Scott Tibbs
We need to define cancel culture to debate it
By Scott Tibbs, December 6, 2023
I wrote about cancel culture last week, but what exactly is it? One of the problems with debating CC is that while most people have a general understanding of the term, there is not a hard, universally accepted definition. This one is as good as any: A disproportionate attempt to harm someone for expressing a contrary opinion or making a social
faux pas. But we should be careful to exclude certain things from being "cancel culture."
A couple weeks ago, I saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that said "F*** Joe Biden." Unlike this post, the sticker had the full F-Word spelled out. If I were to speak with the driver and request that he not to openly display obscenities for all the world to see, is that cancel culture? Some would say yes. But disagreement and criticism is not cancel culture. Twenty years ago, conservatives would not have batted an eye at upholding social norms about public obscenity.
In fact, an overly aggressive reaction to "cancel culture" can be censorship in and of itself. Imagine Person 1 says something illogical, counterfactual or even obscene on social media. A reaction by multiple people - a "pile on" as the kids call it - might be seen as "cancel culture." But is it? Is Person 1 disingenuously invoking "cancel culture" to avoid being held publicly accountable for objectionable speech? Is the goal to protect free speech, or to shield Person 1 from legitimate criticism?
There are plenty of cases that reasonable people would define as cancel culture, arguing that the reaction (or retaliation) was disproportionate. But the problem with defining CC too broadly is that it waters down a serious subject with serious implications for a culture of free speech. Cancel culture can also poison the well, leading to a never-ending cycle of professional "scalp collecting" where eventually no one remembers why they are fighting.
The purpose of this post is not to meticulously define cancel culture or even to set general boundaries. It is to get people thinking about what cancel culture actually means, and to take a few moments to think about a controversy before assuming it is cancel culture. Is the alleged offense being correctly defined? Is the criticism of the offender truthful and made in good faith? Is the reaction disproportionate to the nature of the offense? Would I defend this language or behavior if done by someone on the other side? Let's be precise in our language, and we can more effectively advocate for a culture of free speech.
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
ConservaTibbs.com