The 3% of twitterazis who go around terrorizing institutions and brands into pushing wokeness are the dire consequence. That's the effect these echo chambers are having due to all the canceling and banning.
'Wokeism' is not an actual thing, either. Sure, there's a few nutjobs on the internet but they don't have any actual influence; absolutely none compared to conspiracy theorists, anyway. The reason corporations do stuff like Pride month or Black History month is pure marketing pandering to make them seem more human.
You conservatives sure spend a lot of time inventing boogeymen to invest your time into fighting. It is after all, pretty standard ur-fash protocol.
You may not believe it's an actual thing but society does. I sense all you are doing is changing around definitions because Cancel Culture has gotten a bad rap and you actually like the effect it's having on those you deem problematic.
>"'Wokeism' is not an actual thing, either. Sure, there's a few nutjobs on the internet but they don't have any actual influence; absolutely none compared to conspiracy theorists, anyway."
What is your basis for this?
I'm not saying that 'cancel culture' is something else, because it isn't anything at all. What people refer to when they say 'cancel culture' is the normal functioning of society and/or the market in response to events, just in response to events they don't have a problem with. Then they paint it as a 'woke conspiracy' to silence free speech.
If someone loses their job for harassment or espousing problematic views, that's a workplace doing its job.
If a popular figure loses fans or affiliations because of their past actions, that's public opinion at work.
If a company chooses not to publish a book, or a group of people boycott a brand, that's just the free market at work.
The only instances I see where certain people cry 'cancel culture, boooo' is when someone faces consequences for doing something the overall public finds shitty (like being openly racist or a sexual abuser), but the group crying 'cancel culture' does not particularly care. You don't see the same people complaining that Kaepernick was 'cancelled'. He similarly faced consequences for what he did, but no such outcry. I wonder why, maybe perhaps because it is just one of many alt-right forms of newspeak used to manipulate its followers and stir up fearmongering, hatred, and division? No, that would be far too logical. Ditto for 'wokeism'.
That's the thing, a lot of people have 'faced consequences' for things that aren't particularly egregious. And, what is euphemistically called 'consequences' often destroys people's lives and there's virtually no recourse for them. It's 100% punishment and 0% rehabilitation.
If anything, this is the biggest argument of all against the existence of 'cancel culture', cause so far I can't find even one example of someone who's truly been cancelled, and furthermore, for something completely innocent and meaningless.
If people were actually being sent to gulags for saying something the government or general public simply didn't like, you cancel culture warriors would have a point. But... that's not the case, and that's not where this is going. Believing as much is an extremely tenuous slippery slope argument and just delusional levels of fearmongering.
There is absolutely nothing new going on, except the fact that more people these days are intolerant of bigotry and other vile behavior, and are better able to voice their concerns via the internet.
I know we aren't going to ever agree, but this beyond hyperbolic. To even say that most canceled people's careers have not suffered one bit is just astounding. People get fired over tweets that aren't even that controversial. Mel Gibson got off the hook, whatever. But Average Joe's and Average Jane's also fall victim to 'cancel culture' too.
"Shor tweeted out an academic study by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow that demonstrates how during the 1960s, while honest-to-God riots resulted in a decrease in the vote share for Democratic candidates in the following election, non-violent protests actually increased it. An uproar ensued, with liberal critics alleging that Shor was indifferent or even hostile to today’s racial justice protests. Two weeks later, he was out of his job at Civis Analytics, the left-aligned data science firm where he worked as an analyst" (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/06/05/cancel-cul...)
This person was fired, for tweeting out a study, and nothing they did was egregious.
I don't think we're going to have a mature and productive discussion about this. But you can be worried about online outrage and it's impact on society regardless of political affiliation.
>"by saying both sides are equally bad and misguided..."
I never actually said that. I said that people can be concerned "regardless of political affiliation."
>"someone who fearmongers"
Yep. You got me. I'm concerned about something and I think other people should be too.
All I can say is that you should be less combative and you shouldn't snap to assuming hostile intent. Quite frankly it's off-putting and anti-persuasive. You would not enjoy someone arguing with you in the same way you argue with them. But I suppose if you enjoy interacting with others in this way there's no stopping you.
He holds the majority, safe, and riskless opinion.
Which will make it even better when we hijack all the censorship infrastructure and apply it to him :)