Is "cancel culture" the biggest issue facing America today?
I'm basing this topic for discussion on an assertion made by Republican congressman Jim Jordan. I don't necessarily want to discuss Jordan, but rather the broader topic of his assertion that "cancel culture" is the biggest issue facing America today.
Cancel culture is the ‘number one’ issue in America, Jim Jordan claims amid pandemic
Mr Jordan has previously decried cancel culture following the vote in the House of Representatives to strip Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments due to her previous...
Personally, I have never lost a wink of sleep worrying about the "cancel culture", because even when it seems to be occurring it is such a minor aspect of American life, unlike say, racism, misogyny, income inequality, etc, but I would like to hear someone explain why we should all constantly fret over "cancel culture".
Yet he lead the charge for removing Liz Cheney from her position in GOP leadership. Jordan and his ilk have no concept of hypocrisy.
I don't see that 'cancel culture' is an issue. Don't even know what it is. Something made up.
Only Half Of Americans Have Heard Of ‘Cancel Culture’
Tessylo sort of nailed it. "Something made up."
I think it is just another 'conservative distraction' being used to further distract the GOPER/Trumpian factions that are so distracted their distraction has become a way of life.
'Cancel Culture'. Really? Cancelled from what? From whom? And because of what?
This too; this CC thing is very convenient to the conservatives ( even the dead conservatives ) to shield them from speaking of their 'true agendas' which would in fact denigrate, financially harm and further marginalize that very same base they so much rely on.
Here, listen to one of your own:
Sean, can you explain why anyone would think that "cancel culture" is the number one issue facing Americans today ?
It can be argued that it's a foundational issue upon which goes to the very core of our democracy. If you can't speak without fear of punishment, nothing else really matters.
So fear of punishment for speaking is what it is? Odd. At the recent event with the 'gold replica' of The Man From Mar-a-Lago the man from Mar-a-Lago sternly and harshly criticized many people as the crowd of grifted came to their feet and cheered. Could this be the 'Cancel Culture' you are referring to and hold much fear of?
Foundational issue? Honestly?
Really!!!!!!!
It goes to the very core of our democracy?
Seriously?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
IS that a joke? If you actually think that's what's being discussed, I can't help you.
Foundational issue? Honestly?
yes, most people think the ability to speak your mind is important in a democracy. I know totalitarians aren't much for independent thinking and debate, but you can't have a healthy republic without them.
Just where the fuck are you unable to speak your 'mind'?
Holy crackers!
Donald Trump named 17 people yesterday who he wants punished for speaking against him. Does that make him king of the cancel culture?
Answer: A MAGA rally.
And a healthy Holy Crackers for you too.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
If you can't tell the difference between politics and firing a Latino laborer for supposedly making a "white power" gesture (he dared to crack his knuckles in public!) , this discussion is pointless.
Trump doesnt want people punished for policy reasons, he wants them punished because they spoke out against HIM.
As far as an individual worker being fired for a hand gesture, I dont agree with that unless there is more to the story, but such isolated incidents dont make cancel culture the biggest issue in America. It is a way for the right to spawn outrage and take the spotlight off their own lack of solutions for Americans.
nt want people punished for policy reasons, he wants them punished because they spoke out against HIM
That's politics John. Campaigning against someone is not "punishing" them in the same way firing a private citizen from their job is. It's a pretty bright line between politics as usual and firing private citizens.
Was blacklisting an issue worth talking about in the late 40s and 50s?
It can be. If a person really has no intention in their campaign or supporting another's campaign except to hurt another person I'd consider that trying to punish that other person.
trump threatened to do that to get his way, I have little doubt he will follow thru, IF it benefits himself to do so.
That's why I said it's not not punishing them in the same way as "canceling" them. Politicians engaged in politics are not private citizens. A democracy is founded upon the ability to "punish" those you disagree with voting them out of office. That's not the same as unaccountable online mobs working to get private citizens fired for unpopular views.
There a very big difference between Donald Trump claiming Liz Cheney shouldn't be reelected (politics as usual) and Trump Corporation firing a landscaper for supporting Liz Cheney. See the difference and why the latter is poisonous to a functioning democracy?
Since when do you and yours give a fuck about why someone gets fired by an employer? Aren't y'all all about 'right to work'?
First, the term 'cancel' is a misnomer in itself. No one is 'canceled' unless they are dead.
Second, I haven't read or seen or heard about anyone getting fired just for supporting someone. I have seen it happen for them posting insane conspiracy theories and the like, but just for supporting a candidate? No.
Third, you don't see right wing mobs attacking people? They do it all the time. Just take a listen to the cpac speakers...
Amazes me the things they support until it happens to them.
Then silence. Notice none of them bring up being able to fire someone or even deny service to someone anymore.
Not In my opinion IF the intent is revenge it really doesn't matter who or why.
I seeded an article the other day about congressional democrats wanting to influence streamers, satellite providers, and cable systems into cancelling Fox News, NewsMax Tv, and OAN and the liberals talked about everything under the sun except that cancel culture.
Meh, Bill is the Secular Dominatrix of the Muslim Transgenderhood.
Well hell, somebody has to do it, right?
How is Bill Maher one of 'my own'?
I don't like Bill Maher.
I don't watch Bill Maher.
We're not of a hive mind like the republicans appear to be.
Maher is alright. He has points here and there. Besides, he does piss off everyone on occasion-------that's what he does.
He's just never been my cup of tea.
Yeah, I think he is a narcissistic ass.
NOTHING should be based on anything Jim Jordan says.
Here's an excerpt from a letter signed by many public intellectuals, many of them very liberal (and who naturally had the online mobs come after them for signing the letter) laying out the problems cancel culture causes for our country:
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
It's amazing this is controversial.
www.thecanary.co /opinion/2020/07/17/cancel-culture-is-a-myth-so-is-the-idea-that-the-political-right-is-under-siege/
'Cancel culture' is a myth. So is the idea that the political right is under siege. | The Canary
An open letter in a major US current affairs magazine has provoked a storm of debate about so-called ‘cancel culture’. The letter’s general thrust is that today’s public sphere has been severely damaged by a decline in open discourse due to a culture of political correctness. According to its proponents, this in turn poses a huge threat to ‘free speech’, or perhaps even to the foundations of open discourse itself.
There’s certainly something superficially attractive about this argument. After all, who could possibly be against free speech and open discourse? But in reality, the letter has a gaping blind spot. Because though it doesn’t name ‘the left’ or ‘left-wingers’ specifically, the message clearly implies that there is some kind equivalence between our conduct and that of the Trumpian faux-populist right. Ironically, this insinuation is not just completely outrageous but also is far more dangerous to public discourse than any of the letter’s own ominous and misplaced apprehensions.
An innocuous veneerOn 7 July, Harper’s magazine published an open letter signed by multiple public intellectuals titled A Letter on Justice and Open Debate . The list of signatories ran the political spectrum from right to left and included figures as diverse as former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky.
The letter starts off innocuously enough. It describes “demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society” as “overdue”. But having made this point, it then goes on to say that these demands have nonetheless “intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.
It then concedes that “forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world”, while acknowledging that this is primarily something associated with the political right. It singles out US President Donald Trump, who it says “represents a real threat to democracy”. But it then says that “democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides”.
Concealing a deeply dishonest premiseAt first glance, this sentiment appears reasonable enough. It seems to imply that those voices speaking against everything Trump represents ought to stay clear of adopting his traits of bullying, hectoring, gaslighting, and so on. But the reality is that this insulation, which forms the central premise on which the letter is based, is at its very core a flagrant strawman fallacy. Because there’s absolutely nothing about the conduct of the left that in any way mirrors the Trumpian modus operandi.
The letter claims , for example, that “it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought”. This claim is essentially a slightly more sophisticated version of the right-wing mantras of ‘political correctness gone mad’ and ‘you can’t say anything anymore’. And these notions are not only hopelessly facile but also completely misleading.
Setting the record straight on ‘free speech’ and ‘political correctness’First of all, as much as people on the right whine about how they’re somehow being ‘persecuted’ or ‘silenced’ by ‘political correctness’, it is simply not in any respect a threat to freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is about preventing the government from interfering in what can be published and put into the public sphere.
So when left-wing commentators like myself, for example, call out bigots for the racist things that they say, we’re not impeding their free speech. In the first place this is because we’re not the government. But, moreover, it’s because criticizing our political opponents for what they say is itself freedom of speech that is protected every bit as much as their freedom of speech.
What the right is really complaining about is not that they are being silenced. They’re complaining that they can’t say whatever they want without facing consequences, which may well include public criticism. And if what one says is prejudiced, intellectually dishonest, or otherwise contemptible, then one runs a very real risk of facing such a consequence.
A flagrant false equivalenceThe letter goes on to say :
This idea that the left is somehow bullying the right with a conceited ‘moral certainty’ is another favorite rallying cry of the right-wing ‘PC gone mad’ brigade. It was best summarized by the Mail on Sunday ’s “ fulminator-in-chief ” Peter Hitchens during a discussion about same-sex marriage on BBC Question Time. He whined :
Just look at their own huge public profilesFirst of all, this is completely false. Because if this were the case, then why would Hitchens and others of his ilk like Nigel Farage get invited onto Question Time (which they both do very frequently ) in the first place? And why would Hitchens have a column in one of the most widely circulated newspapers in the UK, along with a blog on one of the most viewed news websites in the world?
The notion is also a complete fallacy. Because it doesn’t have anything to do with whether what the left says is factually correct, or whether it’s based on sound logical or moral reasoning. It’s essentially just a duplicitous way of manipulating people’s emotions by stealthily trying to invoke guilt for supposedly having a sense of moral superiority. Sadly, this kind of guilt-tripping is often effective because of the emergence of the fatuous pop culture notions that everyone’s point of view is somehow equally ‘valid’ and that we are obligated by social convention to ‘respect other people’s beliefs’ irrespective of what those beliefs are.
In fact, the idea that there’s something inherently wrong with a sense of moral superiority is complete intellectual dishonesty when you think about it. Because of course left-wing people think that our beliefs are morally superior. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t hold these beliefs in the first place. Of course, it’s exactly the same for right-wing people. Because obviously they hold their beliefs because, by definition, they think those beliefs are superior to those of their political opponents. Yet they nonetheless hold a persecution complex because, as time goes by, they are gradually losing their ‘have cake and eat it too’ situation whereby they can challenge their opponents yet not get challenged themselves ‘like it was in the good old days’.
Hysterical fears, yet no concrete examplesThis hysterical persecution complex is on full display in the Harper’s letter. It states :
This certainly sounds pretty disconcerting. But the letter doesn’t give a single concrete example of any of this actually happening. The reason for this is that the idea of right-wing people living some kind of clandestine life, constantly looking over their shoulder in fear of persecution by the so-called ‘liberal elite’, is largely a myth .
Contrasting the leading figures of the left and the rightTake the example of the leaders of the UK’s respective major parties at the time of the last general election. Jeremy Corbyn was hounded, defamed, and sabotaged by political opponents using a completely manufactured smear campaign based on the preposterous premise that his leadership had seen a drastic rise of antisemitism in the Labour Party. But Boris Johnson, a man whose racism , homophobia , and generalized bigotry is very well-documented and far too extensive to exhaustively list here, largely gets treated in the mainstream UK media as some kind of charming, lovable rogue.
His career as a ‘journalist’ was also instructive. Because he made the equivalent of £2,291 per hour as a right-wing pundit and also served as one of the early pioneers of ‘fake news’ as the peddler-in-chief of ‘Euromyths’ . Some of his fellow right-wing columnists like Douglas Murray, meanwhile, continue to get gigs at well-oiled right-wing think tanks , invitations to speaking events at prominent debate societies, and ample space in an overwhelmingly right-leaning UK media. Some martyr’s life this is!
The final stake to the heart of the letter’s credibilityThis brings us to the final, and perhaps most important, reason why we should reject the premises of the Harper’s letter. And that is because it completely glosses over the current power structures that exist in the public square. Its arguments proceed as if public discourse happens in a vacuum. But the reality is that the public space in which this discourse takes place is currently steeply tilted in favor of powerful interests.
As The Canary has previously reported , the UK media is overwhelmingly owned by wealthy corporations and billionaires . And therefore their interests are naturally reflected in these media outlets’ editorial lines. The situation in the US is largely the same . So when right-wingers harp on about ‘free speech’, what they really mean is that they want to defend the dominant position of their own voices in a context in which they are already given pride of place.
The proof is in the puddingThis tendency is by no means confined to just the media. As Jane Mayer points out in her book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right , wealthy individuals have been engaged in a decades-long campaign to infiltrate academia and think tanks in order to build public support for tax cuts and reduced public spending.
Meanwhile, the voices in favor of radical change get increasingly marginalized. The Canary itself is a good example; we were targeted by the so-called ‘Stop Funding Fake News’ group that was a key player in the antisemitism smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. For the ‘crime’ of adding some balance to coverage of Cobyn’s leadership and scrutinizing the establishment campaign against him we lost ad revenue and were downgraded in social media algorithms.
Time to redouble our effortsClearly, it’s high time that we call out the purveyors of the empty ‘cancel culture’ narrative for the dishonest and self-interested hypocrites that they are. Because with the state of the world seemingly getting more and more desperate by the day, the need for radical social, political, and economic change gets greater and greater with each passing hour.
It’s sad that it was controversial at all.
There is no such thing as 'cancel culture'
Don’t Fall For The 'Cancel Culture' Scam | HuffPost
Jul 28, 2020 · If “cancel culture” is a term that encompasses both the famous and the nonfamous, social media mobs and risk-averse employers, firings and consumer boycotts, then it means nothing at all. It is, like “political correctness” before it, simply a name people give to things they do not like.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest issue, but neither is it something that should be lightly dismissed.
Actually the question is sort of reflective of a problem underpinning cancel culture. Does it truly matter if it's the biggest issue? Can't it just be big enough to care about?
It's this idea that something or someone is either all-good or all-evil. You're either with us or against us. There is no in-between. No nuance. No thoughtfulness. And we can dismiss concerns of cancel culture if it's not the biggest issue facing us. That's not how we should be approaching our issues.
except Jim Jordan and his ilk dont say it is simply big enough to care about. They say it is destroying America.
He should not even have his job after turning a blind eye to sexual abuse.
Does that mean we should write off any concerns and pretend it doesn’t exist?
It is damaging to our constitutional republic
Have you gotten your Covid shot yet? That is the largest issue facing the country right now. Nothing else comes close.
They are starting to push the J&J shot but I think I would rather have the Maderna or Pfizer one.
Everyone I know that had received it has had the one where you have to get two doses.
I would rather have one that is 90% versus 70%.
Well, that is supposedly 90 percent effective against getting a case that requires hospitalization, if I am correct in my understanding. I think that they all do a very good job as far as protecting one from death. That would be a winner for me.
over 500,000 dead from COVID but the imaginary ''cancel culture'' is the most important issue facing America...WTF
According to some, immigration comes in second, after the so called cancel culture.
Maybe covid is somewhere on their list. Instead of pretending it doesn't exist.