What is Cancel Culture
Cancel Culture can define a way of life practiced by many individuals. There is a global as well as a national level of Culture. In politics, the term “cancel culture” refers to the idea that people can be easily controlled without sufficient food and entertainment. High-end individuals use popular Culture to divert the public’s attention away from essential issues by providing formal leadership structures. Many people have unwittingly participated in Cancel Culture at some point during their lives (Day & Halborow, 2021, p. 28). Through the lens of Cancel Culture, the idea of free speech in politics and leadership is put into perspective. In other words, voicing your displeasure when one sees pictures you disagree with is discussed. To express one’s thoughts on a topic, people have the right to Cancel Culture. While Cancel Culture protects individuals’ freedom of expression, a potentially dangerous lifestyle trend can potentially destroy people’s livelihoods and careers.
When it comes to Cancel Culture, social media is the most common platform. An individual’s views can be shared with tens of thousands of people online by using these platforms freely. Some opinions are primarily used to demonstrate the issue’s lack of importance. When Cancel Culture was first introduced, it was reserved only for those who deserved their punishment. Political leaders are now more cautious in their actions to avoid disappointing the netizens they follow in the various aspect scopes (Mckirdy, 2020, p. 18). Cancel Culture is an online method for putting different aspects of morality into perspective, as society employs multiple methods for determining character. As a result, its arguments are based on subjective claims rather than facts. Points are more important than opinions when choosing guilt or innocence. This phenomenon’s many manifestations must be examined and studied in detail to comprehend it fully.
Cancel Culture in Action
Individual wrongdoings are identified and spoken out against in the Cancel Culture subset of popular Culture. Rather than relying on the facts, it has turned to figures and personal opinions. Many people wonder about the validity of judgments against them without considering the essential aspects of a fair decision (Burmah, 2021). To thoroughly understand the concept and its workings, one must examine many examples. It will aid in highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of placing a premium on subjective opinions over objective data. These cases shed light on a wide range of issues related to Change Culture. The distinction between facts and opinions is made clear in the case presented.
Methodology
Critical and digital ethnography is used to examine Donald Trump as an example of Cancel Culture. Digital ethnography necessitates the contextualization of data gleaned from social networking sites. My personal information and conversations are available to me on Twitter, where I have access to various data streams. Because of these power dynamics, ethnic and gender differences persist in the digital world. The accessibility of a community’s voice is also affected by these issues. However, even though I use Twitter anonymously to protect my identity, I am aware of the risks of data collection, even when security measures are in place to protect users.
Using the name “User,” I attributed quotes to the user and removed the numerical association. The exempt review was discussed with an IRB research compliance officer to minimize risk and harm. No information on Twitter’s educational research policies can be found. I had a difficult time finding resources during my 47-step data collection process. Regardless, I did everything in my power to ensure that the privacy and security of my users were protected. A wide range of Twitter users was made available to me using this digital ethnography methodology. To better understand my own “power, privilege, and biases,” I conduct ethnographic research. I see this research as a dialogic, performative, and open-ended investigation to avoid this. I hoped to connect with others by critiquing our own experiences and finding common ground. Both approaches are essential to my research, which necessitates nuance and ambiguity. Cancel Culture allows marginalized people to seek accountability in cases where the justice system fails them and empowers the marginalized or disenfranchised. On the other hand, it has boycotts which have been a beloved strategy in the civil rights movement, and callout culture is simply a new variation on that strategy.
History of Cancel Culture and how it Morphed
Cancel Culture started as an internet issue, where prominent people were subjected to sabotage and adverse effects based on their social media usage. It is common among the Twitter community, where there have been several backslashes on political leaders, with Donald Trump being an instance. It is a case of ostracism where those involved are subjected to cancellation. It is attached with negative connotations that are strongly tied to political concepts. It consists of shunning one on the notion that they have behaved in an unprofessional manner (Burmah, 2021). In 2021, the issue of Cancel Culture had undergone a significant transition into a topic that has elicited a lot of reactions from the larger society. It has become an integral aspect of evaluating the conceptual definition of judgments in response to negative behavior depiction from prominent personalities. Therefore, as an issue, cancel Culture has transformed into a massive deciding factor in how leaders and other well-known personalities carry themselves in public and on social platforms.
Pros and Cons of Cancel Culture
For decades, the civil rights movement used boycotts to effect social change. The embargo has recently resurfaced as part of a callout culture, which is becoming increasingly popular. The callout culture empowers those who are marginalized or disenfranchised. When the justice system fails marginalized people, the callout culture allows them to seek restitution from the system. A callout culture, for example, has the potential to incite violence and threats that are even more serious than the offense that was called out in the first place. Taking part in “Cancel Culture” is counterproductive and ineffective because it has no impact on society (Norris, 2021). In democratic institutions, it is easy to slide down the slippery slope into intolerance when people systematically exclude anyone who disagrees from their social circles. Cancel Culture is an online method for putting various aspects of morality into perspective, as society employs multiple methods for determining character. As a result, its arguments are based on subjective claims rather than facts. Points are more important than opinions when choosing guilt or innocence. This phenomenon’s many manifestations must be examined and studied in detail to comprehend it fully.
The Donald Trump Case
Trump is an excellent example of the Cancel Culture due to his Twitter account being suspended due to political aspects. The case is on his exile from Twitter, owing to his communication regarding general elections, where it was believed that he was enhancing incitement. Tweets were viewed to be distracting the focus on other news. Although Republicans have been the most vocal critics of the cancellation culture, cancellations have been made against people on both the right and left. Jimmy Dore recently argued that President Trump should pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which was widely panned by the public. Kovalik, an associate professor of international human rights law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, became concerned about cancel culture after seeing its effects on a friend. An organization she helped found cut ties with her in the wake of the controversy over a non-violence meme she posted on Facebook immediately following the death of George Floyd (Ng, 2020). This canceling, says Kovalik, should raise the alarming situation for the rest of us. People who have the best intentions but make a mistake must be distinguished from those who have the worst choices at all times.
The fact that Trump had 88 million Twitter followers when he was banned is one more reason why Kovalik and Glickman disagree that Trump was canceled. He can communicate with Americans in other ways, despite their lack of respect. But even though Kovalik supported the Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election, Joe Biden, Kovalik expressed his displeasure with Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, which he believes represents the most dangerous to cancel Culture: the censorship of unpopular opinions. According to Kovalik, if the Cancel Culture continues unabated, the consequences will be felt by all Americans (Burma, 2021). The clamor for attention will drown out critical voices — voices that need to be heard because they may be correct or, at the very least, have a valid point. Individuals will begin to limit the scope of their communication to avoid offending others. In the end, the truth will be suppressed because there will be less diversity of opinion in the media.
There are numerous ways to implement “Cancel Culture.” Numerous horrendous and morally repugnant acts were committed in these instances. They are judged on the merits of their legitimate claims rather than on their opinions. For me, one of the fascinating things about this case is how the internet community has exploited the situation (Ng, 2020, p. 623). Instead of considering the underlying concepts, they drew their conclusions based on what they already knew. However, when all of the facts were considered, his conclusion was incorrect. However, despite the public opinion court’s erroneous decision, the case of Trump shows how much people rely on the public’s sentiment. New information and ideas are more readily accepted in the social arena. Liberals believe that people should be judged based on their deeds, not their motives.
Argument
Cancel Culture urges celebrities to withdraw support, apologize, and own up to their actions. The future of a person is entirely in their hands. Even if no one notices, one can accomplish a lot. To see how we can overcome adversity and use it to our advantage, we need only look at Trump’s example as these two examples show, facts and opinions matter in Cancel Culture. In this case, feelings override attributes. It should not be the case, as users and followers should weigh the facts before passing judgment. Examining all parties’ information reveals relevant facts. Culture is canceled due to competition, hatred, and propaganda. Most issues raised may be motivated by a desire to undermine one’s popularity by highlighting an aspect deemed immoral in the context. Many Cancel Culture examples are repurposed statements made by people in suits, making them appear corrupt. It often embellishes them to achieve its goals.
Cancel Culture is flawed because it promotes that people are infallible and incapable of making errors. It contradicts the idea that humans are prone to error. Thus, learning new skills and knowledge. It is unreasonable to expect celebrities like your favorite musician to act appropriately. A call to end Cancel Culture does not imply pardoning those with a shady past (Norris, 2021). We need a better way to ensure that all relevant information is considered before deciding. So it protects those who unintentionally made statements that had negative consequences or perceptions. Instead, educate and enlighten these people. It is time to stop denying people second chances and start allowing them.
Instead of enlightening and enlightening, online users tend to cancel people. It is better to explain why something is wrong than to cancel it. Unlike citing someone’s words at a specific time, this has a much more significant impact. Initially, people used social media and the internet to learn about topics. But over time, it became a dangerous place where people collided. ‘To get past the Cancel Culture, we need to work together. We must rethink how we interact on the internet, social media, and media as a society. Rather than competing, we should use these platforms to educate one another.
For a relationship to work, both parties must be willing to listen. Listening to each other can help us discover and deduce the underlying material facts in a dispute. Links are about recognizing when something is inappropriate and not saying it. Remembering people’s right to differing viewpoints is essential. Determining someone’s feelings or beliefs is nearly impossible. We all make mistakes, despite our best efforts. Despite this, some people will still be subject to Cancel Culture. The individual initiates Cancel Culture. Reputation cannot be changed by oneself. A person’s license should be revoked if they do something unethical. But forgiveness only comes into play when someone apologizes.
References
Burmah, L. S. (2021). The curious cases of cancel culture. Web.
Day, A., & Halborow, M. (2021). Cancel culture: What is the real debate?. Irish Marxist Review, 10(31), 28. Web.
Mckirdy, P. (2020). Cancel culture. Collected Magazine, (26), 17-18. Web.
Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here…: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621-627. Web.
Norris, P. (2021). Cancel culture: Myth or reality?. Political Studies, 00323217211037023. Web.