'Cancel Culture' needs to be properly defined
The way in which this phenomenon is argued, tends to be diluted down to the point where it's rendered frivolous. A proper description needs to be determined if we are to take it seriously.
< (1 of 1)
There is an ongoing dispute by all sides as to how to define this cultural phenomenon. We have an extreme view on one side that denies it exists and is merely a shield with which to avoid legitimate accountability by people of 'privilege' (which can define a wide group of people depending on the circumstances). On the other side, we have those who claim that any and all criticism levelled at them is a form of oppression and should be condemned. Thus you have those who deny that 'Cancel Culture' is even real. One can describe “cancel culture” as a situation in which a person is subjectively aggrieved but the legal route is not an option. As a result, repercussions are sought through shaming or ostracism taking the form of a type of “erasure” towards the 'offender', whereby the 'aggrieved' does not wish to be reminded of the 'offender’s' existence. The 'aggrieved' demand that those in their periphery follow suit by: a) not mentioning the 'offender's' name online (or when they do replace some letters with asterixis). Or b) ensuring that if the 'aggrieved' and those willing participants to his/her cause are "exposed" to this person unintentionally via another medium, then they are to declare that medium is guilty of committing an offence to the 'aggrieved' and must face similar repercussions to the 'offender' unless they “repent”. Therefore, sending a signal to other mediums warning them to not have any reference of the 'offender' so the 'aggrieved' does not have to be reminded of them in their day-to-day life.