The Increasing Number of Innocent Victims of Cancel Culture
Cancel culture has become the new norm in today’s interconnected world. It refers to the practice of boycotting, “canceling,” or shunning individuals or organizations deemed to have expressed views or behavior deemed offensive, unacceptable, or controversial by those who disagree with them. Cancel culture originally emerged as a form of social activism aimed at holding public figures accountable for their past deeds or statements to promote social justice. However, in recent times, cancel culture has seemingly gone too far and has resulted in innocent people being targeted, harassed, and vilified online without any just cause.
The Unintended Consequences of Cancel Culture
While cancel culture might have the intention of bringing justice to society, it has unintended consequences that should not be ignored. For instance, the act of canceling someone who didn’t necessarily commit a gross wrongdoing is a violation of the fundamental principle of freedom of speech. The people who engage in cancel culture may feel that they are acting for the greater good, but in reality, they are undermining democracy by suppressing free speech.
Cancel Culture’s Impact on Individuals and Businesses
The impact of cancel culture is not limited to individuals alone. It is also starting to affect businesses of all sizes. Companies that are unwilling to join the cancel culture bandwagon may face boycotts from the vocal section of their customers who prefer to toe the line of cancel culture. Brands are finding it challenging to navigate the waters of cancel culture as they can find themselves facing backlash from either side.
Individuals and businesses that have been canceled face significant financial and personal ramifications, including loss of income, reputation, and social isolation.
A Case Study of the Innocent Victims of Cancel Culture
One recent case that highlights the damaging effects of the cancel culture is the story of David Shor. David Shor was a data analyst for the democratic consulting firm, Civis Analytics. In June 2020, he posted an opinion on Twitter that challenged the activism’s efficacy of indiscriminate destruction and vandalism of property as a means of protesting. Although he posted data to support his claim, a small but vocal section of Twitter users attacked him with cancel culture. David Shor was fired shortly after.
Conclusion
To be clear, cancel culture may have its place in society when anyone has done wrong and has failed to take corrective actions. However, when cancel culture steps beyond reasonable scrutiny and into unfounded outrage, it becomes a tool that many wield without justification. It results in innocent people being victimized and suffering irreparable harm. To mitigate the adverse effects of cancel culture, society must strike a balance between accountability for one’s actions and a robust defense of people’s freedom of expression.
