cancel on cancel culture?

I'm curious about a thing.

I realized in the last few weeks:  whenever I see a complaint, I now think there is 95% chance that the person complaining is the problem - not the entity they are complaining about.

Please click on the thumbs up for this post if this is your experience also.

There is a trend of victim mentality, where being offended is seen as virtuous. Righteous indignation has its time and place, but true tolerance and freedom requires a thick skin, and a conscious effort to not be so easily offended. Thank you for touching on this timely subject..

The Permies community is such a lovely space to be in compared to many other forums it is hard to understand why someone would complain.

Unfortunately, some do.  And I also feel that it is the person that is the problem, not the forum.

It is my wish that everyone will click on the thumbs up for this post because they too, also agree.

These days when I start getting upset with someone else I start thinking about my relationship to the situation and my perspective. I really try not to complain because I haven't found that it produces useful results for me. Imagining creative solutions or new suggestions usually produces better results with the people I interact with.

It's hard to stop the whining coming out of my mouth, but when I do I usually win.

I feel that it really helps to write a post about what a person wants to complain about just to get it into perspective. Though what helps the most is to not publish that post.  Save it to come back later and reread what was written.  Then again later reread it again.

Probably by now, that post can be trashed because that particular situation no longer exists.

Maybe this can be called a "cooling off" situation.

Cancel culture is problematic.

It is can be a weaponised form complaint - “you did something I don’t like so I’ll get all your customers to cancel you”.

On the other hand, it is also a tool for the most vulnerable and disenfranchised people in society to seek justice and equality. And for others to stand in solidarity with them.

It seems problematic when privileged and entitled people use it manipulate those they interact with.

Does this refer to people complaining at Permies only or in life in general? Are there easy-to-recount examples that won't hurt anyone to use? And does suggesting a change count as a complaint?

I am thinking of outside of permies.com.  I'll see a poor review or "company x screwed me!" And I don't even read it anymore.

Christopher Weeks wrote:Does this refer to people complaining at Permies only or in life in general? Are there easy-to-recount examples that won't hurt anyone to use? And does suggesting a change count as a complaint?

I'm not sure exactly what Paul has in mind, but a complain doesn't necessarily equate with cancel culture.

"Cancelling" generally means individuals choosing signal their dislike of someones actions or views by a combination of public condemnation and personal rejection. For example, if a celebrity acts in a way that I do not approve of I can choose not to watch films that they acted in. This individual action is easy for someone to take, but when done en-mass is a POWERFUL signal to that person's employer (film companies, advertising agencies etc...).

An extension of that is when people call for others to cancel that same person as well. That is where thinsg get problematic, because it then becomes as much about virtue signalling "look how good I am, I can jump on this bandwagon and condemn them just as loudly as you can".

The classic example of this going wrong is the Deppe case recently. When Amber Heard made allegation against him the cancel culture crowd leapt to her defence. It was only substantially later when the details came out in court that the public perception changed. The outcry against Deppe initially was not based on reasoned evidence, it was largely about virtue signalling on social media.

____

So where do we draw the line? If I have a moral objection to a person am I obliged to buy their products, consume their media etc... ? Clearly Not.

And yet when people TALK about those decision in the terms of "I'm not watching anything with Deppe in it, because he is an abuser" we get the virtue signalling bandwagon.

And a complaint is frequently nothing to do with cancel culture at all. Complaining is in many ways the opposite of cancel culture. People complain when they want to see a change. And usually where they see something they already engage in, that they want to continue to engage in, and want it to be "better" (for their subjective view of "better"). Positive engagement, as opposed to disengaging.

This is a very messy area to talk about, as you can see.

Hi Paul,

I agree 100% With your above post.  Maybe going with your original post regarding the problem being with the individual, but I cringe when I see phrases such as Cancel Culture and WOKE, those phrases have become far too political in their usage for my tastes. It is unfortunate, because, to me, it seems to subtract from the value the observation might have.

paul wheaton wrote:I am thinking of outside of permies.com.  I'll see a poor review or "company x screwed me!" And I don't even read it anymore.

This comment brought this xkcd to mind for me…

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tornadoguard.png


Unlike Paul, the one-star reviews are often where I start looking, when picking a new product to buy. I’ve saved myself a whole load of issues over time by reading those. Like Paul, I’m always prepared to dismiss one or two bitter customers, but if there are a substantial number all with the same type of complaint then that is worth paying attention to.

Case in point;

When I bough the conversion kit to turn my standard bike into an ebike I had settled on the model I wanted. But it was manufactured overseas and listed here by dozens of distributors.

I found one that listed about 10% cheaper, and had sold thousands of unit. But digging in the 1* reviews I found that they were importing from overseas rather than distributing from within the UK. So purchasers we’re unwitting getting stung with import duties, and then if they needed to return the item under warranty were facing hefty bills to return it overseas as well.

But the overall reviews for the supplier were good, because they were mostly from within the suppliers own country (so no import duties) and easier warranty returns.

This seems appropriate:


source

paul wheaton wrote:I am thinking of outside of permies.com.  I'll see a poor review or "company x screwed me!" And I don't even read it anymore.

Thanks for that clarification. I was about to ask what qualifies as a complaint. I once attended a course on dealing with difficult people (which also is subjective, of course) and was asked what makes me angry. I replied that it might be due to my (senior) age, but I couldn't think of anything, although I can certainly be exasperated by things. Does an exasperated question, e.g., "Why did you do such-and--such? ", count as a complaint?

I’ve been doing a bit of exploring on this, following this post.

One insight has been interesting.

“Cancel culture” has always existed, it’s just been previously in the hands of the established majority. It’s gained a name and become problematic because it is no longer in the hands of the establishment.

Eg

From some Christian denominations “don’t read Harry Potter, it’s about witchcraft”

But at one time, Christian ethics led people to be publicly cancelled if they’d committed adultery, taken drugs or divorced. And it’s often been worse. We must be honest that Church history has many examples of Christians behaving badly; burning heretics, waging wars against people who have different opinions.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/youve-been-cancelled/4022.article

Today, it’s the secular majority who appear to be wielding more power and deciding which views are now intolerable. In fact, modern commentators have said that the ‘woke’ movement has similarities with ‘oppressive’ religion – it’s just that the morals are very different. Rather than concerns about issues such as promiscuity and religious doctrine, the woke are concerned about transgender rights and white supremacy, and they see dissent as heresy. Comedian Rowan Atkinson described cancel culture as the “digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn”.

[\quote]

Michael Cox wrote:I’ve been doing a bit of exploring on this, following this post.

One insight has been interesting.

“Cancel culture” has always existed, it’s just been previously in the hands of the established majority. It’s gained a name and become problematic because it is no longer in the hands of the establishment.

Eg

From some Christian denominations “don’t read Harry Potter, it’s about witchcraft”

But at one time, Christian ethics led people to be publicly cancelled if they’d committed adultery, taken drugs or divorced. And it’s often been worse. We must be honest that Church history has many examples of Christians behaving badly; burning heretics, waging wars against people who have different opinions.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/youve-been-cancelled/4022.article

Today, it’s the secular majority who appear to be wielding more power and deciding which views are now intolerable. In fact, modern commentators have said that the ‘woke’ movement has similarities with ‘oppressive’ religion – it’s just that the morals are very different. Rather than concerns about issues such as promiscuity and religious doctrine, the woke are concerned about transgender rights and white supremacy, and they see dissent as heresy. Comedian Rowan Atkinson described cancel culture as the “digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for someone to burn”.

I grew up in that sort of environment, and I will point out one key difference - the Christian boycott of things they deem not ok (like Harry Potter, etc) is very different than a concerted effort to have someone's livelihood and presence removed.

I remember plenty of "we don't shop there" or even on a church-wide level teaching to not patronize this or that based on religious beliefs, but I never saw a concerted effort to go out of their way to destroy the thing entirely. That's the big difference with cancel culture - it is beyond boycotting because it isn't just about making a personal decision about yourself, your family, or even your church - it's about having that person's voice, business, livelihood, etc. removed entirely because you don't like what they are saying.

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

Bethany Dutch wrote:

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

That has been my experience as well.  

It also seems to me that the current climate contains a lot of people that walk around looking for a reason to be offended.  I think Paul's first post is right on.

Bethany Dutch wrote:
I grew up in that sort of environment, and I will point out one key difference - the Christian boycott of things they deem not ok (like Harry Potter, etc) is very different than a concerted effort to have someone's livelihood and presence removed.

.....

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

I think it is very easy - as an insider looking out - to not see the harms of the systems one is part of. And not all christian churches are the same, there are levels of degree. However....

I'm a teacher, with pupils from all over the world. I have a current student who is transgender and is transitioning while in school. In their home country their life would be in direct danger due to the state-wide, church-led condemnation of transgender people.

Homosexuality in parts of Africa is illegal, and gay men can be sentenced to decades in prison. Repression of homosexuality in Africa is led by the Christian church, and was imported during the era of western colonialism.

The churches historically haven't needed to use what are seen as the extreme steps of cancel culture because in many parts of the world they have been the majority in power - they have controlled the majority, and had control over the law of the land.
----

I don't want my post to become "churches are evil" because that is not my point. My point is that majority institutions with control over the wider populace don't need to "cancel" things, because they already have control over the system as a whole. The language used can be much more moderate, and the actions smaller... while still making the environment utterly toxic for those they don't approve of.

The modern form of cancel culture takes this control away from those majority institutions, and so people from "outside" the tribe can exert their views on morality.

I don't argue that the method is good - but short of other forms of meaningful protest, perhaps it is necessary?

Good morning Paul. Your realization is spot on. After being in business for almost 24 years my wife and I realized that the people that get offended easily are just mad at their own life or jealous of how hard others work. How we address ass holes. We call it firing the customer. Don't want them around stirring the pot. To bad we just couldn't fire the woke  people.. why can't we all just be happy and do our own thing?

When someone loudly declares, "I'm offended!"

What they think you'll think:
"Wow!  That person is some kind of moral champion.  I should definitely accept everything they say from here on out."

What you actually think:
"Wow!  That person is some kind of whiny narcissist.  I should definitely avoid making eye contact from here on out."


It could be just me, but I find I'm actually more likely to give whatever they're complaining about the benefit of the doubt!  (I think my brain has already filed the complainer under "crackpot" -- therefore whatever they are against may be worth a look.)

Bethany Dutch wrote:
I grew up in that sort of environment, and I will point out one key difference - the Christian boycott of things they deem not ok (like Harry Potter, etc) is very different than a concerted effort to have someone's livelihood and presence removed.

I remember plenty of "we don't shop there" or even on a church-wide level teaching to not patronize this or that based on religious beliefs, but I never saw a concerted effort to go out of their way to destroy the thing entirely. That's the big difference with cancel culture - it is beyond boycotting because it isn't just about making a personal decision about yourself, your family, or even your church - it's about having that person's voice, business, livelihood, etc. removed entirely because you don't like what they are saying.

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

I'm not sure about about this.  I think the difference might be being inside the boycott vs looking at it from the outside.  As someone who is outside both (Christian-oriented boycotts and woke-oriented boycotts) they look pretty similar.  In other words, I don't feel like the "they are evil and we should make them go away" perspective is unique to the woke-oriented boycotts.

Eric Hroboni wrote:... why can't we all just be happy and do our own thing?

I think you've pointed to a characteristic of zealous "cancellers" -- a joyless, grim sort of glee (smugness) that has little in common with happiness.

David Royal wrote:

Bethany Dutch wrote:
I grew up in that sort of environment, and I will point out one key difference - the Christian boycott of things they deem not ok (like Harry Potter, etc) is very different than a concerted effort to have someone's livelihood and presence removed.

I remember plenty of "we don't shop there" or even on a church-wide level teaching to not patronize this or that based on religious beliefs, but I never saw a concerted effort to go out of their way to destroy the thing entirely. That's the big difference with cancel culture - it is beyond boycotting because it isn't just about making a personal decision about yourself, your family, or even your church - it's about having that person's voice, business, livelihood, etc. removed entirely because you don't like what they are saying.

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

I'm not sure about about this.  I think the difference might be being inside the boycott vs looking at it from the outside.  As someone who is outside both (Christian-oriented boycotts and woke-oriented boycotts) they look pretty similar.  In other words, I don't feel like the "they are evil and we should make them go away" perspective is unique to the woke-oriented boycotts.

For what it's worth, I haven't been "inside" that environment for a few decades and I do view it all as utterly ridiculous. But after a few decades of detoxing from church, I still don't see it as the same as modern cancel culture that seeks to proactively destroy people's lives. I do view the church as manipulative, controlling, and a whole lot of other problematic things, but never once did I see them attempting to destroy anyone's life for having views they considered not ok. This may be the result of the particular churches I was exposed to, and I do fully recognize that in some parts of the country it is much much more severe (IE, church controlled countries to the point where one could be put in jail for being gay) but in my view this is more of a theocracy issue than anything, because churches shouldn't be allowed to influence the government which is a related and similar issue, but not the same thing.

Michael Cox wrote:

Bethany Dutch wrote:
I grew up in that sort of environment, and I will point out one key difference - the Christian boycott of things they deem not ok (like Harry Potter, etc) is very different than a concerted effort to have someone's livelihood and presence removed.

.....

That's a very key difference. It's the difference of "we don't patronize them" vs "They are evil, we need to go out of our way to get them shut down entirely."

I think it is very easy - as an insider looking out - to not see the harms of the systems one is part of. And not all christian churches are the same, there are levels of degree. However....

I'm a teacher, with pupils from all over the world. I have a current student who is transgender and is transitioning while in school. In their home country their life would be in direct danger due to the state-wide, church-led condemnation of transgender people.

Homosexuality in parts of Africa is illegal, and gay men can be sentenced to decades in prison. Repression of homosexuality in Africa is led by the Christian church, and was imported during the era of western colonialism.

The churches historically haven't needed to use what are seen as the extreme steps of cancel culture because in many parts of the world they have been the majority in power - they have controlled the majority, and had control over the law of the land.
----

I don't want my post to become "churches are evil" because that is not my point. My point is that majority institutions with control over the wider populace don't need to "cancel" things, because they already have control over the system as a whole. The language used can be much more moderate, and the actions smaller... while still making the environment utterly toxic for those they don't approve of.

The modern form of cancel culture takes this control away from those majority institutions, and so people from "outside" the tribe can exert their views on morality.

I don't argue that the method is good - but short of other forms of meaningful protest, perhaps it is necessary?

That's completely fair, but IMO this is a whole different thing. Similar issue, yes. Related, yes. Churches should NEVER be allowed to influence government, but in spite of the fact they obviously have in some parts of the world, I wouldn't consider that the same thing as cancel culture. It's a completely different (and yet completely valid) problem. Not even sure what I'd call it, though there's probably a name for it, and I would say it's a more severe issue than cancel culture. But still - not the same thing.

Personally, I have major issues with the church, believe me. I won't step foot in one today. But again, I'm just going back to my own experience and my own perspective. When people refer to "cancel culture" they are talking about one specific thing - the drive and desire of a group of people to, as a mob, go out of their way to destroy the life & future of someone else because that person offended them somehow, has the wrong unapproved thoughts/opinions, etc.

I mean the truth is, regardless of who does it, trying to enact negative consequences for anyone simply because they hold a different worldview than you is completely wrong.

.

I mean the truth is, regardless of who does it, trying to enact negative consequences for anyone simply because they hold a different worldview than you is completely wrong.

(my emphasis)

But I think that this mischaracterises cancel culture. People aren't typically getting cancelled for holding a different worldview. They are getting cancelled for their actions.

The classic example is Harvey Weinstein; he sexually abused women using his position of authority and power. The institutions he was part of didn't act on the complaints and covered for him over years. It took being him being called out in public, and ultimately being widely "cancelled", for the industry to respond and ultimately for criminal charges to be pressed.

I'm not claiming that there will be no examples where it is "simply" due to world view, but that the vast majority of cases are grounded in genuine harm. If they aren't then they tend not to get meaningful traction or impact, beyond some noise on social media which blows over quickly.

Even cases which could be claimed to be about "simple world view" often prove not to be. When people object that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, you often discover that those same belief involve them imposing their world view on others, or using the platform of fame and/or power as a base for hate speech or similar.

This is weird. So many different topics mixed together.
- Cancel culture is a thing.
- Cultural homogeneization is a different one.
- People complaining about not getting their stuff as they want, is a completely different one issue.

I work face to the public. When someone complains about our work, I see three clear categories: People that actually have a reason for complaining and they just want our company doing things right, which we may or may be not able to solve. Then there are people who complain for things that would be reasonable in an ideal world, but given our reality, we cannot be the perfect company they wish for. And finally, there are a few bunch, a very minority actually, that likes to complain for unreasonable stuff. I may call them realistics, idealistics and whimsicals. The vast majority of our clients are conformists, but they don't complain.

I'll give an example. A realistic consumer would complain because our employee arrived late to a date and didn't call, so the customer lost the morning waiting at home. An idealistic consumer would complain because our employee arrived one hour later, making the customer lose one hour. Yes, in an ideal world we should be punctual, but when you have to visit three other clients before this one, you cannot be sure at what time you will arrive, but at least our employee called the client so he could decide whether he would wait. The whimsical would complain because he wants our employee to visit him outside working hours and we have to do it his way because he needs it, end point.
In my work, I'd say I have 60% realistic, 35% idealistics and 5% whimsicals. However, when I have to deal with a whimsical, it is as if figures are reversed. They are so hard to deal with, that they make up for all the others.

When a complain is done for the betterment of the service, it should be welcomed, even if it ends up costing money. Happy customers means more sales in the future. But only complaints from realistic people are really useful.

PS. Anne, this technique of writing something while angry without sending it is really powerful. I can express my anger, understand it, then think about what I gain and what I lose by letting the other one know about my anger and very often I find that the best action is to not send it. Then, after I've understood what's behind the scene, I politely write another thing that goes towards what I really want to achieve. This has saved me lots of troubles lately. Maybe I'm becoming old.

Michael Cox wrote:

I mean the truth is, regardless of who does it, trying to enact negative consequences for anyone simply because they hold a different worldview than you is completely wrong.

(my emphasis)

But I think that this mischaracterises cancel culture. People aren't typically getting cancelled for holding a different worldview. They are getting cancelled for their actions.

The classic example is Harvey Weinstein; he sexually abused women using his position of authority and power. The institutions he was part of didn't act on the complaints and covered for him over years. It took being him being called out in public, and ultimately being widely "cancelled", for the industry to respond and ultimately for criminal charges to be pressed.

I'm not claiming that there will be no examples where it is "simply" due to world view, but that the vast majority of cases are grounded in genuine harm. If they aren't then they tend not to get meaningful traction or impact, beyond some noise on social media which blows over quickly.

Even cases which could be claimed to be about "simple world view" often prove not to be. When people object that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, you often discover that those same belief involve them imposing their world view on others, or using the platform of fame and/or power as a base for hate speech or similar.

Weinstein is a pretty extreme example to cite. What about Gina Carano, JK Rowling, or Mike Lindell? They certainly have a worldview that isn't politically correct, sure, but that's exactly my point - we can't just destroy people's lives because they have a worldview we don't like. I mean - what about Johnny Depp? His career was destroyed simply by accusations and a mob mentality, only for it to turn out to be untrue.

Bethany Dutch wrote:...They certainly have a worldview that isn't politically correct, sure, but that's exactly my point - ...

I think you're right, but the question of how to deal with political correctness brings up another "fashionable" social phenomenon that could support its own thread.

Bethany Dutch wrote:
Weinstein is a pretty extreme example to cite. What about Gina Carano, JK Rowling, or Mike Lindell? They certainly have a worldview that isn't politically correct, sure, but that's exactly my point - we can't just destroy people's lives because they have a worldview we don't like. I mean - what about Johnny Depp? His career was destroyed simply by accusations and a mob mentality, only for it to turn out to be untrue.

I’m not familiar with Gina Carano, but the others you mention support my view.

They used their position/popularity/notoriety to push their views on others.

Lindell has pushed an anti-democratic conspiracy.
Rowling published a transphobic manifesto.

Neither of those has been cancelled for simply holding views. They were cancelled for pushing them on others in the public sphere. No one cares if Lindell is ranting over the dinner table at home over stolen elections. He has chosen to act on those views in a very public manner.

The situation with Deppe is interesting. At it’s heart he was a a victim of a lying and manipulative abuser, who also manipulated the public. It all came out in court exonerating him. I agree the situation was appalling, but I hope it also served as a lesson for those prone to jumping on such bandwagons to be more cautious. But that case was quite different from the others you mentioned. Deppe was accused of actions by Heard. The others committed the acts they were cancelled for in public; social media, news reports, press releases, interviews etc…

I guess this boils down to what you believe free speech should be about.

I believe that you are free to say what you want. But I believe that I am also free to judge you based on what you say. If you say things I find abhorrent I will probably decide not to support you.

Some people believe that free speech entitled them to say what they want AND prevent others for judging them. That’s just not how the world works, and it never has been.

Michael Cox wrote:

I believe that you are free to say what you want. But I believe that I am also free to judge you based on what you say. If you say things I find abhorrent I will probably decide not to support you.

That's entirely my point. That there is a difference between choosing to not support someone because they hold views you find abhorrent, vs. actively working in a concerted effort towards destroying their life because of said abhorrent views.

Cancel culture is the latter, not the former. And it's okay for some people to think that the cancel culture is morally wrong, even if they view boycotting or even speaking out against is morally acceptable.

An interesting video about cancelling/ controlling.

I dont understand all this new age cancel culture and woke stuff. just do what you do as long as what you do doesn't cause harm to others. I think all this crazy stuff might be a direct result of more and more interaction of people on the internet, social media and stuff where everyone is anonymous and unseen and people just lash out at others and want to judge others because they have nothing better to do with the time they are spending on our planet. there seems to be less and less personal face to face interactions of us humans and more and more communications thought electronic devices.
so I'll do what I can to have more interactions with people in a face to face way whenever possible.

Michael Cox wrote:

They used their position/popularity/notoriety to push their views on others.

Lindell has pushed an anti-democratic conspiracy.
Rowling published a transphobic manifesto.

This is one of the things that bothers me most about the current culture. If someone has a point of view different than your own, the immediate answer is to put a demeaning label on them or their viewpoint. You can disagree with the people you mentioned, but what is gained by using the terms conspiracy or transphobic other than to try to elecit an emotional response? Is it not enough to just say you disagree with them?  

I left Weinstein out of this entirely. A criminal rapist piece of human trash has no resemblence to a person that gives an opinion different than current climate expects.

I also disagree that starting your opinion is the same thing as "pushing your views on others". It seems that people speaking their opinion is fine as long as it agrees with the current
PC culture. If your opinion is contrary to PC culture, it is hate speech and you are trying to force your opinion on everyone else.

Trace Oswald wrote:
I also disagree that starting your opinion is the same thing as "pushing your views on others". It seems that people speaking their opinion is fine as long as it agrees with the current
PC culture. If your opinion is contrary to PC culture, it is hate speech and you are trying to force your opinion on everyone else.

I don't know what "pushing your views on others" actually means. Does that describe commentary? Those who demean opinions that are not currently PC are rejecting free speech in favour of something akin to controlled speech.

David Wieland wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:
I also disagree that starting your opinion is the same thing as "pushing your views on others". It seems that people speaking their opinion is fine as long as it agrees with the current
PC culture. If your opinion is contrary to PC culture, it is hate speech and you are trying to force your opinion on everyone else.

I don't know what "pushing your views on others" actually means. Does that describe commentary? Those who demean opinions that are not currently PC are rejecting free speech in favour of something akin to controlled speech.

I agree. I disagree with the term "hate speech" as well. I believe strongly in free speech,and I'll defend anyone's right to it, even if a disagree vehemently with what they have to say.