Cancel Culture and Gaslighting
So, on our about the same date that New York Times columnist, the aptly named Charles Blow, publicly announces that there is no such thing as cancel culture, Bari Weiss, a journalist there, pens a scathing resignation letter alleging unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge, among other misdeeds, based purely on her voicing a difference of opinion with the prevailing orthodoxy.
He says this:
Once more: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE. There is free speech. You can say and do as you pls, and others can choose never to deal this you, your company or your products EVER again. The rich and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organize their dissent.
She says this:
… independent-minded young writers and editors [pay] close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
And one wag quips:
There is no such thing as cancel culture and if you say there is I’ll call your boss and have you fired.
As public service, for purposes of clarity, let us distinguish cancel culture from robust public debate.
Public debate is when you voice disagreement with an opinion which another has voiced.
You may disagree so strongly, that you no longer wish to be associated with that person, buy his products, support his business. You respect his freedom of speech and association, and you wish to use your freedom of association to dis-associate yourself from him.
Cancel culture is when you find a disagreeable opinion, and answer it by approaching some authority friendly to you with the power to silence him, for example, his boss, the HR department, his advertisers, a court of law, and most of all the social media platform he is using, to harass, defund, demonetize, fire, or ruin him, not just to silence him, but also to punish and destroy him.
Cancel culture is not you trying to disassociate yourself from him.
Cancel culture is you trying to drive away his customers, employers, associates, and friends, so as to prevent others who may wish to associate with him from doing so.
Cancel culture is not about you having a robust disagreement about opinions. Cancel culture is about you decreeing any opinion but yours to be dangerous and heretical blasphemy, and using any and every means at hand to silence his power to voice any opinion.
Cancel culture is about smashing his printing press, unplugging his microphone, threatening his audience, shouting down his answers.
The two are opposite. One is the position of free men, who are free to voice disagreement with each other, and free to leave each other alone.
The other is the strangling hatred for free men, that seeks to muzzle and gag them, and prevent free speech, free thought, and free worship.
This definition, I hope, will clarify those who hold any doubts in mind. I rather doubt there are any. Is is possible that Charles Blow would have leaped to the defense of Bari Weiss, but that he was honestly not put on notice that it was happening? Doubtful.
My comment:
To conflate cancel culture with free disagreement is a vile lie. One more among many.
Read Mr. Blow’s comment again. The rich and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organize their dissent.
Please note that the Children of Lucifer, pardon me, the Left, has and has always had one and only one arrow in their quiver: to accuse the motives of opponents of being in bad faith.
The concept of disinterested love of liberty for its own sake is dismissed unheard.
The concept that one would speak up for freedom of speech out of a sincere concern for the state of the world we leave for our children is likewise scoffed into silence, without being answered.
Mr Blow proposes that the invisible glass-ceiling inaudible dog-whistle undetectable micro-aggression idea behind advocacy of freedom of speech is the selfish powerlust of rich and powerful crybabies, fueled by their fear and hatred of masses.
This assumes facts not in evidence.
Speaking as someone who is neither rich nor powerful, and has no particular hatred of the common man, and who has been canceled at least once in my time by an editor who told me explicitly it was due to anonymous accusations of wrongthink, I can attest from personal experience that Mr. Blow is uttering an outrageous, perverse, and patent falsehood.
As a matter of logic, even were Mr. Blow’s libel true, it would nonetheless be an informal logical fallacy to argue that all statements uttered by the wicked are false. Even the devil quotes scripture.
And to dismiss those the Left have put in positions of power, influence, or wealth, by their votes or by their applause or by their purchasing decisions as all being wicked is bigotry of the most crass kind.
It is gaslighting. It is an insolent falsehood, spoken by those who delight in the sense of power it gives them to speak falsehoods, and silence any who dare answer back.
My urgent suggestion is to stop pretending these folk are willing or able to have any sort of dialog with us. Black Lies Matter is a racist supremacist organization of Marxists.
There is no reason to be discussing police reform at this time, since there is no evidence of police abuse particularly directed at one race rather than another. It is a lie.
There is no reason to debate or discuss which statues of Confederate heroes, Founding Fathers, or images of Christ should or should not be torn down, since there is no legitimate argument that any of these things, no, not even statues of famous Antebellum Democrats, are signs or symbols of systemic racism or white supremacy. It is a lie.
There is no reason to debate or discuss changing the names of football teams, military bases, English pronouns, or changing the logos of syrup and butter products. There is no institutional racism, and no public expressions of support for racism anywhere in America, and has not been during my lifetime. It is a lie.
No one is being oppressed for his race, and, even if he were, removing an Indian princess from a butter package would not aid him. It is a lie.
There is no reason to debate or discuss which Churches should be burned and which spared. That act is beyond any lies: it is madness. It is satanism.
One cannot reason with madness. All one can do is organize against it. They have millionaire-funded professional agitators working full time to destroy our faith, our traditions, our nation, our families. We have impromptu amateurs who gather momentarily, and end up bickering with each other.
But we also have God with us.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
