Time to cancel the cancel culture
The ability to speak freely and express oneself without recourse to the law is surely the solid foundation of free and open society. We should be able to talk and discuss about ideas including uncomfortable or dangerous ones. If you are a true advocate of free speech, you must support and protect not only "the ability to speak freely" but also "the ability to be heard". That is why you may find yourself having to defend someone you disagree with... It is not an easy task.
Then we have so-called "cancel culture". I understand that the cancel culture is like a modern version of ostracism. It is something my grandparents and great-grandparents, and my ancestors from centuries ago did in the context of tribal, religious or political homogeneity. It's not new. The only difference is probably the Internet and social media.
While it is believed by many that the cancel culture is a terrible phenomenon generated by the left, an interesting thing happened in the UK about 10 days ago.
To cut the long story short...
Captain Tom, a war veteran raised £33 million to support the NHS. He became a national hero. Sadly, Captain Tom passed away with COVID-19 on Feb. 2.
Then, reverend Robinson-Brown wrote on Feb. 3: “The cult of Captain Tom Moore is a cult of white British nationalism. I will offer prayers for the repose of his kind and generous soul, but will not be joining the ‘national clap.'” (The clergyman is clearly a leftist.)
The London-based clergyman removed the post the same day and offered an “unreserved apology for the insensitive timing and content” of his tweet, adding that he has now read and will sign the Church’s digital charter.
What I then found rather disappointing was the backlash that came from the right.
For example:
Laurence Fox, an actor and a free-speech champion tweeted “I can certainly see why his ancestors ate people like him.”
More hypocritical backlash came from a former leader of the UKIP, Nigel Farage, former Sun editor Kelvin McKenzie and Guido Fawkes reporter Tom Harwood, all of whom have vocally opposed political correctness in favour of free speech: "Does the Church of England really think this man is the best person to become the new curate of the oldest church in the City of London?”
The fervour has grown so great that a petition has been launched calling for Robinson-Brown to be immediately removed from his post. Cancel culture.
I am not defending the left, nor am I defending the right; I criticise both. I feel strongly that if we truly believe in freedom of speech, we must be more serious about protecting it and not to allow hypocrisy by using it as a political weapon.
I think it's time to cancel the cancel culture, don't you?
Don't ask me how, though! That's the million dollar question, unless you have some ideas, in which case let me hear them!
6
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.While you and I usually agree on most topics, I am genuinely puzzled by your position here.
First, let me be clear: I have no problem with either Robinson-Brown's comments, nor the comments in response to his. That does not mean I agree with them, only that I have no problem with them being made.
Second, I'm puzzled why you consider the "backlash" - which based on the examples you've provided, seems to not even deserve the word - to be cancel culture. Where is the story telling us he has been removed from social media outlets for his comments? Where is the story telling us that his superiors have removed him from his position for his comments? Where is the story that his address had been doxxed and protesters showed up to his home to harass him? Where are the media hit pieces, digging up things from his past and reporting on them, with the goal of turning popular opinion against him? Where are the stories of bald faced lies being presented as truth to vilify him, only to be quietly retracted via editor's note a week later, once no one is paying attention any longer?
That's cancel culture.
To suggest that someone making a rude comment or questioning whether he is the correct person for his position are cancel culture is absurd. They are opinions, no different and - IMHO - even less inflammatory than the one Robinson-Brown himself made. Is it cancel culture to ask the question whether someone who uses "white British nationalism" in a pejorative sense is the best person to serve a public that includes white British people? I don't see it.
As for the petition? Come on now, how is that canceling this man? As with most petitions, this has no weight, no teeth, and is little more than a public display of the amount of displeasure people have with the man, presumably over his comments. Are you suggesting that in the name of doing away with cancel culture that people should not be allowed to voice their displeasure?
I understand the gist of what you're saying...that we should not live in fear of cancel culture ruining our lives, and THAT I am in complete agreement with. But what you're presenting here seems to be more a case for not even being publicly critical of someone who puts their foot in their mouth and that - to me at least - is an unnecessary abrogation of free speech.
Alysandir
Level 7
Feb 14, 2021
2
Hello there. We don't always have to agree.
As I stated, my understanding of cancel culture is that it is a modern form of ostracism in which "someone is thrust out of social or professional circles". They launched a petition calling for Robinson-Brown "to be immediately removed from his post". Based on my understanding of the definition of cancel culture, they tried to ostracise him.
@Alysandir What the clergyman said was terrible, but even by the British standard (we have hate speech laws), it wasn't a hate speech, nor was it inciting violence, yet the immediate removal of the clergyman from his post was demanded. If it isn't ostracism, I don't know what it is. Anyway, your interpretation is different from mine. Fair enough.
If it isn't ostracism, I don't know what it is.
Well, if you refer back to my first response, I do give a number of examples of what true cancel culture looks like: the proactive, intentional act of people with agency and an audience - typically the media and social media influencers - attempting to force a person into silence by eliminating their livelihood(1), eliminating the channels through which they communicate, harassing them and their family, and turning the public against them, using lies and half-truths, if necessary.
Conversely, saying, "Wow...that guy needs to be fired," is stating an opinion. For example, when we vote, we express an opinion: "the person I'm voting for is the better choice," or "the person I'm voting for is the lesser of two evils," or even, "the person currently in office needs to be removed." No one would call that last choice cancel culture, even though you are indeed expressing an opinion that could potentially separate someone from their employment.
When I leave a review for a product, I might say something like, "I tried Brand X and Brand Y, and I think Brand Y is the better, and here's why I think that." Even though I am using my review - my platform - to potentially persuade people to buy Brand Y, I am also - as a natural complement - implicitly telling people to NOT buy Brand X. Does that mean I'm practicing cancel culture against Brand X? I should hope not.
Now, I grant you that - as an American - I have a culturally different perspective on what both free speech and cancel culture is compared to the UK perspective. Again, I do not disagree with you that cancel culture is something we should not live in fear of.
But when you say to me that it is cancel culture for me to be publicly critical of a public figure who said things I strongly disagree with - it doesn't even have to be hate speech - IF I suggest that the public figure should either be removed or replaced, then I have to disagree and suggest that you're instead promoting censorship. I haven't done anything to hurt that person, I've only expressed an opinion. What you're suggesting is not ending cancel culture, it's putting more restrictions on how people are allowed to publicly opine.
That presents such a slippery slope. We already have problems with what exactly constitutes "hate speech," in that it seems that the definition of what is and is not hate speech changes based on who's making it and who's offended. Now we're going to do the same with locking down "cancel culture," in that what is considered "cancel speech" will change based on who's being criticized and who's doing the criticizing. It will be weaponized and used to silence some people, while ignoring others who are legitimately trying to cancel people. That's terrifying.
In any event, good conversation. See you on the next topic.
(1) I also want to be clear about this. I believe it is cancel culture to threaten the person's employer with consequences if the person is not fired, such as loss of business. I believe it is cancel culture to go to the employer's business partners and sponsors and threaten them with loss of business if they continue to support the person's employer, as a means of inducing more pressure on the employer to fire the person. Those are deliberate actions to hurt the employer if they do not do as you demand.
I do NOT think it is cancel culture to write a sternly worded letter to the employer saying why you think the person should be fired. I do NOT think it is cancel culture to collect signatures and submit them to the person's company as a representation of how many people are displeased and want to see the person fired. The difference here is you are speaking your mind and hoping that you can persuade the employer to agree with you. Contrast that again the examples I just made above where you're trying to threaten and hurt the employer for not doing what you want.
That is the fundamental difference between cancel culture and speaking your mind. YMMV.
I fully agree with what you had written but am left with more questions than answers.
Cancel the cancel culture? How? My response would be to stop pandering to every lunatic who happens to find themselves, somehow, in the limelight. For example, the instant celebrity of some dimwit in face paint and buffalo horns prancing through the capitol last month. His value? None. But the msm gave him more than his fifteen minutes of fame, and undeservedly so.
Does that mean bringing back some of the legislation cancelled in the 90s that gave direction to and placed limits on the media? A good start. Does that mean having enough sense to stop broadcasting when some has been bleats wanting to blow up the White House? Free speech has its limitations in law. Does bombing a public building (and I assume it’s residents, too) cross the line? Does a public figure boasting he’d take the President of the United States behind the barn and beat the hell out him?
Sadly, restraint seems to be lacking at several levels but I believe the common thread is the media that encourages public displays of dubious value and certainly questionable taste.
parsifal
Level 7
Feb 14, 2021
0
Ha, ha, I got you thinking! Cancelling the cancel culture means stop ostracising people for speaking freely and expressing themselves. In the clergyman's case, what he said was insensitive and terrible but it wasn't a hate speech, nor did it incite violence according to the British hate speech law. Nonetheless, the petition was set up to remove him from his post - that's ostracism in my understanding.
Incidentally, I watched quite a bit of the impeachment trial every day for five days. I wasn't interested in the verdict; it was predicted that Trump was going to be acquitted. I was interested to see how the trial would unfold. Oh man, the impeachment managers spent hours emphasising how Trump incited the violence by quoting "Fight like hell!" etc., while Trump's defence lawyer spent hours emphasising that Biden was just as bad by quoting "Take Trump to behind the gym." etc. They were trapped in this argument back and forth most of the time. It was inane; the same as two kids saying "You started it." "No, YOU started it." It's so unhelpful in bringing two side together. (Sorry if I sound disrespectful towards your politicians - I don't mean to.) Unless we get out of and go above this level of argument, we are not gonna find the middle ground so that we can finally cancel the cancel culture and mutually protect freedom of speech. I still don't know how exactly, though. Legislation wouldn't be the best solution.
@Naomi Agree. The reverend’s comments were not much more than callous and insensitive. The knee-jerk response was equally inappropriate.
The legislation I was referring to mandated “equal time” and “balanced reporting”.
Trump’s defence team exposed the hypocrisy of the democrats. I especially enjoyed seeing “the whole story” videos rather than the truncated and unfair clips msm put out...shameful!
I agree with you that the right is basically doing to him what we complain about on the left. I think what he said was terrible, but he should be free to say that. The best outcome, instead of trying to cancel him, would be for someone to debate him. He will only dig in his heels more, and so will his followers. Someone like Helen Pluckrose would be good. She's done an analysis of the situation... I haven't listened yet but I'm sure it's good.
BHB_UK
Level 5
Feb 14, 2021
2
Hello there. Yes, I believe that HP was on Triggernometry,. I might watch it, too. I always try to remember though that the British socio-political climate isn't the same as that of America. I don't know what it is like where you live, but where I live, the left and the right are still talking to each other. 
I also agree. We can't complain about the attack on free speech, Cancel Culture and the intolerance of the Woke Left and then behave the same as they do. The best counter to bad speech is more speech. I think a healthy society is one where ideas one disagrees with are allowed to be ventilated and challenged. being offended is not an argument.
Recent Visitors 22
Photos 11,806 More
Posted by Weltansicht....and oppossums eat all the ticks....
Posted by JohnHoukAmerican Intel Spies & Withholds Info from Trump! WAKE UP AMERICANS! SUMMARY: Americans who still support The Democratic Party (which should be re-labeled Dem-Marxist Party) are supporting spying ...
Posted by FocusOn1Clown world: when people cant figure their shit out, they run to a woman who says she doesnt know what a woman is and wears a black robe for guidance.
Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzHow quickly it all turned.
Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzMuh Diversity...
Posted by JohnHoukAn Intro to THE EXPOSÉ Look at Occult Influence on Elitists SUMMARY: THE EXPOSÉ has delved into a Substack post by Elizabeth Nickson … I am unsure if THE EXPOSÉ had this in mind, but my take ...
Posted by FocusOn1An0maly on facebook.... Communists violating the first amendment in america
Posted by JohnHoukAntisemitism Idiocy Summary: I have not seen the coverage of college campus protests supporting the Hamas butchers as Israel has entered Gaza to punish pseudo-Palestinians for the 10/7/23 genocide ...
Posted by JohnHoukAI Dystopia Moving from Sci-Fi to a WEF NWO: A Look at Stop World Control Documentary, ‘THE END OF HUMANITY - As Planned By The Global Leaders’ SUMMARY: An intro by Patricia Harrity followed ...
Posted by JohnHoukGlobalist Tyranny Videos Batch – Part TWO SUMMARY: The video list I’m sharing leans more toward Globalist Tyranny (which includes the American traitors – the Dem-Marxists) in this batch.
Posted by JohnHoukGlobalist Tyranny Videos Batch – Part ONE SUMMARY: I’ve spent the last few days looking at saved videos largely from Telegram Social Media.
Posted by JohnHoukWATCH OUT FOR AN AI TYRANNY & NSA Spying SUMMARY: I’ve witnessed too many dark-side leaps and bounds to give credence to AI-Tyranny naysayers.
Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzCohencidence or PLANNED???
Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewz Hopefully, everyone catches it and everyone gets better
Posted by JohnHoukFBI Investigates Baltimore Bridge Collapse! Suggests NOT an Accident! SUMMARY: On 3/27/24 I shared a Lara Logan Tweet on her opinion of what caused the Francis Scott Key Bridge near Baltimore ship ...
Posted by JohnHoukPolitical Tyranny – Part Two Videos Showing the Political Tyranny of Factionalism & Globalist Entanglements SUMMARY: IN Part 1 I used President Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address as a ...