NPR

Baroness Nicholson has some views I agree with and plenty I don't like her opposition to gay marriage, I didn't even understand her reasoning behind that one. She had an honourary position with the Booker prize due to playing a part in setting it up and another position on a book prize named after her husband.

Author Barr decided to get her 'cancelled' from the booker on the basis of transphobia etc and succeeded. He sent lots of tweets, 1 is below.



But.....and this is a goodie, he himself wrote some really offensive transphobic tweets that even accounting for passage of time I can't believe were ever funny. However it was a while ago.



Cancel culture doesn't forgive or forget

England’s biggest arts festival has cut ties with a leading Scottish writer who has been accused of transphobia.

Damian Barr had been a board member of the Brighton Fringe festival but the organisation has confirmed that it is no longer affiliated with him.

His association with the Savoy hotel in London is also under consideration after it emerged that he had used offensive language to describe transgender people in tweets that came to light this month. Barr, 43, is literary ambassador for the hotel.

In April 2009 he tweeted: “Tittering sickly @ story of 6’5” tr*nny who failed to hang herself from 5ft balcony this wknd. How many failures can one person take?” He has since apologised for the “unkind and hurtful” comment.

Well that's the cancel culture for ya.

It's like a Mexican standoff; where if one person pulls the trigger, chances are everyone is fucked.

Is cancel culture the new nasty narrative from the right that allows Righty Sociopaths like Ben Shapiro etc to go about their hateful business unmolested, like snowflake, virtue signaling, woke, all that other crap?

Ooooo Katie Hopkins has been cancelled, what a tragedy it is.

I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

Line6 HXFX wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:42 pm Is cancel culture the new nasty narrative from the right that allows Righty Sociopaths like Ben Shapiro etc to go about their hateful business unmolested, like snowflake, virtue signaling, woke, all that other crap?

Ooooo Katie Hopkins has been cancelled, what a tragedy it is.

Basically yes but if dickheads from both sides get judged the same, that will cancel the other.

Genuinely can't think of Ben Shapiro without hearing this in my head:

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 am I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

I don’t know why, but a good old fashioned ‘he without sin’ story just makes me feel the world isn’t as crazy as it feels sometimes.

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:10 am Genuinely can't think of Ben Shapiro without hearing this in my head:

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 am I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

Cool.

Who decides what's 'shitty'? I'd like to understand who the arbitrators are and what are the threshold partitions by which these views can be categorized? Are there any areas where one should not have any opinion which grains against the bien pensant by virtue of it being 'shitty'?

Would you consider people losing their jobs, being removed from panels of influence or charities, having their addresses published online etc to be not cancelled? Just trying to get some understanding of what you would constitute as 'cancelled'.

Caley_Red wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:52 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 am I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

Cool.

Who decides what's 'shitty'? I'd like to understand who the arbitrators are and what are the threshold partitions by which these views can be categorized? Are there any areas where one should not have any opinion which grains against the bien pensant by virtue of it being 'shitty'?

Society in general tends to the be the arbitrators here, but let's face it we're talking about quotes like these: "Tittering sickly @ story of 6’5” tr*nny who failed to hang herself from 5ft balcony this wknd. How many failures can one person take" which would surely be considered shitty by a whole bunch of people so I'm not sure why you've chosen this of things to start the "ah but who DECIDES what behaviour should be criticised???" hot take

Would you consider people losing their jobs, being removed from panels of influence or charities, having their addresses published online etc to be not cancelled? Just trying to get some understanding of what you would constitute as 'cancelled'.

Those are consequences. Cancellation would probably require them to suffer some actual long term inability to do their job or be a public figure. Take, for example, famous comedian Louis C.K., who was publicly "cancelled" for his shitty sexual behaviour towards women. His cancellation lasted about 2 years, then he was back touring and making bank.

People losing their jobs over their behaviour is nothing new. If I went on a rant about black people or the jews, publicly, and work found out about it, I'd expect to lose my job. That's pretty normal. Why should people continue to be involved in charities if the stuff they're publicly known for is antithetical to the work the charity is trying to do? Why should they continue to be on panels if the panels decide they don't want shitty people involved? I appreciate some of this is just theatre, but it does actually matter to some people.

Also I'd view having their addresses published online to be doxxing, not cancellation. A whole other thing that can't possibly be defended.

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 am I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

The thing for me is that it's not really society, it's Twitter/social media. The people who are actually involved in all this, whether it's being outraged or being cancelled, are a tiny, tiny minority of the planet, a few thousand at most. Most people have absolutely no idea that this is going on.

A bit of me wonders why folk caught up in it don't just shut the fuck up and let it move on to the next idiot, but a bit of me thinks if you are vain enough, and stupid enough to think the world needs your views and opinions then fuck you and enjoy the cesspit.

Slick wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:40 am

JM2K6 wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:57 am I don't really see the problem. It's a question of consequences. He said some pretty shitty things and suffered no consequences for them at the time. Now he is.

Cancel culture seems to be a major misnomer - it's very rarely that anyone is actually "cancelled", more like they just suffer a backlash of some kind for things they've said and done. Which is sort of how society usually works.

The thing for me is that it's not really society, it's Twitter/social media. The people who are actually involved in all this, whether it's being outraged or being cancelled, are a tiny, tiny minority of the planet, a few thousand at most. Most people have absolutely no idea that this is going on.

A bit of me wonders why folk caught up in it don't just shut the fuck up and let it move on to the next idiot, but a bit of me thinks if you are vain enough, and stupid enough to think the world needs your views and opinions then fuck you and enjoy the cesspit.

Twitter/social media amplifies things but at the end of the day it's still real people reflecting society. There are millions and millions of people on social media - it's a pretty decent chunk of society on there. I'm not saying this is a perfect situation; I'm well aware that "internet outrage" can be weaponised and turned against people who don't deserve it, which is why in the case of organisations who are being pressured to deal with a problem that they should take the time to actually investigate.

In the cases we're discussing here it's fairly straightforward, though. Gay writers are unhappy that someone they see as a prominent anti-gay personality is involved with a prominent book award. That seems fair enough, no? And then it turns out that one of those writers has said very shitty things about trans people in the past, for which the punishment is... having "his association with the Savoy hotel in London ... under consideration" (he's some sort of ambassador).

None of this seems particularly out of line to me. If you're going to be vocally anti-gay, then expect pushback from gay people. If you're going to say wildly shitty things about trans people in public in a way that's recorded for posterity, then expect companies that use you / your image as an 'ambassador' to want to reconsider.

None of that really has anything to do with social media or whatever, that's just the medium where some of this occurred.

One one hand, I agree that the question "So who decides what is acceptable or not?" posted so often on these threads can be a bit of a disingenuous herring. So many behaviors are just obviously inappropriate. If you see someone kicking a puppy, or jerking off in the supermarket, you know that it's unacceptable. You're not going to gormlessly ask "Who gets to choose if this is OK?" Basically, if something's hurtful or obnoxious it's wrong.

I do have a problem with the answer "society decides" though, because society has so often got so much wrong.

Sure. There's a silent "rightly or wrongly" in there.

People only get bent out of shape when they disagree with 'society', however it's being represented. They rarely pipe up if they agree with the mob :)

I was disappointed when I went to the Leicester facebook page and saw the response fans had to Carole from Leicester's thoughtless comment on signing "more players with names we can pronounce, lol".

There WAS an element of mob hysteria on that page, calling for her to be doxed, fired etc.

Two things were true: She made an ignorant comment she needed to be called on (And she was, by Nadolo). And internet "society" wasn't giving her a fair go at apologizing for her ill-considered post and moving on. It's just too unforgiving.

Did anything of note actually happen to her, though? Because people calling for consequences isn't the same as her suffering consequences, which goes back to the point about companies making sure they actually properly investigate. If not, then she's just suffering public criticism.

That's not to say I agree with people calling for her to be fired or doxxed! Just that lumping all of this into the same grouping doesn't make sense if nothing actually happens as a result. The actions of a handful of essentially anonymous people on the Leicester facebook page are very unlikely to actually do anything.

The first tweet is a cuntish thing to put out into the world, but both were 7 years ago. I'm not familiar with this guy, does he still tweet stuff about trans people? Within the last couple of years? Reaching into the past to discredit people with ridiculous or offensive things they've said doesn't sit well with me (cf James Gunn); it doesn't allow for the possibility of growth and change. It's easy to forget how relatively recently trans issues have become prominent in the wider public consciousness and the way that's made people address how they talk about them (both the people and the issues).

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:30 am Did anything of note actually happen to her, though? Because people calling for consequences isn't the same as her suffering consequences, which goes back to the point about companies making sure they actually properly investigate. If not, then she's just suffering public criticism.

That's not to say I agree with people calling for her to be fired or doxxed! Just that lumping all of this into the same grouping doesn't make sense if nothing actually happens as a result. The actions of a handful of essentially anonymous people on the Leicester facebook page are very unlikely to actually do anything.

I would hazard a guess that she feels that a massive public shaming is a consequence and one that is probably not very psychologically pleasant.

robmatic wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:44 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:30 am Did anything of note actually happen to her, though? Because people calling for consequences isn't the same as her suffering consequences, which goes back to the point about companies making sure they actually properly investigate. If not, then she's just suffering public criticism.

That's not to say I agree with people calling for her to be fired or doxxed! Just that lumping all of this into the same grouping doesn't make sense if nothing actually happens as a result. The actions of a handful of essentially anonymous people on the Leicester facebook page are very unlikely to actually do anything.

I would hazard a guess that she feels that a massive public shaming is a consequence and one that is probably not very psychologically pleasant.

True enough, though by consequences I was talking about those mentioned by FujiKiwi (i.e. losing her job, etc).

It's just that the internet is a hysterical place, and creates this atmosphere, where people can't easily say, "Yeah, sorry. What I said was stupid. I'm an idiot. I thought I was being funny and I wasn't. I'll try to do better from now on"

FujiKiwi wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:52 am It's just that the internet is a hysterical place, and creates this atmosphere, where people can't easily say, "Yeah, sorry. What I said was stupid. I'm an idiot. I thought I was being funny and I wasn't. I'll try to do better from now on"

Did she try? (I've not read the comments page, so it's a genuine question). It makes a genuine difference even to internet outrage if they try.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:15 am

FujiKiwi wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:52 am It's just that the internet is a hysterical place, and creates this atmosphere, where people can't easily say, "Yeah, sorry. What I said was stupid. I'm an idiot. I thought I was being funny and I wasn't. I'll try to do better from now on"

Did she try? (I've not read the comments page, so it's a genuine question). It makes a genuine difference even to internet outrage if they try.

She may have. But anything she had written wasn’t there when I looked. And there was no follow up as to her response in the original.

Agreed that an apology makes a difference, though I don’t like the template for apologies that has that line “This is not who I am...”. I think rather than spank about what a nice person you usually are, you should just own up to having said something arrogant and ignorant, and say you won’t do it again.

Agreed.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:46 amAgreed.

Well?

Well what? :)

Sorry. I won't do it again.

I forgive you.

Line6 HXFX wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:42 pm Is cancel culture the new nasty narrative from the right that allows Righty Sociopaths like Ben Shapiro etc to go about their hateful business unmolested, like snowflake, virtue signaling, woke, all that other crap?

Fighting name calling with name calling.

People become what they so vehemently oppose.

The trouble with cancel culture in my estimation is that it's all a bit fire and brimstone, scorched earth, zero sum, all or nothing.

People make mistakes, they say dumb stuff, their opinions change, times change, not everyone who says something inappropriate or insensitive is acting out of malice. Even if they were arseholes to begin with people can be shown the error of their ways and rehabilitated.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:29 am

Society in general tends to the be the arbitrators here, but let's face it we're talking about quotes like these: "Tittering sickly @ story of 6’5” tr*nny who failed to hang herself from 5ft balcony this wknd. How many failures can one person take" which would surely be considered shitty by a whole bunch of people so I'm not sure why you've chosen this of things to start the "ah but who DECIDES what behaviour should be criticised???" hot take

But who is this amorphous 'society'? Views are a continuum, not binary: there are certainly things that most people would objectively consider beyond the pale and I am pretty sure a group of random people would agree in near unanimity that comments such as 'black people are monkeys' or 'Jews are greedy' are completely unacceptable. However, this can't be used as cover to start bucketing moderate and even majoritively-held views as being unacceptable. I am not defending this Barr (whoever he is), I am making the point more generally as you appear to be supportive of the broader movement.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:29 am Those are consequences. Cancellation would probably require them to suffer some actual long term inability to do their job or be a public figure. Take, for example, famous comedian Louis C.K., who was publicly "cancelled" for his shitty sexual behaviour towards women. His cancellation lasted about 2 years, then he was back touring and making bank.

People losing their jobs over their behaviour is nothing new. If I went on a rant about black people or the jews, publicly, and work found out about it, I'd expect to lose my job. That's pretty normal. Why should people continue to be involved in charities if the stuff they're publicly known for is antithetical to the work the charity is trying to do? Why should they continue to be on panels if the panels decide they don't want shitty people involved? I appreciate some of this is just theatre, but it does actually matter to some people.

Also I'd view having their addresses published online to be doxxing, not cancellation. A whole other thing that can't possibly be defended.

You've picked out one example there where the chap's career made a recovery- probably aided by the people who enjoy his style of comedy also being broadly unsupportive of cancel culture- however, there is a litany of examples in which people have had their lives or careers ruined for saying things that are not objectionable at all or providing platforms for alternative views e.g. Bennet or Weiss at the NYT in just the last few weeks. Perhaps more famously, an attempt on JK Rowling for rejecting the trans orthodoxy- a view in which I would be comfortable in saying is held by the vast majority of people. Thankfully her profile is too high, the same can't be said for others.

Not to mention, cancel culture has clear externalities: it chills public discourse as there's a legitimate fear of the mob turning on you; having a conformist view to a doctrine which is constantly evolving and dictated be a small (but loud) clique is the best way to stay safe (or, indeed, not have an opinion at all). This was clearly evidenced in the public letter signed by a number of authors and academics which specifically cited: 'censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.'

That last point is exactly what I interpret you are trying to do by conflating moderate views on a continuum with a views that are demonstrably unacceptable (and for which legal provision most likely exists to deal with anyway).

From your response, I would bet the mortgage that you have a Twitter account and I would further wager you spend quite a bit of time on there (and social media generally); you're clearly trying to conflate Twitter with the general public and- especially when you weight by post count and reach- they could not be more distinct in their views: far more left-leaning, much lower median age, far more urbanized, far more likely to have a tertiary 'education' and far more likely to be Labour voters (or Democrats in the US).
This 'society' you allude to is nothing more than a set self-appointed arbitrators who aggressively rail against someone when their view is deemed 'unacceptable', they then whip up confected outrage on mediums like Twitter to pressure institutions, committees, employers etc to drop the supposed offender.

Caley_Red wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:14 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:29 am

Society in general tends to the be the arbitrators here, but let's face it we're talking about quotes like these: "Tittering sickly @ story of 6’5” tr*nny who failed to hang herself from 5ft balcony this wknd. How many failures can one person take" which would surely be considered shitty by a whole bunch of people so I'm not sure why you've chosen this of things to start the "ah but who DECIDES what behaviour should be criticised???" hot take

But who is this amorphous 'society'? Views are a continuum, not binary: there are certainly things that most people would objectively consider beyond the pale and I am pretty sure a group of random people would agree in near unanimity that comments such as 'black people are monkeys' or 'Jews are greedy' are completely unacceptable. However, this can't be used as cover to start bucketing moderate and even majoritively-held views as being unacceptable. I am not defending this Barr (whoever he is), I am making the point more generally as you appear to be supportive of the broader movement.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:29 am Those are consequences. Cancellation would probably require them to suffer some actual long term inability to do their job or be a public figure. Take, for example, famous comedian Louis C.K., who was publicly "cancelled" for his shitty sexual behaviour towards women. His cancellation lasted about 2 years, then he was back touring and making bank.

People losing their jobs over their behaviour is nothing new. If I went on a rant about black people or the jews, publicly, and work found out about it, I'd expect to lose my job. That's pretty normal. Why should people continue to be involved in charities if the stuff they're publicly known for is antithetical to the work the charity is trying to do? Why should they continue to be on panels if the panels decide they don't want shitty people involved? I appreciate some of this is just theatre, but it does actually matter to some people.

Also I'd view having their addresses published online to be doxxing, not cancellation. A whole other thing that can't possibly be defended.

You've picked out one example there where the chap's career made a recovery- probably aided by the people who enjoy his style of comedy also being broadly unsupportive of cancel culture- however, there is a litany of examples in which people have had their lives or careers ruined for saying things that are not objectionable at all or providing platforms for alternative views e.g. Bennet or Weiss at the NYT in just the last few weeks. Perhaps more famously, an attempt on JK Rowling for rejecting the trans orthodoxy- a view in which I would be comfortable in saying is held by the vast majority of people. Thankfully her profile is too high, the same can't be said for others.

Not to mention, cancel culture has clear externalities: it chills public discourse as there's a legitimate fear of the mob turning on you; having a conformist view to a doctrine which is constantly evolving and dictated be a small (but loud) clique is the best way to stay safe (or, indeed, not have an opinion at all). This was clearly evidenced in the public letter signed by a number of authors and academics which specifically cited: 'censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.'

That last point is exactly what I interpret you are trying to do by conflating moderate views on a continuum with a views that are demonstrably unacceptable (and for which legal provision most likely exists to deal with anyway).

From your response, I would bet the mortgage that you have a Twitter account and I would further wager you spend quite a bit of time on there (and social media generally); you're clearly trying to conflate Twitter with the general public and- especially when you weight by post count and reach- they could not be more distinct in their views: far more left-leaning, much lower median age, far more urbanized, far more likely to have a tertiary 'education' and far more likely to be Labour voters (or Democrats in the US).
This 'society' you allude to is nothing more than a set self-appointed arbitrators who aggressively rail against someone when their view is deemed 'unacceptable', they then whip up confected outrage on mediums like Twitter to pressure institutions, committees, employers etc to drop the supposed offender.

Pretty much what I said...

This is going to be fairly long as there's a lot of different topics in here.

Caley_Red wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:14 amBut who is this amorphous 'society'? Views are a continuum, not binary: there are certainly things that most people would objectively consider beyond the pale and I am pretty sure a group of random people would agree in near unanimity that comments such as 'black people are monkeys' or 'Jews are greedy' are completely unacceptable. However, this can't be used as cover to start bucketing moderate and even majoritively-held views as being unacceptable. I am not defending this Barr (whoever he is), I am making the point more generally as you appear to be supportive of the broader movement.

How has this ever been different? Yes, "society" is amorphous, as are the opinions of those within it. But it's not random.

You've picked out one example there where the chap's career made a recovery- probably aided by the people who enjoy his style of comedy also being broadly unsupportive of cancel culture- however, there is a litany of examples in which people have had their lives or careers ruined for saying things that are not objectionable at all or providing platforms for alternative views e.g. Bennet or Weiss at the NYT in just the last few weeks.

Suggesting Bennet and Weiss have had their careers ruined by cancel culture is wildly off the mark. Weiss has for years made enemies and been deliberately antagonistic; she ended up having pissed off nearly everyone she worked with. That's essentially career suicide. Bennet made a dreadful decision - and not the first he's made in recent years - to run Tom Cotton's op-ed which pissed off so many of their paying readership. Again, career suicide: don't piss off the customers.

Neither of them are "cancelled" in any way that means anything beyond "they're suffering the obvious consequences of their repeated failures".

Perhaps more famously, an attempt on JK Rowling for rejecting the trans orthodoxy- a view in which I would be comfortable in saying is held by the vast majority of people. Thankfully her profile is too high, the same can't be said for others.

The JK Rowling thing I don't think I'll bother to discuss on here. All I will say that I reject the idea that her views are held by the vast majority of people: she parrots the extreme anti-Trans movements, plays a very cunning game and layers it with a veneer of civility, and has for years worked to diminish and demean trans people. But she's a great example - despite the large amount of criticism, she's still there. She still gets to say whatever she wants, on account of being rich and famous, and still gets to transmit her thoughts to millions of people. Cancel culture apparently isn't very strong.

Not to mention, cancel culture has clear externalities: it chills public discourse as there's a legitimate fear of the mob turning on you; having a conformist view to a doctrine which is constantly evolving and dictated be a small (but loud) clique is the best way to stay safe (or, indeed, not have an opinion at all). This was clearly evidenced in the public letter signed by a number of authors and academics which specifically cited: 'censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.'

That last point is exactly what I interpret you are trying to do by conflating moderate views on a continuum with a views that are demonstrably unacceptable (and for which legal provision most likely exists to deal with anyway).

Funny thing: I don't disagree with the premise here. It can definitely be weaponised, and it certainly will introduce a level of fear of "speaking out" - though in many cases, a certain amount of introspection before speaking out would be a fucking blessing IMO. However the Harper's letter was pretty comical, as has been the fallout - they literally voted to not include certain names (so much for free speech!). Some of the signatories have since tried to distance themselves from it as they didn't know who else would be signing it. It's all quite amusing.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2020/07/1 ... l-culture/

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arc ... ch/614080/

From your response, I would bet the mortgage that you have a Twitter account and I would further wager you spend quite a bit of time on there (and social media generally); you're clearly trying to conflate Twitter with the general public and- especially when you weight by post count and reach- they could not be more distinct in their views: far more left-leaning, much lower median age, far more urbanized, far more likely to have a tertiary 'education' and far more likely to be Labour voters (or Democrats in the US).

It doesn't take Sherlock to understand that someone who talks about Twitter and how it works / how people react on there has a Twitter account and reads Twitter. It would be really weird if I tried to talk with any kind of authority about Twitter if I didn't read it. I can only assume everyone else commenting with confidence about Twitter is the same. I don't post much/at all on Twitter as I like actual conversations and more long-form chat, so forums work for me.

I agree that Twitter is not exactly the same thing as society. A couple of points here: I am not talking "just" about Twitter. I am talking about all social media - this is a Facebook story, for example - which is literally millions and millions and millions of people. That's a big cross-section of humanity. For all the ranting about how "left wing" twitter is, for example, there's a huge amount of right wingers on there (not to mention Gab, and Parler). Facebook is a cesspit where people have livestreamed right-wing terrorist atrocities.

You're over-egging it about Twitter: I've read the same pew research and it's not "far more left-leaning", it's slightly more left leaning in the USA with an added bunch of "independents" (who are almost never independent, but that's another topic). That lower age is true, but that's because Facebook is more popular with the 50+ crowd (who lean more to the right in the UK & USA), and Facebook is still part of this conversation. There are definitely things that are different about Twitter compared to "real life", but it's not in a vaccum. There's always a "hot issue of the day", and it can rage across the platform, putting people in the spotlight, then immediately disappear. That's not new - it's a shorter, sharper, more organic version of the way tabloid media works, except it's not just driven by a particular newspaper's bias.

Finally,

This 'society' you allude to is nothing more than a set self-appointed arbitrators who aggressively rail against someone when their view is deemed 'unacceptable', they then whip up confected outrage on mediums like Twitter to pressure institutions, committees, employers etc to drop the supposed offender.

Ah. This is disappointing. The only time it's "confected outrage" is when the right wingers decide to use the left's "tactics" and do some Twitter/Facebook archaeology in order to get someone in trouble. The left wingers actually care about this stuff; the right wingers don't, but are happy to use the same tactics. I will never understand why the right wing refuses to believe that the left actually does care about this, but no, it's always "faux outrage" or similar. It's really strange and one of the reasons why it's near impossible for the two to find common ground on social media.

Anyway: Everyone has the right to hold an opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise. Everyone has the right to complain. Everyone has the right to demand action. It's free speech in action! What people don't seem to like is the ordinary person having a measure of the power normally reserved for the elite, and that's scary for some like the Harper's signatories. I am not dismissing the idea that cancel culture can be toxic - it certainly can be ridiculous, for example I saw people going nuts about Killing Eve star Jodie Comer apparently dating a Republican, which apparently invalidates all the good work she's ever done for LGBTQ people - but at some point cancel culture needs to be signficantly different to ordinary pre-social-media consequences for it to be taken seriously as a real problem. Cancel culture always references people who are still on our screens, still on platforms with a reach that people twenty years ago would literally have killed for, still raking in cash and prestige.

I would like to talk about the times when cancel culture negatively affects people who a) didn't deserve it by any reasonable measure, b) represented consequences way beyond their 'crime', and c) permanently impacted them rather than temporarily inconvenienced them. It would also help if they were not an "elite", but it's not a necessity. Essentially, what happened to Megan Fox thanks to Michael Bay, except as a result of "cancel culture" rather than an arsehole director. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure they happen, and I'm fairly sure the people complaining about cancel culture are most concerned about the people whom cancel culture genuinely impacts in this way. I just would like to know who and what and why, rather than the tiresome stuff trotted out by people who've received criticism and don't like it.

There is no doubt nuance is hard to find on places like Twitter, and something about the medium also encourages anger and kneejerk reactions. But I'll be honest, that doesn't seem like an inaccurate reflection of modern society.

This is all just free market economics.