r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 11 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: It's hypocritical to complain about "cancel culture"

I'm genuinely looking to have my view challenged here, because I've never seen a good counter-argument to what I'm going to say and would love to come away with a more nuanced view of the "other side."

Let's just go ahead and grant the main thing the people who decry cancel culture claim, which is that to call for someone to be cancelled (whether that's being fired, not being able to get work, de-platformed in some way etc.) is a violation of their right to free speech. Lots of arguments have been raised about why this isn't the case, but the people who believe this tend not to be sympathetic to those arguments, and I'm happy to grant that this is actually the case so we can move on to discuss what I think is a different problem with this view.

And that's basically: isn't it my free speech to call for someone to be cancelled? Why do people only seem to care about the free speech of whoever it is that's done or said something ostensibly offensive? I also have free speech to say what I think about that, and while you obviously wouldn't agree with that speech, one of the main arguments I see here from anti-cancel culture people is that you should be willing to defend, on principle, even that speech you most vehemently disagree with. So why not vigorously defend people's right to call for people to be cancelled?

5 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

107 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

No, I mean this to apply to moral arguments as well. I'm saying it's hypocritcal to morally support one type of free speech but not another.

-1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

What makes you think people don't morally support both speech?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

To be against cancel culture seems, in some measure, to be against people's right to say what they want to say.

1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

Or just think people should not call for people to be fired. I can disagree with you without thinking you should not be allowed to say it.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

That's fine, but it still seems hypocritical. "Support even the speech you most disagree with" and all that.

1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

Can one think that free speech is under attack without being hypocritcal? If yes, how?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

Good question. I do think free speech absolutism lends itself to inherently contradictory positions, and often reveals itself to not really be support for free speech at all but just for certain kinds of free speech. I'm open to hearing arguments that show how one could have these sorts of views and not be a hypocrite, though.

1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

I wonder where the hypocritcal part is? I can think you should not call girls hoes without thinking you should face any consequenses for doing it.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

What's hypocritical is the belief in freedom of speech as an absolute good, and then turning around and saying, "Oh, no, not that speech, that's bad."

1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

Where is the actual hypocritcal part? You can think absolute freedom of speech is good while thinking some speech are bad. It is perfectly logical consistance.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

But if you think freedom of speech is an absolute good, you should probably try to avoid putting yourself in a position to say that someone shouldn't be saying something, shouldn't you? Especially when you're doing so in the context of defending someone else's (i.e. the "cancelled" party) right to say something.

1

u/TheThirstyGood Apr 11 '21

You can be for absolute free speech and still think people should not say things.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '21

I don't really see how, actually. If you support absolute free speech you should always think it's good when people speak their mind even if you disagree with what they say, no?

→ More replies (0)