Jump to content

Talk:Cancel culture/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Protected

There's far too much disruptive editing going on here the last day or two. I've protected the page so that only confirmed editors can edit. I notice 2 editors don't agree on some things, but there's discussion going on here (talk page), so I won't interrupt that. Hopefully halting the IP editing for a day or so will help everyone get things ironed out. — Ched (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

o== Bari Weiss ==

For anyone working on this, Bari Weiss discusses cancel culture in a recent op-ed for Deseret News:

The liberal worldview that we took for granted in the West from the end of the Cold War until only a few years ago is under siege. It is under siege on the right by the rapid spread of internet cults and conspiracy theories. One need look no further than Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, an unabashed QAnon believer just elected to Congress.

On the left, liberalism is under siege by a new, illiberal orthodoxy that has taken root all around, including in the very institutions meant to uphold the liberal order. And cancellation is this ideology’s most effective weapon. [1]

SarahSV (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what the article needs less of, highly opinionated and partisan opinion. It would make a terrible addition and only serve to make the article less NPOV, IMO. Citing large amounts of op-eds, opinion and analysis is the wrong way to treat a contentious subject like this. Bacondrum 23:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What do you think a scholarly source is if not opinion and analysis? SarahSV (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This talk page is already getting a bit unwieldy. Perhaps we don't need a tangent on the elements of scholarship vs. opinion pieces in order to agree that scholarship is preferable to opinion pieces for statements of fact, and should generally be given more weight. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I won't get into it too much, but it is fairly easy to answer that question. Scholarship applies far higher standards for veracity, standards that opinion and op-eds do not, peer review, editorial oversite etc. News articles apply higher standards than op-eds opinion and analysis, these are lowest quality reliable sources available, that's why claims in them must be attributed and why they should be used sparingly. Our guidelines acknowledge this WP:SCHOLARSHIP "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" It's similar to the standards for citations at university...at least it is here in Australia. Bacondrum 00:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You should quote the whole thing: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you could do that too, or just follow the link I posted, you get the picture anyways. Aquillion explains the difference between peer reviewed academia and opinion better than I can below. Bacondrum 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're talking peer-reviewed papers or the like, scholarly sources (in theory) have rigorous fact-checking applied by uninvolved, independent reviewers the peer-review process, ensuring accuracy for statements and assumptions they make. f someone wanted to make sweeping statements about modern culture in one, the reviewers would require that that be at least tentatively backed up by their sources and the results of their resource. An opinion piece has fewer such constraints, and sometimes none at all (even the NYT has outright said they do not fact-check for accuracy) - the author can freely invent apocryphal tales, provide no references for them, and even (as in the piece you referenced) make sweeping statements grounded solely in their personal feelings, with no basis at all beyond that. That doesn't always make them useless (especially when written by an expert in the field or someone else whose opinion is manifestly noteworthy), but talking heads like Weiss are very rarely WP:DUE in that fashion. Axe-grindy, fact-light culture-war "my ideological enemies will be the downfall of Western Civilization" pieces like this are less about presenting a grounded argument, position, or perspective and more about waving verbal battle-flags for the faithful and unleashing fusillades of zingers. --Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, as always you explain these things far better than I can. Bacondrum 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Acquillion, you have an extremely idealistic view of scholarship: "scholarly sources (in theory) have rigorous fact-checking applied by uninvolved, independent reviewers". "In theory" is right. In practice, not, especially not in an area like this. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you disputing the reliability of peer reviewed academic journals? Bacondrum 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Peer-review is not a panacea, and indeed has many weaknesses, which is why we prefer WP:Secondary sources; it's not as simple as 'has to be all peer-reviewed sources'. Asserted "sweeping statements about modern culture" absolutely do appear in some ostensibly peer-reviewed journals, especially on politically charged topics. What we really need on this topic is to avoid any sort of special pleading about sources that goes beyond Wikipedia policy. Crossroads -talk- 05:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed papers can also be secondary sources (it's often worth being cautious of solitary studies, naturally.) The best sources vary by context, but are generally going to include peer-reviewed papers from high-quality journals, which have been cited many times, and which cover or survey other, earlier papers. As you remove those qualifiers you move away from ideal, but it's a long fall from there to an opinion piece by a non-expert in Deseret Magazine making evidence-free WP:EXCEPTIONAL accusations that institutions meant to uphold the liberal order are all corrupted by some sinister new, illiberal orthodoxy. Essentially, I'm not really seeing what this opinion piece has to recommend it over the sources already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's true that even a top-quality peer-reviewed source isn't a flawless direct line to the unvarnished truth (and obviously the journal matters a great deal; there are some that aren't even WP:RSes), but peer-reviewed sources from high-quality journals are generally among the best sources we have; and I'm skeptical of the argument that peer review is of less value when it comes to controversial aspects of political or social sciences. To me, controversial topics are the ones where it is most important that we try to stick as closely as we can to what academic or professional rigor exists, and to be as strict as we can with the more axe-grindy opinion-pieces due to the poor signal-to-noise ratio. This is an emotively-charged topic, one people feel very strongly about and have expressed extremely strong opinions about, so it's easy for us to find high-quality sources covering those opinions, or experts expressing those opinions in high-quality venues (indeed, the broad thrust of the opinion you mention here is already extensively covered throughout the article using better sources - admittedly somewhat less breathless ones, but I'm not sure the fact that an opinion piece makes sweeping, exceptional statements with no evidence does much to recommend it.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    I think the biggest issue with scholarly sources for something like cancel culture is the phenomenon is new enough where there is no actual scientific consensus. Additionally with social science academic research looking for a scholarly consensus is even more difficult due to the Replication crisis and the glut of bad research that makes it into quality journals[2]. Looking at social science research for a solid consensus and fact base mere years after a social movement or cultural change begin is difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you're massively overstating problems with academia...and as for opinion, well it's opinion. I'm afraid these "you can't trust academics" arguments are similar to arguments about "fake news" - they're nonsense claims. Peer reviewed academia is by far the best sourcing we have and Wikipedia policy reflects this. The source above is hyperbolic opinion, the lowest quality of sourcing permitted to be used here. Bacondrum 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, one can find lots of sources using Scholar [3]. Saying that, I think the source by Sarah is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Even in light of how much opinion this article already contains? Bacondrum 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
"Cancel culture" is not science, but just an expression that can mean a lot of different things. Therefore, I do not think someone like Bari Weiss is less qualified to comment about it than authors of this so called scientific article, for example. This is not quantum mechanics. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum, hard agree. Bari Weiss doesn't just have a dog in the fight, she basically is the dog. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Guy. I'm not interested in trying to improve this rubbish article anymore, it's a load of opinionated crap and I see no hope of changing that anytime soon. Thanks for your time. Unfortunately there are too many proponents of this term pushing a certain POV here, this article will remain a pile of undue and tendentious opinions and examples, unfortunately. Bacondrum 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Seuss inclusion on this page - needs work

At present, this page includes a reference to the withdrawal from circulation by Dr Seuss Enterprises of six of their books [4], as follows:

After receiving some feedback from the education sector, the Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that six books will no longer be in circulation. Dr. Seuss Enterprises proclaimed that they remain staunch to fair and equal representation of all their readers.

In the context of the 'in popular culture' section, this flows poorly, coming as it does after an example of the discussion of cancel culture in comedy (Chappelle & Burr). Furthermore, it could be considered a partisan statement to label this example of cancel action, in violation of [WP:NPOV], but I shall leave this up to more qualified editors.

Accordingly, I suggest that this reference ought to be either

(i) replaced with a more appropriate example of an act that could be labelled as 'cancel culture' (i.e. one that is not a decision made independently by a company, not following significant outcry);

(ii) or rephrased to describe how the action provoked a wider debate around cancel culture in US media, and was identified as both an example of cancel culture and not.

Further criticism of the section might include how it does not mention why the books were removed from circulation, as well as the lack of specificity in "After receiving some feedback from the education sector". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.82 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I've removed it because the source does not mention cancellation, so it was WP:OR. It's a poor example anyway; I must have overlooked when it was added. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with the removal. If there's an interesting takeaway from the Dr. Seuss books case it's something about either the weaponisation and misuse of the term "cancel culture" or the political aims behind those who found an ordinary and unsurprising publishing decision to be dangerous to them in some way. All of which would need many good sources that may or may not exist. — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I both agree and disagree. Dr Seuss is in fact a classic case of "cancel culture": a perfect example of a manufactured outrage about something that was not "cancelled" in any meaningful sense. It gives an opportunity, backed by sources, to discuss the fundamental dishonesty of the term "cancel culture". The same people fulminating about Dr Seuss are totally fine with cancelling Planned Parenthood because they dislike one service the company (legally) provides, they themselves tried to cancel the Chicks formerly known as Dixie, they have passed laws cancelling the teaching of scientific facts like evolution and climate change. If you think "cancel culture" is a phenomenon of the liberal left then you probably haven't talked to Kathy Griffin. Focusing on some of the examples that reveal the hypocrisy of the coinage would help to make the article more neutral. We could also include counters to examples like James Damore, who has made much more from grievance and victimhood than he would have done in his lowly role at Google. In the end, the term "cancel culture" is always a red flag for a grift of some kind. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Does the article say that cancel culture is strictly a phenomenon of the liberal left? I didn't see that in the opening paragraphs which are supposed to define the concept. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few reliable sources (see: [5][6][7][8]) that discuss the Dr Seuss controversy specifically in the context of "cancel culture". So I think it probably warrants mention in the article, with the proper context and attribution for claims made of course (i.e. I agree that it should probably be "rephrased to describe how the action provoked a wider debate around cancel culture in US media, and was identified as both an example of cancel culture and not"). Stonkaments (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments, the NYT piece is particularly good:
The estate’s decision — which prompted breathless headlines on cable news and complaints about “cancel culture” from prominent conservatives — represents a dramatic step to update and curate Seuss’s body of work, acknowledging and rejecting some of his views while seeking to protect his brand and appeal. It also raises questions about whether and how an author’s works should be posthumously curated to reflect evolving social attitudes, and what should be preserved as part of the cultural record.
“It will cause people to re-evaluate the legacy of Dr. Seuss, and I think that’s a good thing,” said Philip Nel, a children’s literature scholar at Kansas State University and the author of “Dr. Seuss: American Icon.” “There are parts of his legacy one should honor, and parts of his legacy that one should not.”
And of course what it establishes, rather well, is that the conservative manufactroversy is pure hot air. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

MeToo

I am uncomfortable with the attempts to elide #MeToo with cancel culture. Harvey Weinstein avoided scrutiny for decades due to his power and influence; the fact that the years-long allegations against Woody Allen get swept into it as well are an example of long-overdue scrutiny. The fact that a few powerful men (e.g. Liam Neeson) said that #MeToo had become a witch-hunt is not "cancel culture", it's fear of consequences in a culture that has got away with rape and sexual coercion for as long as it's existed. Basically this is Hollywood men arguing that the casting couch was fine, and the surfacing of decades of allegations by women who were coerced into sex is a witch-hunt. One of the cited sources for this section acknowledges: "When no one's ever really canceled". Yup> How cancelled is Woody Allen? Not at all. Weinstein is "cancelled" in the sense of being in jail for rape, but that's not really cancel culture is it? Two of the sources don't even mention cancel culture, the third mentions it in the sense that this isn't really it. And it isn't. It's consequences, not cancellation. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(moving my comment from the previous thread) #MeToo is highlighted as one of the most prominent examples of cancel culture by multiple reliable sources. For example, "...many of the most prominent examples of cancellation have arrived in the Me Too era"[9]. See also: [10][11][12][13][14] If we are going to have an examples section, surely #MeToo warrants mention.
@Grayfell: Could you clarify what problems you have with this? Stonkaments (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This is verging into tendentious, and spreading this out into multiple sections doesn't help. I have already explained it, and so have several other people. The Vox article you cite above appears to be cherry-picked and removed from context. The article specifically says And though many of the most prominent examples of cancellation have arrived in the Me Too era, most of the men who have faced accusations have also dodged long-term consequences. It is clearly explaining how it cannot be simplistically lumped in with "cancel culture". You chopped off half the sentence to support your own viewpoint! If you're not willing to look at the context of a source, you shouldn't be citing those sources at all. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell, that, along with restoring a section with three sources, trwo of which don't mention cancel culture and one mentions it in the sense that this is not it, seems indeed to meet the definition of tendentiuous. I think we can remove this and expect Stonkaments not to edit war any further, yes? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The added section wasn't worth preserving, but I'm certainly not opposed to any mention of Me Too at all. There are some interesting connections between Me Too and cancel culture. I like the Lili Loofbourow article on Slate which Stonkaments links:
Me Too did a lot: It ushered in overdue discussions about things like retaliation and consent, changed our default assumptions about how Hollywood should work, and showed a lot of survivors that they weren’t alone. But it also feels like it stalled out. At present, Me Too surfaces most frequently when a high-profile figure is publicly accused of misconduct in the hope that exposure might achieve effects that other more formal channels can’t or won’t. The backlash to this process came quickly, deploying the phrase “cancel culture” to condemn these informal alternatives as illiberal or worse. It seems reasonable to say, given the ongoing debates over censorious speech, that this backlash has now come for the Black Lives Matter movement.
(And also “Cancel culture” is less a description than a fundamentally elitist complaint, and I’m not the first to point out that the alarm seems a little disproportional ...)
From this perspective, Me Too is not an example of cancel culture. Instead, the phrase "cancel culture" is an example of the backlash against the Me Too movement. This is definitely not the kind of example Stonkaments' edit implied, but it could be an informative example if properly explained.
For contrast, the USA Today source sort of defends cancel culture. To cynically oversimplify, it's basically saying that society's response to sexual violence, specifically highlighted by Me Too and Woody Allen, is flawed and inadequate. Cancellation is one way to attempt to address this, and therefor is better than nothing, even if Allen hasn't actually been cancelled.
These connections could be explained, but it's not going to be easy, and it would have to be carefully contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
You people are unbelievable. I provided no less than six reliable sources showing the importance and relevance of the #MeToo movement to cancel culture, and am now being accused of cherry-picking, tendentious editing, and edit warring. From this and other recent discussions, it has become abundantly clear that you are unable to understand or tolerate views that conflict with your worldview–no matter how well-sourced they are–and will readily leap to bad faith assumptions and personal attacks in order to push your agenda. I feel sorry for you. I guess (naively) I thought Wikipedia would be above this type of small-minded and tribalistic behavior. Stonkaments (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
You chopped-up a sentence from a source to make it imply something it did not. This is cherry-picking at its most basic. Further, one of the three relevant sources you put in the article did not mention "cancel culture" at all, which is wp:synth. You are being asked not to do that again. Instead of implying that we are incapable of understanding you and are therefor out to get you, respond to the points we're raising.
As I said, Me Too is important, but we would need to summarize sources faithfully, not merely plop citations on the end of our own assumptions.Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell, I agree that MeToo is important, and concur that it has to be handled carefully. Let's fall back tot he example of Weinstein, the poster child for the movement. He's not been cancelled. He's been convicted. The two are different. Most of those swept up in MeToo were, objectively, guilty of bad acts, and a goodly number owned up and apologised. There are a few (mostly male) commentators who worried that believing women might lead to women making things up, but it's pretty clear from criminology and social literature that the problem is very much that women typically do not speak up about real assaults, rather than that they invent fake ones. The FBI is alleged to have ensured that Brett Kavanaugh's sexual history was not investigated in any meaningful way[15], and that is far more in line with the reality of rich and powerful men who commit sexual assault.
And that's the source of my discomfort: highlighting a few guys worrying about women being believed (surely not because they have done some shady shit in the past, we must assume it's a matter of principle), and using that to assert that the one time in recent history when the institutional tolerance for rape was challenged, was in fact an example do liberals oppressing the powerful.
I do recommend Farrow's Catch And Kill, which sets out in remarkable detail the lengths that rich men can and do go to in order to cover up and excuse sexual predation. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Examples

There are a lot of prominent examples of cancel culture that seem to be missing. Example:

  • French fries after the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" refused to sign on to the mess of lies and distortions behind the Gulf War.
  • The Dixie Chicks, who were cancelled in 2006 (Dixie Chicks controversy), which is one of the earliest examples I can find that meets the exact definition of cancellation for political viewpoint. This was also discussed in Taylor Swift's Miss America, which noted threats to her career and safety if she was open about her liberal politics.
  • Colin Kaepernick, the literal poster child for cancellation, and Nike, following their use fo Kaepernick in an advertisement in September 2018.
  • Ellen DeGeneres, whose show was cancelled, and Laura Dern, both of whom had trouble getting work after the conservative media outcry over Ellen coming out on her show.
  • The (admittedly failed) boycott of Target whgen they introduced trans-inclusive bathroom policies [16]
  • Boycotts of NASCAR after they banned Confederate flags following the Bubba Wallace incident[17]
  • That time when conservatives trashed the Keurig machines after the manufacturer pulled its advertising from Hannity because he gave a soft-ball interview to Roy Moore[18]
  • Kathy Griffin is still mainly out of work and fighting a load of zombie SLAPP suits by the right because she made that joke about beheading Trump.
  • Former president Trump tried to cancel all Muslims, Touré, Chris Matthews, Graydon Carter, Glenfiddich (because they gave an award to a Scottish farmer with whom he had a feud), Bill Maher, Rolling Stone magazine, New York magazine, a CNBC list of business leaders, a subeditor at The Oklahoman, Mexico, Jonah Goldberg, Univision, Macy's, Rich Lowry, Sopan Deb, Katy Tur, Apple, Karl Rove (because he is not right-wing enough?), the entire editorial board of the WSJ, Dallas Morning News, Arizona Republic, all footballers who take a knee, NBC (he even mooted cancelling their license), CNN, Harley Davidson, AT&T, Debra Messing, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, Twitter, Chuck Todd, and of course any State's votes that went against him in the election.
  • James Gunn, who was sacked (then reinstated) form the Guardians franchise after alt-right trolls mined his Twitter feed because he was mean about Ted Cruz[19]
  • Michelle Wolf, whose show was cancelled after a right-wing meltdown because she joked about Sarah Sanders lying.
  • Attempts by the GOP to censure prominent figures such as Senators Burr[20] and Cassidy[21], and Liz Cheney[22].

We only mention in passing some of the most effective examples of institutional cancel culture, most notably McCarthyism - how was Paul Robeson not cancelled?

This article falls, in large part, for the dishonest narrative that consequences of shitty actions are "cancel culture", but only when it's the left who are doing it. The right invented cancel culture. From the Salem witch trials to cessession to McCarthy to Jim Crow to Kitzmiller to all of the above and right up to today's attempts to prevent Black people from voting in Georgia, cancel culture is a thing the right absolutely does, but brands as something else unless it's a Nazi getting punched or something.

Examples should be restricted to those who have been meaningfully restricted in their activities (like DeGeneres, Griffin, Kaepernick et. al) due to public furore over political speech. If you publish a paper that's subsequently retracted because it doesn't meet the required standards, you haven't been cancelled. If a book publisher doesn't publish your book, but you can take it elsewhere, you haven't been cancelled. If you did something illegal or far outside the acceptable norms of society, you're not being cancelled (yes, Andrew Cuomo and Matt Gaetz, I am looking at you).

And above all, if you're on a dozen podcasts, thirty websites, and Fox News every other night, talking about how cancelled you are, then you are not cancelled. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, "cancel culture" was invented by Black Twitter.[23] To your broader point, I agree that the prominent examples should reflect both sides of the political debate. And it could be valuable context for the article to note how cancel culture fits in the broader political climate—the right seems to believe that "cancel culture" is very prevalent, concerning, and mainly a left-wing tactic, and the left seems to believe the right has greatly exaggerated the prevalence and the harm of "cancel culture".[24] Stonkaments (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Avoid this "both sides" false equivelence, please. We absolutely cannot presume that there are only two "sides", nor are Wikipedia editors qualified to determine which sides anything falls on, nor would it be neutral to assume that both arbitrarily drawn sides must be treated exactly the same. They are not the same, per sources.
As for Black Twitter, "Canceled" was a joke in Black culture for decades. “Cancel” and “woke” are the latest terms to originate in Black culture only to be appropriated into the White mainstream and subsequently thrashed to death.[25] So let's be honest about "both sides": With “canceled” and “woke,” there’s a twist: Not only have these words been appropriated from Black culture; they have been weaponized to sneer at the values of many young, Black liberals.[26] Both sides are not equivalent. We have no obligation to treat sneering, insincere use as equivalent based on a simplistic political ideology. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The OP mentioned left and right-wing, so that's simply what I was addressing. If there are more sides to the debate, by all means add those as well. Stonkaments (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said, it is a mistake to assume that any grouping of "sides" should be treated as equivalent. Sources do not treat these sides as equivalent, so neither can we. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell, true - and, specifically, sources do distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith argument. Most of the "examples" we see on this article are bad-faith (e.g. complaining about consequences of past sexual assault). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Something I've been meaning to say and probably should have said sooner: yes, we absolutely should include examples of right-wing cancel culture as well. Granted, we'll still need quality sources specifically calling it a term that this article is about (e.g. cancellation or call-out culture) in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. But that shouldn't be a problem for finding examples. Of course, we wouldn't want to tilt the POV too far the other way. Crossroads -talk- 03:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The most neutral approach might just be to say that the term has been weaponized by the right-wing, and doesn't have a single, coherent, definition. As explained by Meredith D. Clark, "The term has since devolved into journalistic shorthand wielded as a tool for silencing marginalized people who have adapted earlier resistance strategies for effectiveness in the digital space. (DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”) Simplistically attempting to include both sides would be a disservice to readers, since it would completely gloss-over the history of the term. The article itself demonstrates this, since it currently cites Jonathan Haidt as an impartial authority on the term. Haidt is founder of Heterodox Academy, which has a history of promoting right-wing speakers at colleges in opposition to what it views as "cancel-culture". The article has already picked a side, and it's not the side of the majority of reliable sources. "Both sides" might be an improvement, but it's not enough.
We have to make sure that examples are actually going to improve the article. If we start picking examples from "both sides", that's going to mean we need to include a lot of context for every single entry. Examples which don't help explain the concept are all bad example for an encyclopedia article, right? Why add any example if it doesn't explain the topic?
As I said above at #Discussion, any particular examples we give would have to be supported by sources as examples, and those source have to explain how this is cancellation. We've already seen many reliable sources which point out the term's vagueness and limitations. It's not going to be enough to merely mention that so-and-so was a victim of "cancel culture" according to whosit in a column for such-and-such daily news, because sources don't seem to agree on what the term actually means. It's too easy to cherry-pick, and also too easy to find sources which dispute any particular use of the term. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell, yes. the term has been weaponized by the right-wing, and doesn't have a single, coherent, definition is exactly right. That in and of itself mitigates against having any examples at all, because in the absence of a coherent definition, how can you have examples? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, well, that depends what you mean by tilting the POV. When you look at the history of using power and authority to cancel people, then the main victims have been Black Americans, women, the political left (e.g. Schenck and McCarthyism), trade unionists, Asian Americans, gay people (especially during the early Reagan years), trans people.
The one group that has never suffered any meaningful restriction to their power and influence is straight white Christian men. And yet virtually all the examples of "cancel culture" promoted by the right are about that group.
So there are actually two definitions of cancel culture. One is the actual cancellation of speech that challenges political power, and the other is reactionary complaints about loss of privilege. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Rather than arguing about examples ourselves, I would suggest looking for high-quality sources discussing these aspects. Part of the reason I'm extremely leery of "example" sections in general is that they can become extremely WP:SYNTHy. It's better to take a step back and use reliable secondary sources about the term rather than focusing on sources that use it, especially for fairly shouty culture-war neologisms like this one (which tend to rapidly devolve to the point where they're applied to anything the "other team" does or says.) Here is an interesting article on the term's etymology; here is a paper analyzing the claims made by the people who use the term, as well as who uses it and how. Here is a paper discussing the term's murky definition and what that means. The last one seems particularly relevant to what you were saying above - I would read over these papers (and others like them) and consider how to cover their perspective in more detail in the article. I think it might also be worth considering covering these in the lead - there's already a substantial criticism section, but currently the lead describes the term as fact, as if it describes an indisputably real cultural phenomenon; my reading of the sources (outside of the more shouty ones using it, so to speak) is that it's largely covered as a neologism and a term, not as a cultural phenomenon. Certainly the sourcing isn't one-sided enough to present it in the first few sentences as something definitely "real", so to speak; when you take a step back, this is essentially another pejorative culture-war neologism. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion, you will be unsurprised to learnt hat most of the examples I cite come form articles discussing the right's love of cancellation.
But I am happy to simply remove the examples, as it's virtually impossible to include any that are not going to either offend conservative editors or offend NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, based on your reply to me you seem to be coming at this from an angle where cancel culture is conflated with official, legalized persection of classes of people, and with an implicit view of 'the left can do no wrong'. There's a reason it's called cancel culture, and that it is described as happening to individuals, not classes. The world is complex; it's a not a simplistic Manichean struggle of good vs. evil. The idea that all "cancellations" by self-styled progressives are actually morally righteous is deeply POV and not supported by the sourcing in general. Here is one clear example of that: [27][28] These are by no means conservative outlets. Crossroads -talk- 21:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources themselves are conflating "cancel culture" with... pretty much anything they want for whatever reason they want. This is especially true of passing mentions in opinion sources and similar. Your definition of culture in this context is perfectly reasonable, but it's still OR. It presumes that there is an agreement on what is and is not part of this culture, but I have not seen any such agreement in sources. Most quality sources seem skeptical of concept, and several identify a level of hypocrisy in how it's used now versus how it was used when coined.
Neither of those sources about David Shor use the phrases "canceled" or "cancel culture", but even accepting that it's a valid example, how does that explain anything about the topic? Aquillion has it right, we need to look at high-quality sources about the topic, not examples we personally remember. Especially not if the most prominent sources don't even mention the term itself. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Both of those sources use "call in" or "calling out" and similar terms to describe the Shor case; as our article makes clear based on sources, these are other terms for the same phenomenon. So it is a usable example. As far as my definition of culture in this context being OR, it's no more OR than some of the other claims made on this page. My point there is one against OR - we need to at minimum stick to sources that specifically call a situation "cancel culture" or a verified synonym. Crossroads -talk- 02:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
And my point is that such sources would be less than the minimum. Such sources would be necessary, but not sufficient. If we find a hundred sources like those two which cite this as an example, we can find a hundred more which are forced to work twice as hard to explain why these are not a good example after all. We cannot accept weaker sources if we are also going to ignoring sources which dispute this, and at some point the whole thing stops being helpful to readers. If we include synonyms, we make the problem worse. "Call-out culture" redirects to online shaming, and we also have articles on many other closely related concepts, like Internet vigilantism, cyberbullying, and many more. If we get loose with definitions and start using synonyms, we open up all of these to arbitrary or loaded examples. It's very easy to describe something as "cancel culture" to emphasize a political point. Per sources, that's become the more common use of the phrase. Any examples we cite could be described by sources as examples of people using the phrase to proving a point or push a narrative, but probably not as examples of people being "canceled", because it's really not that simple. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note - "call-out culture" not redirecting here is from being out of date; I have fixed that. Crossroads -talk- 04:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
From the articles' histories, this change makes sense, but this article fails to properly support that these two terms are synonyms, it just sort of takes it for granted. That's very sloppy. The article should use a reliable source to directly explain how these terms are connected. Based on the article's own sources, this isn't as obvious as it superficially appears. In order to assume that these terms are verified synonyms, as you claim, we would have to look at who is doing the "verifying" and in what context. If sources say that "cancel culture" is just a pejorative name for "call-out culture", which the article implies, then we should probably also rename the article.
I've also noticed at least one relatively severe attribution issues, which I fixed by removing. It was cherry-picked and placed in such a way as to misrepresent the author's intentions. If these terms are treated as synonyms, they have to be treated fairly as synonyms. We can't just dance back and forth picking whichever term we want to prop-up whichever POV we agree with, as the article currently appears to do. This obviously also applies to any examples. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, no, my angle is different. The term "cancel culture" as used on Fox News refers to that tiny subset of cancellations where the infraction is of a kind the far right likes. In practice, cancellation is a thing that is largely done at an institutional level and primarily by the right. When Black Twitter talks about cancellation, they mean systematic exclusion from housing, jobs, voting and the rest. When Fox News talks about it, they mean Karens being called out for calling the police on a Black man. Or the Seuss estate deciding not to publish racist cartoons any more.
The problem is not one of different things (systematic oppression versus some nebulous thing called cancel culture), it's the transparent bad faith of the right in its use of the term cancel culture as a magic talisman to confer spurious legitimacy racism, sexism and lies, and to portray bigots and liars as brave maverick truth-tellers oppressed by the liberal elite rather than just assholes we'd rather not hear from if it's all the same to you. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That sloppiness in noting the connection of the terms should of course be fixed and will be in time. For what it's worth, I've not seen it be stated that one term is more pejorative than the other. It seems to me that "call-out" used to be the more common term, but "cancel" has now largely supplanted it. Crossroads -talk- 06:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "cancel" has supplanted "call-out". If so, that makes it especially important that we don't take it for granted that they are synonyms. Per the article, The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship" Vagueness aside, this doesn't necessarily mean that "call-out culture" has the same connotations. If we're saying one term is negative with no follow up, we're implying that the entire concept is viewed negatively. Maybe. So who is viewing it negatively? Some reliable sources, especially about call-out culture, regard it as a reasonable or necessary response to a perceived problem. After all, nobody is saying people should be forced against their will to watch Roseanne. Likewise, nobody should be forced into silence about an issue, and some sources recognize this complexity. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Shunned for apostasy—Murkowski cancelled by GOP, no longer allowed to identify as a Republican" (disclaimer: "headline spin" is mine).[29] But example and humor aside, I failed to find a non-blog source calling this cancellation. —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Another example of censure culture run amok. Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding examples section

Hi all, as it stands the examples section contains two random and not particularly notable examples of cancellation, some charity guy Nick Buckley and a totally obscure blogger from New Zealand called Olivia Pierson. I think these should be replaced with notable and widely reported examples of cancelled public figures. As per WP:EXAMPLEFARM "at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice." So who? What do other editors think, who are the most notable examples? Which notable cancellations should we include as examples?

Cheers. Bacondrum 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • A, C and maybe D - Their own articles discuss their "cancellation" (seems like a good benchmark for inclusion), and these "cancellations" were widely reported, they stand out as notable examples to me - high profile celebrities, discussed widely in the media regarding "cancel culture" specifically. Dave Chappelle and Rosanne were particularly notable cases that received widespread media coverage. Bacondrum 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A, E and maybe F= Gina Carano, Bret Weinstein, Erika Christakis, Greg Patton USC professor. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • F - I think we need to be more well rounded with the type of people being listed, as this is definitely not-neutral by ignoring conservative cancel culture in its entirety. The Chicks (Dixie Chicks), Phil Donahue, Colin Kaepernick, Jocelyn Elders are some examples, but there are plenty more.Shadybabs (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • F meaning none. Any examples are likely to be arbitrary. If sources discuss specific examples as examples, and explain why they are examples, we could summarize accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The current list is already so biased it needs a POV tag. With how loosely defined cancel culture is, the examples section will just end up a either a bloated mess where everybody whose claimed to be cancelled ends up, or a battleground in the talk section where everybody just gets caught up in why specific people should or should not be included in this section. I think the best move is to remove this section from this article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This list is woefully incomplete. The Chicks, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick and many more are conspicuous by their absence, while the very obviously not cancelled Dave Chapelle is included. Rowling also is not cancelled, merely called-out, and Louis CK isn't so much cancelled as a pariah, due to history of sexual abuse. We don'd say that Bill Cosby is cancelled, we say he's a rapist. As you know, it's not cancel culture unless it comes from the Cancelle region of France - otherwise it's just sparkling consequences. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I have removed the two examples because the sources did not support that they were examples of "cancel culture". I'm not sure that an examples section is needed as it could attract the kind of cherry picking this article saw when originally created (apparently to denounce "cancel culture" on Wikipedia, basically a rehashed "cry censorship" article). —PaleoNeonate – 04:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't game to try and remove them, but they were random and undue to say the least. I'd support removing the section all together, but again I'm not game to be the one who does it. Bacondrum 06:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I think a few prominent examples is helpful to illustrate the concept and provide important context about the debate/controversy in modern society, mainstream news, etc. In my recent addition I tried to choose examples that received a lot of coverage and were representative of different aspects of the controversy in some way—James Damore, #MeToo, Amy Cooper, and Donald McNeil. I think these examples are more relevant and noteworthy than just a list of celebrities, because they all generated widespread discussion of different aspects of cancel culture (in the workplace, in Hollywood, on social media, etc.) that transcended the specifics of the incidents themselves.
This discussion also got me thinking, would it be worthwhile to start a separate article with a more exhaustive list of instances of "cancel culture"? I think that could be helpful and informative, and if nothing else it would hopefully limit the kind of cherry picking and contentious editing mentioned above—if someone feels that an example deserves mention, a separate list article could accommodate them. Stonkaments (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Finding sources for such a list would be difficult, and it would be a high-maintenance article with a lot of WP:BLP issues. One part of the problem is that the term is broad and has a loose definition.
Using proposed or current examples, being canceled means:
  • Being fired from a job for public statements. (Damore, Barr, etc.)
  • Being fired after being arrested for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. (Cooper, Harvey Weinstein)
  • Being criticized, with minimal professional consequences. (Rowling, Degeneres)
  • Quitting a job, being paid a handsome settlement, and becoming more prominent then before. (Bret Weinstein)
  • Being part of a nebulous group accused of sexual assault or harassment. (#MeToo)
  • "...multiple participants [teenagers] accused McNeil of repeatedly making racist and sexist remarks"
  • Remaining wildly popular, successful, and professionally respected, despite having been criticized? (Chapelle)
  • Having to take a hiatus from stand-up after repeatedly being accused of sexual misconduct (C.K.)
I'm having a hard time seeing the common thread. Any examples would have to explain how this is cancellation. Presumably this would focus on things like harassment and cyberharassment, or some other consequence of this beyond tautologically saying they were "canceled". Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
So to avoid OR, aren't we forced to say in each case which neutral reliable source described it cancellation? We also need a measure of significance: here in the UK for example the Conservative government has just appointed a "free speech czar" (aka Thought Police) to ensure that Universities are not allowing the "tsunami of woke intolerance": Number of invited speakers in 2019? > 20,000. Number of cancellations for any reason? < 10. (from memory, certainly no more than a rounding error). So obviously selective invitations at play. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all over the place. Attribution would be better than nothing, but it still doesn't explain what "canceled" actually means, making all of these very poor as examples. If listing examples doesn't help explain the concept, why bother? Listing them anyway looks like a veiled attempt to highlight a specific cause. Any attempt to provide a frame of reference or significance makes the whole thing crumble even more. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.

— Humpty Dumpty, Alice in Wonderland
Do you seriously expect a rational, logical, taxonomy? The whole thing is trumped-up trivia for the right-wing media to excite themselves about and then for left-wing media to over-react to. Seriously, does this phenomenon merit an article longer than one paragraph? Yes, it is notable but it is very content-free. All of the examples above would fail wp:trivia compared to the cases of Alexei Navalny, the Causeway Bay Books disappearances, the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, any number of cases on the Amnesty International list, as well as the examples I mention below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Do I seriously expect...? No. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The common thread is the intent. Cancelling means a culture of doing whatever you can (whilst imposing minimal cost on yourself) to ruin a person's career and inhibit their ability to speak publicly. The reason one person is fired (e.g. Damore, Barr), another has minimal consequences for her career (e.g. Rowling, Degeneres) and another becomes more successful (eg. Bret Weinstein) is partly because of their different actions (how serious their transgression is - why DeGeneres survived) but more importantly because of their different situations. It was much easier to 'fire' Damore than JK Rowling. If she had worked for Google, people would have demanded her sacking, and it is likely they would have got it. The cancellers wanted Brett Weinstein fired, but did not succeed (though he did go through hell and resign). The fact he used it as a springboard is neither here nor there as that was not their intent. Malala got famous by being shot in the head. Nelson Mandela got more famous after being imprisoned. Neither facts undermine the moral wrong of their persecutors. LastDodo (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard this before, but I don't buy it. Among many other problems, it comes right back around to being tautological. It's claiming that the "victims" of cancel culture are those who are targeted by "cancellers". So then who are the cancellers? Why, a canceller is someone who perpetrates cancel culture. When looked-at critically the concept is pretty inane. I suspect that's a feature not a bug.
More importantly, it's not up to editors to find the common thread, it needs to be made by reliable sources. Especially for examples, it needs to be consistently cited as an example, at least in some way, otherwise it's necessarily going to be arbitrary. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you are the one that said you don't see the common thread, I was just trying to clear it up. Let me try again. Cancel culture is the newly popular 'culture' of attempting to get someone fired/silenced/no longer hired/etc as a result of something they have said or done. The victims are people who have been targetted by such attempts. No tautology there.LastDodo (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Your definition doesn't fit the list of examples. Not all of those people were fired or silenced, nor were all of them "victims" in simple terms, nor were they "targeted" in simple terms. Also, saying it's "newly popular" is a stretch. People have faced consequence for the things they say or do for all of human history. If you know of a reliable source that explains a common thread, please present it, but as I said, WP:OR is not helpful. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not all the examples necessarily should be included. As to your 'newly comment', it is the popular part that is new. I'm sure you'd agree that if there was a sudden increase in assassinations or lynchings, it would not be unreasonable to give a name to these new phenomena even though they are not new. I do find it a stretch that you cannot see a recent change here in the number of people who have suffered attempts to silence or ruin their career, and what it takes to be the subject of such an attempt. I don't follow this as closely as many, but Gina Carano would be the most recent example, who lost her role in The Mandalorian and was dropped by her talent agency after some controversial tweets. There will be another along soon no doubt. If you think there is nothing new here, presumably you differ from me in this prediction. LastDodo (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Perspective

I don't know where or how it fits in so putting this here in the hope that someone does: a wider perspective is needed. Your speech doesn't get more cancelled than by a KKK lynch mob or an assassin's bullet (as per Martin Luther King Jr). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

fix typo: canceled to cancelled Vikkvakk (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Both are acceptable spellings.[30] Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cancel culture is prevalent everywhere - not just America

Why is this page full of American references and reactions only? Can this be written with the context of the entire world? After all, Wikipedia is an international compendium. I came here to write an essay on how 'cancel culture' affects free speech and culture. And here all I find is, 'America'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.163.192 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, agreed, I've added a maintenance template. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The article can only be updated with reliable sources. Per sources, the concept originated in American communities.
Free speech is certainly a universal issue that can effect any culture, but this article is specifically about "cancel culture", not free speech in general. With that in mind, what are some examples of reliable sources discussing cancel culture as an issue in other places or cultures? Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A cursory google search of "cancel culture united kingdom" shows ample examples/discussion of the concept, and it seems this article did previously have UK examples (e.g. J.K. Rowling) but no longer does. I'm not invested in the article enough to scroll through all of the existing consensus and advocate for the inclusion of anything specific. In the criticism section though, sources 49-51 are actually discussing cancel culture outside the US. I could dig for more, but it's plainly obvious that debates about cancel culture do not just happen in the US.
As a side note since I'm just looking at it now, how is David Olusoga saying that cancel culture does exist, but as both a left and right wing phenomenon an example of criticism of the concept? It seems like saying Unlike some on the left, I have never doubted that “cancel culture” exists is bluntly the opposite of criticism of the concept. Doesn't seem to make much sense. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Per my comments above, I am not looking for examples of cancel culture, and could think of many if needed. I am hoping to see examples of reliable sources discussing cancel culture, specifically outside the US. I suspect that if any reliable sources discuss non-American examples in any depth, they will mention the term's US origin, but maybe not.
As for criticism, it's not hard to acknowledge something exists while also criticizing it. Still, TBH, there is a lot in the article that doesn't make much sense. Part of the problem has been the sock farm which wrote the article and set the tone. There is a relatively large quantity of reliable sources which criticize the concept in various ways, but in order to cite any of them fairly, we would first have to neutrally explain what "cancel culture" actually is. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said, sources 49-51 do already discuss cancel culture outside of the US, but in a more critical context (hence the section heading). For instance, the already included Guardian article [31] doesn't mention the US, just talks about the UK context. Here's another: "What is cancel culture?" from The Week. Regarding the origins of the term, it says Vox traces the phrase back to a quote in the 1991 film New Jack City, in which Wesley Snipes’s character dumps his girlfriend, saying “Cancel that bitch. I’ll buy another one.”... It spread on Twitter and soon evolved into a disparaging response to celebrities (though it's really just quoting this Vox piece). Here's another, from The Times: "How is cancel culture affecting UK universities?", again not talking about this as US phenomenon and instead discussing it purely in the context of the UK. It seems people will even go as far as to accuse Xi Jinping of engaging in "cancel culture", which is... strange. To be clear, I really haven't looked very hard, and I'm not suggesting these are the best sources one can find and the ones material in the article should be based off.
Regarding the criticism section, the quotes are I guess criticism of certain people's perception or understanding of what they view cancel culture to entail, but it's really odd quote two people both saying "of course cancel culture is not just a left wing thing like all of those people say", despite having never introduced that as a concept earlier in the article. What people think that? Is that viewpoint fringe or is it the majority/common understanding of the phenomenon? Who exactly are sources 49 and 50 criticizing? Honestly this article is just really bad to be blunt. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I am looking for sources which discuss the concept in a way that will address the problem. The issue here is that if we do not have some way to address the issue, the template lingers as a "badge of shame" without any actionable way to fix it. Since arbitrarily including any specific examples would be controversial for a few reasons, we need sources about the concept itself.
Olusoga's column is interesting as an opinion piece, and may be usable with attribution, but it only mentions "cancel culture" in one paragraph, in quotation marks, and specifically to challenge a "myth" about it. This quote is already cited, so doesn't it already address the issue by including a non-American perspective? If not, how would this source be used to fix this issue?
The Week source is, as you say, quoting an American site. It attributes the concept to an American songwriter, an American film, an American reality TV show, and an American rapper. How would this source be used to fix this issue?
The Times article is behind a paywall. How does it discuss the concept?
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is almost certainly offering a right-wing American perspective. Again, it's behind a paywall, so if this discusses the concept in a way that could address the issue, please explain how.
To put it another way, if a reliable source discusses how it is used outside of the US, we can summarize accordingly. Similarly, if sources from other countries discuss the concept in general, we can, and should, summarize them as appropriate. If there is a conflict between how different countries define the concept, we can address that, but we cannot assume that this conflict exits. Does that make sense? Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Volteer1, Rowling has not been cancelled. Criticised, yes, because she echoed TERF talking points, but she's not in any way cancelled.
But you are correct that the right everywhere seeks to portray any failure to promote bigotry as "cancel culture", while trying their damndest to cancel anything they don't like (including entire religions and gender communities). Guy (help! - typo?) 19:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't asserting that, I (I think incorrectly, skimming over the page history?) thought this used to be a listed example in this article. It's not a matter I really care enough about to have much of an opinion on. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
seeks to portray any failure to promote bigotry as 'cancel culture' a common related term for this is persecution complex, in case some sources also mention it, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancel_culture/Archive_2&oldid=1025372592"