|
|
|
|
|
|
by chiefmcloud
2172 days ago
|
|
|
There are a few reasons I’m particularly concerned about cancel culture. One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with. There’s lots of things I hate about the justice system that I believe are being worked on. But fundamentally, I accept I was born into a particular society, and I’ve implicitly agreed that I need to agree to certain rules. Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in. Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob. |
|
|
There are also mechanisms to address culture you disagree with (and you're exercising them!). The question was not why do you find cancel culture distasteful, nor was it even why do you personally find cancel culture potentially worse than unjust policing (which for now let's just agree to disagree on), but why it is that you are prioritizing the push back against cancellation over the pushback against unjust policing.
At this current moment, it is, I think, clear which unjust system causes more harm. It is the criminal justice institution. That cancel culture could grow worse is feasible, but it has not yet. People aren't routinely killed at the hands of twitter complaints.
> Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window.
Here we disagree on premise: cancel culture is the result of people who previously did not feel empowered to speak freely taking advantage of a system that raises their voices more prominently. That it is extrajudicial is a failure of the institutional justice system, which continues to systemically fail underserved communities (women, minorities, poor people). Sharing controversial opinions has never been without risk, that's why they're "controversial". There have been privileged sects of society for whom the risk of holding controversial, and even outright despicable, opinions was low. I don't think more equality in that regard is a negative thing.
> In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Do you believe the situation would be different if the employer had been unrelated to the girl who posted bad things? While the exact numbers might be different, I don't see the overall picture being that impacted by him being her father. And "punishing" an employer for the actions of an employee, while still perhaps fraught in some cases, is much less worrisome to me than targeting family.