Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 21
    I like this answer better than the top voted answer, it has better structure and better definitions. However; It does seem slightly biased: It would be relevant to add examples of cancel culture that highlights the problematic sides and why many see it as a problem. An apparently racist and insensitive podcaster is not the important victim here; but important qualities to have in a society like academic freedom seem at risk. The NY Times op-ed editor was forced out - reading his resignation letter is deeply unsettling. Commented Mar 15, 2021 at 14:27
  • 4
    This question doesn't ask for a discussion of good sides v problematic sides, but simply a clear description of meaning and significance. What differentiates cancelling from say, boycotting or other responses is part of its meaning. Having said that, I think the 2nd part, about cancel culture, does summarise the serious concerns and reservations that many have about it. Commented Mar 15, 2021 at 14:33
  • 15
    This answer focuses too much on one single "hugely repellant" comment, and ignores what the term cancel culture is used on. Those who talk about cancel culture are raising awareness for people being the targets of mass hate campaigns and getting their careers destroyed for utterly trivial things. Sometimes for merely refusing to declare allegiance to a "social justice" movement. Commented Mar 15, 2021 at 21:02
  • 8
    The answer uses the word "widely" way too often. Arguably, the significant difference between the CC and its former iterations such as protests and BDS is exactly that, thanks to the amplification effect of modern media, the "cancelling" group does not need to be big, and the beliefs do not need to be "widely" held, to achieve practical annihilation. Commented Mar 16, 2021 at 4:38
  • 3
    @vsz - Is there an example of that which doesn't fall under the "final straw" line in this answer? That is, a single "trivial" event where someone who has no prior history of 'cancellable' actions has been targeted and suffered? If you have a specific counterexample, then that'd be something that'd be worth adding to the next-to-last paragraph. Commented Mar 16, 2021 at 22:49