[flagged]
Would you feel differently if it wasn't about canceling those who "hurt people" (where we again would need a definition of what is violent speech that hurts)? Like, if some group went out to cancel people because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion, gender etc, would that also fall under "reasonable and sensible"? After all, these mobs would be just as offended by some person's reach/platform/existence as the ones who are doing the canceling now.
> Like, if some group went out to cancel people because of their skin color
Are you, by any chance, referring to racism? This flavor of "cancel culture" transcends my definition in a lot of ways (often involving physical violence, unjust law enforcement incarceration, employment discrimination and more).
Also it is as old as modern global civilization, far predating the modern discourse about free speech, and yes, I dislike it. And so we as a society exert some amount of opposing force in response again, by "canceling" the racists in turn. This feedback loop continues for generations, and we slowly (hopefully) trend towards a less racist society.
So how do I feel about it? I dislike racism, but it exists today as part of an ecosystem of forces that seems reasonable to me.
Employment discrimination aside (you'll find that with the tolerated kind of canceling, too, even though the employers may not do it voluntarily, but catering to mob pressure, but then again, aren't they often in racist settings as well?), what if they don't include physical violence or state action? Would you find it okay if some group pressures vendors, customers, social clubs etc to cancel someone because of the color of their skin?
I'm not looking for a "gotcha" or something, and I included religion and political persuasion in that list intentionally. You can't change your skin color or sexual orientation, and we're kind of saying that you can't change your religion (though we agree that you totally can, apostasy is both normal and accepted and not a crime), but we kind of say that you can with your politics (otherwise it would be protected and you couldn't discriminate against someone based on it).
The problem I see with tolerating the common cancel culture is that it's often as arbitrary as those motivated by racism etc because it depends on exactly what the article was arguing: whether some speech is violent, and then additionally how violent it is (e.g. bad enough to warrant aggressive action).
Racists actually believe that their targets are unworthy and bad and deserving of their hatred and persecution. Some fringe groups believe that JK Rowling is leading a genocide campaign against trans youth in the UK and would love to cancel her because of it (I don't think there's a chance of success, but that's besides the point for whether we'd tolerate the attempt). I find both beliefs absurd, yet I understood you'd find cancelling because of the latter one reasonable, so I wonder whether you feel the same about the former or why you'd see that differently. And if that's too extreme, consider cancellation because of politics.
IMO any "arbitrary" cancel culture response will quickly self-correct, unless the affected party doubles down on their offense and doesn't handle the response well. That's kind of a PR skill and I don't see it as a problem of cancel culture itself, but just a lack of maturity among (mostly) celebrities/influencers in responding to this relatively new form of public expression (see: Andrew Tate)
Glad you mentioned, the whole "JK Rowling is a TERF" scenario is a perfect example of where I think cancel culture is Good Actually. She has a very large and engaging platform that has influenced an entire generation and more. She then chose to align her public opinion ("trans women don't deserve the rights of women") with the basis of an opinion that is the root of much trans violence. I think the response to her proclamation is proportional to the distance she placed herself at to that extremist position — she put herself pretty close, and every time she doubled down on it, she got hit by another "wave of cancellation". She quieted down and improved her PR response (presumably without changing her opinions), and she seems largely unaffected as a civilian or in her income. The cancellation seems to have just been a "regulating" force on the opinion that "trans women aren't women".
But at the end of the day, that's just an approximation of market responses to her brand. She chose to stick to her brand, and the market has responded. She still makes a tidy royalty sum, she isn't under threat of state punishment or sanctioned violence, and the "offended" aren't legally empowered to act in any way specifically against her that they aren't legally allowed to otherwise.
Re: racists, yes, racists believe they are right and justified, and I disagree with them. Still, my hope and trust that society will impose a counteracting force that will cost racists more for that opinion than it gains them, in the long run, not that racists are forbidden (somehow, not sure how) from "cancelling" people they arbitrarily choose to discriminate against.
I'm not worried too much about celebrities facing cancellation. But with normalization of the approach, it becomes a generic tool against individuals, celebrity or not. It's certainly not swatting, but well-placed campaigns against someone can quickly find them in hot waters with their employer, landlord, neighborhood or even friends and family, who might want to cut ties to not be targeted themselves, even if they don't believe that the allegations are true or that they're offensive. It looks too much like a mob to me, and mobs rarely care about truth, justice or appropriateness, they care about annihilation (and the thrill of the act, and the bonding experience).
No, because discrimination against someone ("canceling" them) for their race, religion, or sexual orientation is explicitly illegal in many circumstances.
You should put more effort into your strawmen.
What exactly is the point of asking this? The answer is obvious and it isn't what's happening.