Paradoxes of Cancelation

Either you cancel or the government does

In a way, “wokism” is a new word. It is meant to describe left of center liberals who care deeply about social issues, especially LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, racism, and more. Before wokism became a political boogeyman for the right, this same phenomenon was known by a myriad of names. “Social justice warriors” or “sjw-ism” was the term used before the Trump years, while “cancel culture” was what people loved to criticize after the #MeToo movement took hold.

This post is meant to distinguish “cancel culture liberals” from the other varieties of standard center-left social thought. I want to explain that cancel culture’s political alignment is something of a paradox when one considers the political issues across the left-right spectrum.

Congress shall make no law…

In the first Trump era, the standard cycle of a cancel culture debate took the following form: (1) a famous person, oftentimes from Hollywood, would say or do something that is against societal norms or borderline illegal. (2) Most people on large social media sites (usually left of center liberals) such as Twitter and Reddit disavow said individual. (3) The companies employing these people would fire them. (4) Conservatives would strike back explaining that this is in violation of free speech principles. (5) Liberals would riposte by arguing that the first amendment only regulates the behavior of government and that social media websites, being private companies, can police speech as much as they like. (6) Conservatives add on that prosecuting people for mistakes they made years ago is punitive.

This cycle makes extremely little sense. The debate around free speech and litigation of past mistakes has traditionally had the precise opposite political split. Indeed, it has been the left that has argued for (1) regulating speech (2) creating bounds for how much discretion social media companies have in moderating their own content (3) forgiving people for past mistakes, sometimes with “right to be forgotten laws” which limit public information of past criminal behavior.

Likewise, it has been conservatives who argue that (1) the government has zero role in regulating speech, this function should instead be fulfilled by society (2) social media firms, being private entities, should make whatever moderation decisions they like (3) past wrongdoing should not be forgotten and people should be judged harshly.

So how can these positions on free speech and redemption of wrong-doers be reconciled with positions on cancel culture? If the right shall argue that the government should refrain from regulating speech (I view that I share), then what other than cancel culture can guarantee that society is able to deter the proliferation of legal-but-indefensible speech? In other words, if an individual is to face zero consequences (legal or extralegal) for making paedophile jokes publicly, then how do you prevent the spread of this behavior in society?

In the same vein, though I do not mean to paraphrase the often-canceled Larry Summers, how does the left simultaneously justify an interest in prison abolition since “hurt people hurt people”, and yet argue that James Gunn’s tweets from 2009 disqualify him in 2018? This would be quite easy to justify from a more conservative viewpoint, where Gunn’s tweets expose him as a terrible person incapable of changing, but how does the left make peace with this contradiction? Either everyone is capable of rehabilitation and can be made a better person, or some are beyond redemption. Pick one.

The Boogeyman Strikes Back

Naturally, society has ignored these apparent contradictions for a decade. The left cheered Twitter banning Trump, while conservatives screamed bloody murder. Eventually, “wokism” replaced “cancel culture” in the discourse and people’s attention shifted.

That was, until we underwent a “vibe shift” under Trump 2.0 and the government began to use its regulatory tools to crack down on undesirable media personalities. This was in unison with a variety of Trump and Pam Bondi statements essentially rejecting the first amendment. In a way, the Trump administration has shifted to a consistent position. One where society and the private sector has no say in the moderation of speech. Instead, the government (in this case through the FTC and the attorney general) prosecutes individuals for undesirable views. In other words, good ol’ fashion censorship.

This, of course, had wildly negative consequences. As conservatives killed cancel culture, they also stopped all accountability for hateful opinions. We have entered an era where twenty-somethings can talk about loving Hitler and maintain leading positions in Republican organizations. How did we get here? It’s because they’re on the government’s team! This has to do with the recent right-wing shift to Schmittian thought and the idea that politics is just one big Friend-Enemy distinction where you have to support your team no matter what, but that’s a post for another time.

As conservatives began to enjoy their newfound dominance, something funny happened. Tucker Carlson, who since being fired by Fox had become a buddy to wannabe Nazis and demon-fighters, invited Nick Fuentes after his podcast and did not challenge him in the slightest. Fuentes, who had repeatedly made fun of Tucker, described Candace Owens in…unflattering ways, and made a variety of antisemitic comments was given a free pass by Tucker. The same Tucker Carlson who, on his show, once accused Sam Altman of murder in his face.

As Shapiro and other pro-Israel Republicans flocked to denounce Tucker’s behavior, they found that their attacks on Tucker were being construed as “cancel culture”. Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, flocked to defend Tucker. The Fuentes-tribe struck back using the right’s own methods from a few years ago and won a decisive victory.

So, what now?

Bring it Back

Cancel culture is dead for now. Tucker is allowed to invite Fuentes, Fuentes is allowed to blame the world’s faults on “Jews”, the President is allowed to lie about literally everything everyday, and even Democrats can sometimes rock Nazi tattoos without suffering consequences. This is wrong.

It is completely correct to cancel people for their actions, beliefs, or words. If someone reveals themselves to be a complete idiot, then it’s OK to fire them. If someone makes women uncomfortable at work through their words, it’s OK to fire them. If someone supports inflation targeting, cast them away from society. It is also OK to forgive these people if they express remorse and you are more or less convinced that they’ve switched to Scott Sumner-thought.

Otherwise you will have two options. (1) have the government take over the moderation of people’s beliefs, values and speech. (2) allow everything with zero consequences, essentially rejecting cultural norms.

The second may be entertaining, but cannot form the basis of a properly functioning society. You can have fun reading 4chan, but no one wants to have it be their life. The first is a very large step down the Road to Serfdom. A country where governments dictate speech and society takes their decisions as given, not protesting in fear of supporting “cancel culture” is not a country worth living in.

So if you support free speech, begin canceling people. Or watch as your rights wither away.