It's one thing to get deplatformed by a private company for advocating for the genocide of a minority group or because you think r*pe is funny, but it's completely different when the government stamps out dissent.
While the government is involved in this , certainly this will be coming from private companies in the future, as more and more of them are turning to kiss the ring. It's an attempted cultural change that encompasses everything
"Cancel culture" is also free speech though. I'm not sure how it could be different. People are allowed to criticize other people's speech. How else could you have free debate?
"cancel culture" is a term used only since 2018, which is what i m refering to. Obviously censorship has existed since forever (and no, mcCarthy did not invent it)
McCarthyism, HUAC, prejudice against youth culture and anything deviating from Christian norms, the Satanic Panic, homophobia and the AIDS crisis, redlining, book banning and moral panics over "groomers," Dixie Chicks, Sinead O'Connor, Kaepernick, boycotting Nike, boycotting Starbucks, boycotting Target, boycotting NASCAR, boycotting Gillette, boycotting Keurig, boycotting Bud Light, boycotting Disney. The right was cancelling long before the term "cancel culture" even existed.
There is no "we", it's you and your opinion- own it.
> i m surprised this isn't taken as common knowledge, but yes everything about cancellation culture started from leftist causes. I struggle to remember someone being cancelled for expressing "too progressive" ideas until recently.
We get it.
Not everybody is a UNIX coder of the 70s with clear memories of the 1960s and your limited world view is based on your own personal near term recollection and, seemingly, no actual reading of US history.
You might be interested to learn about the House Un-American Activities Committee and their attitude wrt cancelling progressives.
the term "cancel culture" , which i used, refers to the most recent wave of censorship and was introduced in 2018. I assume well-informed readers can infer the context, and understand that i am not talking about the entire history of censorship.
Making berating comments doesn't really serve anything and reflects bad on the commenter.
The more interesting question is why did we go from a relatively laisez-faire attitude of the 90s, which was earned after decades of social activism, to a close-minded culture that fires people for being mildly annoying.
The left will never take responsibility for the casualties of their culture wars. They got high silencing people they didn’t like with righteous fury, all the while never taking time to think what would happen if the same behavior was turned on them. Now we are under a fascist regime where you can only speak in government approved language.
Right. Government censorship is exactly the same behavior as private citizens choosing who to listen to. That take is exactly the problem here. That's not how the first amendment works.
I can't tell if you are confused, or are intentionally trying to confuse others.
Pretty sure it was the founding fathers that that passed the first amendment, not me.
The issue is that the current president can't take criticism, and is ignorant of the Constitution. And a lot of people seem hot to excuse his unconstitutional actions.
Give it a rest, it was not just “people deciding who to listen to”.
People were being fired. People were being shamed at scale. People’s careers were being ruined. Some committed suicide. All because of some shit they said online. It just shouldn’t be that easy.
Yes. Your boss can fire you for being racist or sexist or whatever. That's between you and your boss. The government can't threaten you and get you fired. That's unconstitutional.
You perhaps aren't familiar with our first amendment? What part of the world are you from?
If your boss is pressured to fire you, whether that pressure comes from the government or a mass of people who don’t like you, the damage to our liberties is still the same.
Just because a million people hate you for something you said does not mean you should be punished as they see fit. Any punishment should be limited to social status, not employment or other societal benefits. Otherwise, why not just deny healthcare to racists, sexists, or people not aligned with the ruling party’s interests?
But the casualties of prior cancel culture were usually public figures who did racist or sexist things, not people who criticized the administration? I can’t believe you don’t understand this distinction.
You’re right, but would you also agree there is a difference between a bunch of people in social media saying, “we don’t like this racist person, you should fire them.” And a government official saying, “we don’t like what our critics say, we’re going to revoke their ability to broadcast unless they fire their employee”.
Government officials are not merely representatives of a bunch of people, they have vested power and have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Whereas groups of people can get together and decide to boycott whatever they want, government officials cannot direct such activities. That's the right to free association and expression protected by the first amendment. The only way you're ever going to get rid of "cancel culture" is if you remove that right. If people can't decide for themselves what they want to buy, and if they can't decide to associate with similarly minded people, there is no first amendment right to free speech.
And as bad as everyone says cancel culture is, no one has proposed a model where free speech is maintained yet cancel culture is forbidden. Most models proposed to are explicitly anti-free speech. The rest are just fascist, which incidentally that's the plan this administration is going with. So congrats, maybe you got rid of cancel culture, but you took down the first amendment with it.
