The ethics of cancel culture are murky.
Some people think cancel culture is a righteous tool that punishes deserving individuals. Others think cancel culture is too heavy-handed. It has no place in modern society because it does not discriminate between minor offenses and severe crimes.
You also have those who argue that cancel culture does not exist. Cancel culture refers to a scenario where the public essentially exiles a celebrity, stripping them of their ability to earn a living.
I emphasize the ‘Celebrity’ part because cancel culture is only effective against individuals who make money by leveraging their popularity. For instance, musicians thrive by selling music to the public and performing at events.
Therefore, record labels and agents are more likely to drop them if the public rejects them, because they don’t want the bad press or guilt that comes with associating with a canceled celebrity. You have probably heard of artistes who canceled concerts because they said the wrong thing in an interview and the concert venue refused to host them.
Opponents of cancel culture argue that a loud minority on social media holds too much power. They wield cancel culture like an axe, cutting down any celebrated figure who strays from the ‘Acceptable Path.’
Fortunately, cancel culture is starting to lose its edge. The internet is no longer willing to follow such trends. They will support whomever they want. But this is where the confusion arises.
Even opponents of cancel culture agree that cancel culture can be a force for good. It allows the masses to punish individuals who have escaped the long arm of the law. A prominent example is Jeepers Creepers 3 from 2017, which many fans of the franchise avoided partly because the director (Victor Salva) was convicted of sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy.
Some people hailed cancel culture for ostracizing Salva and preventing his film from succeeding at the box office. But Salva’s case was relatively straightforward (although a few voices argued that Salva had served his time and deserved a second chance).
How are we, as consumers, expected to respond to scenarios that are not nearly as cut and dry? Consider the Daniel Greene/Naomi King case that dominated online fantasy fiction spaces a week ago. Greene is a YouTuber and one of the biggest fantasy fiction book reviewers in the business.
His reputation took a beating when Naomi King accused him of sexual assault. People turned on the YouTuber at an alarming rate, making the two arguments that arise whenever a sexual assault accusation is made.
One, no woman would make a false sexual assault accusation because it opens them up to unfair criticism and abuse, essentially ruining their lives. Two, Naomi displayed too much distress and anguish in her video for her claims to be false.
In the wake of Naomi’s accusations, popular booktubers released videos condemning Greene and proclaiming their support for Naomi. Days later, those same book tubers fell from grace when two developments occurred.
First, Greene released evidence proving that Naomi lied about her claims. Secondly, Naomi published a video recanting her claims and apologizing to Greene for the torment she caused.
The booktubers who attacked Greene began losing subscribers because they had turned against him so quickly. Subscribers who condemned Greene without waiting to hear his side of the story also faced backlash. Avoid making judgments and pronouncements based on one-sided narratives.
People defended Neil Gaiman when his accusers first stepped out from the shadows. Guess what? The Gaiman allegations have persisted. Rushing to attack or defend people we don’t know based on allegations from individuals we also don’t know is ill-advised.
katmic200@gmail.com
