How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Berzerker]

The Principled Libertarian Position® is that the government should force people to buy the albums of any band that the government deems is subject to a boycott restricting their free speech

I started a thread criticizing Trump for sticking his nose in Colin Kaepernick's protest, I wouldn't be asking the government to get involved. And the word I used was inhibiting, not restricting.

Inhibit - make (someone) self-conscious and unable to act in a relaxed and natural way.

Thats what cancel culture achieves, a population walking on eggshells.

There is no "purpose of a boycott", boycotts have been used for many purposes throughout history.

What is the purpose of boycotting a speaker?

Yes, who could forget such blood-stained tyrannies as the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-6 or the widespread boycotts against British goods in the colonies after the passage of the Coercive Acts in 1774.

Were those boycotts of free speech?

 

[Lexicus]

Inhibit - make (someone) self-conscious and unable to act in a relaxed and natural way.

Thats what cancel culture achieves, a population walking on eggshells.

I can't disagree entirely given the dynamics of some campus politics episodes I've seen. But the suggestion that people being subject to inhibitions in their behavior means that free speech is being attacked is clearly absurd. Free speech doesn't mean saying whatever we like whenever we like with no consideration for others. That's called "being a jerk" actually.

What is the purpose of boycotting a speaker?

What does "boycotting a speaker" mean?

Were those boycotts of free speech?

What is a "boycott of free speech"?

 

[Socrates99]

Why dont you boycott Baldwin? Aren't you 'endorsing' his speech if you dont? I'm sure there are people who do boycott him based on disliking his politics, but they are being hypocritical if they criticize boycotts of their approved speakers. You're not prohibiting free speech and people wouldn't know about your personal choice, boycotts are different. They're public attempts to change behavior, to inhibit free speech, to silence dissent.



Were the 50s a good time for free speech? Those openly conservative actors got popular first, proven money makers have more freedom to speak.



What is the purpose of a boycott?



Did it work?



Boycotts (and cancel culture) are actions to coerce compliance. Whether or not they're okay is another matter, but they are designed to inhibit free speech. As for the moral component, does ridding society of speech I find offensive justify destroying free speech in the process? No.

An individual disagrees with another's bad beliefs so they decide to not buy that person's goods. That's voting with your wallet, free speech. A pretty cardinal Libertarian belief. If enough people use that right the individual who offended suffers loss. That person can continue to say stupid things to their heart's content. They still have free speech.

The concept of free speech is that the government can't censor someone's speech. If a large enough group finds someone's beliefs distasteful they can use their free speech to counter it. That's not the government violating the first amendment that's citizens using their individual free speech to counter bad speech.

The individual who said the stupid thing is still free to say stupid things. They just might not have every venue they want available to them. I can't just walk into any auditorium or TV/radio station and say whatever I want. That's not a violation of my rights. It just means there aren't enough people who want to listen to what I say.

 

[NovaKart]

I think canceling is more about actively trying to get someone fired.

 

[Crezth]

I think canceling is more about actively trying to get someone fired.

A lot easier to do when the laws surrounding frivolous firing of people are lax. This is what we call a conservative self-own.

 

[Berzerker]

I can't disagree entirely given the dynamics of some campus politics episodes I've seen. But the suggestion that people being subject to inhibitions in their behavior means that free speech is being attacked is clearly absurd. Free speech doesn't mean saying whatever we like whenever we like with no consideration for others. That's called "being a jerk" actually.

What does "boycotting a speaker" mean?

What is a "boycott of free speech"?

If people get fired for offending you, wont that inhibit free speech? Boycotting a speaker means trying to get them fired. Were your 2 examples boycotts of speakers?

 

[aelf]

What is the indictment? I guess I'm getting back to basics here, but I'm seeing "cancel culture" as a buzzword for another kind of moral panic but just with a more left-leaning bent, to speak in very broad and generalizing terms. I'm thinking back to Tipper Gore and the outrage over heavy metal records, or that one doofus guy that correlates violent crime with video games (which is odd since violent crime was higher before violent video games even existed.) Furthermore, access to social media and changing social attitudes have given more people the opportunity to express their opinions, and maybe they're weighting them higher than they would if we were back to letter-writing campaigns ala that woman who tried to get Married With Children taken off the fledgling FOX network in the late '80s. We get instant gratification now from registering our opinions, and now more than ever we can broadcast them.

My angle is that the pressures of business and capital are what's causing the issues that the more sensible complaints about 'cancel culture' are referring to.

Boycott is certainly part and parcel of free speech. But why would it or even the threat of it stop a company from carrying on? The need to maximise profit. So the company engages in a kind of self-censorship, limiting free speech on its own end, whether by shutting down the controversial work that it's doing or getting rid of controversial employees. Even if consumer pressure isn't enough, pressure from investors might be.

So if the freedom of speech of a party is compromised in many of these situations, it's essentially because of capitalism.

 

[RobAnybody]

IMO boycotts are fine, encouraged even. Voting with your wallet is great. One of the side effects may be that someone loses sponsors or a platform.

What I am not OK with is simply demanding someone be fired or cancelled. Then you're basically forcing others to join your boycott by pretending you speak for the majority. It's skipping over the "vote with your wallet" step & simply demanding you get what you want. It's not illegal & shouldn't be illegal of course; I just don't like it when it's done.

 

[Berzerker]

An individual disagrees with another's bad beliefs so they decide to not buy that person's goods. That's voting with your wallet, free speech. A pretty cardinal Libertarian belief. If enough people use that right the individual who offended suffers loss. That person can continue to say stupid things to their heart's content. They still have free speech.

The concept of free speech is that the government can't censor someone's speech. If a large enough group finds someone's beliefs distasteful they can use their free speech to counter it. That's not the government violating the first amendment that's citizens using their individual free speech to counter bad speech.

The individual who said the stupid thing is still free to say stupid things. They just might not have every venue they want available to them. I can't just walk into any auditorium or TV/radio station and say whatever I want. That's not a violation of my rights. It just means there aren't enough people who want to listen to what I say.

What happens when people see someone lose their job over an offensive comment? Free speech requires protecting unpopular speech, without that protection more people wont speak freely.

My angle is that the pressures of business and capital are what's causing the issues that the more sensible complaints about 'cancel culture' are referring to.

Boycott is certainly part and parcel of free speech. But why would it or even the threat of it stop a company from carrying on? The need to maximise profit. So the company engages in a kind of self-censorship, limiting free speech on its own end, whether by shutting down the controversial work that it's doing or getting rid of controversial employees. Even if consumer pressure isn't enough, pressure from investors might be.

So if the freedom of speech of a party is compromised in many of these situations, it's essentially because of capitalism.

But wouldn't this same process play itself out in other systems? Maybe not in countries like NK where they shoot you for complaining too much, but any system involving feedback between consumers and producers will inhibit free speech.

 

[Socrates99]

What happens when people see someone lose their job over an offensive comment? Free speech requires protecting unpopular speech, without that protection more people wont speak freely.



But wouldn't this same process play itself out in other systems? Maybe not in countries like NK where they shoot you for complaining too much, but any system involving feedback between consumers and producers will inhibit free speech.

Job loss when you're a plebe does bother me. It doesn't happen all that often because the platform isn't as big. Job loss by some multi millionaire? IDGAF, welcome to normie life. I don't think it's as prevalent as the Free speech warriors pretend it is. John Voight, Clint Eastwood, Vince Vaughn, and many others still had/have long careers in spite of this "librul bias." Even Mel Gibson has managed to mount a comeback.

Free speech means you can say what you want but it doesn't protect a person from the reaction of other people. All it means is that there can't be laws prohibiting it. You personally might not like it when someone reacts negatively to bad speech but it's a reaction that person is as free to have as the person they're reacting to. If you shackle the reaction you're inhibiting free speech too.

 

[aelf]

IMO boycotts are fine, encouraged even. Voting with your wallet is great. One of the side effects may be that someone loses sponsors or a platform.

What I am not OK with is simply demanding someone be fired or cancelled. Then you're basically forcing others to join your boycott by pretending you speak for the majority. It's skipping over the "vote with your wallet" step & simply demanding you get what you want. It's not illegal & shouldn't be illegal of course; I just don't like it when it's done.

But why would companies need to obey such demands? As my post above explains, it's because of capitalism.

 

[Berzerker]

Job loss when you're a plebe does bother me. It doesn't happen all that often because the platform isn't as big. Job loss by some multi millionaire? IDGAF, welcome to normie life. I don't think it's as prevalent as the Free speech warriors pretend it is. John Voight, Clint Eastwood, Vince Vaughn, and many others still had/have long careers in spite of this "librul bias." Even Mel Gibson has managed to mount a comeback.

They were established stars before cancel culture, but I doubt they'd agree with your assessment. Getting fired has an immediate effect on the speaker but it creates a cascade as others fear crossing somebody's line. This aint new, the right has been canceling people for decades. Trump even did it to the kneelers and his damn job is supposed to protect free speech.

Free speech means you can say what you want but it doesn't protect a person from the reaction of other people. All it means is that there can't be laws prohibiting it. You personally might not like it when someone reacts negatively to bad speech but it's a reaction that person is as free to have as the person they're reacting to. If you shackle the reaction you're inhibiting free speech too.

What if the reaction shackles free speech? If every person in this country had the power to fire anyone who says anything they find offensive, what would happen? I have shackled my reaction because cancel culture inhibits free speech. Besides, the issue is plagued by the selective outrage of partisan politics. Roseanne Barr would have survived her joke if she was an Obama supporter.

 

[NovaKart]

I’ve read about a lot of instances in which canceling targets people on the left and it’s coming from the left.

 

[Lexicus]

If people get fired for offending you, wont that inhibit free speech? Boycotting a speaker means trying to get them fired. Were your 2 examples boycotts of speakers?

If I tell my girlfriend that her dress makes her look fat and she refuses to have sex with me, wouldn't that inhibit my free speech?

 

[Berzerker]

So its the dress's fault... We'll find out the next time you think her dress makes her look fat

Why is a bus boycott analogous to boycotting speech?

 

[Socrates99]

They were established stars before cancel culture, but I doubt they'd agree with your assessment. Getting fired has an immediate effect on the speaker but it creates a cascade as others fear crossing somebody's line. This aint new, the right has been canceling people for decades. Trump even did it to the kneelers and his damn job is supposed to protect free speech.

"They" probably wouldn't, IDGAF, they can get a normie job like the rest of us.

I also know this isn't new, in fact I'd say it's always been here and it isn't going anywhere. It's just living in society. It's theorized that if King Arthur were real he was stricken from history by the church for some transgression, possibly consorting with a pagan medium? Both Theodora and Catherine the Great are surrounded by salacious rumors many speculate are completely false and just there to undermine their legacy. I mentioned earlier in this thread that Tom Sawyer was banned from libraries in the past because people thought the protagonist was immoral. Reagan got his political chops by narcing out fellow actors who'd said things that could be construed as Marxist. The Satanic Panic that went after heavy metal and tabletop RPGs was in full swing before Tipper Gore went on a crusade against bad language in music. Michael Richards tanked his career long before Trump bagged on the kneelers. Sometimes the sniping is successful, sometimes it isn't but it isn't going anywhere.

As Lexicus pointed out sometimes it's a useful tool like in the Civil Rights Movement. Boycotting also helped end Apartheid in South Africa when people joined a BDS style movement against South Africa. Speaking of BDS there's legitimate threats to free speech in laws and contracts that require people to abandon the BDS movement. Unlike the opinions of a bunch of Twitter users that's an actual first amendment violation.

What if the reaction shackles free speech? If every person in this country had the power to fire anyone who says anything they find offensive, what would happen? I have shackled my reaction because cancel culture inhibits free speech. Besides, the issue is plagued by the selective outrage of partisan politics. Roseanne Barr would have survived her joke if she was an Obama supporter.

If Roseanne had made a racist and bigoted slur about an African American on Twitter I doubt "but I'm an Obama supporter" would have helped her much. The only difference is fewer right wingers would be jumping to her defense.

Two things will protect anyone from "cancel culture." Talent, ie Mel Gibson's comeback after his wacko anti-Semitic rant. Roseanne got booted from a TV show but don't feel bad, she could still sell out clubs all over if she decided to tour. I've seen lefties try to pretend Ted Nugent isn't any good but I've seen the guy in concert 3 times, he can rock and he's doing fine. The other protection, and this is the one that matters, truth and/or merit behind your offensive speech. They tried their damndest to "cancel" Muhammad Ali, didn't work. He was right about the war. They tried to smear (and still try) MLKjr with rumors of affairs and whatnot, doesn't work, he was right about race and inequality. The NFL tried to cancel Kaepernick but he got a Nike deal anyway and plenty of people have been pushing back against his blackballing. If a team ever does sign him they'll triple their merchandise sales overnight. Canceling didn't work, he's right about police violence.

If you don't have either truth and merit or talent on your side it might be a good idea to be careful how you use your freedoms.

 

[Berzerker]

“Of course, I have my opinion about everything, but I learned years ago to keep your mouth shut about things. I saw what happened to the Dixie Chicks" - Dolly Parton

 

[Socrates99]

I’ve read about a lot of instances in which canceling targets people on the left and it’s coming from the left.

There's the left and there's the centrists that control left leaning parties. I'm assuming your left cancelling left is actually corporatists cancelling the left.

“Of course, I have my opinion about everything, but I learned years ago to keep your mouth shut about things. I saw what happened to the Dixie Chicks" - Dolly Parton

Funny, she's not exactly an activist but it's not hard to find out her politics. She's one that'd be fine.

 

[Crezth]

Why do people with morals also have moral standards? And other questions that just straight-up stump conservatives.

 

[Ajidica]

It's theorized that if King Arthur were real he was stricken from history by the church for some transgression, possibly consorting with a pagan medium?

Minor nitpick: There is no evidence that "King Arthur" actually existed. Further, the only two vaguely contemporary 'sources' for his historicity emphasize that Arthur was a fully Christian warrior:

Year 72 (c. AD 516) The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_Cambriae#Source_for_the_Arthurian_legend

The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Brittonum#Arthur's_battles

Indeed, the only contemporary source we have for the 'Arthurian' period, The Ruin and Conquest of Britain by Gildas is a screed lamenting the moral depravity of the British kings. In the work, Gildas is concerned with heresy, not paganism.