I think you made a mistake apologizing for the twitter shit. It sounds like you did other things outside of social media that were worthy of apology, the medication, and the soul-searching, but twitter is just a video game. Trying to hold someone responsible for something they post on twitter is the same as calling for violence against a person IRL cuz they beat you in Call of Duty. People seem to have lost sight of this fundamental ridiculousness in social media culture.
Funny you mention canceling. If it wasn't a Short week I'd be salivating for you to tear apart the recent Michael Hobbes' article, which had me in a fit of rage like nothing since the Harper's Letter reaction. But take your time. We'll be around.
I remember Ezra Klien making this point that cancelling doesn't hurt anybody to Sam Harris when those two sparred over Harris interviewing Charles Murray. At the time I followed the IDW, I would after that read about the awful history of IQ tests in the US and discover Michael Brooks and MR and stopped listening to Harris. But Harris had a point that a) he certainly felt the impact of the criticism he was receiving, and b) he had avoided interviewing Charlies Murray. Now maybe that's good. But to your point, cancelling clearly does work. Al Franken and Louis CK are two examples that come to mind. As does Cosby...so in some cases it's a good thing.
Another consideration is that, as cancellation has developed as a strategy, counter-cancellation tools have emerged to deal with it. As more people are canceled out of the progressive mainstream, it becomes easier and easier to make a go of things as part of a new (but rapidly growing) group of "canceled" intellectuals.
Which, if true, is exactly why it's bad. It's like saying "Totalitarianism works! Disobedience to the Party is down 90%!"
Of course, these guys aren't honest totalitarians. That's why the rhetoric is self-contradictory. The cancelers want to believe that they are justified because they are in the position of weakness. But the very effectiveness of their strategy gives the lie to the claim -- they are actually in a position of astonishing strength. They just can't admit it.
People defend policies on their weakness all the time. Freddie has done so himself on the usage of CRT in schools. I also hear it constantly in the immigration debate - that people aren't really using the asylum laws, that people aren't really using the remain-in-country laws. In all cases it's obfuscation. And why not? It works depending on the circumstance. The old misattributed quote: "When I am weaker than You, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." When I can't cancel you, it's imperative that I can. When I can, not only did I cancel you, but I didn't do it and there's no such thing as cancelling anyway. This is a distillation of power and doesn't require consistency nor explanation.
So I mostly agree with this at its core (that is, that cancelation more often than not harms vulnerable people and fails to do much at all to the powerful), but I'd also note that you don't see much of Alex Jones or Milo Yiannopolous these days.
>Now playing at your local theater: probably not Dave Chappelle’s documentary, which the comedian says is being dropped by film distributors after his recent Netflix comedy special sparked a fight with transgender activists.
>The documentary, which chronicles the comic’s efforts to hold standup shows during the pandemic in his neighbor’s Ohio cornfield, has seen its invitations to film festivals rescinded, according to a video clip he posted to Instagram.
...
>The outspoken comic said the documentary had scored invitations to major film festivals across the country, but now “nobody will touch this film.”
Out of interest, when you write at this length, do you find you have to consciously cut out parts of your argument or do you just not look for extra depths? Would a longer article have had this ending somewhere in the first third, or would it have reached the same end by a longer path? Or are there long and short subjects?
The fact that cancellation doesn't work against the rich and powerful is a great point. Trump is a perfect example of this. He also couldn't be shamed out of public life because he has no shame, as Louis Theroux said.
As an old-school lefty from a union family, it truly sickens me to see left-liberal people smugly tag the employer of someone they don't like in a tweet, hoping to get them fired. The world has been dragged very far from where it should be.
Love you, Freddie! I’m thankful and empathetic for all the pain and suffering you went through to get here. Wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but thankful all the same.
I always found this "cancelation isn't real because you're still talking" argument to be extremely stupid. It's roughly akin to arguing that murder must be a hoax because of the existence of attempted murder.
"SEE?! HE'S NOT DEAD!"
This is a game, and the people who do this know what they're doing. What you are seeing now is the anxiety, and squirming discomfort that comes with when the realization dawns that most people are not Professional Managerial Class upper income white collar or academic bubble inhabitants, but that disgust for this has spilled over to the majority.
A majority with political power, as Trump's victory suggests. This thinking, and this tactic, are broadly unpopular for a variety of reasons. Not merely the politics that are (usually) attached to it, but because most normies are not vindictive scumbags, who are so eager to get people they don't like or disagree with to shut up, that they'll stop at nothing to ruin their lives.
This pushback against this brand of vindictive bullshit is good, healthy, and far overdue. I'm glad it's happening. And all we can do is try to accelerate it.
The argument seems very similar to some of the stupider gripes against the COVID vaccine. “If people can are still getting breakthrough infections and now other people are needing boosters then why are you still pushing this shot?” Well, because nothing’s all or nothing in this world…
I think you made a mistake apologizing for the twitter shit. It sounds like you did other things outside of social media that were worthy of apology, the medication, and the soul-searching, but twitter is just a video game. Trying to hold someone responsible for something they post on twitter is the same as calling for violence against a person IRL cuz they beat you in Call of Duty. People seem to have lost sight of this fundamental ridiculousness in social media culture.
Funny you mention canceling. If it wasn't a Short week I'd be salivating for you to tear apart the recent Michael Hobbes' article, which had me in a fit of rage like nothing since the Harper's Letter reaction. But take your time. We'll be around.
I remember Ezra Klien making this point that cancelling doesn't hurt anybody to Sam Harris when those two sparred over Harris interviewing Charles Murray. At the time I followed the IDW, I would after that read about the awful history of IQ tests in the US and discover Michael Brooks and MR and stopped listening to Harris. But Harris had a point that a) he certainly felt the impact of the criticism he was receiving, and b) he had avoided interviewing Charlies Murray. Now maybe that's good. But to your point, cancelling clearly does work. Al Franken and Louis CK are two examples that come to mind. As does Cosby...so in some cases it's a good thing.
Another consideration is that, as cancellation has developed as a strategy, counter-cancellation tools have emerged to deal with it. As more people are canceled out of the progressive mainstream, it becomes easier and easier to make a go of things as part of a new (but rapidly growing) group of "canceled" intellectuals.
I've often seen the claim "de-platforming works."
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work
https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-new-data-on-trump-tweets-shows/
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/twitter-facebook-free-speech/
Which, if true, is exactly why it's bad. It's like saying "Totalitarianism works! Disobedience to the Party is down 90%!"
Of course, these guys aren't honest totalitarians. That's why the rhetoric is self-contradictory. The cancelers want to believe that they are justified because they are in the position of weakness. But the very effectiveness of their strategy gives the lie to the claim -- they are actually in a position of astonishing strength. They just can't admit it.
People defend policies on their weakness all the time. Freddie has done so himself on the usage of CRT in schools. I also hear it constantly in the immigration debate - that people aren't really using the asylum laws, that people aren't really using the remain-in-country laws. In all cases it's obfuscation. And why not? It works depending on the circumstance. The old misattributed quote: "When I am weaker than You, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." When I can't cancel you, it's imperative that I can. When I can, not only did I cancel you, but I didn't do it and there's no such thing as cancelling anyway. This is a distillation of power and doesn't require consistency nor explanation.
So I mostly agree with this at its core (that is, that cancelation more often than not harms vulnerable people and fails to do much at all to the powerful), but I'd also note that you don't see much of Alex Jones or Milo Yiannopolous these days.
Chappelle put it best recently:
"I don't give a fuck cuz twitter's not a real place!"
Cancellation also works on the rich and famous:
>Now playing at your local theater: probably not Dave Chappelle’s documentary, which the comedian says is being dropped by film distributors after his recent Netflix comedy special sparked a fight with transgender activists.
>The documentary, which chronicles the comic’s efforts to hold standup shows during the pandemic in his neighbor’s Ohio cornfield, has seen its invitations to film festivals rescinded, according to a video clip he posted to Instagram.
...
>The outspoken comic said the documentary had scored invitations to major film festivals across the country, but now “nobody will touch this film.”
https://nypost.com/2021/10/26/dave-chappelle-doc-pulled-by-distributors-amid-controversy/
After seeing what happens to a rich and famous Black man who satirizes the anti-sex movement, will any comedian ever dare to do so again?
And it took only a ridiculously small and pathetic protest at Netflix to get Chappelle cancelled:
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/so-whats-the-strategy-here-exactly
Out of interest, when you write at this length, do you find you have to consciously cut out parts of your argument or do you just not look for extra depths? Would a longer article have had this ending somewhere in the first third, or would it have reached the same end by a longer path? Or are there long and short subjects?
The fact that cancellation doesn't work against the rich and powerful is a great point. Trump is a perfect example of this. He also couldn't be shamed out of public life because he has no shame, as Louis Theroux said.
As an old-school lefty from a union family, it truly sickens me to see left-liberal people smugly tag the employer of someone they don't like in a tweet, hoping to get them fired. The world has been dragged very far from where it should be.
Love you, Freddie! I’m thankful and empathetic for all the pain and suffering you went through to get here. Wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but thankful all the same.
I always found this "cancelation isn't real because you're still talking" argument to be extremely stupid. It's roughly akin to arguing that murder must be a hoax because of the existence of attempted murder.
"SEE?! HE'S NOT DEAD!"
This is a game, and the people who do this know what they're doing. What you are seeing now is the anxiety, and squirming discomfort that comes with when the realization dawns that most people are not Professional Managerial Class upper income white collar or academic bubble inhabitants, but that disgust for this has spilled over to the majority.
A majority with political power, as Trump's victory suggests. This thinking, and this tactic, are broadly unpopular for a variety of reasons. Not merely the politics that are (usually) attached to it, but because most normies are not vindictive scumbags, who are so eager to get people they don't like or disagree with to shut up, that they'll stop at nothing to ruin their lives.
This pushback against this brand of vindictive bullshit is good, healthy, and far overdue. I'm glad it's happening. And all we can do is try to accelerate it.
The argument seems very similar to some of the stupider gripes against the COVID vaccine. “If people can are still getting breakthrough infections and now other people are needing boosters then why are you still pushing this shot?” Well, because nothing’s all or nothing in this world…