How do we think about cancel culture?

Cancel culture discourages dialogue and creates a climate of fear

Question: How do we think about cancel culture?
Position‹3 of 4›: Cancel culture must be cancelled
Argument1 of 8›: Cancel culture discourages dialogue and creates a climate of fear

Cancel culture threatens to destroy the lives and livelihoods of its victims for holding unpopular views. In this, it creates a social environment in which few have the courage to express themselves for fear of being attacked.

The argument

There is a contradiction in a movement that claims to dismantle institutionalized oppression, yet thrives on fear mongering. Cancel culture refers to boycotting a person's career or public platform in response to allegations of misconduct, often in the form of distasteful comments or opinions. People use this method to respond to and counter views they see as harmful to society. But when their attacks focus on the people themselves, and their livelihoods, it raises the stakes in a way that people aren't ready to deal with yet. Cancel culture involves effectively shunning a person out of their jobs and out of society. The threat of this kind of exile creates fear online and in the real world. People become afraid that they will become the next target, the next person to be exiled. What's more, they almost expect their favorite celebrities and personalities to be exiled as well, as more and more renowned figures get "cancelled." Rather than create a more equal society, cancel culture fosters discord, fear and a social hierarchy built on conflict. Instead of encouraging dialogue, it makes people withdraw their voice. People no longer feel comfortable speaking freely; after all, they don't want to be the next person cancelled.

Premises

[P1]Cancel culture responds to objectionable views by threatening people's careers and effectively exiling them from society. [P2] This threat of exile creates a pervasive climate of fear in which people withdraw their voices rather than risk becoming the next target. [P3] A movement that silences dialogue and breeds fear contradicts its stated aim of building a more equal society. [C] Therefore, cancel culture should itself be cancelled.

Counter-arguments

Cancel culture serves to deter the spread of views that are objectively and irrevocably opposed to modern society, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. If racists and sexists feel stifled by this movement, that’s good; they should be, and that’s the point of this movement. But such people are the only ones who have cause for fear. For everybody else, cancel culture actually creates a more liberating environment; one free from hate and prejudice, and those who propagate it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter treats the response as targeted rather than indiscriminate, describing it as deterring the spread of views such as racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia rather than objectionable views in general. [Rejecting P2] The climate of fear is on this account not pervasive but confined to those holding such views, and the counter regards their feeling stifled as the intended effect rather than an unwanted side effect; for everyone else it holds the environment to be more liberating, not more fearful. [Rejecting P3] If the practice removes hate and prejudice from public discourse rather than silencing dialogue generally, then on the counter's reading it advances the aim of a more equal society instead of contradicting it.