The term “cancel culture” is used most frequently by conservative politicians, right‑leaning media, and public figures who feel targeted by social backlash. These groups frame it as censorship driven by progressive social norms. Some centrist or classical‑liberal writers also use the term to argue that public discourse has become overly punitive. In contrast, marginalized groups and progressive activists rarely use the phrase, viewing social consequences as accountability rather than suppression. Overall, the term is most common among groups who perceive a loss of cultural authority or feel their traditional viewpoints are being challenged.
Whichever way you phrase it, the use of social consequences to force others to conform to your own worldview/social norms is a thing. Calling it “accountability” when done by one set of people and “bullying” when done by another (such as in the OP, for example) is just a way to say it’s fine and dandy to do it against the “wrong” things, but not against the “right” ones.
Traditional viewpoints have to be challenged.
But progressive ones don’t?
But why does a teenage boy need to be held accountable for wearing a dress to his prom? "Accountability" suggests wrongdoing. Nobody has been harmed by someone wearing a dress.
The way you switch from “wrongdoing” to “harm” reveals your underlying assumption. Not everybody agrees with that assumption. Why should “wrongdoing” only mean “causing harm”? More to the point in the context of this thread, what right do you have to insist that your underlying assumptions should define the parameters of the whole discussion?
In the terms of the OP, you’re claiming to believe that all shapes and sizes of pegs should be able to fit into the “society” hole, but you’re deliberately shaping that hole to exclude any pegs that you don’t like.
I'm confused. Why would wrongdoing mean something that doesn't cause any harm? Why would something harmless be included in wrongdoing? I'm not being facetious, I'm sincerely confused as to how something harmless could be considered to be wrongdoing in the first place. To me wrongdoing and causing harm are synonymous with each other on an ontological level; I would consider "wrongdoing" to mean something inherently wrong, not just something that you disagree with or personally dislike.
An Islamic or Jewish society would likely consider one of their members eating a bacon sandwich and encouraging others to do the same to have committed a wrongdoing, even though it causes no harm to anyone else. Do you think their social norms are wrong and that they should instead say that anyone can eat anything they want without suffering any social or religious consequences?
Or what about public nudity? It harms nobody (other than by making them look at something to which they might take offence) - should it be allowed?
Flying a flag doesn’t hurt anyone (again, unless the flag is something they might take offence at), but there’s been a lot of talk over the last few months about it being wrong in at least some cases (or some flags).
There are plenty of other examples of social norms that deem things wrong even though they harm nobody.
Someone who disapproves of eating pork so much that they think it should earn a punishment doesn't believe that "it causes no harm to anyone else". It's very common for observant Muslims and Jewish people (particularly in Muslim and Jewish majority areas) to believe that pork is actively bad for you, to varying degrees. Non-pork bacon is super common in Muslim and Jewish areas, so there would be no problem with a bacon sandwich made with that - the issue is with the pork, not the dish of a bacon sandwich. To be clear, I don't believe that anyone should be punished for eating a (pork) bacon sandwich, but accusing Jewish and Muslim people of essentially having cognitive dissonance over the effects of eating pork is a bit weird imo.
I do think that public nudity should be legal, and indeed many major US cities have specific laws legalising public nudity on the basis of equality and personal expression. I don't believe it should be illegal to simply be existing in your own body. Nude bodies are just bodies and not harmful.
Flying a particular flag in order to eg racially harass somebody is clearly causing harm.
Intimidation is a form of harm, which covers some instances of public nudity (particularly flashing) and most instances of hanging flags from lampposts.
Yes, I should say that although I believe in legalising public nudity it doesn't apply to things like flashing which are intended to harm others.
I agree it’s not a perfect model, and situational ethics are a thing - but what you account as wrongdoing, and as harm, depend fundamentally on the premises you are operating from and it is very possible to talk past each other if there is no consensus in the discourse.
It doesn’t help when some people assert that their premises are inherently “higher” than others, either.
Someone who disapproves of eating pork so much that they think it should earn a punishment doesn't believe that "it causes no harm to anyone else". It's very common for observant Muslims and Jewish people (particularly in Muslim and Jewish majority areas) to believe that pork is actively bad for you, to varying degrees.
It would still only be bad for the one eating it though.
Besides, if it’s ok for them to be against pork because they believe it’s harmful (especially if they believe it’s harmful in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one) then why isn’t it ok for someone else to be against other things they believe are harmful?
To be clear, I don't believe that anyone should be punished for eating a (pork) bacon sandwich, but accusing Jewish and Muslim people of essentially having cognitive dissonance over the effects of eating pork is a bit weird imo.
Who said anything about them having cognitive dissonance? I was giving examples of non-harmful things that can nevertheless be considered wrong according to the social norms of certain societies or cultures.
Someone who disapproves of eating pork so much that they think it should earn a punishment doesn't believe that "it causes no harm to anyone else". It's very common for observant Muslims and Jewish people (particularly in Muslim and Jewish majority areas) to believe that pork is actively bad for you, to varying degrees.
It would still only be bad for the one eating it though.
Besides, if it’s ok for them to be against pork because they believe it’s harmful (especially if they believe it’s harmful in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one) then why isn’t it ok for someone else to be against other things they believe are harmful?
To be clear, I don't believe that anyone should be punished for eating a (pork) bacon sandwich, but accusing Jewish and Muslim people of essentially having cognitive dissonance over the effects of eating pork is a bit weird imo.
Who said anything about them having cognitive dissonance? I was giving examples of non-harmful things that can nevertheless be considered wrong according to the social norms of certain societies or cultures.
I said that it's fine for Muslims or Jewish people to be against eating pork, but I also said that nobody should be punished for eating pork. In the original example of the boy wearing a prom dress, the comments in question involved advocating punishing the boy for doing this. That's the problem, not somebody not personally wanting to wear a dress.
I brought up cognitive dissonance because it seemed like you were suggesting that Muslims and Jewish people know that eating pork isn't harmful but oppose it anyway - apologies if you weren't trying to suggest that.
Comments
Someone who disapproves of eating pork so much that they think it should earn a punishment doesn't believe that "it causes no harm to anyone else". It's very common for observant Muslims and Jewish people (particularly in Muslim and Jewish majority areas) to believe that pork is actively bad for you, to varying degrees. Non-pork bacon is super common in Muslim and Jewish areas, so there would be no problem with a bacon sandwich made with that - the issue is with the pork, not the dish of a bacon sandwich. To be clear, I don't believe that anyone should be punished for eating a (pork) bacon sandwich, but accusing Jewish and Muslim people of essentially having cognitive dissonance over the effects of eating pork is a bit weird imo.
I do think that public nudity should be legal, and indeed many major US cities have specific laws legalising public nudity on the basis of equality and personal expression. I don't believe it should be illegal to simply be existing in your own body. Nude bodies are just bodies and not harmful.
Flying a particular flag in order to eg racially harass somebody is clearly causing harm.
Yes, I should say that although I believe in legalising public nudity it doesn't apply to things like flashing which are intended to harm others.
"Were" is also not "are", is it?
You said that there ARE threats to civil liberties from the left, suggesting something current and ongoing.
Show me anyone in, say, the parliament (or equivalent) of any western democracy advocating Stalinism then we'll talk.
It doesn’t help when some people assert that their premises are inherently “higher” than others, either.
It would still only be bad for the one eating it though.
Besides, if it’s ok for them to be against pork because they believe it’s harmful (especially if they believe it’s harmful in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one) then why isn’t it ok for someone else to be against other things they believe are harmful?
Who said anything about them having cognitive dissonance? I was giving examples of non-harmful things that can nevertheless be considered wrong according to the social norms of certain societies or cultures.
I said that it's fine for Muslims or Jewish people to be against eating pork, but I also said that nobody should be punished for eating pork. In the original example of the boy wearing a prom dress, the comments in question involved advocating punishing the boy for doing this. That's the problem, not somebody not personally wanting to wear a dress.
I brought up cognitive dissonance because it seemed like you were suggesting that Muslims and Jewish people know that eating pork isn't harmful but oppose it anyway - apologies if you weren't trying to suggest that.