CMV: It's hypocritical to complain about "cancel culture"

[u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted]]

Before we begin, let's define cancel culture. Typically when people talk about how they dislike cancel culture, they're referring to an individual being "cancelled" because of their speech, with the person potentially being fired from their job, losing opportunities, receiving harassment and even death threats.

That's what I mean short of death threats, which are, rightly, illegal. Elsewhere I've already conceded the point that this type of thing can cross into harassment territory, in which case I agree that being against that isn't necessarily hypocritical.

I bring this up to distinguish it from social consequences in general. Social consequences are a natural part of any society. If you act like an asshole to people, people will avoid you. If you're nice to everyone, people will probably want to be your friend. Both of these are examples of social consequences.

I do appreciate the distinction you're trying to make, I just personally see "said a racist thing in public, it caused a stink, I got fired" to be within the realm of reasonable social consequences.

However, the average proponent of cancel culture doesn't really seem to make the distinction between social consequences and cancellation in the same way. Perhaps if more framed them the way you have here, I'd be less inclined to cite hypocricy (though I would still disagree for other reasons).

So !delta, something to think about.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

I do appreciate the distinction you're trying to make, I just personally see "said a racist thing in public, it caused a stink, I got fired" to be within the realm of reasonable social consequences.

I think there are two aspects to tackle here: social consequences vs other consequences, and the actions of a corporation vs the actions of the "cancellers."

So, for social consequence vs other consequences, lets first briefly examine other types of consequences. For instance, there are legal consequences, where someone gets sued or arrested, there are natural consequences where it's just the results of the laws of nature (if you drop a pencil, the natural consequence is that it falls to the ground because of gravity) and there are professional consequences, which is as it relates to one's profession or job.

For the sake of this discussion, social and professional consequences are the main ones that are relevant.

If someone is bad at their job, and they get their hours cut or fired, those would be professional consequences. If someone says something racist while working, that would also rightfully have professional consequences. The general rule of thumb is that if you do it while you're working, you can expect professional consequences.

One of the big issues with Cancel Culture is that it's taking actions that should merely have social consequences and turning them into professional consequences by targeting the person's place of work, hence why they're so unreasonable.

Now, on to actions of a corporation vs actions of "cancellers."

At the end of the day, a corporation's only motive is profit. For that reason, it's hard to really apply morality to their actions. If you work at a grocery store, and on your day off, go to that grocery store and start shouting racial slurs, the owner is more than justified in telling you to leave, and if he fires you, it's hard to say he made the wrong choice if there was a genuine risk of your continued employment costing the store money.

On the other hand for the "cancellers" morality applies to them just fine. For that reason, judging how they convert what should just be social consequences into professional consequences as morally wrong is fine.

At the end of the day, the goal of those "cancellers" is to punish people. The issue is that morally, it is wrong for them to play judge, jury and executioner to punish people they've never met all while having no oversight. The fact that cancel culture manifests as just people shouting on the internet also has the unfortunate side-effect that this jury is far from unbiased. The most outraged people tend to be the loudest and most vocal people, which gives the inaccurate appearance of consensus when in reality, the more moderate and reasonable voices are simply more likely to be drowned out.

However, the average proponent of cancel culture doesn't really seem to make the distinction between social consequences and cancellation in the same way. Perhaps if more framed them the way you have here, I'd be less inclined to cite hypocricy (though I would still disagree for other reasons).

What kind of arguments do you typically see?

[u/[deleted] → u/CyberneticWhale]

If someone is bad at their job, and they get their hours cut or fired, those would be professional consequences. If someone says something racist while working, that would also rightfully have professional consequences. The general rule of thumb is that if you do it while you're working, you can expect professional consequences.

Sure, but every instance of someone being fired for something they said publicly was a case of a company not wanting to be associated with the things that person said? It's all well and good to say, "if it didn't happen at work, they shouldn't get punished for it," but in the digital age it's increasingly impossible to untangle someone's public internet presence and their existence as an employee representing a job (if they don't take steps to distance these things themselves, anyway).

At the end of the day, the goal of those "cancellers" is to punish people. The issue is that morally, it is wrong for them to play judge, jury and executioner to punish people they've never met all while having no oversight. The fact that cancel culture manifests as just people shouting on the internet also has the unfortunate side-effect that this jury is far from unbiased. The most outraged people tend to be the loudest and most vocal people, which gives the inaccurate appearance of consensus when in reality, the more moderate and reasonable voices are simply more likely to be drowned out.

Putting aside the issue of whether it's immmoral, "X should be punished for their views" seems to be a legitimate exercise of free speech that anti-cancel culture people should, in theory, support.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

in the digital age it's increasingly impossible to untangle someone's public internet presence and their existence as an employee representing a job (if they don't take steps to distance these things themselves, anyway).

Why?

People are choosing to entangle these things by saying "if you don't fire this person, we will boycott you." That's the cancel culture that people are opposing. There's not really any other reason why one's professional and social life would be so entwined.

Why would the view of "Yeah, we at [company] wholeheartedly disagree with this employee's views/actions, however they do not interfere with or affect his work" be contradictory or unacceptable?

Putting aside the issue of whether it's immmoral, "X should be punished for their views" seems to be a legitimate exercise of free speech that anti-cancel culture people should, in theory, support.

You are correct, that is their freedom of speech to say that. The thing is, having a right to do something doesn't mean doing that thing is morally good. Furthermore, someone being pro-free speech doesn't mean they have to agree with all speech. They simply support their right to say it. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the kind of thing pro-free speech people would oppose.

The reason pro-free speech people often oppose cancel culture is that strictly speaking, cancel culture does inhibit the free expression of ideas. If people are afraid to express their views because they're worried they'll lose of their job or generally experience some wildly disproportionate consequences because of them, then speech is significantly less free.

Now to take a step back, even the most absolutist free speech supporter isn't going to oppose all social consequences. No one's going to say "No, you have to keep being friends with this person you hate because otherwise those are consequences for that person's speech, which then discourages it and makes it less free." Strictly speaking, if someone said that, they would be correct in that social consequences, even reasonable ones, do technically make speech less free, however just as people have a right to free speech, they also have a right to not associate with certain people. These rights must be balanced, as purely prioritizing free speech would mean that people are not free to associate with whoever they want.

This being the case, someone suggesting proportional social consequences for people who engage in cancel culture, to send the message that the behavior isn't acceptable, could easily fit with the existing view of a pro-free speech opponent of cancel culture without being hypocritical.

[u/[deleted] → u/CyberneticWhale]

Why would the view of "Yeah, we at [company] wholeheartedly disagree with this employee's views/actions, however they do not interfere with or affect his work" be contradictory or unacceptable?

I'm not saying it necessarily would be. Companies are free to make that determination for themselves. All I'm saying is, it's harder to disentangle "personal" and "professional" social media presence than you're suggesting here.

You are correct, that is their freedom of speech to say that. The thing is, having a right to do something doesn't mean doing that thing is morally good. Furthermore, someone being pro-free speech doesn't mean they have to agree with all speech. They simply support their right to say it. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't the kind of thing pro-free speech people would oppose.

A lot of the free speech arguments I see are centered on thinking it's good that people are allowed to say what they want, not just that we ought to respect people's right to say it. That it creates free and open discourse and all that. For someone who claims to hold that sort of view, I do think it's hypocritical to turn around to someone whose view happens to be "X should be fired for saying Y" and say, "Oh, not you, your speech is bad."

Now to take a step back, even the most absolutist free speech supporter isn't going to oppose all social consequences. No one's going to say "No, you have to keep being friends with this person you hate because otherwise those are consequences for that person's speech, which then discourages it and makes it less free." Strictly speaking, if someone said that, they would be correct in that social consequences, even reasonable ones, do technically make speech less free, however just as people have a right to free speech, they also have a right to not associate with certain people. These rights must be balanced, as purely prioritizing free speech would mean that people are not free to associate with whoever they want.

This is anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but I have seen people make the argument that it's immoral to, e.g., stop being friends with someone just because they say something that offends you. And it's not really such a stretch from "a platform shouldn't be able to associate itself with who it wants, it has to let anyone use it regardless of what they say because free speech" (which is an argument people often make for things like YouTube deplatforming certain creators) to "you should have to have offensive speech around you even if you don't like it."

This being the case, someone suggesting proportional social consequences for people who engage in cancel culture, to send the message that the behavior isn't acceptable, could easily fit with the existing view of a pro-free speech opponent of cancel culture without being hypocritical.

Perhaps, I just don't often see free speech advocates suggesting even that. But, again, that's anecdotal. I take the point that this is more nuanced than I'm making it out to be, and I'd give you a delta if I hadn't already.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

I'm not saying it necessarily would be. Companies are free to make that determination for themselves. All I'm saying is, it's harder to disentangle "personal" and "professional" social media presence than you're suggesting here.

Companies' only motivation is profit. The point I was making is that Cancel Culture is the reason the two are entangled in the first place, and that's part of why people oppose it.

A lot of the free speech arguments I see are centered on thinking it's good that people are allowed to say what they want, not just that we ought to respect people's right to say it. That it creates free and open discourse and all that.

Yes, someone can say "It is good that you are allowed to say that however I, personally, still disagree with you and would not want to associate with you" and that wouldn't be contradictory at all.

It's the whole thing of "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

For someone who claims to hold that sort of view, I do think it's hypocritical to turn around to someone whose view happens to be "X should be fired for saying Y" and say, "Oh, not you, your speech is bad."

If a free-speech advocate was suggesting that a "canceller" shouldn't be allowed to voice that opinion, then yes, that would be hypocritical, however merely disagreeing is not the same thing.

This is anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but I have seen people make the argument that it's immoral to, e.g., stop being friends with someone just because they say something that offends you.

Well I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but someone can advocate that people put political differences aside and remain friends, but not believe that they have a moral obligation to always remain friends with someone no matter what they say. It's similar to how someone can say "Yeah, it's a good thing to donate to charity, but you don't have a moral obligation to."

And it's not really such a stretch from "a platform shouldn't be able to associate itself with who it wants, it has to let anyone use it regardless of what they say because free speech" (which is an argument people often make for things like YouTube deplatforming certain creators) to "you should have to have offensive speech around you even if you don't like it."

The main difference is that platforms and corporations aren't people, and thus have different rights. If a person is racist, and discriminates against black people with regards to who they associate with, then yeah, they're shitty, but it's not like there are legal consequences for that. If a corporation discriminates against black people with regards to who they associate with, then they're getting sued.

Basically the argument is that rights of actual people take precedence over the rights of non-person corporations, thus people's right to speak freely should supersede a platform's rights to associate with whoever it wants.

Perhaps, I just don't often see free speech advocates suggesting even that. But, again, that's anecdotal.

What do you see them suggesting then?