A short thread:

Criticism is: You’re wrong and here’s why.

Cancellation is: You can’t say that and I’m going to try and get you fired or considered a moral monster for daring to say it.

1/

All cultures cancel things. I suspect just about everyone thinks it’s a good thing, including most of those who signed The Letter, to cancel outright Nazis, defenders of slavery, and child molesters who would seek to advocate for their vile hobby.

2/

The question is: Should the list of things marked for cancellation be greatly expanded in this moment? Or is our culture healthier, better for its members on the whole, when relatively few things are deemed off-limits for public debate and discussion?

3/

Are people who dissent from positions on race, gender, American history, and related subjects favored by progressive social justice activists (arguably) wrong—or are they evil, morally equivalent to Nazis and slavery defenders, and so worthy of social excommunication?

4/

Obviously it used to be acceptable to defend slavery in public without social sanction. In the 1930s, it was acceptable to say nice things about Hitler. These lines do shift.

5/

The question is: Should they shift now on so many subjects? And do the people attempting to produce the shift have enough cultural consensus on their side to make it stick? The Letter was a way of saying: No, you don’t. Will that change over time? We shall see.

6/6