This line from Bret Stephens's latest "cancel culture is canceling everything" missive... I dunno, it just kind of bugs me. 
I try not to react to Stephens anymore, because (1) it's all been said before and (2) he's just not that interesting.
But let me rehash the core problem.
It's about power. It's about protecting the status hierarchy from critique. It's about keeping everyone in their place.
But let me rehash the core problem.
It's about power. It's about protecting the status hierarchy from critique. It's about keeping everyone in their place.
Stephens is a defender of the existing status hierarchy.
He thinks it is right and good that people like himself can say whatever they want and face no consequences.
He thinks it is wrong and bad when people of lesser status say whatever they want or call power to account.
He thinks it is right and good that people like himself can say whatever they want and face no consequences.
He thinks it is wrong and bad when people of lesser status say whatever they want or call power to account.
As a defender of the status hierarchy, his only real critiques of elites occur when they behave in a coarse or declasse manner.
That's what put him in opposition to Donald Trump. He had no meaningful policy breaks from Trump. He just felt proper elites shouldn't talk like that.
That's what put him in opposition to Donald Trump. He had no meaningful policy breaks from Trump. He just felt proper elites shouldn't talk like that.
Defending the existing status hierarchy means elevating any threats to people-like-him. Hence, the current obsession with "cancel culture."
Stephens and his ilk have been (ahem) *Persuaded* that cancel culture is a massive threat to the American Republic. It... just isn't.
Stephens and his ilk have been (ahem) *Persuaded* that cancel culture is a massive threat to the American Republic. It... just isn't.
Cancel culture is a status-threat to the most comfortable among us.
It can indeed be an existential threat to people-who-have-weekly-columns-and-sometimes-phone-it-in.
But if cancel culture keeps you up at night, it means you were sleeping far too comfortably to begin with.
It can indeed be an existential threat to people-who-have-weekly-columns-and-sometimes-phone-it-in.
But if cancel culture keeps you up at night, it means you were sleeping far too comfortably to begin with.
The striking thing about every "cancel culture" story is just how *small* it actually is.
Should a professor be reprimanded for writing "n____" in an exam? Should a publisher be retroactively changing titles of old recipe articles to make them less offensive?
Should a professor be reprimanded for writing "n____" in an exam? Should a publisher be retroactively changing titles of old recipe articles to make them less offensive?
In general my answer to both is "eh, it probably depends on a bunch of details that I don't have. Why are we talking about this?"
The basic rules here are embarrassingly simple: #1 try not to be an asshole. #2 Apologize when you fail at #1.
The basic rules here are embarrassingly simple: #1 try not to be an asshole. #2 Apologize when you fail at #1.
There are more important things to think about, but they all require casting a critical gaze toward people with actual power in society.
(Like, what the hell happened to Texas's utility system? Who screwed up/what should we learn/how do we do less-bad next time?)
(Like, what the hell happened to Texas's utility system? Who screwed up/what should we learn/how do we do less-bad next time?)
Stephens will never write about a topic like that, because it is a critique of the power structure that he likes to defend.
He only concerns himself with threats to that power structure.
He only concerns himself with threats to that power structure.
It means his work oscillates between boring, frustrating, and amusing.
...And that's why I try not to bother with him anymore.
...And that's why I try not to bother with him anymore.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
