0 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: Philosophical takes on cancel culture
Your topic has a big political/sociological dimension to it, so I'm not sure my answer fits your question (or is suitable for this reddit, for that matter) but I think it will be a great starting point for you to look at the history of cancelling as well as its actual definition before digging into its philosophical takes. And I am not exacly sure what cancelling is to you or whether you kind of get the point/definition..?
For instance the goal of cancelling literally is to 'cancel' aka dismiss/shame/ostracize a person socially for its harmful action or opinion (and not to only give a controversial starting point). Now it appears to me that you see cancelling as something inherently negative (means, you are completely opposed to the act of cancelling) and surely, you have a right to take that position (within your informed opinion, of course). However, you should be aware of its origin and development before taking a critical stance on it - such as, for instance, that it was intended to bring justice to people from marginalized groups - who previously had no means to receive any justice - and accountabilitly to people in oppressive positions of power who have previously been immune to legal consequences; as an act of revenge, you could say. Starting with the cancellation of R. Kelly, if I recall correctly. Now whether or not it has problematic aspects or implications to it or whether it has failed such an objective is a whole other question, however it's important to see this development.
I wanted to recommend Contrapoint's video on cancel culture (who has a background in academical philosophy) but now I've realized somebody else already did this.
There's nothing here!