Cancel culture is all the rage today, in more ways than one. Donald Trump included a reference to it in one of his speeches. A corporate executive was attacked for making statements supporting Trump at the White House, and subsequently made himself out as a martyr for the First Amendment. A prominent columnist left the NYT, complaining that she had been bullied by young “wokes” who were offended by her centrist views. Today, we hear that a prominent public intellectual is under attack, largely for statements he made in 2015. Where does this end?
Here are my thoughts on the issue:
- JUST AS TWITTER IS NOT REAL LIFE, TWITTER MOBS ARE NOT REAL MOBS. No one was ever lynched by a tweet. This is an emerging problem, and it is likely to get worse over time, but its importance should not be overstated during a pandemic and a recession.
- DECISIONS ON “CANCELLING” PEOPLE SHOULD DEPEND ON CONTEXT. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before you go on the attack. How prominent and powerful is the individual in question? Is he really a public figure? How long ago was the statement made? Has it been repeated, or is it just an isolated incident? Was the statement really meant for the consumption of the general public, or just a few individuals? Does the statement cover an issue that historically has been open to free debate? What are the real world consequences for the targeted person, and are they disproportionate to the alleged “crime” in light of the “criminal’s” overall record? All of these things need to be considered in any particular case.
- THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD REMAIN IN FAVOR OF FREE DISCUSSION AND INQUIRY. That is what makes our system different than China.
Applying these principles to the recent events in question, my sympathies are with Steven Pinker and Bari Weiss, but not with the corporate guy who went to the White House and said great things about Trump to a public audience. He’s not a martyr to anything except his own stupidity.