Is Shiloh Hendrix Really the End of Cancel Culture?
Don't count on it.

Shiloh Hendrix is a white woman, a mother, and the main character of an extremely fraught social media controversy. She did a very bad and racist thing, endured subsequent cancellation, and has now reaped a financial windfall—earning both condemnation and approval from various corners of the internet. For some, Hendrix is the final boss of cancel culture; for others, she is a symptom of a very broken, toxic culture.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
Here are the details, which are not really in dispute: Hendrix was at a playground in Rochester, Minnesota, with her infant. She claims that a black child went through her things and tried to take "her stuff"; in response, she called him a racial slur. A bystander—a black man unrelated to the child—then began to film her on his phone. In that video, she confirmed that she used the slur and then called the guy recording the video a slur as well.
You can guess what happened next. The video went viral on social media, and Hendrix's racist rant earned her no shortage of opprobrium. Here's the wrinkle: Next, Hendrix created a fundraising campaign called "Help Protect My Family," in which she asked for donations to help her move. The fundraiser has earned over $700,000.
The prospect of hundreds or thousands of people giving money to a woman because she engaged in racist speech is extremely unpleasant. But The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh thinks this is a fitting outcome.
"I'm glad she raised half a million dollars," he said. "I hope she raises half a million more."
Why? Walsh suggests that if canceled individuals can turn around and fundraise off being canceled, it could be the end of cancel culture: Participants in social media mobs will have a diminished incentive to work themselves into such fervors. Walsh and other right-wing commentators who have defended the fundraiser—if not Hendrix's overall conduct—have also drawn a connection to the case of Karmelo Anthony, a black teenager accused of fatally stabbing a white track athlete. Anthony's family also launched a fundraiser, earning half a million in donations.
Using a perverse and explicitly identitarian framework, Hendrix defenders suggested that if it is OK for a black teenager accused of murder to accept donations, it is OK for a white woman accused of racism to accept donations—even though the two cases are not connected whatsoever.
I have some thoughts.
First off, it's possible to simply condemn every aspect of the Hendrix story without trying to spin one person's behavior as worse than another's. It was just bad—all of it. As I wrote on X: The kid should not have gone through Hendrix's things, and her response was wrong and odious. The bystander should not have escalated things by recording Hendrix, and she should not have escalated further by engaging him and once again using a slur. The video should never have been posted to social media, and anyone who threatened Hendrix or her family as a result is also in the wrong. Starting a fundraiser was bad, and contributing to the fundraiser is bad. It's just all bad!
The Battle of Shiloh
Another reason to resist the temptation to defend any of this—but in particular the fundraiser—is that this absolutely will not spell the end of cancel culture. Cellphones are now ubiquitous; it is trivially easy to record someone during a moment of conflict, embarrassment, or turpitude, and publicize the footage on social media. My previous experiences with short, occasionally misleading social media videos have taught me to be extremely cautious about passing judgment on incidents that lack context. But most people can't help themselves.
The idea that it is proper to donate to Hendrix as some primitive form of racial revenge in response to the Anthony fundraiser is also extremely suspect. Even uttering it aloud makes you sound like a crazy person: I am giving $20 to a lady who said something racist because this other guy allegedly murdered someone else, and he raised money, too. This is not fundamentally different than rationalizing such a donation under the logic of The voices in my head told me to do it.
Additionally, what if the people giving money to Anthony end up using the same justification—that it wasn't about supporting Anthony, but rather, it was payback for some other fundraiser?
Writing for National Review, Abigail Anthony—no relation to Karmelo Anthony—seems to endorse the Walsh line.
"The stance is clear: If you summon an internet army to ruin someone's life, even someone who has done something objectively bad, we're going to provide significant support, so don't bother doing it again," she writes.
This is wishful thinking. The creation of a financial support network for victims of online mobs is not going to make mob behavior less appealing to anyone.
For further analysis, I discussed this case with Emily Jashinsky of Undercurrents. Watch below.
This Week on Free Media
I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss President Donald Trump's thoughts on cheap goods, reopening Alcatraz, Anthony Fauci's beagle experiments, and AI friends.
Worth Watching
I have now watched most, though not all, of the new season of Andor on Disney+. It is so good I can scarcely believe it exists. It's so much better than any other Star Wars thing spawned by Disney. There are many reasons for that, but I think the main one is that Andor has succeeded at something no other Star Wars property has really pulled off: It makes the Empire seem absolutely despicable. Viewers get to see the cruel deprivations of liberty suffered by the common citizens of the Empire on planet after planet. Most other Star Wars shows and movies depict the military confrontations between various rebel groups and Imperial forces, or make the threat of the Empire so high-stakes and remote that it's almost more difficult to be invested in it. With Andor, there's something brutally effective about watching Imperial soldiers bully regular working people. You end up really hating these jerks.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Damn near a week ago, and now you discuss it? Of course, trust Reason to find out about something well after it happens.
It takes a while for those chuckleheads to figure something out.
Took them a while to figure out they could attack Matt Walsh with the story apparently.
They had two hundred more anti-Trump articles to post first.
Why would anyone donate to Shiloh Hendrix? Knowing every dollar she rakes in is a slap in the face of Our Enlightened Betters should be plenty of incentive, and if I hadn't sworn off giving any money to any political cause for any reason, I'd be glad to throw her a few bucks myself.
That's about it. They think Luigi and Karmelo are cool, here, have some of this. They think polarizing the public with child mutilation surgery and personal pronoun propaganda is cook, here, try this on for size.
Turn the other cheek is a nice theory, and maybe it's what gets you into The Good Place instead of That Other Place, but in real life, all it does is encourage the wokidiots. About time they got some of their own medicine.
I have no desire to give a dime for the same reason I detest platforms like onlyfans. You shouldn't be able to get a huge payout for doing some minimal effort thing that everyone can do. It's perverse to me to make hundreds of thousands of dollars for saying a word that upsets people. It's just about as perverse as paying your rent with pictures of your butthole. Cultural rot all around.
I have never paid for porn and can't see why anyone would, when you find so much just by accident or not knowing what the latest slang is.
It also amazes me when some news article mentions some woman as being on OnlyFans and her picture looks so boringly normal; what exactly are all these people missing in life that they'd pay for that? Youtube has started recommending AI soft-core movie trailers; I wonder how many OnlyFans accounts are AI-generated already.
“It's just about as perverse as paying your rent with pictures of your butthole.”
the first thing I thought when I read this was giving the landlord actual pictures of my butthole. But I’m guessing you meant selling my butthole pictures and paying rent with the money
My landlord would probably accept either.
I forget whether this word gets you banned, but here goes.
I don't give a fuck that a white person said "nigger." I don't care that anybody uses racial or sexual epithets. Free speech should be a level playing field. If rap songs and black people can say it every other sentence then it really isn't such an offensive word. What I will say is that she isn't necessarily wrong with using it and backing it up by saying the thief is properly labeled that way because he was displaying the negative behavioral stereotypes attributed to the word. I would lean towards disbelieving she simply said it because of his skin color. That all said, it is a shitty reflection of our culture that someone can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars just for saying a word. Even worse than that (which Robbie inverts) is that a cold blooded murderer got 500k+ for killing a kid and the comments show that donors are explicitly doing so for racist reasons. Let's also toss in here that Luigi Mangione got somewhere around a million dollars for assassinating a guy he didn't know because it was lefty violence and a bunch of cat ladies think he's hot.
I'm not really in agreement with Walsh on this, but have to sympathize with the sentiment. Robby, you are wrong for only noticing culture war issues when the right responds in any moderate way. The war is being waged and saving criticism for occasional responses by one side while mostly ignoring the many affronts by the other signals a degree of allegiance to the aggressive side.
The donations are not for the speech but to pay for the precautions necessary for having said something that upsets that celebrate murderers. GiveSendGo took down the comments because hers were largely support and well wishes for her family while the comments for CA were largely explicit racial hatred.
I prefer Carl Benjamin's take that this is more a sign that white guilt is crashing in utility rather than some end to cancel culture or hatred. It's not a good thing but the end of the double standard is at least more honest.
During piers Morgan they were discussing this story. One of the panelists was black. At one point Piers asks one of the panelists saying similar things to say the slur. The black panelists lost it, erupting with condemnation about being harmed from the word. Earlier in the show the same black panelists had called other black people uncle Tom and other slurs.
It was quite amazing.
Their cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.
The biggest sign it's the end of cancel culture is that I didn't even hear about the story until this article.
I heard it around a week ago. Tbh, the only newsworthy part is the gratuitous payout she is getting for a word. I'd much rather see all that money go to the family of Jacob Couch after he passed from a random psycho nearly chopping his head off with a hatchet at a bus stop.
Any mention of all the money that black kid that killed a white kid got just before this? Maybe that has something to do with it?
"Walsh and other right-wing commentators who have defended the fundraiser—if not Hendrix's overall conduct—have also drawn a connection to the case of Karmelo Anthony, a black teenager accused of fatally stabbing a white track athlete. Anthony's family also launched a fundraiser, earning half a million in donations"
It's a pretty quick note considering that it is extremely relevant to what Walsh is saying.
Story about tribalism.
Comments full of tribalism.
No, it's not going to end.
Which comments dumdum?
Andor is such laughable ham-fisted writing I almost wonder if it was written by an actual teenager. It is decidedly NOT great.
hundreds or thousands of people giving money to a woman because she engaged in racist speech
Except, that isn't why people are giving her money. People are doing so because there are liberal pieces of shit who are actively trying to destroy her and her family. The ultimate goal is to get those pathetic fucks to back off. Maybe this time the right side wins the Battle of Shiloh.
Anyone who denigrates an autistic child is trash. The racial slur just makes her extra trash.
No one cares what you think.
No thoughts there, just more tribalism from a consistent loser.
Of course you side with thieves and those that celebrate murderers, you're a Leftist.
If Lil Racial Slur was smart he'd have knifed Hendrix and be sitting on a pile of donated money himself. Seems like Karmelo's family are living high on the hog (expensive rental, three new cars) on money I assumed was donated for his defense. IIRC Kyle Rittenhouse was denied funds collected at Gofundme until after he was acquitted.
GFY Robby. I noticed you're not all up in arms when the dindonuffin tribe victimizes others then raises funds for their innocent boys. You demand that the culture war be waged only by one side and any response, no matter how mild, it completely out of bounds to your cucked metrosexual Leftist mind.
Yeah I think this woman had good reason to think her family could be made to pay a high price if this video became public which it obviously did. And no amount of mea culpas would save them as we all know. I'm pretty weary of being told what words I'm allowed to say so you all can just fuck off on that shit. If she can move somewhere safe from the mob and retain her anonymity good for her.
Walsh and other right-wing commentators who have defended the fundraiser—if not Hendrix's overall conduct—
Walsh did not defend Hendrix's conduct. MOST people on the right have not defended her conduct, and that includes her donors.
What they're defending is Hendrix as a human being. Albeit a flawed and contemptible one - but as contemptible as she may be, as indefensible as what she did, it's nowhere near as bad as what's now been done TO her in response. If you think it is, or you think that she got what's coming to her - then I'm sorry to tell you that your morality scales are wildly unbalanced.
What people on the right are defending - what they're donating their money to - is a woman who, along with her whole family and friends, being actively threatened with literal murder (to say nothing of the destruction of her social life, her livelihood, and her residence) from people who have illustrated that they are willing to use physical violence in the name of their social activism. And over what.
They're also defending her because of the hypocrisy of it all. At the end of the day, what did she do? She said a bad word. That's it. That's the net sum. She said a bad word. Nothing more. But it's a bad word that apparently some people are allowed (and encouraged!) to say, while others are literally threatened with death for it. There is something very wrong with that. Normal people don't openly advocate for literal murder over something as inane as bad words - and what folks on the right are defending against are the people who do.
Now, maybe you're thinking, "That's all hyperbole, she's in no real danger from angry people on the internet. It's just social media, relax." But we all know that's not true. We see it EVERY day it seems.
See, Robby - you can't understand this because you're one of them. But people on the Left simply are not in any way similar to people on the Right on a social/cultural/moral level anymore. They are, to put it in very plain terms, abnormal. And bad. And frankly kinda evil. Sweeping generalization? You bet - but the shoe fits because the Left is clearly wearing it.
Now, maybe they think the same thing about the Right - but that only illustrates my point: there is ZERO commonality anymore. And even if they DO think that, they're objectively incorrect. Why?
Because it's not the folks on the right setting fires to city blocks over misperceived equity injustices. It's not the folks on the right throwing molotovs at Teslas and Cybertrucks because they don't like a guy associated with them. It's not the folks on the right who hero-worship and lionize a literal assassin who brazenly murdered a husband and father in cold blood. It's not the folks on the right who call up 911 to get their perceived enemies SWATted in the middle of the night. It's not the folks on the right who are conquering school lawns and buildings and using them to broadcast a desire for genocide. It's not the folks on the right preaching tolerance and compassion and peace, while weaponizing the right's ACTUAL tolerance, compassion, and peacefulness against them.
So if/when you might think, "That's all hyperbole," you're factually incorrect. Because the left is, in fact, a bunch of unhinged dangerous violent abnormals who are motivated primarily by absolute hatred of others. And they are quick to violence.
Hendrix has every right to be afraid. And, as loathsome as her conduct was, she SHOULD be defended against people whose own ideology and the conduct they engage in based upon it is far more loathsome.
Now, on a personal note, one of the reasons I'm not in the MAGA tribe is because A) it's tribalism, and B) I genuinely believe MAGA is engaged in a race to the bottom against the Left. I don't know what either of them think they're going to win when they get there, but I know it's nothing good. I think Walsh is rationalizing when he says it's "to put an end to cancel culture" or "in response to Killmelo Anthony." Maybe that's true for MAGA, but I don't think most people are putting enough thought into their donations for those to be true. I think they just see - yet again - a woman who used a word that epitomizes "some animals are more equal than others" get a wildly disproportionate response to it, and their natural inclination is to help her. Especially as the left, in general, gets more and more and more violent, and willing to act on their violent impulses.
If your gripe is with Walsh - then make your article about him. Don't make it about "the right-wing." Because Walsh is not our spokesman. Unlike they left, we don't have spokesmen. We do our own speaking.
I have some thoughts.
No, you have feelings. If you had thoughts, you'd be a right-wing conservative.
But let's talk about your feelings.
First off, it's possible to simply condemn every aspect of the Hendrix story without trying to spin one person's behavior as worse than another's. It was just bad—all of it.
Nonsense. For all the reasons I just said. Writing off the difference between using a bad word and literal threats of actual violence is the sadistic tendency of leftists to excuse their own despicable behavior. THAT'S the real spin - the idiotic notion that "all of it" is equally bad.
No. Using a bad word is... not nice. It's not even "bad" - it's just not nice in any way shape or form. And even if it was bad, literal threats of actual violence is far, far worse. Normal people on the right get that. Abnormals on the left do not.
Intentionally, I suspect.
This is wishful thinking. The creation of a financial support network for victims of online mobs is not going to make mob behavior less appealing to anyone.
No, it's worse than that. It's going to ENCOURAGE it. It's no different than any other form of monetized victimization. And people are going to figure out that there's a brand new way to "earn" (used in the same context as "influencers" and "OnlyFans") REAL money doing this - and they're going to start instigating. The next Killmelo Anthony will do the same thing. And then so will the next Hendrix.
Only now you've got a segment of the right that's willing to lower themselves to the left's level; to fight fire with fire, as it would be. Do you want to encourage that? Or do you want to discourage it?
Because if it's the latter, then STEP NUMBER ONE is to start muzzling the dogs of the left. You gotta understand Robby, that the right is not going to put down their guns while the left is still an angry mob of violent psychotics calling for their blood. If there are ANY rational people on the left, they need to start curbing their dogs - whether it's the blacks, the gays, the Hamas-kids, or their media enablers, or whomever else.
"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."
Until you stamp that out on the American Left - and I mean curb-stomp it to death - this is just going to get worse.
A few disagreements, but overall well said. This is the culture war and Robby only notices and is upset about it when the right takes part in it. I'm more inclined to defend the woman's words and actions than I am the fundraising though I will have to admit that my opinion relies on ignorance of how much of a threat she is facing. A single word that I hear dozens of times a day being uttered by someone of the wrong color should not be a national story. The senseless violence of a kid murdering another kid for disrespecting him also shouldn't be a national story. What these stories do show is that we have a bit of circling the wagons in both tribes. It sucks too because as it escalates the side I mostly agree with is held back by rational actors who don't want the fight and are willing to criticize their own. The opposition is aggressive, reacts emotionally, and will conform to their mob's will. Unilateral warfare goes poorly on those defending.
Hendrix is the other side in a proxy race-war. She wouldn't have happened if Karmelo Anthony hadn't.
>She did a very bad and racist thing,
No she didn't. She said a naughty word. To a child stealing from her. That's, at worst, not nice.
>A bystander—a black man unrelated to the child
Who, coincidentally (its always coincidentally with the Left) is a sexual assaulter who was let go 'in the interest of justice' - because he's a Somalian.
>Using a perverse and explicitly identitarian framework, Hendrix defenders suggested that if it is OK for a black teenager accused of murder to accept donations, it is OK for a white woman accused of racism to accept donations—even though the two cases are not connected whatsoever.
No they're not connected. But if you can raise funds off a *fucking murder* then its certainly ok now to raise funds for having your life threatened for saying a naughty word to a child thief. Dumbass take Soave.
>This is wishful thinking. The creation of a financial support network for victims of online mobs is not going to make mob behavior less appealing to anyone.
This is correct. Soave is right here. But it does provide a bit of shielding for the victims of that online mob. Or would you rather they just took mob justice? In the interest of community harmony maybe? Its social justice to let it happen to you.
She called a nigger a nigger.
The pedofiles hate it when you call them pedofiles too
"The kid should not have gone through Hendrix's things,…"
Stop right there. The kid was five (5) years old. Five. Cinco. Mr. Soave, you obviously don't have children and/or understand what they do when they are five (5) years old. They explore. They look for things to play with. And, especially, to eat. They sometimes elude parental supervision and invade the privacy of others. And most importantly, they do not have a complete understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
Did I mention this child was only five (5) years old? This begins and ends right there. There was one adult in this exchange. Ms. Hendrix obviously thought it wasn't her and behaved accordingly.
Yeah. She over-reacted. Or did she? Because she's had to deal with this sort of shit from older kids and even adults?
You're treating every interaction as if its occurring in a vacuum without any connection to anything else.
By 5 a kid should know better and know well enough to leave other people's stuff alone. That's a failure of parenting by that kid's parents.
Proof that the kid is 5? The video I saw pans over to him quickly and blurs him, but that kid doesn't look 5. Lots of people saying he's actually 11. Regardless, a 5 year old should know better and a parent should have had eyes on him and corrected before the lady did.