If you're going to complain about "cancel culture", how do you define it?
Does it apply to online criticism? Losing a gig after a racist rant or ten? Getting ostracized for sexual harassment? Getting arrested for rape?
Does it distinguish between punching up and punching down?
Does it apply to online criticism? Losing a gig after a racist rant or ten? Getting ostracized for sexual harassment? Getting arrested for rape?
Does it distinguish between punching up and punching down?
Looking at these discussions through the lens of punching up vs punching down is clarifying. Most arguments against "political correctness", "incivility" and "cancel culture" are just attempts to stop punching up and defend punching down. Defending abuse from a high horse.
The phrase "punching up" is really suboptimal here.
Punching down has real consequences for the target. Punching up usually has few consequences. That's how power dynamics work. It's usually just complaining about abuse. In rare cases, it means consequences for abuse.
Punching down has real consequences for the target. Punching up usually has few consequences. That's how power dynamics work. It's usually just complaining about abuse. In rare cases, it means consequences for abuse.
And some of the most common tricks of abuse defenders are to conflate defending abuse with defending the abused, and to conflate serious, unfair consequences with valid criticism. Those tricks don't work when you look at this through that lens of power dynamics.
Another thing abuse defenders love to do is focus on times when efforts to stop abuse went too far or hit the wrong target. Not just addressing this, but focusing on it out of proportion to its frequency and effect. There's a whole cottage industry devoted to this.
If you worry as much about punching up as you do about punching down, you're protecting power imbalances and the people who abuse them. And that's why The Letter matters when there's a fascist in the WH claiming the powers of a king and letting a pandemic kill us.
Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. He didn't emerge just from the GOP. He's a product of rich straight white male supremacy. He's an expression of the same system The Letter defends. Leave that system in place, you get more Trumps.
The left isn't immune to bigoted thoughts. How could we be? Most of us were raised in a society that subtly taught us to think that way - and not to realize it. You can't help how you were raised, but you can be open to learning. You can do your homework.
You can listen when people say your words are harmful to people with less power than you. You can assume you know less about a given form of bigotry than its targets.
Or you can tell them to stop being so PC, to be civil, to stop infringing on your right to free speech.
Or you can tell them to stop being so PC, to be civil, to stop infringing on your right to free speech.
If you care about free speech for everyone, you can keep in mind:
- Punching up isn't the same as punching down
- Debating someone's right to exist isn't compatible with their free speech
- Fascist speech is a threat to free speech and peoples' lives
- Punching up isn't the same as punching down
- Debating someone's right to exist isn't compatible with their free speech
- Fascist speech is a threat to free speech and peoples' lives
What this comes down to is whether we keep letting some people be treated like second-class citizens. That's not compatible with their free speech, health, or wellness. It's not compatible with democracy, or justice, or most peoples' morality.
We live in a country where *most* people are treated like second-class citizens for one reason or another. That's minority rule. And I don't see how that changes unless we reject second-class citizenship completely.
"Far from helping the powerless, the prominent crusaders against “cancel culture” only enable the Right in its authoritarian impulses that protect (generally white, male, rich) abusers." - @C_Stroop
religiondispatches.org/no-cancel-cult…
religiondispatches.org/no-cancel-cult…
