Read on Twitter
Jim Jordan claims "Cancel Culture" is a threat to America.
http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/BB1dG5fG
As a concept, #CancelCulture is only nonsense. But as a buzz-phrase, deployed as it is by The Right™ and the right-wing media, it is actually dangerous. Here's why.
(Thread: 1/22)
http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/BB1dG5fG
As a concept, #CancelCulture is only nonsense. But as a buzz-phrase, deployed as it is by The Right™ and the right-wing media, it is actually dangerous. Here's why.
(Thread: 1/22)
Let's consider "Cancel Culture". What actually happens when someone is "cancelled"? Well, let's deal with an actual problem first: sometimes, when people say things that others don't like, they can get subjected to abuse, harassment, hounding, even doxxing and threats.
(2/22)
(2/22)
This, I hope it should go without saying, is absolutely unacceptable. If this is what people are referring to when they talk about "cancel culture", then, sure - it's a problem. But it's a problem that's more accurately described using already existing terms (see above).
(3/22)
(3/22)
More often, what people who complain about "cancel culture" are talking about is the same thing that people are usually referring to when they're making a fuss about "free speech": the fact that *people are reacting to what they say*.
(4/22)
(4/22)
"Free speech", theoretically an essential part of democracy, has become abused as a concept by the far right (though I suppose given where the Overton Window is these days, we can just say "The Right"). This is intentional.
(5/22)
(5/22)
"Free speech" - to clarify what it ACTUALLY is - means that *the government cannot prosecute you for things you say*. And, on a personal note, I think it's a very bad idea to allow entirely unregulated free speech. Yes, I'll say it: I support SOME restrictions on speech.
(6/22)
(6/22)
But why? Well, not because I'm afraid someone will say something nasty and hurt my feelings. I don't LIKE that experience, but it's not the end of my world.
But I'm referring to the fact that genocide begins with speech. Always.
(7/22)
But I'm referring to the fact that genocide begins with speech. Always.
(7/22)
A society doesn't support genocide just out of the blue. The foundations have to be laid for large-scale acceptance of mass murder. The target group first has to be demonised and dehumanised in the eyes of the majority. Then, when the abuse and the oppression is ramped up
(8/22)
(8/22)
and ultimately the killing starts, the majority will be so inured to it, so used to thinking of the victim group as subhuman or dangerous, that they will look the other way; or, they will rationalise it in their own minds. The people being killed were a threat, right?
(9/22)
(9/22)
Oppression is maintained, at least in part, via unrestricted free speech. Genocide is built on it. And, where complete freedom of speech exists (most "western" countries at least have some degree of restriction on "hate speech", but none very keenly enforced), the only
(10/22)
(10/22)
possible safeguard against that preparatory dehumanisation is *critique of the dehumanising speech*. The only defence a society has is the right of people - and businesses and institutions - to call out ideas they believe are abusive or dangerous or destructive. That is
(11/22)
(11/22)
the ONLY way for a society to shield itself against the threat of genocide. The right of people to call out and criticise abusive "opinions" is crucial in this. And we - that is, anyone who believes that people have a right to life and freedom without oppression and
(12/22)
(12/22)
violence - must, at any cost, defend the right to speak out in opposition to dangerous ideas, even when they're presented as "just my opinion".
The growing condemnation of "cancel culture", and of "wokeness", are just the latest efforts to suppress the right to oppose.
(13/22)
The growing condemnation of "cancel culture", and of "wokeness", are just the latest efforts to suppress the right to oppose.
(13/22)
When they complain about being "silenced" when they have influential public platforms and millions of eyes and ears taking in all they do and say... when they complain about "cancel culture" when people express opposition to their "opinions"... what they are truly doing
(14/22)
(14/22)
is seeking to unfetter themselves from the too-informal restraints that keep our society from falling prey to a pattern of brutality we've seen so often before. They're working to negate the protection that society might otherwise offer in defence of the marginalised.
(15/22)
(15/22)
To reiterate: abuse, harassment, threats toward any person are not to be tolerated. But those aren't "cancel culture". They're abuse, harassment and threats. "Cancel culture" is a canard - a boogyman phrase intended to encourage people to surrender their right to oppose.
(16/22)
(16/22)
Armed with this phrase - and "woke" serves much the same purpose - people can also set about denying others that right to oppose. To allow this would truly mean the end of freedom of expression in our society, and would pave the way for further, more violent abuses.
(17/22)
(17/22)
Have there been cases where people have overreacted, and subjected a person to arguably excessive criticism for saying something deemed "problematic"? Without question. Especially on social media where people have been trained to expect confrontation.
(18/22)
(18/22)
This is unfortunate, because it does close the door to clarification, education and understanding. There is arguably a case to be made that these Twitter and Twitterlike reactions ARE a problem *within that context*. And a problem that we perhaps need to work on.
(19/22)
(19/22)
But it's very different when this idea of "cancel culture" and "wokeness" starts finding its way into general media and especially into politics.
When the UK "government" starts complaining about "the woke", then the UK has a very serious freedom problem.
(20/22)
When the UK "government" starts complaining about "the woke", then the UK has a very serious freedom problem.
(20/22)
When a US congressman claims that "cancel culture" is not only a real thing, but is a "threat to America", then any American who believes in the ideas the USA was built on needs to stand up and call it out. He wants to remove your right to oppose.
(21/22)
(21/22)
Free speech, of expression, is not a one-way street. And it is not, despite their implications, the sole exclusive property of The Right, of the "conservative". It is your right too. The notion of "cancel culture" is their attempt to deprive you of it.
Don't let them.
(22/22)
Don't let them.
(22/22)
