Jumping to Conclusions and Group Think

I have mixed feelings about cancel culture. I don't love the idea of someone's lively hood being ruined because of the internet. However, I do believe that if you're going to say, post, or do something offensive, you need to accept the consequences that follow. Unfortunately, the term "cancelled" has become a catchall for the actually offensive to slightly unsavory. Another problematic aspect of "cancel culture" has to do with the standards used to cancel people, and how they seem to change depending on the target. As a society, we’re experiencing history defining division in our opinions. This is playing out parallel to how we approach cancel culture and who gets the ax.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely cases where people 100% need to be cancelled; sexual predators, proud racists in positions of power, you get it. But the world is not nearly black and white enough to draw hard lines. And the echo chamber created by our Twitter and Instagram feeds exemplifies our group think tendencies. It's understandable to have an emotional reaction when someone says or does something reprehensible. But leading the conversation this way can end up shutting it down much quicker. Especially in situations rooted in ignorance rather than malice. When people feel threatened, they tend to double down on their feelings, and for those of us trying to explain why something is hurtful, we can come across as "sensitive" or "overreacting," stopping any progress in its tracks.

The real problem with cancel culture lies in its lack of resolution. We are quick to judge and jump to conclusions, even if rightfully so. But in dong this, we stop any progression of conversation or understanding. When we cancel people because of different opinions or refuse to hear their side of the argument, are we really any better? Acting as a morally woke authority can lead to more serious forms of censoring when we simply don't agree. How can we grow and learn if we live in a continual bubble of our own thoughts and opinions? I'm not at all saying we should stop calling others out for gross decisions, but we need to shift the blame to the action rather than the person. Which brings me to my next point, the issue of "cancelling" sticking. The more we cancel people, the less it means and the less it's likely to stick and make a difference. If we're constantly cancelling people for minor infractions, how can we differentiate the real threats? Again, this is a thin line. There are differences between using slurs verse being misinformed. In situations of ignorance, it's more productive to explain why something is offensive instead of jumping straight into calling someone a horrible person.

The irony in remaining calm when calling out bad behavior instead of acting emotionally, and the unfairness that tends to weigh on those is not lost on me. I know we're all looking for a simple "Guidelines to Cancelling!" but like most things in this world, there is no simple guide. And as much as I hate to say each offense needs to be judged on a case by case basis, it really does. At the end of the day, we all need to listen more. I'm also guilty of living in my bubble of beliefs and reacting with anger first. And to be honest, I'm in no place to tell people how to react or handle their emotions. But if we're going to grow and get to a place where cancel culture can be effective, we need to take a step back and look at our own biases and hypocrisies.