2 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Philosophical takes on cancel culture
My sense is that we ought to first turn a critical eye to this phrase itself lest we become irrationally seduced by language (nod to Wittenstein). We've seen this game before: with so-called "social" justice where Western society has essentially been conned into using an unnecessary adjective. The word "justice" has always been perfectly adequate, and has rather obviously always included a social dimension.
Let's consider that words and actions have meaning, and that speakers and actors bear responsibility. Let's consider that there is nothing at all unusual about recognizing egregiousness, or about holding people accountable. Because isn't that what we are really talking about here - holding people accountable? Hmm, but when you put it like that it somehow doesn't seem so alarming.
Dont get played.
Comment by [deleted] at 20/06/2020 at 13:21 UTC
2 upvotes, 3 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by justasapling at 21/06/2020 at 03:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You're not wrong.
The hypothetical 'cost' of cancelling is essentially the discouragement of someone's free speech. The steps needed to take to prevent that discouragement from occurring is the suppression of the free speech of those who dissent (cancel).
Any hypothetical consequences to the cancellee, beyond their embarrassment, are economic consequences which could be pretty fairly considered a fault of capitalism rather than cancel culture.