cancel on cancel culture?

Michael Cox wrote:
“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.

I distinguish between dogmatism, which is what the "authoritatively approved" view is, and the instant outrage-based "cancelation" that denounces and dismisses those deemed by the outraged to have expressed an unacceptable view. The first has always existed, but I think the second is enabled primarily by social media, because it facilitates shared outrage and disfavours thoughtful discourse.

That said, heretics challenging dogma have always been subject to denunciation.

One thing I found is that I often come across here as crass, but I really don't mean to be.

I am a writer so I use a lot of words to convey my points, and at home on my laptop its not an issue. But on my smart phone at work, I economize my words. I think many people do this, and in saving words to type out, they come across as a lot stronger than what they normally would. Test me on this, and go back and look at my posts and now that I have said it, it would be easy to decipher which were typed on a laptop and the ones typed on my smart phone while at work. The tone accidentally changes.

Its too bad to judge people based on that, and unfortunately it happens a lot.

As a writer I have a deep love of the Freedom of Speech on all levels, but because I have typed out 10 books, boy I have given a lot of fodder for people to blast me. That is okay, because that is part of being a writer, one MUST have thick skin.

But the Cancel Culture sickens me.

I often get so judged. I don't write romance novels at all, but if I admit I put a love story in a novel, people instantly assume that its a romance novel. No, its a thriller with two people finding each other as the story unfolds. There is a huge difference in those two genre, just as James Bond is not a rom-com but rather an action movie with a love-interest in it.

But my novels often have very negative motivations in them, violence, hatred, revenge, retaliation, vindictiveness, and abuse, and it would be easy to cancel me as a writer because I write about those things. But that does not mean I approve of those types of behaviors. The opposite in fact. It is the one thing I love about owning my own publishing company; at the end of every book I have an epilog where I show ways a reader can get out of those circumstances if they happen to be in them. I never leave the reader without hope.

Some novels have sex in them, and some do not, so I am often asked how do I decide if that is included in it or not? That is easy; its included only if it has major influence on the plot line of the book. If it does, it stays, if not I do not include it. But that leads to another question, if it stays, how could I let my 82 year old mother-in-law read my novels? And that is easy to answer. Because it is just a story.

This post is kind of limited to the Cancel Culture targeting writers, but it is oh so true. In the end, no matter how successful I am at making a novel seem real, it is just a story. The Cancel Culture wants to have influence, but it is just a warped sense of control driven by the false sense that they are privy to all the information they need to come to that decision. I beg to differ.

I think if we can't even engage with opinions that are toxic or harmful then we can't challenge them and then we can't change them.

Also, I find it super interesting that the cancel culture types are pro cancelling people who express views they don't agree with in their vicinity but have no problem "clapping back" or otherwise loudly and aggressively interjecting their opinion when someone expresses a view they don't agree with in a climate that favors the view expressed. It just seems like a big double standard to me. It also doesn't seem like a real good bridge to understanding and divining a solution.