropping a heavy, prickly, stinky and noxious emotional burden.
Blame typically falls on the person with the least social capital (relative to the blamer) who is closest to the problem.
Blame is the easiest thing to reach for in a low trust environment.
Responsibility requires a high trust environment. Responsibility can be forward and backward - who WAS responsible for this incident, who WILL BE responsible for improving the situation. In a low trust environment, responsibility will randomly transmute into blame.
8. It's easier to fight than it is to work. If someone is morally wrong, you do not owe them any emotional labor.
9. A fight does not require real harm as a trigger; a perceived social slight or lack of respect is more than enough to start a fight. Pain can be endured, shame cannot.
10. Anger and fighting form a feedback loop. Does the anger or fight come first?
11. This sort of thing has historically gotten VERY VERY bad before it gets better, even when people see it coming. It is very unsatisfying to say, but life can just really suck for a lot of people for a while. This is a heavy, noxious emotional burden, so by all means preserve your emotional health and find someone to blame.
----
So what is the solution?
I don't have a satisfying solution, but I have noticed something.
I have noticed that gravity is the weakest force/interaction in the universe per scale unit.
I have noticed that gravity is responsible for the largest objects and systems in the universe.
I have noticed that people mostly do not change their views in the middle of a fight.
"That's odd" is the most power phrase in science. The greatness of humanity has followed curiosity, patience, empathy and humility.
----
I won't tell anyone to stop fighting, but I will say that I strongly believe that fighting is only ever part of a solution.
I believe that fighting cannot ever fix anything or make anything better on the large scale.
Fighting can only make things less worse, for some people, in some place, at some time.
Cancel culture used to be called social exclusion/ostracism, and it has been how people police themselves against undesirable people in pre-internet communities where most everybody knew everybody. If you were considered an ass, eventually the only person listening to you was you.
Not saying this as a value judgement, just that this practice is ancient.
While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you.