This approach argues that cancel culture exposes a crisis of individual liberty. It considers freedom of expression to be an inalienable right. Disagreement is being weaponised to silence those who hold unpopular views.
Supporting arguments · 8
- Cancel culture discourages dialogue and creates a climate of fearCancel 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.
- Cancel culture is an insidious form of virtue signallingCancel culture isn't really about justice. Instead, it's a vicious competition of who can make themselves look better by putting someone else down.
- Cancel culture exists to promote a ruthless mob mentalityCancel culture promotes a ruthless mob mentality that celebrates intimidation. It exists solely to victimise not only public figures, but anyone who happens to draw the ire of the mob.
- Cancel culture represents a crisis where free speech is silencedCancel culture targets people who express contrary opinions. This directly opposes the ideal that everyone is entitled to freedom of expression, and turns those with unpopular opinions into outcasts.
- Cancel culture endangers democracy and freedom of expressionDemocracy mediates different groups of people with differing viewpoints. Cancel culture upsets that balance, rejecting diversity of opinion and keeping one viewpoint in power.
- Cancel culture incorrectly assumes that morality is binaryCancel culture assumes that morals and people are either good or bad, right or wrong. In reality, ideals and people are more nuanced than that, but cancel culture doesn't allow anyone to understand that.
- Cancel culture strengthens the surveillance stateCancel culture is a form of ideological policing. Social media has reduced privacy. Simultaneously, trust in the state is being fast eroded. Truth is increasingly elusive in our news, our media and our politics. This crisis of authenticity, and what to believe, means there is no longer a set of agreed upon facts about how to engage with each other, or draw conclusions from what we see. The combination of these two factors has turned us all into informants. In this case, cancel culture is a survival strategy. One built on individual performance of the surveillance state. Proponents include author Kat Rosenfield and key figures in the left wing press including New Republic reporter Osita Nwanevu.
- Cancel culture is rooted in the ethics of white supremacyDespite its supposed social justice agenda, cancel culture actually has its roots in white supremacy. Its practice of shutting down dissent perfectly matches oppressive tendencies of the past.