Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking about this ongoing debate on free speech and cancel culture and I’ve reached some conclusions.
First, there is no fixed, shared definition for cancel culture. Individuals and groups prioritize different types of speech, so they view criticism, social pressure, and boycotts differently depending on the speech at issue.
This Parker Malloy thread does a good job of illustrating the lack of fixed definition for cancel culture. She also makes the point that the vagueness of terms like cancel culture and political correctness obscure legitimate criticisms of certain actions with regard to speech. https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1286041948353175559">https://twitter.com/ParkerMol...
Molloy thinks it would be better to avoid the labeling particular speech or acts as cancel culture and instead just state specific objections to those speech or acts. I completely agree. https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1286054791219740672">https://twitter.com/ParkerMol...
Second, lamenting the prevalence of cancel culture or political correctness when you or your ideas are criticized is just a version of motte-and-bailey fallacy.
The motte-and-bailey fallacy is where the arguer advances a controversial position (the bailey), but when challenged, the arguer retreats to a more modest position that is easier to defend (the motte).
This seems to be the modus operandi of a number of people that hold controversial views.
They advance controversial and offensive positions on certain issues (the bailey) and when they predictable get pushback, they resort to complaints of cancel culture and political correctness run amok (the motte) rather than defending their controversial ideas.
This move appears to be an implicit acknowledgement of the fundamental weakness of their positions and just how unpalatable their ideas are.
If these people had persuasive arguments for their controversial positions, then they would just make those arguments and attempt to persuade others that their ideas were actually good.
People that argue that criticism of their ideas is an attack on free speech are essentially doing two things at the same time.
They are attempting to bolster the credibility of their controversial ideas by equating their ideas to the very concept of the free exchange of ideas, while simultaneously denying that criticism of their ideas is a legitimate part of the free exchange of ideas.
It’s free speech for me, but not for thee.
I’ll add to more to this thread later, but now I must sleep.
Okay, I’m finally getting around to finishing this thread (I hope). I remember having three points when I started this, but don’t recall if this one is the one that I originally wanted to make.
Third, the criticism of speech, the call for consequences for controversial speech, and the decision to impose or not impose those consequences are all speech.
Speech, counter speech, praise, criticism, platforming, and de-platforming are all speech. The marketplace of ideas is messy, messy place and all speech and actions are subject to subsequent speech and actions.
Most people in these debates seem to grasp that criticism and counter speech are equally valid forms of speech, but fail to see that the decision to impose or not impose particular consequences on speech as speech in its own right. This is the part that I want to zero in on.
Hiring someone to write for your publication or just deciding to publish a piece is itself is a form of speech. It tells the public that you value this person’s thoughts and ideas in some way.
Similarly, the decision to fire someone or not publish a piece is itself speech. It tells the public that you do not value this person’s thoughts or ideas enough to include them in your publication.