You're not going to "calm down radicalization" with phrases like "killing cancel culture" and suggesting that viewpoints you don't agree with on twitter/the platform as a whole as "unreasonable narcissists".
“Killing” was a poorly chosen term. I think cancel culture is very dangerous in the way that it discourages reasonable discussion by picking on people whose opinions are deemed to be out of line and punishing them with mob justice. Maybe this interaction illustrated my point though. If I was talking to you in a pub and you said the same thing I’d respond in the same way. But if I’d posted about my great idea on twitter and you responded like this I can picture my ego urging me to say something more defensive and inflammatory.
I don’t mean perspectives I disagree with are narcissistic, I was honestly making an observation based on my limited understand of psychology. Some personality types like to hear themselves talk more than others, and I honk it’s clear that they are more attracted to Twitter.
For me, it's not about the word choice of "killing"; it's the seeming implication that "current radicalization" is caused by lack of "understanding" and then leads to "cancel culture" as the true problem. Your mission statement sounds kind of like "I want to win the argument with my current set of beliefs" rather than "I hope through honest and open minded discussion we can discover our own blind spots and reach common ground to move forward" or whatever.
Look at the supportive and critical comments you received; it looks split down the line based on political leaning. It may be worth considering that if you want to avoid creating just another echo chamber.
It’s definitely been interesting hearing some feedback. There’s a lot of passion about the topic.
The problem I’m interested in has nothing to do with winning arguments, more that so many people are quiet, not saying anything, because they aren’t interested in current discussion options, and the huge negative downsides.
I will reflect on all the feedback, especially the criticism. I don’t agree that I can divide it by political leaning though, and I certainly hope it’s not true. Definitely agree that the last thing the world needs is another echo chamber.
To add to this train of thought - the phrase 'cancel culture' has become politicised, hence the perceived split. I agree that were seeing a wave of puritanism and witch-hunt behaviour online, but that much of it is springing from admirable causes like climate change and minority rights. I think the risk of using the phrase is to discount the cause.
So that brings up a sticking point in creating a utopic online space, language itself means different things to different people. It's worth thinking about in your project - how do you use a light touch but prevent people from filling the space with newspeak or in-group language?
No one mentioned opposing viewpoints except you, and only to downplay real-world harassment as a mere difference of opinion. The radicalization occurring on Twitter is encouraging 'adults' to gang up on others (often children) and try to get their lives permanently ruined over ACTUAL differences of opinion, or for vastly disproportionate acts. So yes, we should use the word 'kill' when describing a force that destroys reasonable, well-meaning, and good people's lives every single day.
The "unreasonable" part is the the disproportionate and permanent effect of internet hatred in regards to comparatively non-permanent acts (that are still often harmful, but more often than not nowhere near to the same extent). The "narcissist" part is the need to do so for beneficial social points among those that do. Those that have the online support to keep the basic needs in life that they want to deprive others of. So yes, these people meet the definition on both counts.
It doesn't mean that those who are bombarded don't deserve to be reprimanded, just that they probably don't deserve to be bombarded with threats and harassment. You can express your opinion on Twitter without personal attacks and threats of harassment and violence. That part should not be a fringe opinion.
I'd like to maybe add onto that with a personal anecdote regarding twitter:
I've never used it and had an account created from about a decade ago. The only people I had followed when I first created the account were a few random celebrities and public figures. I pretty much never logged in despite many emails from Twitter to remind me of my account. A few months ago I opened it up to look, and I was really shocked and appalled at what I saw. My reaction to it was quite visceral. The best way I can describe the content I saw is just "hate", not the general term hate-speech that people throw around, but rather just people tweeting hateful things and exhibiting what appeared to me to be their hatred over something or someone.
Sure in between all of that there were a few wholesome tweets of course. But for the most part, it was just hate. I didn't really stick around too much other than to maybe add some additional public personas I do follow (I guess in support of them). The whole experience left me with the impression that Twitter and perhaps social-media entirely, are really bad/toxic/divisive to our society, at least in their current form.
I think Twitter is especially bad in comparison to other sites because it incentivizes people to post their real names, photos of themselves, etc. Even worse for this issue is the ability to retweet, and the trending page of Twitter. Instagram for comparison doesn't have this problem to the same extent because it's about sharing photos and not about following every new trend. This design gives those that live their lives as online reactionaries a 24/7 outrage factory. The trending page is a constant line of pitchforks and threads to bring them to. Regardless of the benefits of the service I think it's hard to deny how the site's design contributes to the problem, at least to some degree.
> You can express your opinion on Twitter without personal attacks and threats of harassment and violence. This should not be a fringe opinion.
I can. I expect that most people can as well. I don't however agree that any opinion should be expressed without consequence. If someone says "we should kill the Jews and reinstate the 3rd Reich", or "The place of blacks is subjugated below whites". This reveals how they see others, and making sure that their employer is acting based on compete information seems perfectly reasonable.
> The "narcissist" part is the need to do so for beneficial social points among those that do
Why are you ascribing nefarious motives to actions? Why is it clear that these people are acting in bad faith?
I totally agree with the extreme example of nazism or something like that, or most less extreme examples of prejudicial behavior, especially when that person is managing or just in any way talking to others. The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry. Too many of these people either aren't actually doing anything wrong (Some truck driver with his hand out the window) or have done something that is comparatively minimal to what they received (Justine Sacco, for instance). It's not that these people shouldn't be reprimanded, just that it shouldn't be the default for it to happen in this public, permanent, and very often dangerous way.
The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it. It's especially obvious when these people doing it have done what they're complaining about themselves. It gets back to the main idea, that you don't have to harass people to get your point across. Even the most egregious reaction, trying to take someone's employment (and most often the ability to support themselves and their dependents) can be done in a way that isn't public and permanent.
Can you give an example of incorrect permanent punishment? Sacco found a job almost immediately. The truck driver may have a more difficult time, but not because this event will follow him, but because the labor market at the moment is shitty. (And to be clear here I'm not saying what happened to him was right or just).
> The problem is that it isn't so cut and dry.
Sure but now we're in a very fuzzy area. We're no longer saying that public shaming is always wrong, but that there are situations where, in your judgement, the scope is misapplied. Those are two very different situations, especially if you're willing to acknowledge that your perception of the severity of some action may indeed be different than the actual effect of that action.
> The narcissism is real, if you're not closing your eyes to it.
I still don't buy this. People not being self aware is narcissism, but not in the way that you seem to be meaning, which is more like that the activism is performative and not genuine.
Not to say that there aren't people who are performative. Lots of social media activism is, but in many ways so is stuff like signing petitions, and that doesn't get a bad rap.
So that story shows the potential for long term damage (his store hasn't closed yet), but I agree that if it does, it would be the best example I've yet seen.
However even if we assume the worst outcome in that situation, the negative impacts of cancel culture are tame compared to a lot of other systems. If we're calling for an end to cancel culture due to the one case of permanent damage, why aren't we calling for an end of the US justice system which, on a daily basis, causes far more permanent and far more cases of damage?
And this is sort of whataboutism, but lots of the recent concern about cancel culture, at least that I've seen, is from mostly upper class, mostly non-black and latino, mostly well educated people. Their concern has been that they'll be cancelled if they don't support recent protests enough or in the right way.
So we have two systems of justice, one that unjustly kills innocent people on the daily, and one that might end up closing down a single restaurant whose owner was innocent. Why are we focusing our energy on dismantling the second system over the first?
There are a few reasons I’m particularly concerned about cancel culture. One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with. There’s lots of things I hate about the justice system that I believe are being worked on. But fundamentally, I accept I was born into a particular society, and I’ve implicitly agreed that I need to agree to certain rules.
Cancel culture is mob justice. There’s no mechanism to change it, and it’s totally irrational. In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window. Human history is full of particularly nasty examples of what can happen if everybody feels forced to obey a mob.
> One is that there is a mechanism for me to change laws I disagree with.
There are also mechanisms to address culture you disagree with (and you're exercising them!). The question was not why do you find cancel culture distasteful, nor was it even why do you personally find cancel culture potentially worse than unjust policing (which for now let's just agree to disagree on), but why it is that you are prioritizing the push back against cancellation over the pushback against unjust policing.
At this current moment, it is, I think, clear which unjust system causes more harm. It is the criminal justice institution. That cancel culture could grow worse is feasible, but it has not yet. People aren't routinely killed at the hands of twitter complaints.
> Finally, I don’t think we can trivialize the impact of tossing the idea of free speech out the window.
Here we disagree on premise: cancel culture is the result of people who previously did not feel empowered to speak freely taking advantage of a system that raises their voices more prominently. That it is extrajudicial is a failure of the institutional justice system, which continues to systemically fail underserved communities (women, minorities, poor people). Sharing controversial opinions has never been without risk, that's why they're "controversial". There have been privileged sects of society for whom the risk of holding controversial, and even outright despicable, opinions was low. I don't think more equality in that regard is a negative thing.
> In the example, blaming one person for the actions of a family member goes totally against the philosophies I believe in.
Do you believe the situation would be different if the employer had been unrelated to the girl who posted bad things? While the exact numbers might be different, I don't see the overall picture being that impacted by him being her father. And "punishing" an employer for the actions of an employee, while still perhaps fraught in some cases, is much less worrisome to me than targeting family.
