Not publishing a piece (of shit) in the Op-Ed section of the Times doesn’t eliminate it from public conversation, particularly if the author is high profile, like a US senator.

Cancel culture is emotionally loaded censorship or even emotional terrorism.

If you want to immediately validate someone's opinion cancel them.

If you want their book sales to soar.

In fact, I think "cancel culture" is about public accountability. — Benkei

If "cancel culture" was executed with the right way it would really be the most useful thing for humanity .And a really great spiritual revolution. But the way it is(and will be) executed from people, makes it (and will make it) one of the most dangerous matters-challenges that humanity will have to face.

Is there any dictatorship that has not used censorship and "cancelled" it's opponents?

Cancel culture is emotionally loaded censorship or even emotional terrorism. — Andrew4Handel

Emotional terrorism. Excellent description. And the way that anyone can take part into it, by just pressing some buttons from his couch, is really scary. Anger is the domain emotion behind all that "movement" imo.

Cancel culture was regnant in McCarthyism and Anti-communism, I would say. — NOS4A2

It’s funny that many of those who whine the loudest about cancel culture believe that a capitalist society should be self-regulating. Isn’t cancel culture the ideal of this philosophy? Probably only when it works in their favor, I imagine.

Not publishing a piece (of shit) in the Op-Ed section of the Times doesn’t eliminate it from public conversation, particularly if the author is high profile, like a US senator. — praxis

True. But in order to have the conversation, the shit is going have to be published somewhere. Where do you prefer?

True. But in order to have the conversation, the shit is going have to be published somewhere. Where do you prefer? — frank

Newsweek. They’re the go-to source for political mud- wrestling between left and right.

Interesting, but quoting Maw on anything is about as useful as quoting one of those action man dolls with the pull cord on the back, and the other is yourself. — Isaac

Who are you?

It's 2022 why are people still whining about cancel culture, go outside, breath fresh air, watch a movie, go to the bar and grab a beer.

Here's a perfectly good reason not to visit StarBucks — Benkei

And their coffee is dreadful.

I would greenlight it for the comics section.

It’s funny that many of those who whine the loudest about cancel culture believe that a capitalist society should be self-regulating. Isn’t cancel culture the ideal of this philosophy? Probably only when it works in their favor, I imagine.

There is nothing self-regulating about this kind of ostracism and bigotry, even if they have found less violent means of doing it than in the past. Wherever heretical speech and thoughts are censored, it is nonetheless premised on the base motives found in inquisitions and witch-burning.

The idea of 'cancel culture' is often thought of as where ideas which are seen as unacceptable, as prejudiced, are edited, but it can be the exact opposite where people do not wish to hear views which are different from their own. In thinking about the idea of cancel culture, it may be asked who is being cancelled and on what basis?So, the dislike of 'cancelling' is often seen as problematic for being in line with 'wokism' but it can swing to the other way, whereby people may wish to express all kinds of hostility, including prejudices towards marginalised minorities. What should be acceptable as expressed views and what should be outlawed? Is prejudice or hatred, or objection to such views, to be given expression in 'cancel' culture and how may the differences of opinions be managed fairly?

Except it does; people's pursuit of social vainglory leads them to be vehemently against these 'issues'. So anything that may be seen as supporting them is publicly shunned. We've seen this time and time again, anything deviating from the status quo is termed some sort of ism or phobia

Social media definitely makes the shunning much easier, like an acceleration of social dynamics

It’s funny that many of those who whine the loudest about cancel culture believe that a capitalist society should be self-regulating. Isn’t cancel culture the ideal of this philosophy? Probably only when it works in their favor, I imagine. — praxis

Yep this is it, exactly. Its only cancel culture when you disagree with it; the right (i.e. the most vocal whiners about "cancel culture") is perfectly happy to e.g. talk hysterically about banning "critical race theory" in schools and trying to get people to lose their jobs if they criticize Israel, criticize Trump, criticize the police, or whatever, but then turn around and cry foul if someone gets publicly criticized or shamed for, say, doing or saying something racist.

So its just partisan hypocrisy, about 99% of the time from what I can tell.

There is nothing self-regulating about this kind of ostracism and bigotry, even if they have found less violent means of doing it than in the past. Wherever heretical speech and thoughts are censored, it is nonetheless premised on the base motives found in inquisitions and witch-burning. — NOS4A2

The difference, my hyperbolic friend, is that the Salem witch trial executions, for instance, were state-sanctioned. If a private sector employer fires someone because they did something that reduced the businesses profit margin, that’s just good business practice, right?

Right?! I recall Trump announcing to a cheering audience that he would fire any athlete who knelt during the National Anthem (in protest of police brutality). How is that not “cancel culture”?

The difference, my hyperbolic friend, is that the Salem witch trial executions, for instance, were state-sanctioned. If a private sector employer fires someone because they did something that reduced the businesses profit margin, that’s just good business practice, right?

The motivation of bigotry and resultant actions of censorship and ostracism are wrong no matter who does it, is the point.

Good point, but that obviously is not the only motivation behind cancel culture. Isn’t it really more about something like tribal loyalty? Or maybe you mean that being loyal to a tribe is to be bigoted?

You have a very broad definition of 'cancel culture' which apparently encompasses all social proscription. I'm talking about the trend of small vocal groups calling for sanctions on people who expressed ideas they disagree with. I may be wrong, but I don't suspect the victims in the cases you give would have been surprised. If Kathleen Stock decided to write a paper advocating slavery I don't think she would have been surprised by the response. A key factor in the phenomena is the sense of walking on eggshells not knowing exactly what might trigger the mob next.

By your definition ant-libel laws are 'cancel culture' too.

That is too vague and general to be of much use. — Fooloso4

So first the letter's not to be taken seriously because there's no examples; then it's not to be taken seriously because the examples are one's where you'd agree with the cancellations...

Much more efficient that way, eh? Decide you're not going to take it seriously first, worry about why later...

Social media definitely makes the shunning much easier, like an acceleration of social dynamics — InvoluntaryDecorum

Yes, it makes lynching quite tempting, even righteous.

the right (i.e. the most vocal whiners about "cancel culture") is perfectly happy to e.g. talk hysterically about banning "critical race theory" in schools and trying to get people to lose their jobs if they criticize Israel, criticize Trump, criticize the police, or whatever, but then turn around and cry foul if someone gets publicly criticized or shamed for, say, doing or saying something racist. — Seppo

Right. Good catch. That's the hypocrisy of some imaginary interlocutors well and truly exposed, I'm sure we can all vividly imagine them scuttling back to their imaginary holes and keeping their imaginary opinions to their imaginary selves from now on. Well played.

If you're not too exhausted from fighting the good fight, I wonder if you've anything to say in response to the actual interlocutors who are actually writing posts on this actual thread?

Good point, but that obviously is not the only motivation behind cancel culture. Isn’t it really more about something like tribal loyalty? Or maybe you mean that being loyal to a tribe is to be bigoted?

There probably is a tribal element to it. What do you think? By bigoted I mean that one is intolerant of another because of his views, which do not manifest beyond the victimless expressions of thought and speech. There are actions we should not tolerate, however, and censorship is one of them.

I will say it again.

Cancel culture is one result of American workers having few if any workers rights when it comes to the ability of their employer to fire them.

If some stupid tweet can get your employer to fire you because someone (not remotely connected to your work or workplace) complained about it, you don't have much rights.

That's property rights (the employer's).

Right. Good catch. That's the hypocrisy of some imaginary interlocutors well and truly exposed, I'm sure we can all vividly imagine them scuttling back to their imaginary holes and keeping their imaginary opinions to their imaginary selves from now on. Well played. — Isaac

"Imaginary" :lol:

I wonder if you've anything to say in response to the actual interlocutors who are actually writing posts on this actual thread? — Isaac

I was replying to praxis, who appears to be an actual person actually writing in this actual thread. So, nice try, I guess? Better luck next time?

There was also the Trump administration's gag orders on scientists at the EPA. Like, actual censorship. But then they turn around and cry "cancel culture" because someone dared to criticize them on Twitter for some racist shit they had done.

So, it seems we all enjoy a good bit of cancelling, only provided its someone we disagreed with. Its almost is if its a natural reaction, free speech/the free market at work, towards people who do or say things we find harmful or offensive or otherwise disagreeable.

There is an ongoing attempt to cancel J K Rowling by the people she made rich and famous out of her own franchise.

This is worrying for new writers and creativity because when the most famous wealthy author in the world is trying to be written out of history what chance is there for up coming authors to express themselves before they have the relative protection of wealth?

It is very draconian and absurd.

But the main intention is to persevere political correctness and Wokeness at all costs. It is a political/power move not the response of an oppressed minority.

Who wants to sell books to these kind of people anyway? It makes you want to opt out of society. I don't want to share ideas with brainwashed and virtue signalling banal people.