I think his notion of "disproportionate response to to speech" is a good start, but is too generic to help us understand why this has become an issue of discussion over the past decade.
When I think of cancel culture, my primary thought is of private individuals facing meaningful harms (mainly economic) as a result of public outcry over the individuals (perfectly legal) speech or actions that signal the individual is "on the wrong team".
It's not a simple definition, but captures both why people are afraid of it, and why it is happening now (social media made it possible to make a private individual's speech and actions public, even if that individual wasn't a user of that platform).
Public figures losing speaking engagements or whatever is bad, but the targeting of private individuals in this manner is an escalation of political conflict that is very alarming.
Lastly, I will add that while this evil is not exclusively committed by the Left, there is absolutely an asymmetry. The Left has generally been far more likely to cancel people than the reverse. There are a number of possible causes (people on the left are more politically active, will be amplified by a left -leaning media industry, etc)
> The Left has generally been far more likely to cancel people than the reverse. There are a number of possible causes (people on the left are more politically active, will be amplified by a left -leaning media industry, etc)
I think this is more neatly described by the right having more mainstream and surreptitious avenues of "cancelling" people they don't like. Gang lists, credit scores, police intimidation/brutality, selective enforcement of drug policy, the prison system, good ol' boys clubs, etc etc etc.
That grab-bag of issues suggests you have a confused notion of what constitutes "the right". For instance, how is police brutality a example of "right-wing cancel culture" when some of our most salient examples occurred in left-wing dominated cities? Not everything you disagree with is a political weapon used by your enemies.
I will concede (though you didn't make this point explicitly) that the religious right has historically had a fair bit of social power that might be described as cancel culture, but that power has arguably been gone since before cancel culture as I described it became a thing.
It's pretty common in the New Left ideology to view any power structure as the opposition to progress and therefore the enemy (this was a big theme particularity from 1960s-1970s that heavily influenced progressives today). So any strong authority system like police and big companies are immediately 'right-wing'.
This of course misses all the nuance in the spectrum of authoritarianism<->liberty found not only in right wing people but just as much among left-wing people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left (note how they used to be the leaders in pro-free speech, which makes sense if you're opposed to authority, but that value has of course been lost on social media - to the dismay of many from the old-school left who fought hard for it)
I think religious beliefs largely underly payment processors' refusal to do business with porn websites, wouldn't you agree? If it weren't for Christian beliefs, advertisers wouldn't be worried about being associated with porn and payment processors wouldn't either. That's the first example that came to my head, but I'm sure there are many, many such examples of the right having true social power to eliminate speech and expression they don't agree with.
Perhaps initially, though today any religious influence is merely the result of organizational interia, not genuine concern for the opinions of Christians.
But I don't think that's the only reason. My thought is that there would be concern over connections to actual criminal activity (human trafficking, abuse, revenge porn, etc). I'm not saying all porn is those things, but I imagine it might be harder to be sure porn isn't connected to those things.
Even left wing dominated cities have large numbers of right wing constituents. There are more registered Republicans in NYC than live in the entire state of Wyoming.
Right wing cancel culture are lynch mobs and the literal bombing of an American city and the imprisonment of an unconscionable number of black males. While I agree the power is waning, saying that it isn't on par with a few people losing their jobs due to misplaced outrage is hilarious.
> Even left wing dominated cities have large numbers of right wing constituents.
To think this is the cause of police brutality is a stretch to put it mildly.
> Right wing cancel culture are lynch mobs and the literal bombing of an American city and the imprisonment of an unconscionable number of black males.
Again with the random grab of different grievances. None of these are relevant to this conversation, but explaining why would require a separate explanation for each one.
Instead of trying to throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks, why not pick one or two things you think are the best example of what you are arguing, and I can just refute that?
Sure. Explain selective enforcement of drug policy and the subsequent imprisonment of a huge fraction of Americans who happen to be black on those charges. How does that not fall under "silencing people the right do not like".
> Concerned about the deadly effect of crack within their own communities, black members of Congress led the charge to pass the 1986 federal drug laws. The bill that was passed — which included the crack/powder sentencing disparity — did so with the support of the majority of black congresspersons. None at the time objected to the sentencing disparity as “racist.”
> In 2006, the feds tried 5,619 crack sellers, and 4,495 of them were black — out of the 562,000 blacks in state and federal prisons at the end of that year. Add in county and city jails, and the figure rises to 858,000. And states’ crack cocaine laws are not the culprits. Only 13 states employ differing sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder — and their differential is much smaller than that of the feds.
I'm not able to respond to your below point. I understand why you jumped to the crack/cocaine disparity. In response if like to surface three points
1) it seems unlikely (although I don't have/know data) that a 10% population can have 80% of the convictions without intentional bias at play. Black people are not the only poor people in America.
2) I emphasized drug policy in general. I think you will find it much harder to explain the differential marijuana conviction rates
3) I also emphasized selective enforcement of policy rather than the policy itself on purpose. I know the policy itself is not a clear cut situation. Although I will remark having a few token black members of Congress behind the proposal is not a particularly strong counter argument in my opinion.
1) How unfair/biased is the policing of blacks in America?
2) To what extent is that unfairness the result of the right intentionally trying to harm their outgroup?
That second point is essential to your argument that that bias in criminal law is a form of "right-wing cancel culture". When a left-wing twitter mob joins in to get a man fired from his job for holding his fingers in the shape of the "OK" sign[1], that is their explicit intention.
Likewise, you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?). Even if you were completely correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) the fact that the policy was championed by black politicians and endorsed by a Democratic-majority House of Representatives makes your thesis that it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable.
As for the enforcement side, even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing, this is still primarily happening in cities where the politicians, judges, district attorneys, etc. all have a left-wing bias.
With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Again, not every outcome you don't like is the result of intentional action by your political enemies.
As for addressing the question how unfair in general the criminal justice system is towards blacks, there are several other good arguments in the link I shared. I don't have any specific stats about marijuana-related convictions, but even if there is a bias in that area, I think the arguments linked undermine the idea that in general the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks[2].
[2]Of course, the higher rates of incarceration of blacks is certainly tragic, and I would be glad for solutions to reduce that rate. There are probably many factors that cause this higher rate, but my argument is simply that biased laws and law-enforcement are not among them.
> (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not)
I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all.
> you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?)
Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure.
> even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing
They are, as I understand it. But I care little about this point and accept that there are many good police officers who are not biased.
> it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable
Its not a plot. Its a tool used by the right wing to achieve their aims. Whether that tool had good or bad motives at the start is immaterial to the discussion of how its used in practice.
> With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory.
The right wing has many tools at its disposal in order to silence and oppress their targets. Of these tools, public derision via cancel culture requires specific targets and has a large chance of blow back via the Streissand effect rallying supporters to the targetted individual. In contrast, broad untargetted attacks afforded by diffuse structures like criminal law enforcement, crippling economic controls, political deactivation via gerrymandering and direct voter suppression are far more effective tools at their disposal.
Notice the fact that you are able to point to a specific event and specific supporters of the outcome of that event in your comparison of "left" cancel culture to "right" oppression. I know you have decided that is the nail in the coffin of my argument. However, consider how much more effective my arguments could be and how difficult a time you would have if that person were fired from their job after holding that ok sign up. But there wasn't a twitter mob. Just a routine dismissal from the company. And all you could do was point at how often that happens to people like that and how little it happens to people who do the same thing but have a different skin color/sex/wear glasses/whatever.
> I don't believe you are discussing in good faith, goodbye
Are you capable of discerning between bad faith and disagreement?
I actually believe what I am arguing: that cancel culture in the present moment is dominated by the Left.
Do Republicans and people on the right do bad stuff? Absolutely (even if i disagree about many of the particulars). But cancel culture is far from the only critique I have of the Left.
This is not about "which side is worse" in the broader picture. I'm trying not to simply turn this into a political mud-slinging contest. I'm trying to get at what cancel culture actually is (you know, the topic of this thread).
In response, you made a claim that certain things were examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right. A claim you have thus far still utterly failed to defend.
If all you want to do is complain about every bad thing a Republican ever did, then I agree this discussion should end.
Because you do seem genuine I will describe why I find this discussion to be in bad faith. You rarely (if ever) grant a charitable interpretation to my statements. You (almost?) always extrapolate my comments to the most extreme and weakest position. You seem to mostly be interested in "winning" and are funneling the conversation to points you find yourself most comfortable and strongest in. You regularly attack me as a person.
I find it unlikely that if I were to surface information and/or an argument to you that you did not know, that you would incorporate it into your world view. It seems you would dismiss it and focus on other aspects of the discussion and/or extrapolate the new argument to an absurd extreme thus making it irrelevant.
> In response, you made a claim that certain things were examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right. A claim you have thus far still utterly failed to defend.
I think this is the crux here. I offered a potential alternative explanation for why we might see more "cancel culture" from the "left" than the "right". Simply that the "right" often has more effective and lower risk options in "cancelling" a person.
That must be situational. In my circle of family and friends, religion is still extremely powerful. Even to the point where I demur when the topic of religion even looks like it could be discussed. I "pray" right along with everyone else at the dinner table at family gatherings.
And even on a national stage -- how many politicians will admit to being non-religious? There is still a tremendous amount of social power from the right.
> That must be situational. In my circle of family and friends, religion is still extremely powerful. Even to the point where I demur when the topic of religion even looks like it could be discussed. I "pray" right along with everyone else at the dinner table at family gatherings
You sound like me with my Woke extended family :)
Of course the influence of one's community will always be powerful. What's novel about the present situation is how much a bunch of randos on the internet can ruin your life.
> And even on a national stage -- how many politicians will admit to being non-religious? There is still a tremendous amount of social power from the right.
So perhaps not totally gone, but it's influence is greatly diminished from where it was a generation ago.
I think this is another case of defintions breaking down.
There are no left-wing dominated cities in the US. There are liberal dominated cities, and liberals tend to support the same things as "conservatives" (big scare quotes), with the difference being target (sometimes). Painting Black Lives Matter on one street when no one asked for it while still supporting policies BLM is against does not make one leftist.
Plenty of checkmarked liberals have called for my extermination because I'm in a "red" state because they think everyone here is a moustache-twirling villain (right up until cable news decreed it was "purple" and thus virtuous). Meanwhile, the self-identifying conservative editor of the local paper supports a lot of policies that would be seen as leftist: BLM, trans rights, marriage equality. Liberals were firmly against these things until popular sentiment started to shift.
> There are no left-wing dominated cities in the US.
That they are not as left-wing as you does not mean they are not left-wing. Whatever they are, these cities are certainly not dominated by right-wing politics.
> There are liberal dominated cities, and liberals tend to support the same things as "conservatives" (big scare quotes), with the difference being target (sometimes)
What is a "liberal" in this context?
> Painting Black Lives Matter on one street when no one asked for it while still supporting policies BLM is against does not make one leftist.
One can be a hypocrite and a leftist at the same time.
> Meanwhile, the self-identifying conservative editor of the local paper supports a lot of policies that would be seen as leftist: BLM, trans rights, marriage equality. Liberals were firmly against these things until popular sentiment started to shift.
When I think of cancel culture, my primary thought is of private individuals facing meaningful harms (mainly economic) as a result of public outcry over the individuals (perfectly legal) speech or actions that signal the individual is "on the wrong team".
It's not a simple definition, but captures both why people are afraid of it, and why it is happening now (social media made it possible to make a private individual's speech and actions public, even if that individual wasn't a user of that platform).
Public figures losing speaking engagements or whatever is bad, but the targeting of private individuals in this manner is an escalation of political conflict that is very alarming.
Lastly, I will add that while this evil is not exclusively committed by the Left, there is absolutely an asymmetry. The Left has generally been far more likely to cancel people than the reverse. There are a number of possible causes (people on the left are more politically active, will be amplified by a left -leaning media industry, etc)
reply