Guardian: 'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order

[gollygee]

This is an op-ed from Billy Bragg, a British singer-songwriter I've listened to for ages. It's an interesting perspective I thought was worth some discussion. I pasted the end of it because the most challenging part of the whole thing is the "prioritizes accountability over free speech" part.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/10/free-speech-young-people

The ability of middle-aged gatekeepers to control the agenda has been usurped by a new generation of activists who can spread information through their own networks, allowing them to challenge narratives promoted by the status quo. The great progressive movements of the 21st century have sprung from these networks: Black Lives Matter; #MeToo; Extinction Rebellion. While they may seem disparate in their aims, what they have in common is a demand for accountability.

Although free speech remains the fundamental bedrock of a free society, for everyone to enjoy the benefits of freedom, liberty needs to be tempered by two further dimensions: equality and accountability. Without equality, those in power will use their freedom of expression to abuse and marginalise others. Without accountability, liberty can mutate into the most dangerous of all freedoms – impunity.

We look down on authoritarian societies because their leaders act without restraint, yet in Trump, we see a president who has never been held to account in his personal life or professional career, and his voters love him for it. Boris Johnson’s supporters, when faced with examples of his lack of responsibility, shrug and say it’s just “Boris being Boris”. Impunity has become a sign of strength. You could see it in the face of the former police officer Derek Chauvin as he kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds.

In response to this trend, a new generation has risen that prioritises accountability over free speech. To those whose liberal ideals are proving no defence against the rising tide of duplicitous authoritarianism, this has come as a shock. But when reason, respect and responsibility are all under threat, accountability offers us a better foundation on which to build a cohesive society, one where everyone feels that their voice is heard.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. No it does actually stifle debate

[gollygee]

2. It would help if you read the op-ed first, maybe.

You responded within a minute of me posting it.

[Loki Liesmith]

8. It's the guardian. I'd already read it.

[hunter]

7. Has any celebrity intellectual actually been "canceled?"

I cancelled all television news and opinion years ago. Am I part of the cancel culture?

To me this all sounds like complaining by people who live in ivory towers built for them by oligarchs.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Examples?

[obamanut2012]

11. yeah, no

[BeyondGeography]

3. "The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people."

[gollygee]

4. Yeah I agree with that too

There's so much judgmentalism in "cancel culture" and it's ugly. I have mixed feelings overall. I agree that it's healthy for more people to have a voice and for people to be accountable, too. I guess that's why I thought it might make an interesting discussion. I see truth on both sides of this and it's a messy issue.

[BeyondGeography]

5. It's best to have mixed feelings

“Cancel culture” plays into right-wing stereotypes about the condescending and morally hypocritical left; it invites endless go-rounds of what-aboutism. As Jenna Wortham of the Times has said, it doesn’t really work:

What about Michael Jackson? How do you cancel a legend?

Though the allegations of sexual assault surrounding Jackson are serious, can you really cancel someone whose influence runs so deep and who is so omnipresent?

Jenna Wortham, a culture writer for the New York Times, contemplated this question on the podcast "Still Processing." She says she's managed to cut out such entertainers as Allen, Louis CK and Chris Brown -- but Jackson is still everywhere. His songs influenced generations of musicians. It simply isn't possible to totally cancel him.

"[Cancel culture] doesn't really work," Wortham says. "You can't just cut problematic people and problematic cultural properties or entities out because it's whack-a-mole, right? You're dealing with the symptoms of a sick society rather than actually treating the disease."

Canceling also doesn't undo the harm these people have done and doesn't prevent them from doing it again, Wortham says. She cities the example of Chris Brown, who assaulted then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009 and continues to see musical success despite continued allegations of assault and rape.

This, in a lot of ways, is what cancel culture has become. It's less about eradicating the offender and more about giving the offended a personal catharsis.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/why-cancel-culture-doesnt-always-work/article_0306a9fa-4d16-54a7-b9fd-a906bbc4f844.html

[gollygee]

6. I agree it's often more about catharsis, too

Accountability is good, but angry mobs are not. There could be some potential balance there, but people aren't good at balance.

[tenderfoot]

9. great quote found on twitter

"Cancel culture" is something that does not exist but is a very popular concept among people who do terrible things and don't like being held accountable.