Most of those complaining about being cancelled are not only exceptionally wealthy, but well ensconced in national broadcast and print media.
It's not only that their freedom of expression isn't under attack - they have bigger and more powerful platforms than 99% of people.
It's not only that their freedom of expression isn't under attack - they have bigger and more powerful platforms than 99% of people.
Is all criticism from the left fair, in good faith, even-handed? No. But speaking as someone who recently got death threats from the right over a selfie with an ice lolly (and called an antisemite for asking about kosher salt), I don't think those traits are unique to the left.
I don't think 'cancel culture' is a particularly useful way to think about how social media has changed values-driven political conflict and/or accountability. It's imprecise, encompasses everything from calling for someone to be sacked to getting ratio'd.
But what it *is* useful for is positioning those on the right - who've enjoyed access to power, and dominant media representation - as cultural underdogs, under siege. It's the majority adopting the language of minoritarian grievance.
It's an expansion of campus culture wars discourse which ignores how formal power is wielded, and by whom. Which is why you don't hear of Rebecca Long-Bailey's sacking being spoken of as 'cancel culture gone mad'. Or Munroe Bergdorf getting dropped by L'Oreal.
What I find strange about attempts to square freedom of expression with railing against cancel culture is that many of the ways cancel culture is identified - boycotts, protests, critical articles and social media posts - are examples of free expression themselves.
Now, we can talk about what's strategically important - which debates should you participate in because you hope to win people over, which you shouldn't because they legitimise hateful views. That's 100% legit, and tbh I don't think the left always think critically about it.
But articulating an analysis on a given set of facts *without* directly debating isn't an assault on freedom of expression. You might think it's rude or unstrategic, bad form or boring content, but it's not silencing someone (of course, journalistic right of reply is different).
TL;DR cancel culture moral panics are the most boring thing in existence, and people in their 50s need to stop getting their blood pressure up by pretending their back in a Uni Debating Society turf war.
