> There was always an Overton Window and it has always been moving around.
Has it always been getting narrower, though? That seems to be what's changed more than anything. What happens when nothing can be discussed?
Has it always been getting narrower, though? That seems to be what's changed more than anything. What happens when nothing can be discussed?
This phenomenon explains why old people who do not want to change with the times will find that their Overton window is shrinking.
I don't know, both are possible. But there are a lot of people that claim it's getting smaller but really it's that they're failing to cover up ideas that were always unacceptable.
The other question is that, while rarer, right-wing cancellation is a thing. Notable examples are Dixie Chicks and Colin Kaepernick. While I could believe that the Dixie Chicks were a matter of an OW shift a few years in the making, and while I can believe that the window shifted gradually leftward from there, I can't believe that it shifted to the extreme left, then abruptly back to the right in just a week's time for the Kaepernick cancellation, and then a week later back to the far left for various left-wing cancellations.
Even if it is the Overton Window, is it eminently desirable that people's livelihoods and healthcare should be subject to expressing views within the OW?
EDIT: Downvoters, I would be very interested in your feedback, genuinely; where am I wrong?
At that point, not discussing anything clearly means that you're a witch.
If anything it feels like it has effectively widened, or at least fundamentally changed to lose some of it's bite, since there is no longer truly national media and everyone can quickly find a bubble with a window that fits their views.
I can probably think of several views supported by the median American in 2021 (or at least 30% of Americans) that would get you summarily dismissed from most high-visibility jobs if publicly expressed. You probably could too.
What views in the 1950s do you think were similar? Again, there was undoubtedly an Overton Window in the 1950s. What's peculiar about 2020s cancel culture imo, however, is how zealously it goes after people who hold views that are extremely common among the broader population.
supported by the median American in 1950's (or at least 30% of Americans): not a chance
As far as how many people were sympathetic to socialism at that point, 15-20% isn't a bad estimate.
But if you want something closer to 30% in the 1950s, how about just being black?
He's not the boogyman that some would make him out to be, but he didn't pull punches, either.
Got 3% of the US vote behind bars, too.
How about professing atheism, or believe in communism?
Being in a same sex or different race relationship in the 50's wouldn't just get you fired, it could lead to people refusing to give you a mortgage or the police driving you out of town.
It's difficult to find examples from the 50's america of a widespread belief that wasn't in the "mainstream" acceptable view because the effects of going against the acceptable view were so harsh. I doubt we could find a reliable poll from that time period to hit your arbitrary 30% threshold, but I like to flatter my ancestral countrymen at least enough to think that miscegenation laws weren't thought of as morally right by 70% of the population.
The difference, as you point it out, is that today's "cancel culture" can target people from the majority classes.
Even today these are sub-5% viewpoints.
I think the 30% threshold is arbitrary and not worth fixating on, but there are certainly counter examples.
We can keep looking at examples, but I don't think the 30% is a meaningful number, as I wrote above it seems impossible to find an opinion that the majority felt comfortable expressing that went against the stringent vocal monitory setting the overton window. I hypothesize that the vast majority of people just did not care strongly about interracial marriage but did not want to tangle with those who did. It seems to just be another way of saying that today's overton window doesn't include some of the views common in conservative white america, and before it was defined by conservative white america.
But if you have to reach down to 20% or 10% or whatever then yes that's a significant enough difference that I see it as conceding my original point about that this isn't like the 50s. It's also notable that the examples that you're reaching for seem to involve elite bigotry that eventually collapsed - do you think that cancel culture will collapse in the same fashion?
I think the difference is that "cancel culture" targets speech that is acceptable to well over 70% of the population.
I think the truth is the majority has no appetite for the culture wars and mostly doesn’t want to be out of step with “normal” - their default lack of conviction is often mistaken for tacit support by both sides of an issue.
Your comment made me curious, and I found out Politico took a poll: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe7.... 46% think cancel culture goes too far, 10% thinks it goes not far enough, 18% say 'neither', and 26% don't know. The kicker, however, is that Politico defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for a public figure or a company". That is the softest, most benign definition I can think of and it notably excludes all of the ordinary people who were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign. It strikes me as almost pleasant--"we're angry with you, so we're going to go away and leave you be!".
I think for a more reasonable definition, and especially when primed with specific incidences of cancellation (especially ordinary people who lost jobs), far more would disapprove. I don't want to quibble about definitions, but I'm expressly not concerned about celebrities "losing support" and much more interested in low and middle class families losing income and healthcare.
I think "cancel culture" mostly just works because it takes society some time to collectively identify a problem and organize to find a solution. At present, there are at least a handful of bills in the pipeline of various state legislatures to combat cancel culture, all of which would be horrible from perspectives of free speech and academic freedom (the best approach I can think of is to strengthen employment protections and take away the bullies' stick). The point is that just because political opposition hasn't organized yet doesn't mean that the majority of people are ambivalent or supportive.
They came close actually. 53% said "people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public" was closer to their opinion. Only 31% said "There should not be social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people because free speech is protected" was closer to their opinion.
How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes.
Sure, it’s not a very good term. No argument from me.
> Social consequences
Is “being fired from your job” a “social consequence”? When I think of social consequences, I think “you might lose friends”, not “you won’t be able to pay your bills and your kid won’t get the treatment she needs to survive”.
> How many ordinary people were terminated because of a coordinated harassment campaign? Numbers not anecdotes.
I’m guessing anecdotes are the best we have. I doubt anyone has numbers because employers are rarely going to be forthcoming that they fired their employee because they were afraid of the Twitter mob. Moreover, it’s not just the people who are fired, but the people who self-censor for fear of losing their jobs.
Personally I don’t understand why this is controversial. Surely we can all agree that Twitter mobs shouldn’t hold sway over people’s employment in order to suppress dissent? How much fear and chilled speech is optimal for a democratic society? Even if you think critics exaggerate the impact of cancel culture, can’t we all agree that canceling is vile, there’s too much of it going around, and we should condemn it and if necessary neuter it by passing employment protection laws or regulating social media or similar?
Of course it is, when employment is not a right but a privilege granted by society. Exceptions regarding protected groups aside, no one has the right to embarrass their employer and potentially negatively affect their image or customer relations and keep their job. That is functionally no different than bringing shame to one's household or community.
And many of the same people most vocally complaining about cancel culture belong to the political axis that opposes universal income and social safety nets, labor rights and protections for special classes, and if the "twitter mob" came after progressives, feminists or LGBT people wouldn't lift so much as a finger in protest. So it's difficult in that case to have sympathy with people who want to have their cake but refuse to eat it.
Perhaps it's always been true in the US, but other countries protect employment.
> Employment has never existed in some pocket universe entirely separate from society or its consequences.
By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences".
But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative.
True.
>By that logic, someone murdering you is likewise "Social Consequences".
Of course it is. Have you never heard of honor killings? Crimes of passion or revenge? Something can be a social consequence and also be a crime. No one is arguing that all social consequences must be legal, or should always be tolerable.
>But fair enough, if you're ruggedly in favor of at-will employment and you're fundamentally opposed to free speech, then cancel culture poses no contradiction to your views. I think such a position is odious, but I can at least respect your principled stance as a staunch illiberal conservative.
This is why I should stop trying to have political conversations on Hacker News, in the end, everyone just makes it personal.
I'm actually opposed to at-will employment and I support free speech, albeit not the absolutist definition of free speech that Hacker News seems to believe in. I do support the right of groups to petition anyone they like - even employers, to air whatever grievances they wish. Cancel culture, while it can be abused, is an expression of free speech.
And that's the rub - everyone wants to abridge the free speech rights of the "twitter mob" because of politics, but no one wants to address the fact that the only real power in "cancel culture" lies with the employer.
I understand your point, but I'm assuming that when people say "free speech doesn't mean freedom from Social Consequences", they're not talking about honor killings, and if they are that really takes the moral wind out of their sails.
> This is why I should stop trying to have political conversations on Hacker News, in the end, everyone just makes it personal.
Not making it personal; just following the logical breadcrumbs.
> I'm actually opposed to at-will employment and I support free speech, albeit not the absolutist definition of free speech that Hacker News seems to believe in.
It's not free speech if it's threatening, coercive, harassing, etc. If you're intimidating people into silence by showing that you can get people fired for wrongthink, that's inherently threatening and harassment. Cancel culture is decidedly not free speech.
It would be free speech if we strengthened employment protections such that the mob can "petition" your employer all they want, but your employment will remain secure. In that case, there's no threat or coercion, only persuasion. Of course, then cancel culture would go away because it was never actually about speech in the first place.
> And that's the rub - everyone wants to abridge the free speech rights of the "twitter mob" because of politics, but no one wants to address the fact that the only real power in "cancel culture" lies with the employer.
Raises hand. I don't want to abridge the free speech rights of the Twitter mob; I want to prevent employers from terminating people on account of Twitter mobs.
Didn't you say cancel culture isn't a very good term?
Cancel culture is also a bad term because it isn't a culture.
> Cancel culture is also a bad term because it isn't a culture.
No argument here, but I'm going to keep using it for lack of a more precise, widely-agreed-upon term.
Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids?
Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound.
Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it. But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence.
I'm guessing people interpreted the question as "Do you think posting racist remarks is a fireable offense?". I don't think he should be fired because a Twitter mob harassed his employer. Ask them about David Shor and see what happens.
> Why is firing anyone for any reason acceptable if lost jobs mean dead kids?
I don't think it is acceptable, and neither do many other lefties with the notable exception for cancel culture--then it's just Social Consequences (TM).
> Companies often say something about the fired employee not representing the company's values when they fire someone who offended members of the public. And seeing how many people even claim they were fired because of public pressure would establish an upper bound.
Maybe, but it's still going to be a slog to get that data. Good luck to any researcher who is investigating this, but I'm not holding my breath. Probably a better approach would be to look at periodic surveys that ask "How comfortable do you feel talking about X?" every few years, and look at how the results change over time. I'm guessing these exist. Maybe the effect of cancel culture is actually smaller than I'm expecting? Who knows?
> Canceling would need a consistent definition to say anything about it.
No, it just means we need to be clear when we discuss it. As previously mentioned, I'm talking about ordinary people being terminated because of an organized harassment campaign.
> But it shouldn't surprise you some people aren't inclined to restrict freedom of association and freedom of speech without compelling evidence.
Nor should they be. But a harassment campaign for the express purpose of having an employee terminated because they offended you isn't "free speech" any more than any other kind of harassment.
What you call cancel culture isn't limited to 1 political group.
You haven't provided any evidence of ordinary people being terminated because of organize harassment campaigns. And you keep equating self censorship to cancellation.
Calling for someone to resign or be fired isn't harassment.
In the Neff question there is no outcry in the first place. The question posits that Neff was fired by his employer as a result of CNN's revelation. That's the whole point; the question reads like "Do you think Neff should have been terminated for his conduct?", not "Do you think Neff should have been terminated due to public pressure?". The former isn't cancel culture, the latter is.
> What you call cancel culture isn't limited to 1 political group.
No, it's not. Conservatives cancelled the Dixie Chicks circa 2003 and Kaepernick just a few years ago. I'm not aware of any cancellations of ordinary people, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were a handful.
> You haven't provided any evidence of ordinary people being terminated because of organize harassment campaigns. And you keep equating self censorship to cancellation.
David Shor and Emmanuel Cafferty spring to mind.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin...
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
> Calling for someone to resign or be fired isn't harassment.
Harassment: aggressive pressure or intimidation.
Call it what you want, but a rose by any other name...
> It's far less than 30%, maybe less than 10%.
Agreed, I was trying to be overly generous with the 30% figure.
This seems to me to be already underway. Right wing media has been around for decades, and more recently youtube, podcasts, substack, etc. have provided a platform for a huge number of cultural institutions opposed to the tyrannical 10%.
So what's the problem?
Well, I think the problem is that it's not <10%. Sure, some of the more extreme examples of woke-ism would have very little broad support. And sure, the aforementioned ecosystem of alternative cultural institutions are incentivized to make sure those examples get as much exposure as possible. But the "steelman" version of woke-ism probably has 40-50% support in the US. The steelman version of anti-wokism probably has around the same support level.
So we're at a stalemate. The old-guard of tyrannical college elite institutions and the new breed of alternative working class everyman institutions co-exist in the same attention marketplace, competing and trading blows.
So again I ask, what's the problem?
Not really, right wing media (as we know it) came about precisely because of this problem. Rupert Murdoch created Fox News in 1996 because it was becoming increasingly clear that the erstwhile media had moved in a direction that alienated a broad section of society. This marked the end of the Walter Cronkite era.
As for why this started in 1996, and why the Walter Cronkite era was so tranquil, I read one theory on a recent interview with Patrick Collison (https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/interview-patrick-collison...) which shows a consistent pattern:
"Culture. As Ezra Klein recently described in the New York Times, and Marc Dunkelman has written about in his great piece about Penn Station, a particular version of distorted, hypertrophic progressivism that took hold in the 1970s may have had (and still be having!) quite significantly stifling effects. We perhaps shifted from placing emphasis on our collective effectiveness in advancing prosperity and opportunity for people to the perceived fairness that was embodied in whichever particular steps we happened to take. Or, to say that another way, we shifted our focus from sins of omission to sins of commission."
This "hypertrophic progressivism of the 1970s" was broadly started in college campuses of the time, and by around the late '80s and '90s, college students from the '70s were beginning to find themselves within the ranks of leadership in most of our institutions.
> So again I ask, what's the problem?
The problem is the perceived impedance mismatch between professional institutions (media, white collar corporate America, etc) and society at large. Because this is an issue that has existed since at least 1996 (the advent of Fox News), the assertion is that the root cause is ideological movements that begin on college campuses that have historically not aligned with the ideologies of broad swaths of society; and adherents of those ideologies eventually going on to run our professional institutions.
Take gay marriage, for example. 50 years ago, 95% of the population thought that gay marriage was ridiculous. That meant that 95% of the population thought that the position of 95% of the population was reasonable. That's an Overton Window.
Now, 30%[1] of the population still agree with the previous view. 40% of the population thinks that gay marriage is perfectly reasonable, and that thinking otherwise is completely unacceptable. And 30% are somewhere in the middle (gay marriage is acceptable, but it's OK to think that it's not, maybe). That means that 40% of the population has an Overton Window that excludes 60% of the population, and a separate 30% has a window that excludes 70% of the population. There isn't a society-wide Overton Window on the topic any longer.
---
[1] All numbers are gut-feel estimates, with no statistical validity.
Even in the days where it seemed that 95% thought gay marriage was ridiculous, it seems more likely to me that maybe 30% hated the idea and 50% didn’t care strongly either way but certainly didn’t want to face the 30%. This is almost the same dynamic you are talking about now; the difference is who the vocal 30% is these days. The majority of people maybe mildly disliked gay marriage but didn’t really care about it and mostly just don’t want to deal with the people who care a great deal about it, only now the vocal 30% who care a great deal is for gay marriage.
That’s the shifted Overton window, and a bunch of people who hated gay marriage are complaining how “it seemed like everyone was with me just a decade ago!”