If there is one thing I'm sick of, it's hearing the phrase "cancel culture" every time some right-wing troll or attention seeking pseudo-celebrity faces backlash for something they said or did. The implication of the term cancel culture is that the blowback is unjust, unfair and a violation of freedom of expression. In reality, it's none of these things; it's simply a free market working as it should.
It has always been costly to express unpopular opinions, or to live outside the mainstream. We used to have places referred to as "bohemia"- the Left Bank in Paris, Soho in London, Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco - where people with different views, attitudes and lifestyles congregated, away from so-called polite society. For example, promiscuity and homosexuality were acceptable in the social mileau of bohemia, and the rest of society didn't much care about what went on there, as long as it stayed more or less out of sight. Social marginalization was a price some people were willing to pay to live and think the way they wanted. Over time, some of these ideas worked their way into the mainstream.
Support for gay marriage in Canada now runs at about 85 percent. A similar percentage believe that racial diversity has made Canada a better country. Considering most issues are much closer to a 50/50 or 60/40 split, this is about as close to unanimity as any society is likely to get. Expressing opposition to these things comes with a price and that is to be expected. If you're a restaurant owner and you decide to publicly espouse white nationalism, you shouldn't be shocked if many of your customers refuse to come to your establishment. This is not unfair cancel culture, this is simply the free market at work. If customers don't like your views, they can take their business elsewhere, just like if they find your steaks overpriced or your waitresses rude. Markets give people choices, and they are free to use whatever reasoning they want when exercising those choices.
The people screeching about cancel culture don't seem to understand what constitutes free speech. Free speech means the government can't arrest you for your political, religious or social opinions. But it has limits. The standard example is you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre if there's no fire. In addition, making threats, promoting violence and defaming and slandering people with lies are not protected speech. Neither is hate speech, which is harder to define but usually involves some combination of the three things I just listed above when they are targeted against members of minority groups. But the point here is that free speech protects you from the government, it doesn't protect you from the reactions of other citizens. You don't have a right to an audience or a platform. Social media sites have to police content, because if they don't, they will lose the ad dollars that they rely on for their existence. Again, this is the free market at work.
Nor is there any injustice in companies, professional organizations, clubs, etc, enforcing their own code of conduct. While your opinions are mostly none of your employer's business, if your words or actions embarrass or damage your employer's reputation, they have every right to terminate you. If you "swatted" an innocent black man who politely asked you to leash your dog in Central Park, you ought not to be surprised if your employer fires you, nor should you be surprised when a court finds that the company acted legally. If you go on a vile, racist tirade against an Asian family in a restaurant, you should expect to be forced to resign from the company you founded, and you should probably expect your own mother to publicly disown you. There is no constitution that grants impunity to people being assholes.
This idea that there shouldn't be consequences to what you say or do is obviously infantile and ridiculous, and it's especially rich coming from so-called conservatives. The preachers of personal responsibility suddenly forget all about it when its themselves who have to face the music. The poster child of this breathtaking hypocrisy is Jordan Peterson, a Canadian conservative psychology professor. Peterson gained fame by encouraging men to reclaim their 'lost' masculinity and he constantly decries how whiny and wimpy men have become. But the good doctor needs to "sort himself out," because he can't take even the slightest criticism. After going on Twitter to harshly disparage the appearance of a swimsuit model, Peterson received dozens of responses mocking his own appearance; he was so hurt by these "vicious" insults, he briefly quit Twitter. Self-awareness? Not so much.
Conservatives claim to worship the free market, but again, this is mostly self-serving posturing. An organized boycott - people freely maximizing their market power - of a person or a business for their conduct suddenly becomes soft totalitarianism (a term that makes zero sense if you think about it). And with the same nonsensical logic of the gun nut crowd - freedom means AR-15s for whoever wants them, and never mind the freedom and rights of victims and non-gun owners - the cancel criers don't seem to get that the people criticizing or boycotting them are also exercising free speech. Like Peterson, they seem to think free speech protection applies only to themselves. Concomitant to this, the Right constantly claims they are being silenced and de-platformed, which is laughable considering there is a huge conservative media ecosystem at their disposal. People saying crazy crap get to be on Fox News all the time.
What the blather over cancel culture really exemplifies is the debasement of political discourse. The extremist Right is on the losing end of pretty much every issue, so they turn to slurs, lies, disinformation and thinly veiled calls for violence. The extremist Left is frequently intolerant and engages in its own ad hominem attacks. People should be allowed to express opposition to immigration without being called racist, or to support 'traditional family values' without being branded homophobes or misogynists. These labels are tossed around far too casually these days. One need only spend a few minutes on Twitter to see the cesspool that the degradation of political discourse has created, all in the name of attention seeking, 'personal brands' and money for nothing.
No one is being truly silenced and nothing of any value is being lost. Is it bad that neo-Nazis, gay bashers and conspiracy liars are not allowed to say whatever they please? Actual good ideas from the Right or the Left have no problem being heard, and there is always room for intelligent, respectful debate. The complaints about cancel culture are coming almost entirely from people who just want to monetize their politics and gain notoriety. A healthy market for goods weeds out products that are inferior or unappealing or outright useless. So-called cancel culture is providing the exact same service - allowing citizens to weed out the noise, lies, opportunism and dysfunction. It's a sign that our democracy is still working.
Commentaires