Cancel culture has always existed and is usually uncontroversial. We cancel the murderer. We cancel the rapist. We cancel the slanderer. Cancel culture is often so obvious that we overlook it.
The reason for cancel culture is also obvious. Freedom is important, but no person should use that freedom to harm others: such grave misconduct must be eliminated. And since we would all agree with this premise, we all support cancel culture.
The problem is that we do not always agree on the definition of grave misconduct. It is one thing to cancel the murderer, it is another to cancel the person who tells offensive jokes. Here is the real source of controversy: when does cancel culture go too far?
Every contentious act of cancellation attracts two opposing views: the interventionist favours the cancellation while the libertarian prefers a laissez-faire approach. These positions are familiar and well-worn in contemporary discourse. As modern cancel culture intensifies, a libertarian counter culture has arisen in predictable response.
The problem is that the libertarian commences from the wrong premise. We have seen that some cancellation is inevitable: we do not expect freedom for murderers and their ilk. That is obvious. But because this form of cancellation is obvious, the libertarian fails to perceive it. They conclude that the ideal world does not require any form of cancellation. The result is a crucial misconception that all speech and actions must be unconditionally free.
This is an easy argument for the interventionist to rebut. The world has never been completely free. Actions have always had consequences and it is foolish to suggest otherwise.
The interventionist is correct, but they are rebutting an argument which was never seriously made. The libertarian is not really arguing for freedom without conditions: they are arguing about the extent of those conditions. But because they fail to articulate that position with any precision, the focal point of the debate moves to a spurious argument about the necessity of cancellation which is redundant since both sides actually agree on this point.
There is no serious argument against the need for cancel culture. The real argument is about how the balance between freedom and cancellation should be struck. But distracted by mutual misunderstanding, we rarely address that point with any clarity or intent.
The fault mainly lies with the libertarian for failing to understand their own argument. However, the interventionist has also contributed to the stasis. Deprived of any real opposition, the interventionist has acquired a certain intellectual laziness. Because the libertarian has argued the case for liberty so poorly, the interventionist is inclined to dismiss any argument about freedom altogether. Libertarianism has become a by-word for the privileged individual who refuses to accept the consequences of their actions.
And that is a problem. We should enter the contemporary discourse on cancellation with a healthy respect for two competing principles. First, that actions have consequences. Second, society should be as free as possible. But now, we have decided that the idea of freedom is tainted. It does not bear serious consideration. Hence we approach this vital balancing act with regard for only one side.
Isamu Drayya, November 2022
NEXT: When virtue signalling is compulsory
isamu drayya 