Cancel Culture

'Cancel Culture' Is a Dangerous, Totalitarian Trend

It's a game of gotcha, played by people who want to destroy their political opponents—and drive them into the outer darkness.

|

During the apex of Soviet totalitarianism, when Joseph Stalin was hosting show trials and overseeing a vast network of gulags (labor camps for political prisoners), Russian citizens were encouraged to denounce their fellow workers, party colleagues and family members who had committed some anti-revolutionary offense.

In one instance, a student at a Leningrad university sent a letter to Pravda, which captured the essence of these denunciations: "How can a parasite who always sobs when he hears Lenin's name and groans when he hears Stalin's…how can such a person be allowed to remain in the walls of the institute?" It's unclear what happened to the perpetrator, but he probably wasn't long for this world.

Fortunately, the United States has a First Amendment that forbids the government from punishing people for "offensive" writing and thought crimes. Our nation has a free-wheeling environment, where everyone can spout off about anything. Yet, even in this brave new social media world, the totalitarian mindset runs deep. Many Americans are eager to "cancel" people who utter verboten thoughts.

There's no agreed-upon definition of "cancel culture," but an open letter published in July in Harper's Magazine, signed by 153 writers and intellectuals, defined it as "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

Cancel cultists call "for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought," they wrote. The signers also found it roubling that "institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments." That the letter appeared in a left-of-center publication was noteworthy given that most—but not all—of these attacks come from the left.

Shortly before the letter's publication, Boeing's head of communications, Niel Golightly, announced his resignation after a fellow employee dredged up a 33-year-old article he published as a young Navy pilot. He argued that allowing women in combat "would destroy the exclusively male intangibles of war fighting and the feminine images of what men fight for—peace, home, family."

Most Americans probably no longer agree with his argument, but it was well within the mainstream of the debate at the time. Golightly told The New York Times those views no longer represent ones he holds today, noting that, "As youngsters, we've tried out ideas; we've done things that we look back on and say, 'That was kind of silly, but boy did I learn from that.'"

Frankly, I don't think anyone should have to apologize for expressing an earnest opinion, let alone one made decades earlier. But his mea culpa didn't earn him a reprieve for his counterrevolutionary thoughts. This might explain, in part, why so few people apologize for anything these days, but double down—even in cases where an apology is in order.

Private companies obviously have the right to part ways with employees who express views that cause them embarrassment, but too often companies behave the way that letter detailed—by pursuing damage control and dishing out disproportionate punishments.

There's a huge difference between someone who once expressed a view that no longer is in vogue—and ones who, say, post decidedly racist messages on online forums. Unfortunately, the totalitarian cancel culture allows no distinctions. It's a game of gotcha, played by people who want to destroy their political opponents—and drive them into the outer darkness.

The result is self-censorship, a narrowing of the public discussion and, as counterintuitive as it seems, the proliferation of crazy ideas on the Internet. The first two points are obvious. How many of us think twice before posting a legitimate message—not because the post is offensive per se, but because of the possible repercussions if some numbskull interprets it the wrong way?

We're allowing negation by society's dullest and most easily offended members. Regarding my third point, I suspect that as the boundaries of "appropriate" discourse recede, more people take refuge in their own social-media bubbles, where they can post crazy conspiracy theories and other nonsense without pushback. There's nothing wrong with calling BS on people's writing. It is wrong, however, to incite mobs to destroy their livelihoods.

Most culture-canceling comes from progressives, but conservatives engage in this behavior, as well. I can't tell you how many writers have demanded – to me, my editor and the publisher—that I apologize for my column last week objecting to the use of federal thuggery to quell the Portland riots and protests. I remember the angry "shut up, you traitor" demands when this editorial page opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sure, these examples are a long way from the Soviet denunciations, but we need to realize that if we stay on our current trajectory it will, as the Harper's letter noted, "weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: August 7, 2010

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page>>>>>>>>>>Lifestylereview.com

    1. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….►► Click For Full Detail.

      1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink.

        ===============► JOBS82.COM

    2. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░  
      ???????? #???? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????,???? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????????e
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…   Read more

      1. can i learn how to make those dot-boxes?

        1. I learn make dot boxes $7/hr havee just $135000 last month very easy…

          1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

            Here’s what I do………► Cash Mony System

  2. Roubling. Very roubling.

    1. I thought that was another dig at the U.S. going Soviet, but that would have been rubling

      1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink.

        ===============► Cash Mony System

    2. Who would have thought Scooby-Doo would end up as a Reason editor

    3. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░  
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…   Read more

  3. …an open letter published in July in Harper’s Magazine, signed by 153 writers and intellectuals, defined it as “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

    Cancel cultists call “for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” they wrote. The signers also found it roubling that “institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments.”

    And then what happened? Oh, that’s right, the insane shrieking of the insane leftists “WE ARE NOT INSANE LEFTISTS WHO GO AROUND CANCELING PEOPLE FOR SPEAKING THEIR MINDS!!” caused many of these people to withdraw their objections lest they be canceled.

    1. This. I don’t see too many examples where the right tries to get people fired and completely destroy them their lives.

      1. The columnist used himself as an example. Poorly. The best he had was that angry readers wanted an apology. He wasn’t canceled.

      2. And the only examples I see are specifically intended to make the playing field level, so that support for Cancel Culture ends.

        IE “I don’t support canceling people, but this is the rule leftists want, so we should apply it to this leftist”

    2. “And then what happened?”

      Leftists started to point out the hypocrisy of some of the letter signers. You wouldn’t know that unless you actually read leftist reactions, though.

      Start here:
      https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/harpers-and-the-great-cancel-culture-panic/

      1. Hypocrisy being pointed out by other hypocrites, how hypocritical of them.

        1. At least hypocrites know right from wrong. No need to panic just yet. There’s still hope as long as you are willing to concede that those who signed the letter and those who are critical of it and its signers have a functioning moral compass.

          1. “”At least hypocrites know right from wrong.””

            No they don’t. If you know X is wrong, then the who doesn’t matter. X is always wrong. They look at the who and decide if it is wrong based on that and not the principle.

            1. I don’t think you understand the idea of hypocrisy. It’s when you know something is wrong but you do it anyway.

              1. Like claiming to be against the mass incarceration of black people, but plans on voting for the guy that help mass incarcerate black people?

                1. More like planning to vote for anyone. You know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.

                  1. Nothing wrong with voting.

                    1. Unless you are voting for evil. Even if it’s the lesser of two.

                    2. So you are not voting.

      2. In addition, some people started attacking people who signed the letter because they associated themselves with others who signed it. They were then guilty by association, and the entire letter was shown to be worthless due to the authors via ad hominem.

        1. If you feel guilty about your opinions stick to pseudonymous comments on the web. Criticize the signers and the Counterpunch lefties if you must but they have the stones to use their real names.

  4. Sure, these examples are a long way from the Soviet denunciations

    I wouldn’t say it’s that far off. “They want you dead, but they’ll settle for your submission.”

    1. And getting closer by the day.

      1. How hard is it to understand the simple fact that the time to most vigorously defend free speech is when someone says something you do not like?

        1. Or imagine not liking what others say, do or think, but loving them anyway.
          Now imagine those same people you tolerated, trying to marginalize you, destroy what you hold sacred/your career/business, or even kill you.
          I think my greater empathy is for my family.

    2. They’ll settle for now. They’ll be back later.

  5. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.Full Detail.

  6. “Most culture-canceling comes from progressives, but conservatives engage in this behavior, as well. I can’t tell you how many writers have demanded – to me, my editor and the publisher—that I apologize for my column last week objecting to the use of federal thuggery to quell the Portland riots and protests. I remember the angry “shut up, you traitor” demands when this editorial page opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    I think the author is missing one of the key differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism–specifically the one about how totalitarians aren’t content with using the government to control what we do. Totalitarians insist on using the government to control what we think and how we feel.

    “Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other re- sources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees.

    Precisely the opposite is true of revolutionary Communist [read “totalitarian”] regimes. They create refugees by the million because they claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands in the remarkable expectation that their attitudes, values, and goals will “fit” better in a foreign country than in their native land.

    —-Jeane Kirkpatrick

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jeane-kirkpatrick/dictatorships-double-standards/

    The totalitarian progressives and social justice warriors in America today are obsessed with using the government to remake our ideas about race, gender, our most fundamental constitutional rights, law enforcement, etc., and they’re determined to use the government to remake the economy into a carbon free socialist paradise, too.

    To suggest that conservatives are the same in this regard because they were upset that someone opposed government crackdowns in Portland or opposed the Iraq War is to miss one of the characteristics that make totalitarianism distinct. The social justice warriors want to use the government to enforce conformity of thought with their ideology, and not only in journalism, government, and academia, but through the sanitation of speech and stigmatization of average people for sharing their views in the private sector, as well. To suggest that conservatives also wish to use the government to enforce conformity of thought in their own way is bothsideism. There may be isolated conservatives who will express such views somewhere, but using the government to force society to conform to progressive ideology is the whole point of progressivism.

    1. Ken, which instances of ‘cancel culture’ in recent years involve state coercion in any way?

      Take one of the most egregious examples, that of David Shor. Mr. Shor exercised his free speech rights on a private platform (Twitter); and other private individuals exercised their free speech rights in demanding that Mr. Shor get fired from his private company. There was no state coercion at all here.

      I am sure there are people who want the state to enforce these types of ‘cancel culture’ regimes onto everyone, but that has not been what is happening lately.

      1. Premise: Progressives believe that racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and misogynists shouldn’t be allowed to hold management positions in either the public sector or the private sector.

        Premise: Progressives also believe that opposition to affirmative action is racist, that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, that support for a border wall is xenophobic, and that opposition to abortion is misogynistic.

        Conclusion: Because almost every registered Republican holds at least one of those views, it reasonable to conclude that progressive efforts to rid social media of hate speech are also attempts to purge Republicans from positions of authority in both the public sector and the private sector and to purge social media itself of Republican views.

        Meanwhile, just because the progressives and social justice warriors in the Democratic party have so far been unsuccessful in inflicting hate speech laws on social media to purge Republicans and Republican views from the public square doesn’t mean they don’t want to do that, haven’t been trying to do that, or won’t be successful in their attempts to do that in the future.

        That’s just one example.

        1. None of that is an instance of *state power* per se.

          Your caricatured SJW radical could very well believe that no Republican should ever hold any position of power or authority anywhere, but that is different from suggesting that every Republican should be removed *by force*, *by the state*, from positions of authority everywhere. See the difference?

          Again I ask: which recent instance of ‘cancel culture’ was an exercise in *state coercion* in any way?

          1. The caricature of every registered republican as being, pick one, homophobic, sexist, or racist, is what I call damning with faint praise.

          2. What instances of state coerced cancel culture? Really!? Been to divorce/family court lately?

        2. Meanwhile, just because the progressives and social justice warriors in the Democratic party have so far been unsuccessful in inflicting hate speech laws on social media to purge Republicans and Republican views from the public square doesn’t mean they don’t want to do that, haven’t been trying to do that, or won’t be successful in their attempts to do that in the future.

          In other words, the slippery slope fallacy.

            1. Actually, 2 + 2 = 10.

              1. No it doesn’t.

                You’re still pretending you were arguing base systems? Because on no base does 2 + 2 = 5.

              2. 2 + 2 is on my mind.

          1. That isn’t a slippery slope, you intellectual invalid. I gave numerous examples of Democrat luminaries that were promising regulation of speech on social media below–if they were elected president. One of them, Kamala Harris, is apparently the front runner to be Biden’s Vice President and another, Liz Warren, is likely to end up in a prominent position if Joe Biden is elected president.

            Warren’s chances of ending up in charge of the Federal Trade Commission and its antitrust department are actually pretty good. That may be the jobs she wants!

            Meanwhile, I can’t think of any Democrats who publicly oppose regulating social media for hate speech on First Amendment grounds. If there were any Democrats who really believed that, they’re probably too scared to say so for fear of what their fellow Democrats would do to their careers if they came out against regulating hate speech on social media. Go ahead find a prominent Democrat that publicly opposes the regulation of social media for hate speech on First Amendment grounds. I dare you.

            Slippery slope?! You’re a buffoon.

            1. Oh, Ken, now you’ve moved the goalposts.

              Do many Democrats want to impose hate speech laws on social media? Oh, sure they do.

              Do many Democrats want to impose hate speech laws so as “to purge Republicans and Republican views from the public square”, as you claimed initially? No. THAT is the slippery slope fallacy. That attempts to ban “hate speech” will inevitably lead to attempts to “purge Republican views”.

              1. So you’re saying that progressives don’t believe that opposition to affirmative action is racist, don’t believe that opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, don’t believe that support for a border wall is xenophobic, and don’t believe that opposition to abortion is misogynistic?

                If that’s what you believe, then you’re basically denying the existence of social justice warriors and their influence on the Democratic party.

                In order for me to have moved the goal posts, you would need to have disproved that premise only to have me change the argument. Not only have I not changed the argument, you haven’t even addressed the existence or influence of social justice warriors on the Democratic party, much less disproved it.

                Apparently, you don’t know what moving the goal posts means.

                1. P.S. It’s not enough to know the names of logical fallacies. We also need to understand them.

                2. Jeff is a post modernist and his argument can be whatever he says it is. It is his truth.

                3. Ken, do you know the difference between “I don’t want you to have a position of power or influence over me”, and “I will use force to remove you from a position of power or influence over me”? Hmm? Because you sure seem to be confused on the difference.

      2. which instances of ‘cancel culture’ in recent years involve state coercion in any way

        Attempts to overturn Citizens United, which amounts to state-sponsored censorship.

        1. Again I asked which instances of ‘cancel culture’ in recent years involved state coercion. Since the Citizens United decision is still the law of the land, how could anyone have been ‘canceled’ over that?

          1. So what you’re saying is that No True Cancel Culture can involve the law of the land?

            1. I asked about ” instances of ‘cancel culture’ in recent years”.

              1. Democrats want to overturn Citizens United today. That counts as ”recent.”

                1. No one has been ‘canceled’ due to Citizens United.

                  1. And people can still get abortions today. That doesn’t mean Republicans are pro-abortion.

                    You question was about insrances of culture. Failed attempts to cancel free speech during elections, the very foundation of our democracy, counts, even though they failed.

              2. Colorado Cake guy…SJWs teaming up with the state licensing board to shut down a business owner who wouldn’t do what he believes to be wrong. Had to go a ways up the court chain before he got reprieve from the board’s nannying. Not that they aren’t trying to get him from other angles to this very day.

          2. You may remember a certain government employee in San Diego fired from his job because somebody claimed he made a white power symbol while driving.

            Or does this not count?

      3. “Ken, which instances of ‘cancel culture’ in recent years involve state coercion in any way?”

        Well, we can start with state schools de-platforming conservatives to avoid ‘triggering’ fucking lefty snowflakes.

      4. Missed all the state declarations of racism as a disease huh? What happens to employees who refuse implicit bias training in Michigan?

      5. See New York State AG lawsuit against he NRA for an example of state attempts at cancel culture. Also, see numerous attempts by state and local progressives to introduce hate speech laws, see multiple Universities that have implemented some form of hate speech laws. Yeah, it is just private individuals, if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

        1. “”See New York State AG lawsuit against he NRA for an example of state attempts at cancel culture.””

          I don’t think so. The AG made some serious claims about financial mismanagement. I don’t know if they are true or not, a court will determine that. The AG could be over playing a hand. But maybe not.

          1. So go after the individuals within the organization who have committed any crimes, not try to dissolve the organization as a whole. They are not just trying to silence the organization, but the dues paying members themselves by attempting to get rid of an avenue to express their support for the 2A.

    2. To suggest that conservatives also wish to use the government to enforce conformity of thought in their own way is bothsideism.

      Well, Ken, it’s also true. Talking again only about state coercion, both Team Red and Team Blue want the state to ban so-called ‘hate speech’, they just disagree on what that ‘hate speech’ ought to be.

      1. Talking again only about state coercion, both Team Red and Team Blue want the state to ban so-called ‘hate speech’,

        What nonsense. This is yet another example of one leftist lying about the right to defend his allies.

        1. He didn’t even respond to the reasons I gave for the difference. He’s just emoting.

        2. Is that so.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/20/trump-says-he-wants-to-punish-flag-burning-with-a-year-in-prison/#5e9bc0153404

          At his rally in Tulsa on Saturday, President Trump said he wants to make flag burning a crime, punishable by one year in prison.

          1. Pointing out Jeff’s cognitive dissonance = arson

            1. Oh look at dishonest Nardz here. Suggesting that wanting to prohibit flag burning has anything to do with the crime of “arson”.

              Wanting to ban flag burning is an instance of the Team Red desire to ban a type of hate speech. It must just kill you that Team Red and Team Blue aren’t as different as you think they are, doesn’t it?

              1. So you’re saying that both sides are threatening the very foundation of our democracy?

                I don’t think that’s been the tone of the last four years.

              2. It must just kill you that Team Red and Team Blue aren’t as different as you think they are, doesn’t it?

                In order to conclude this we must accept that the one single instance of support [not results – there is no instance of anyone suffering a loss for flag burning] you can find offsets the thousand instances of actual cancelling by the left.

                This is how leftists protect themselves, by claiming the fly and elephant carry equal weight.

                1. he will be back soon to claim they weigh the same in a vacuum.

                2. Once again this is you moving the goalposts.
                  At first it was “nonsense” to consider the thought that both Team Red and Team Blue are in favor of banning types of hate speech.

                  But now that it’s been pointed out to you that both teams do, in fact, support bans on certain types of hate speech, now the goalposts have moved to “well they don’t support banning equal amounts of hate speech!”

                  Team Red is just not worth your support. Neither is Team Blue. They both suck. They suck in different ways, but neither one is worth the effort to shill for them.

                  1. He wasn’t moving goalposts, stop being so dishonest.

                  2. Once again this is you moving the goalposts.

                    This is nonsense. The flag burning issue has ever been considered cancel culture since it was dealt with decades ago. This is your desperate search for something to protect Team Blue – your only purpose in commenting.

                    1. So you’ve gone from “moving the goalposts” to “making shit up”, i.e., becoming more desperate.

                      Again, the original topic of discussion here was about using “the government to enforce conformity of thought”. And yes Team Red at this point in time wants to enforce conformity of thought by demanding respect for the flag, even at the point of a gun if necessary. Trump wants to ban flag burning RIGHT NOW. It’s not protecting Team Blue in order to point out that Team Red wants to ban flag burning right now. In fact Team Blue has not historically been great on the issue of flag burning either – years ago, a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning only failed in the Senate by one vote. That means lots of Team Blue Senators voted for it too, not just a lot of Team Red ones. It is wrong to demand conformity of thought via government coercion in this way, and it’s wrong when either Team Red or Team Blue wants to do it. Right now, Team Red wants to do it via banning flag burning.

                    2. Again, the original topic of discussion here was about using “the government to enforce conformity of thought”.

                      The original topic is cancel culture, you’re trying to change it so you can defend Team Blue.

                      Trump wants to ban flag burning RIGHT NOW.

                      Sure. And the left wants to get everyone who disagrees with them fired RIGHT NOW. But since the Supreme Court has already ruled on flag burning and not even a majority of Republicans would vote for it while the firings happen routinely it’s pretty stupid to claim flag burning is so much of a problem it prevents you from opposing cancel culture.

              3. Isn’t flag burning already against US code?

                Personally I think it falls under freedom of speech as long as it is your flag you are burning.

                1. It does fall under freedom of speech as the Supreme Court ruled decades ago. Maybe it’s still “in the code” in the sense that it has never been repealed (or not – I don’t know), but if so it’s unenforced and unenforceable.

        3. By the way. I disagree with ‘hate speech’ laws in their entirety. You should have the right to tell tasteless offensive jokes without fear of punishment by the state. You should also have the right to burn the flag without fear of punishment by the state.

          1. I disagree with ‘hate speech’ laws in their entirety.

            Sure you do. That’s why you defend people from criticism over their support for hate speech.

            In reality this is just your effort to avoid admitting you support the unsupportable even as your support it.

            1. We call that being a Jeff.

              1. Hey hey now. Don’t lump all of us who happen to share his first name together.

            2. In reality this is you putting words in people’s mouths because you cannot argue against real people, only against caricatures.

              1. Like you do every time you post about conservatives? Remember conservatives have nothing but fear and paranoia to run on? Wasn’t that you, who said that?

              2. This is me basing judgement on the principles people follow instead of their weak pretenses.

                1. Oh, so clairvoyant Marshal can read into the minds of those whom he disagrees with and discover the REAL REASONS why they believe certain things.

                  Or, you’re just arguing against a strawman.

                  Which is more likely?

                  1. Not read the mind, follow the principles.

                    When people’s words and actions conflict their actions are the true indicator.

    3. “BuzzFeed News reached out to the campaigns of each of the 23 candidates running for the Democratic nomination to ask about their views on growing white nationalist sentiment in the country; if they believe the Department of Justice and social media companies have done enough to combat it; and if the candidates would support regulating the social platforms to curb its spread.

      . . . .

      “Bernie believes we should not depend on a handful of large corporations to stop the spread of hate in America. We must regulate these platforms to ensure the safety and security of the American people”

      . . . .

      “White supremacists pose a threat to the United States like any other terrorist group,” Warren, who has already called for breaking up the big tech companies, told BuzzFeed News in a statement. “The growing influence of these groups demonstrates how powerful Big Tech has become and how harmful it can be in the wrong hands. The time has come to break up giants like Facebook — more competition will help drive some accountability into their profit models.”

      Sen. Kamala Harris recently promised a crowd at an NAACP event in Detroit that she’d hold social media companies accountable for the “hate” spreading across their platforms and that the companies have a “responsibility to help lead the fight” against the “threat to our democracy.”

      —-Buzzfeed News

      https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/2020-regulate-social-media-white-nationalism-facebook

      Can anyone find a Democrat who opposes hate speech laws or thinks that they shouldn’t be inflicted on social media companies?

      I doubt any Democrat would dare to say that in this environment!

      1. Ken, you forgot to mention Obama’s attack dog Lois Lerner, and how she jack-booted conservative NPO’s. THAT’S an example of the government doing the left’s bidding. Hopefully even the useful retard Jeffy can understand that.

    4. Ken wrote, “Totalitarians insist on using the government to control what we think and how we feel.”

      But I see a more modern, delusion twist. Our modern adult-children want the government to control us in order to placate how THEY feel.

      Personal feeling has become the ultimate criteria by which to judge what others are allowed to say and do. And of course feelings are based on perception, and so we do not have to actually say or do something (or what we might have said or done can be interpreted in any desired way). We have decided to let the toddlers take charge. (And perhaps we are simply reaping the dysfunctional parenting and educating style of the past decades, where too many feeble adults relinquished control and coddled the children.)

      1. We all have the right to feel safe

        1. Even Nazis?

          1. Of course Nazis don’t have rights.
            And obviously Nazis are defined as whoever leftists say, based on their feelz at thst particular moment. Or at some point in the past. Or in the future

      2. There needs to be offensive stuff.

        There needs to be a Mel Brooks. There needs to be The Misfits and Death Metal. Lenny Bruce and Andrew Dice Clay. The morning after Air Florida crashed into the Potomac, Howard Stern called them on the air and tried to book a flight from National Airport to the 14th Street Bridge. There needs to be biker gangs and Leisure Suit Larry. There needs to be Redskins.

        A society that can’t tolerate offensive things isn’t a tolerant society.

        1. First they came for Gone with the Wind and Blazing saddles, and I said nothing, then they came for John Wayne’s bust and I said nothing, then they came for Kindergarten Cop…

          1. They found out that it really was a tumor.

        2. There needs to be Redskins?

          I say there needs to be more street fairs with naked men on floats shooting champagne out of water guns. Sound good?

    5. Correct, ken

  7. How strange. It seems like just last week Greenhut argued cancel culture is not a big deal.

    I’m not unsympathetic to Weiss’ argument, but it’s not a big story.

    1. Yeah, no one ever changes their view on anything. What a weirdo.

  8. Three thoughts on ‘cancel culture’.

    1. Mr. Greenhut is right, there is no universally agreed upon definition of this term. There is a difference between trying to get someone fired for comments made decades ago, vs. trying to get someone fired for comments made just yesterday. People change and ought to be allowed to be given redemption and forgiveness. It’s unfair to ask people to be held accountable for actions that they made decades ago that are only breaking today’s cultural norms.

    2. The real fundamental tension here is not really between free speech and free association, but between property rights and other rights. And as far as private property is concerned, property rights ought to win out most of the time. If Alice is on Bob’s property (by invitation) and Alice starts saying some offensive things, Bob would be perfectly within his property rights to eject Alice from his property, thereby terminating their exercise of association rights. Moreover Bob would be perfectly within his rights to call Alice’s employer and demand that she be fired for her offensive statements. It may not be wise or prudent, but it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights for Bob to do so. In fact it would be a violation of BOB’s rights to suggest that Bob be prohibited by the state from exercising HIS speech/association rights and forbidding him from making a request of Alice’s employer, whatever that request may be. If you find yourself recoiling in horror that Alice might be fired from her job for something she said outside of the workplace on her own time, then…

    3. This discussion seems reminiscent of the (now ancient) discussion between “thin” libertarianism and “thick” libertarianism. The proponents of “thin” libertarianism suggest that libertarianism as a philosophy ought to only concern itself with violations of the NAP and that’s it – what everyone chooses to do with their rights in any other way is totally up to them and they oughtn’t be harangued or scolded for exercising their rights in “unapproved” ways. The proponents of “thick” libertarianism, on the other hand, suggests that libertariansm ought to be concerned not just with violations of the NAP, but with also encouraging a culture that embraces certain cultural norms. In the past a discussion of those norms tended to focus on things like bigotry and racial tolerance, but we see here that it can also include a discussion on the merits of a free speech ethos in society. If one is going to suggest that firing Alice over offensive statements made totally outside the context of her workplace is inappropriate even if it is a legal exercise of the employer’s rights to do so, then that is implicitly taking a “thick” libertarian approach to this issue, and it raises the question: if the “thick” libertarian approach is appropriate here, is it appropriate in other contexts as well? Should libertarians be “anti-racist” as JoJo suggested, adopting a “thick” libertarian approach on this issue as well? How about mask wearing? Should libertarians encourage mask wearing to slow the spread of the pandemic while simultaneously rejecting mandatory mask mandates? If the thick approach is appropriate when it comes to speech, why isn’t it appropriate elsewhere?

    1. Is “thick” libertarianism the residue of the powerful Randist philosophy that influenced early days of the libertarian movement? As I recall, it was Rand who said “judge and prepare to be judged.”

      1. Well maybe, I don’t know. But in recent times it has been more used by the “liberaltarian” types who think libertarians should be allies in the fight against racism and bigotry. So naturally a lot of the right-leaning libertarian types recoiled in horror at the thought and demanded an absolute right to say racist shit without fear of consequence.

        1. demanded an absolute right to say racist shit without fear of consequence.

          Sure, so long as we define opposing race preferences and supporting rational thought as “racist shit”.

          What an idiot.

        2. Remember, treating people based on their individualism is horror, we should judge them based on skin color according to Jeff.

          1. Remember this, Jesse? ‘If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black!’, and ‘Latinos, unlike African Americans, are diverse’ (which he double and tripled down on). Yet, the left still loves their worthy descendants of Jefferson Davis, even Jeffy and Tony (who literally have one brain between them).

    2. >>There is a difference between trying to get someone fired for comments made decades ago, vs. trying to get someone fired for comments made just yesterday.

      nobody should try to get someone fired for anything dude.

      1. idk, i think it’s legitimate to try to get someone fired for gross incompetence at doing their job.

        1. likely if you know about it the uppers do too and the truth will out.

        2. Yeah, but nobody gets fired for that anymore.

          That is an exaggeration, but at least in modern corporate employment it seems to be much easier to get fired over some HR bullshit than for actually being bad at your job.

      2. Dillinger, I think in about 90% of the cases you are probably right. It’s not too hard to imagine though an employee of a company, particularly one who works for one’s own company, who does something so outrageous and offensive that asking for that person to be fired wouldn’t really be all that controversial. But most of the time, I think you are right.

        But that is a matter of preference, not a matter of liberty. In terms of liberty, everybody ought to have the right to demand that anyone be fired for anything. That is just free speech rights in action. Whether that is a wise course of action is another matter.

        1. bad mojo to fuck with another’s livelihood. that is all.

          >>who does something so outrageous and offensive that asking for that person to be fired

          if so outrageous and offensive likely fired without your input.

        2. Let’s think about this rationally for a second.

          *It’s ok to demand someone be fired for expressing an opinion unrelated to their job and outside their workplace.

          *Demanding someone be expired for expressing an opinion necessarily entails expressing an opinion: that it’s ok to make such a demand.

          *Therefore, demanding someone be fired for expressing an opinion constitutes implicit consent that it is ok to fire you for making the demand.

          One should probably avoid demanding anyone is fired for expressing an opinion.

    3. Even under ‘thick’ libertarianism, it should simply be enough to not be racist (and to have not being racist as a societal value). Honestly, I’m not even sure what being “anti-racist” means to the people who use that word, but I’m pretty certain it doesn’t mean to them what I would think it means. (Heck, many of them don’t mean the same thing by ‘racist’ as average people mean).

      Mask wearing is not a ‘libertarian’ issue, it’s a risk assessment issue. It’s no different than wearing seatbelts, or choosing to go skydiving. Not all situations require wearing masks, and it’s up to the individual to choose their own acceptable level of risk.

      A good libertarian should of course be against mask mandates, just like they should also be against seatbelt mandates. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t rationally choose to use a mask *when it’s warranted*, just like they should still rationally choose to wear a seatbelt in most driving circumstances. And private businesses are of course allowed to require mask wearing on their premises, just like they can require someone working as a driver for them to wear a seatbelt while on the clock.

      (BTW, the scientific studies of mask effectiveness are pretty clear – masks only protect other people from you. They don’t really protect you from other people.)

    4. “The real fundamental tension here is not really between free speech and free association”
      The hell it isn’t.

    5. How about mask wearing? Should libertarians encourage mask wearing to slow the spread of the pandemic while simultaneously rejecting mandatory mask mandates?

      Encourage? Yes, if they choose.
      Reject the mandate? Yes, if they choose.

    6. “People change and ought to be allowed to be given redemption and forgiveness. It’s unfair to ask people to be held accountable for actions that they made decades ago that are only breaking today’s cultural norms.”

      Well, forgiveness is available. Ralph Northam wasn’t cancelled for dressing up in blackface in college. Bernie Sanders wasn’t cancelled for writing that women want to be raped. Joe Biden wasn’t cancelled for saying letting black kids in would turn his kids school into a jungle. Elizabeth Warren wasn’t cancelled for claiming that a miniscule amount of Native American DNA made her a persecuted minority in need of special hiring preferences.

      1. Forgiveness for some, gulags for others.

  9. We have the AGs of two of the most hostile jurisdictions to gun rights trying to destroy the most well known 2nd Amendment advocate organization through lawfare. We have the Governor of Michigan requiring state employees to undergo ideological indoctrination classes.

    We are in a rather terrible state right now.

  10. absolutely right ! cancel culture is dangerous. only culture of Gujjar Status is good. Gujjar community is the best community of world.

    1. Is it a bad sign when the comments from the spambots are more on topic than some of the regulars?

    1. That seems a bit much.

      1. Pretty sure you defended the action, or what abouted it 2 days ago when I posted it.

        1. A story about demolishing a coronavirus-contaminated building? This is the first I’ve seen of it.

  11. I would prefer to cancel leftists. I don’t care if they exist, I just don’t want them holding leadership positions in government, education, or business. Their views are objectively dangerous to the country.

    1. lol yes.

  12. Cancel culture is an emblematic part of the current wave of ideological “justice” activism. Obviously, some leaders and instigators have various motives that range from idealistic to purely self-serving (and nothing to do with justice). But for the mob, I find it interesting–and dangerous–that their motivation has progressed from philosophical values through relatively open and fair politics to fervent religion. We now see hordes of acolytes, shouting not slogans but dogma, demanding that we accept (and submit) to their revealed truths. And of course they will not tolerate heresy, in word or thought.

  13. From one of the linked articles:
    ” Plainly, if there is an activity that will elevate the status of oneself or one’s group, people will do it. One approach to elevation is to do something good. But doing something good requires effort and the possibility of failure. Fortunately, another option exists: Broadcasting the bad behavior of others. This method works because social status is relative. One person losing social rank is the same as another gaining it. If you’re a 6 on the social-status ladder, working up to a 9 is hard. But scheming to bring a 9 down to a 3 is easier and more thrilling. It is much easier to unite people around bringing a 9 down to a 3 than to lift themselves up from a 6 to a 9″

    1. “Additionally, people are slow to give moral praise for a good act and quick to assign moral blame for a bad one. The relative difficulty of doing something good and the prolonged waiting period to receive credit for it is why cancel culture has flourished. It offers quicker social rewards.”

    2. “Cancel culture forces enemies to reveal themselves. Cancel culture allows people to identify who is loyal to their movement. Broadcasting the transgressions of others forces everyone to respond … If everyone agreed that the target should be denigrated, then there’s no way to identify friend from foe.
      But if some agree and some disagree, then you know who is a committed group member and who is an adversary. Those who ask for evidence of the alleged wrongdoing, or question the severity of the transgression, or debate the propriety of cancel culture, have revealed themselves to be unfaithful to the cause.
      Rallying around a morally ambiguous transgression and seeing how people react permits the recruitment of assenters and the targeting of dissenters.”

      1. Heresy shall not be tolerated

  14. Of course, if you, say, sponsored the 1994 crime bill that ended up putting hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people of color in prison for minor, non-violent, crimes, you could just say that you were mistaken, and everything will be all right, as long as you have the magic (D) behind your name.

    1. The (D) absolves sin for progressives.

    2. The House passed it by voice vote and the Senate vote was 94-5. It was a bipartisan shitshow, and that just tells you where the mentality in this country in the 90s was. My own dear mother was beside herself with the thought that prisoners might be watching too much TV or getting too much ice cream. It was a weird time. Our hellish criminal justice system was not created only by Democrats, however. In fact, the crime bill was exhibit A of Bill Clinton’s so-called triangulation strategy. He worked for the crime bill to kick a leg out from under Republicans, who had the tough-on-crime reputation. These new policies were not only not opposed by Republicans; they came from them. I realize that the going thing around here is to assume Republicans are half-sentient piles of goo with no responsibility for anything.

      1. Some of the things Clinton helped bring to a national level he previously did at the state level. Crime control and workfare for example. Three terms as the gov in AR means he was able to work well with republican majority legislature.

        Clinton was a two term AG in AR before he was gov. So he has that law and order side.

  15. Golightly?

    Talk about living up to his name.

    I swear. 2020. It gets weirder and weirder.

  16. And let’s be clear here.

    Cancel culture does have an ideological origin. It comes from the progressive left ranks.

    Never forget this.

    1. Progressivism, which leftism is almost entirely a subset of at this point, has always been puritan

      1. “Stand up straight and only have sex within monogamous heterosexual marriage.”

        —Noted leftist Jordan Peterson

        I thought you guys liked that shit.

  17. “I can’t tell you how many writers have demanded – to me, my editor and the publisher—that I apologize for my column last week objecting to the use of federal thuggery to quell the Portland riots and protests. I remember the angry “shut up, you traitor” demands when this editorial page opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

    Rolls eyes as if that is the same as being fired or made to resign as an executive or a college professor!

    1. or as a waitress who donated money to the wrong political movement

  18. Golightly was a pussy. Gave up too quickly. Probably got a major severance package to fall on his sword.

  19. The author states, “Private companies obviously have the right to part ways with employees who express views that cause them embarrassment,” and this is true, but it lies at the root of the problem.

    We need a new right: the right to separate our private lives from our public professions, unless those two things are inextricably bound, as in the limited cases of professions such as priesthood or politics. This means we should have a right to hold and express our opinions and even commit moral and legal transgressions free from the threat that we will lose our future employment merely because of this fact. The fact that I get in a bar room fight or call someone a name or express an unpopular opinion, for instance, has no bearing on my employment as a florist’s assistant. The flower company should have no power to fire me based on my personal actions, if ceteris paribus, I have performed my job admirably and committed no violation in the company name or on company grounds. While a priest may be fired for professing an allegiance to Satan in a public tweet, since her professional and private lives are bound together in the very nature of her job, most jobs are free from this binding. Individual liberty needs to be protected from the tyranny of the mob and the tyranny of corporate power operating as an extra-judicial punitive authority, as is the situation in which we currently live. Libertarians must choose, therefore, to limit corporations’ freedom to disinvest from individuals whose mere presence interferes with their bottom line in order to preserve individual freedom itself. This would be the only guarantee of free speech in a capitalist society, and it would eliminate “cancel culture” entirely, except of the traditional sort, where one individual may influence another to ignore or rebuke a third party.

    1. “We need a new right: the right to separate our private lives from our public professions, unless those two things are inextricably bound, as in the limited cases of professions such as priesthood or politics.”

      Bullshit.
      We do NOT need *more* government intrusion in our private transactions.

      1. easy to make private life less public der.

        1. Easy how exactly? To give up the individual capacity for self-expressions out of fear that something you said online ten years ago may be used to hunt you down and take your job away???? The “der” in your case, I believe, self-applies.

          1. don’t tell people you were the President of the UCLA Libertarians from x to y for starters …

      2. Corporations are not private individuals. Neither are businesses. This is the primary delusion of those opposed to individual liberty. The only beings who can be free are individual human beings, and libertarians need to recognize this. Otherwise, they’ll all be working for Facebook and Google. At one time, to be sure, the simple shoe shop owner had a right to hire who he wished and fire who he wished. I guess you prefer the intrusion of our corporate overlords to intrusions in service of securing a right to work without interference. Like poor fundamentalist Christians voting for Neo-Cons, ideologues will always vote against their own self-interests.

        1. Another way of putting this is that media-propagated shaming and censorship and exiling is tantamount to a criminal act against individuals, and since we cannot censor the media, we need to take away their teeth by not allowing them to have any real punitive power. If a person does their job, then that person should never be fired for a businesses moral disagreement with their private actions. If a person commits a serious crime, then they’re in jail and they can’t work. If they haven’t, then there is no reason to fire anyone that doesn’t have to do with necessary financial reasons or on-job incompetence.

    2. Maybe not that broad, but I’ve always thought labor contracts should confine themselves to, you know, labor. Typically demands beyond payment for services rendered are compensated, with penalties for early termination and the like.

      There is a bit of wiggle room inasmuch as personal activities outside of company time may adversely affect work performance, but this notion of all employment being at will while in the same breath demanding two weeks notice is wonderfully obtuse.

      It follow from that great libertarian principle of “minding your own business”.

  20. “The result is self-censorship, a narrowing of the public discussion and, as counterintuitive as it seems, the proliferation of crazy ideas on the Internet.”

    See, it’s working!

  21. Cancel culture is political correctness on steroids. We warned about the slippery slope and here we are.

    It’s all about bigotry. When you’re wrong, your argument is weak. Your only hope is to ignore free speech. To cancel reality, truth.

    Examples of bigotry in a Sentence
    “ a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry

    Providing evidence does not make someone a bigot. Refusing to recognize that evidence does.

    1. No bigotry in your “well-ordered society”, right stormfag?

      1. A civilization that values reality has no time for bigotry dipshit.

    2. It’th objective reality that a man has a penith and girlth have vaginath! It’th thienth guyth!!

  22. >>There’s no agreed-upon definition of “cancel culture,”

    you know it when you see it.

    1. Not nearly as great as porn though.

      1. Potter Stewart, O.G. Creeper

  23. The Harper’s letter did not define “cancel culture”. That phrase does not appear in the letter at all, regardless of how many people keep writing that it did.
    The letter contained what could very reasonably be used as a definition, but that’s your opinion, not a quote from the letter.

  24. The left doesn’t cancel others because they’re good people who just feel too strongly about injustice. It’s because they’re terrible, awful, evil people who are using injustice as an excuse to indulge their garbage natures.

  25. Could the cancel culturists not understand that people’s views moderate or change as the grow older and gain experience because they rarely ever modify their views?

  26. Drive them to the outer darkness? Easier just to round them up and shoot them on the street and send a bill to the family. And if no family, leave the body there as an example.

  27. The individual members of the Cancel Culture need to be aware that their past actions could very easily go out of vogue and may become the target of the Cancel Culture themselves.

    Cancel Culture does not allow for people to change their minds, to grow up and become adults. They simply judge people and their past using their myopic filter using hindsight and their political biases and views.

    Personally, I like diversity of thought and open discussion. Stating the facts and points of view without name-calling is how consensus is achieved. Forcing society to live under any laws where there isn’t a consensus always becomes contentious.

    Laws are basically freedoms taken away from the individual, so any freedom lost should be the result of a consensus by the people who are affected.

    1. The individual members of the Cancel Culture need to be aware that their past actions could very easily go out of vogue and may become the target of the Cancel Culture themselves.

      +1 Trotsky

  28. I was President of the Bruin Libertarians at UCLA from 1996-1998. Libertarians rightly criticized campus speech codes then. I went on to law school at UCLA, and when the school passed a ‘conduct code’ restricting speech, the Dean circulated it school wide by email. I instantly replied to all and threatened to sue the school unless it was clarified that the school would not enforce the code with disciplinary measures. The school was instantly forced to clarify that it was merely a cultural statement with no legal teeth.

    So those are my bona fides.

    Now that I see “libertarians” complaining about the left prevailing in the marketplace of ideas – the media, advertising, etc. – I can’t help but wonder if so many libertarians weren’t really just defending free speech, but instead just racism.

    It has always been the libertarian position that private actors were free to boycott and exert social pressure. I guess this changed once the anti-racists started to prevail in the public arena.

    Suck it up, “Reason” snowflakes. The first one now will later be last.

    1. Man, the leap required to read something like this and then immediately jump to calling people racist is so perfect. It’s not even one person, a large, broad group is so quickly denounced as racist when race is not even tangential to the conversation.

      It’s just the word that so easily comes to the tip of the tongue in this current era of social discourse, like calling people heretics during the Spanish Inquisition, or accusing people of being terrorists in the early 2000s. It’s just a simple and easy ad hominem requiring almost no justification so people do not have to address the substance of what different people have to say.

    2. >>So those are my bona fides.

      should have stopped there.

      1. Good point. It’s amazing how many online doctors and lawyers you find who are, of course, experts in the exact issue they want to argue about.

        1. probably doxxed itself too but i’m not the kind of dude who looks shit like that up.

          1. Bring it on you little cunt

    3. Wow, the Bruins had fun, didn’t they. “You’ll learn more high?”

      https://dailybruin.com/2017/05/25/throwback-thursday-the-hazy-story-of-bruin-libertarians-marijuana-smoking-event-hemp-fest

      It explains the Bob Dylan quote at the end 🙂

      Look, I have no libertarian bona fides at all. But I have two things to share.
      1) Check out Glenn Greenwald’s essay in The Intercept about Bari Weiss. He describes her early cancel-culture bona fides and then the irony that she is now experiencing cancellation herself. It’s worth a read.

      2) Racism is not now, nor has it ever been identical to free speech. Free speech absolutely is used as a shield for verbal expression of various gross ideologies. That is a feature, not a bug! That’s why it’s called free speech.
      Many in the culture at large seem to have decided that there was no way to reach implicit-bias-spreading, mic-hogging whites *using speech.* There is an understandable but regrettable collective resignation there. What I hear in cancel culture is “You don’t understand things, so we have to make dumb rules so the whites don’t screw everything up all the time. This is why we can’t have nice legal traditions.” It is a tacit admission of the failure of speech to solve “racism.” Personally I think there simply has not been enough speech! There are activists and anti-racist cultural workers of all backgrounds all over the country right now saying both loudly and quietly, hey, the canceling thing isn’t working, this isn’t how people change or grow, we don’t need less speech, we need more of more types.

      You may have a bone to pick with libertarians as a class or as a specific organ of your past. I don’t doubt some of them have mental blocks in regards to race and healing. Those blocks are common across the spectrum, it would be statistically unlikely for no libertarian to be any level of racist. But don’t conflate your re-evaluations of specific people’s complex motives, with a) a movement or b) free speech.

      You can be in my dream if I can be in yours, I said that. – Nobel Laureate Neuron Bob Dylan Cloud Storage

  29. It has always been the libertarian position that private actors were free to… exert social pressure”

    The fuck it has.
    Libertarianism is a social philosophy that should encompass your behavior in all spheres. It’s not applicable solely to big government.

    It’s not okay as a libertarian to be a censorious, authoritarian asshole, just because you’re a private company or individual.
    A true libertarian won’t stop you from being a censorious, authoritarian asshole, but they won’t support your fascist behavior or say it’s okay.

    1. This was a response to JDS1 and his bullshit bonafides.

      1. Bring it on you little cunt

  30. Can private groups ban a Nazi rally on their campus or in their workplace? You and I may value robust debate, but whether government is the entity doing the banning is a rather important distinction. Some progressives just don’t have the time or energy to hear another bow-tie-and-scarf incel explain how The Truth Is Out There: women should be silent, eager recipients of my cum and maybe learn how to bake a cake. It’s science! Or how white lives also matter do you hate white people come on give me attention too me me me! One tires of it all.

    Getting people fired for a minor straying from orthodoxy is an asshole move. Let’s just not forget that the reason this doesn’t happen more often on the right is because you’re not even allowed in the door until you prove you believe Jesus and his pet dinosaur hate fags. Try being a beret-wearing atheist red piller at Liberty U. See how many stages they offer you to explain how God is a superstition.

    We don’t think about that version of cancel cultural because it doesn’t play into our very necessary and original stereotypes about how liberals are screeching female harpies and not demure cum dumpsters like science intended.

  31. Gina Carano is not giving in to the mobs.

  32. Cancel Culture is but a side effect of Socialist Governing.

    Cancel Culture planted its roots clear back during the FDR administration when Americans/Politicians started ignoring the U.S. Constitution and stopped acknowledging that we are a Republic instead of today’s belief that we are a Democracy. With that belief “Progressives” started dictating and stealing from everyone.

    There’s nothing more scary than knowing majority lies can rule our lives. Cancel culture is wildly strong today because deep down we all know the government (which is being democratically controlled; instead of Constitutionally controlled) WILL with the drop of a hat dictate and enslave all of us.

    Thus; Many (especially on the left) instead of dealing with governments malfunction will just try with all their might to make sure majority never goes against their individual will (i.e. “mob rules”). I’d like to think many on the right actually are trying to deal with governments socialist malfunction.

    1. Good news! Government isn’t being democratically controlled either. Republicans hold the presidency and Senate despite a majority of Americans voting against these outcomes. Paradise shall commence any moment now.

      Everything else in your comment is also wrong. You’re not mad about a cancel culture that never existed before progs came along. You’re mad that traditionalists don’t get to control all the levers of cancel culture anymore. This entire supposed debate is the same conservative complaint that always was: you took an ounce of our absolute cultural dominance away, and we’re mad!

      1. “”Republicans hold the presidency and Senate despite a majority of Americans voting against these outcomes.””

        I get your stupid EC dig. But the members of the Senate are the intended outcome by the majority of voters.

        “”You’re mad that traditionalists don’t get to control all the levers of cancel culture anymore.”””

        So you are admitting cancel culture exists and controlled by progressives?

        1. Think back a couple decades. What was it like being gay, do you think? Think there might have been a little canceling? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it a total erasure of a people and their culture?

          The complaint is about the substance of progressive belief, not some distraction about free speech. They don’t like giving up even a small bit of their power to control cultural norms. And they’re so powerful and ubiquitous you don’t even notice it as cancel culture.

          1. “you don’t even notice it as cancel culture” — because it never was….

            Only in the “mobs” delusional minds.. So people don’t want to join your butt-poking party… Boo Hoo… I still have yet to hear about a legislative tar & feathering of anyone free-willingly poking butt-holes in the privacy of their own homes.

            I tell you what the “progressives” did do. They made an insignificant factor significant in order to grant themselves SPECIAL ENTITLEMENTS. When legislation was made for the “married” household it was with “man + woman + offspring” in mind. Buy hey; why rewrite the law just rewrite word meanings.

            If I marry my goat do I get a joint tax break filing???? For many; THAT IS what it was all about and for the rest it was SPECIAL dictation over the prejudices of other individuals on their private property.

            As Rand Paul (conservative) said at the last election, “I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.” THAT is what the butt-pokers should’ve been lobbying for.

            1. Even now you can’t give up the intuition that you have a right to tell me how to live.

              1. More delusions…. Go butt-poke if that’s your cup of tea; did I ever say anything anywhere about legislation that made butt-poking illegal??? No, No I didn’t even infer it… It’s all in your delusional mind.

                1. When the Overton window included such a thing, which is not very long ago, you would have supported it.

                  Special entitlements. Now that is an old idea. It could only be spoken by someone who believes explicitly or implicitly that he is entitled to more rights than everyone else.

                  1. More delusions… This time you telling me who I was “not very long ago, you would have supported it. ” Maybe just maybe you’re just flat out wrong about who I was ‘that long ago’ and maybe you’re just flat out wrong about who almost everyone is. Maybe you’re just projecting who you are?

                    But none of that matter because who I am is not a subject anyone should be concerned about. Using government to legislatively give certain people entitlements is and it wasn’t that long ago government was used to FORCE a cake business to offer service against their own-will. (i.e. Slavery)

                    1. Gays being able to go to a shop without being harassed for how they were born and excluded from participation in the market of their community is the exact same right straight people have. No special rights.

                    2. B*LLSH*T!!!!! TONY….. Everyone else has to respect PRIVATE PROPERTY rights. When you’re on someone else’s property and are asked to leave (NO REASON NEEDED) and you refuse to you are trespassing. When a store owner tells you they aren’t going to make something (NO REASON NEEDED) that is their natural RIGHT to do so…

                      Everyone EXCEPT the *special* class of people who have been legislatively ENTITLED to other peoples property as well the ability to FORCE them to do what they want them too…. There’s just no denying that forcing someone to make something against their will with NO CONTRACT is slavery.

      2. The “absolute cultural dominance” for the conservative party (platform anyways) is the Individual Justice & Liberty outlined in the U.S. Constitution [ THE SUPREME LAW ].

        And you’re right; this conservative gets mad every-time more ounces of that individual justice and liberty are taken away by any mob (i.e. socialist governing).

  33. Looks like Bigot Culture to me.

  34. Using public embarrassment (social stigma) to discourage individuals from engaging in socially undesirable behavior has been a part of every human society since the dawn of humanity. Cancel culture is simply a modern variant facilitated by the emergence of social media on the internet.

  35. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►► CLICK HERE

  36. The picture at top is misleading. Women aren’t muzzled or cancelled. They have their say. Cancel culture is about cancelling (1) White men and (2) anyone who criticizes Israel or her agencies in the U.S.. That’s the history, it’s undeniable.

  37. Things taught by Demons – “Hypocritical liars whose conscience have been seared as with a hot iron. They Completely Control Others, they have a seared brain need to cancel and change everything. In short, these liars have lied so well and for so long that they have lost their capacity for truth. This is todays Dims and this Satanic Cancel Culture.

  38. “It’s a game of gotcha, played by people who want to destroy their political opponents—and drive them into the outer darkness.”

    You mean like what the Republicans have been trying to do to the Democrats?

  39. It’s easy to motivate the mob to lynch someone as that’s what lynch mobs do….react before the facts are in when someone they hate is accused of doing something wrong, bad or evil. It is to destroy them. Destroying one’s reputation unjustly is akin to murder. And it can be done so easily by careful editing.

    Also, we react to some offended snowflakes mischaracterization of what a person said and meant. Then an apology is demanded not from the moron who mischaracterized it, but from the victim of the mischaracterization.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.