# data[].attributes.body
Heather Du Plessis-Allan: Trump, the election and cancel culture
https://nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12379832

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Zealand| Politics

If you find yourself surprised that Donald Trump increased his support this election and you'd like to understand why this man appeals to so many voters, take a look at the case of Hopper's Bar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heather Du Plessis-Allan: Trump, the election and cancel culture - NZ Herald

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Zealand| Politics If you find yourself surprised that Donald Trump increased his support this election and you'd like to understand why this man appeals to so many voters, take a look at the case of Hopper's Bar

# data[].attributes.headline
Defining Cancel Culture - University Media and Culture Scholar - Balanced Perspectives Explored

# data[].attributes.subject
Defining Cancel Culture - University Media and Culture Scholar - Balanced Perspectives Explored

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bisnMOujqFs

# data[].attributes.headline
RNZ - NZ - AUT Professor Defends 'Call Out Culture'

# data[].attributes.subject
RNZ - NZ - AUT Professor Defends 'Call Out Culture'

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/2018754735/the-need-for-call-out-culture-academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Panel discusses 'Cancel Culture' or 'Call out culture' with Khylee Quince, Associate Professor, Director of Maori and Pacific Advancement at Auckland University of Technology.

See terms of use.

Recent stories from The Panel

Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The need for 'call out culture' - academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Panel discusses 'Cancel Culture' or 'Call out culture' with Khylee Quince, Associate Professor, Director of Maori and Pacific Advancement at Auckland University of Technology. See terms of use. Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.headline
Backlash from high Profile People in the Art and Academic World

# data[].attributes.subject
Backlash from high Profile People in the Art and Academic World

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53330105

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture.

They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty".

Cancel culture refers to online shaming of individuals who cause offence.

"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," says the letter.

US intellectual Noam Chomsky, eminent feminist Gloria Steinem, Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov and author Malcolm Gladwell also put their names to the letter, which was published on Tuesday in Harper's Magazine.

The appearance of Harry Potter author Rowling's name among signatories comes after she recently found herself under attack online for comments that offended transgender people.

Her fellow British writer, Martin Amis, also signed the letter.

What unites young people against Obama and Trump

It also says: "We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought."

The letter condemns "disproportionate punishments" meted out to targets of cancel culture by institutional leaders conducting "panicked damage control".

It continues: "Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."

It was signed by New York Times op-ed contributors David Brooks and Bari Weiss. The newspaper's editorial page editor was recently removed amid uproar after publishing an opinion piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton.

The letter goes on to say that cancel culture has spread fear through arts and media.

"We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement," it says.

Racism and statues: How the toxic legacy of empire still affects us

The stories behind the statues targeted in protests

It adds: "We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences."

One signatory - Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of liberal news analysis website Vox - was rebuked by a colleague on Tuesday for putting his name to the letter.

Vox critic at large Emily VanDerWerff, a trans woman, tweeted that she had written a letter to the publication's editors to say that Yglesias signing the letter "makes me feel less safe at Vox".

But VanDerWerff said she did not want Yglesias to be fired or apologise because it would only convince him he was being "martyred".

One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.

Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.

"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."

She added: "I am so sorry."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
JK Rowling joins authors decrying 'cancel culture'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture. They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Satire - Mob Mentality and Cancel Culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Satire - Mob Mentality and Cancel Culture

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSt9CWAgdJg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Cancel Culture Looked Like in the Middle Ages | NYT Opinion

# data[].attributes.headline
Cancel Culture and Social Justice - University Lecture Experience USA

# data[].attributes.subject
Cancel Culture and Social Justice - University Lecture Experience USA

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHcqTu73BQ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"What Do You Know About Cancel Culture & Social Justice Warriors?" #Soc119

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2020/07/ricky-gervais-says-cancel-culture-means-the-office-wouldn-t-get-made-today.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Now it would suffer because people would take things literally," the funnyman tells Britain's Times Radio.

"There are these outrage mobs who take things out of context.

"This was a show about everything - it was about difference, it was about sex, race, all the things that people fear to even be discussed or talked about now, in case they say the wrong thing and they are cancelled."

In fact, he doubts he would even be given the chance to make the comedy in today's climate, as BBC chiefs wouldn't have the courage to air it.

"The BBC have got more and more careful, people want to keep their jobs, so would worry about some of the subjects and jokes, even though they were clearly ironic and we were laughing at this buffoon being uncomfortable around difference. I think if this was put out now, some people have lost their sense of irony and context," he muses.

Gervais has himself come under fire in recent years for his close-to-the-bone sense of humour on social media - but says he can justify every joke he makes.

"I genuinely think I don't do anything that deserves to be cancelled," he adds. "Some people now don't care about the argument or the issue, they just want to own someone, they want to win the argument. There's no nuance or discussion any more, it's just fallen into two tribes of people screaming."

The stars' comments come after 150 leading authors and thinkers, including JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie, signed a letter condemning "cancel culture" for stifling freedom of thought.

Cover Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ricky Gervais says 'cancel culture' means The Office wouldn't get made today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Now it would suffer because people would take things literally," the funnyman tells Britain's Times Radio. "There are these outrage mobs who take things out of context. "This was a show about everything - it was about difference, it was about sex, race, all the things that people fear to even be discussed or talked about now, in case they say the wrong thing and they are cancelled."

# data[].attributes.headline
Nick Cave on Implications for Art and Critical Exploration

# data[].attributes.subject
Nick Cave on Implications for Art and Critical Exploration

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/12/nick-cave-political-correctness-bad-religion-run-amuck-cancel-culture?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Political correctness has an "asphyxiating effect on the creative soul of a society", according to Nick Cave, who has criticised "cancel culture" in his latest newsletter where he calls it "bad religion run amuck".

In his latest Red Hand Files newsletter, the Australian musician was asked what he thinks of cancel culture. In response he decried people's refusal to engage with "difficult ideas" and claimed that moving toward a more equal society could mean essential values were forfeited.

"Political correctness has grown to become the unhappiest religion in the world," he wrote. "Its once honourable attempt to reimagine our society in a more equitable way now embodies all the worst aspects that religion has to offer (and none of the beauty) - moral certainty and self-righteousness shorn even of the capacity for redemption."

He added that cancel culture's refusal to engage with uncomfortable ideas had an asphyxiating effect on the creative soul of a society, and that creativity could knock at foundational beliefs and in doing so generate fresh ways of seeing the world.

"This is both the function and glory of art and ideas," he said. "A force that finds its meaning in the cancellation of these difficult ideas hampers the creative spirit of a society and strikes at the complex and diverse nature of its culture."

The musician, who recently staged a live concert at Alexandra Palace, which was described as " the most elaborately creative response yet to the constrictions of the lockdown," ended with a rhetorical question. "We are a culture in transition," he wrote. "And it may be that we are heading toward a more equal society - I don't know - but what essential values will we forfeit in the process?"

Cave has regularly discussed contemporary talking points in his newsletter, which he started in September 2018, such as why he and his band the Bad Seeds decided to play in Israel and not back the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions movement.

He has also responded to more personal topics, such as his experiences with grief after the death of his 15-year-old son, Arthur, in 2015, and answered more abstract queries, such as " what is shyness? ".

Recently he wrote a follow-up letter addressed to fans imploring them to stop sending emails to the Italian piano manufacturers Fazioli after he said he had played one of their pianos in the Alexandra Palace gig, writing an embellished, gonzo account of his manager trying to acquire one for him.

Cave had previously said that " the new moral zealotry that is descending upon our culture could actually be a good thing," after a fan asked him in 2019 about the reckoning that was reverberating through the music world after #MeToo.

"Contemporary rock music no longer seems to have the fortitude to contend with these enemies of the imagination, these enemies of art - and in this present form perhaps rock music isn't worth saving," he wrote. "The permafrost of puritanism could be the antidote for the weariness and nostalgia that grips it."

In July, several well-known authors and public intellectuals signed an open letter that was published in Harper's magazine saying the spread of censoriousness is leading to an intolerance of opposing views and a vogue for public shaming and ostracism.

JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood were among the signatories who acknowledged that "powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society". The letter went on to criticise what it called "a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nick Cave: 'cancel culture is bad religion run amuck'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Political correctness has an "asphyxiating effect on the creative soul of a society", according to Nick Cave, who has criticised "cancel culture" in his latest newsletter where he calls it "bad religion run amuck". In his latest Red Hand Files newsletter, the Australian musician was asked what he thinks of cancel culture.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/08/is-free-speech-under-threat-cancel-culture-writers-respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Nesrine Malik, Jonathan Freedland, Zoe Williams and Samuel Moyn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is free speech under threat from ‘cancel culture’? Four writers respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/2018750464/cancel-culture-where-is-the-line

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of our formerly beloved shows and films are under review.

Netflix has removed some shows by Australian comedian Chris Lilley and HBO has even pulled what has been considered one of the greatest American films of all time: Gone With The Wind.

The Panel is joined by comedian and broadcaster, James Nokise.

See terms of use.

Recent stories from The Panel

Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of our formerly beloved shows and films are under review. Netflix has removed some shows by Australian comedian Chris Lilley and HBO has even pulled what has been considered one of the greatest American films of all time: Gone With The Wind. The Panel is joined by comedian and broadcaster, James Nokise.

# data[].attributes.body
http://tedxlondon.com/news/beyond-borders-should-we-cancel-cancel-culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyond Borders is TEDxLondon's exploration of different topics and ideas that inspire and intrigue us. In this edition, we ask: is 'cancel culture' cancelling free speech?
It's rare in 2020 to log onto Twitter without seeing the name of a celebrity trending. Usually, there are three conclusions: the person has died, they've done something adorable or admirable enough to win over the Internet, or they have been cancelled.

If the media is to be believed, we are living through the era of 'cancel culture' - an online practice of calling out public figures for objectionable, offensive or dangerous behaviour and/or opinions. The term is widely understood to have come from Black Twitter, the loose networks of Black users active on the site, before graduating into mainstream public consciousness in recent months.

This process is as painful as it is necessary, as exhausting as it is exhilarating. But in order to be truly worthwhile, it needs to lead to lasting transformation across individuals, businesses, systems and societies. Whether it's meeting our urgent climate goals, imagining a better future for refugees, demanding racial justice or securing essential rights for LGBTQIA people, we need to shift our focus from short-term gains to long-term change.

In practice, cancellation signals a cultural boycott, says Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender and sexuality. "It's an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, or give money to. People talk about the attention economy - when you deprive someone of your attention, you're depriving them of a livelihood." Nakamura believes that cancel culture is a way for many people to regain a sense of control on platforms which are notoriously poorly regulated, and on which many groups are subject to sustained abuse. Instead of waiting for Twitter or YouTube to remove an offensive message or account, fans can de-platform the offender themselves, usually accompanied by the hashtag #celebritynameisoverparty.

But the act of cancelling alone is not usually impactful enough to kick a politician out of office, cause them to lose a job, or create any significant consequences lasting longer than a few days. For celebrities in particular, cancel culture seems more akin to an enforced pause than a lifelong silencing.

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."
G.K. Chesterton

After multiple women accused him of sexual assault in 2017, it looked like comedian Louis C.K.'s career was over. Instead, after a short break, he re-emerged only months later with new material - including jokes based on those same accusations. Earlier this year, he sold out multiple shows on his comeback tour.

His is not an isolated case. While the nature of their 'crimes' may differ, famous figures from Taylor Swift to Scarlett Johansson to Kevin Hart have all been 'cancelled', only to continue to sell out tours and headline films. The few blacklisted exceptions tend to be those who have committed the kinds of crimes that cross 'woke' boundaries to elicit unanimous shock, disgust and even criminal charges.

The waters are muddied further by retrospective cancelling - when celebrities are shamed for public statements or behaviour from their past. A notable example of this was when James Gunn was fired as director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films in 2018, after fans discovered old tweets in which he joked about topics including rape and child abuse. However, even in this case the cancelling was short-lived: after pressure from the cast, Gunn was reinstated as director by Disney a few months later.

Is cancel culture the opposite of free speech?

While it may sound counter-intuitive, the first step in building resilience is to reject denial and surrender to the reality of the situation in front of you. Don't feel you have to engage in what TED speaker Susan David calls the "tyranny of positivity": instead, allow yourself to feel the full spectrum of your emotions, so you can face what comes next with honesty and courage

The cancel culture versus free speech debate has become a focal point for many public figures. Earlier this month, Harper's Magazine published an open letter which argued that our culture is becoming increasingly intolerant of opposing views, stemming the free exchange of information and ideas. The letter had 153 signatories, many of whom were high-profile writers and academics, including Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood and J.K. Rowling. The sentiments contained within the letter were echoed by journalist Bari Weiss in her recent resignation statement to the New York Times, in which she claimed that the paper's writers had started self-censoring for fear of online backlash.

On the other side of the debate are those who say that the 'cancel culture' has turned into a catch-all for when powerful figures receive criticism or face consequences for their actions. In the light of the Harper's letter, many pointed out that simply by being asked to sign their name, the signatories proved there was still a significant platform for their views to be shared.

Seyi Akiwowo speaks at TedxLondon Beyond Borders 2019

When does cancel culture become public shaming?

While many examples of cancel culture are ultimately harmless, history shows us that things can turn nasty very quickly. Figures such as Monica Lewinsky have been outspoken about online bullying and the life-long impact of public humiliation on a global scale. Lewinsky's shaming, as she pointed out in her TED talk, was one of the first to be blown up by the digital revolution: "I was patient zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously". In a post #MeToo world, Lewinsky's story is a particularly harrowing example of victim shaming, in which we were all complicit.

TEDxLondon speaker Seyi Akiwowo was elected as the youngest Black female Councillor in London at the age of 23. After a speech she delivered at the European Parliament went viral, Seyi was subject to torrents of racist abuse on Twitter, which, for too long, went largely ignored by the platform. Now, Seyi is the Founder and Executive Director of Glitch, a not-for-profit organisation determined to end online abuse. Seyi explains how marginalised groups have learned to anticipate online hate speech before it happens, examining their words to see how they can be misconstrued. While she is not in favour of restricting freedom of speech, she wants us all to learn how to protect and advocate for each other online to make social media safer for all.

So, are there benefits to cancel culture? Yes, when it comes to standing together against hate. We need to stop treating all online criticism as part of the same sweeping movement to cancel out freedom of expression, and instead take meaningful steps to end online bullying, hold each other to account and be willing to learn from our mistakes - publicly, if necessary.

Cancel culture: a definition

As defined by Urban Dictionary: " Cancel culture is a social attitude that facilitates the unanimous agreement amongst multiple people that somebody is worthy of hate and slander due to controversial behaviors they have engaged in. Things like using racial or homophobic slurs, saying the n-word, and even offensive videos or tweets by you from several years in the past could lead to your cancellation."

Cancelled during corona

L-R: Actor Evangeline Lily, Musician Bryan Adams, Musician Lana del Rey, Actor Vanessa Hudgens.

Further resources: Stay woke
Barack Obama calls out cancel culture The history of the cancel culture debate When online shaming goes too far Everyone is cancelled Elites are losing power in the social media age Cancel culture is not about free speech

How to fix the glitch in our online communities | Seyi Akiwowo| TEDxLondon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond Borders: Should we cancel 'cancel culture'? - TEDxLondon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond Borders is TEDxLondon's exploration of different topics and ideas that inspire and intrigue us. In this edition, we ask: is 'cancel culture' cancelling free speech? It's rare in 2020 to log onto Twitter without seeing the name of a celebrity trending.

# data[].attributes.headline
Force for Good or Threat to Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Force for Good or Threat to Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a33296561/cancel-culture-a-force-for-good-or-a-threat-to-free-speech/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's begin with what cancel culture is and what it isn't, because it has come to mean a great deal of different things to different people. To some, it poses a grave danger to free speech. To some, it is a new take on 'political correctness gone mad' and a method used by the intolerant left to enforce a puritanical censure.

To others, it's just a way of saying that someone has done something they perceive to be offensive and therefore has lost their respect. It is not a new phenomenon - free speech has always had consequences, especially when that speech has the potential for harm. High-profile figures have been challenged and publicly criticised for apparent wrongdoings by the media for decades, celebrities who have acted in opposition with a company's values have been dropped and politicians regularly pillory their opponents. Today, it can be viewed as a way of defending the weak against higher powers. Rightly or wrongly, cancel culture gives the marginalised an amplified voice and a way to challenge damaging narratives promoted by the status quo.

Its purest definition is the boycotting of a person or organisation because of an objectionable comment or act. It is the withdrawal of support, be it no longer watching films that the offending person has starred in or books that they have written. The cancellation is akin to voiding a contract, severing ties with someone or something that you might have previously been a fan of.

Free speech has always had consequences, especially when that speech has the potential for harm

What it isn't is call-out culture, which is highlighting a mistake, condemning it if it's harmful and asking them to do better so that the individual doesn't make the same error again. Both are linked to public shaming, and both have been used as a way of achieving social justice. Both have become extremely divisive over the past six months, reaching a crescendo last week over comments made by JK Rowling about the trans community. She, along with over 150 academics, writers and authors, penned a public letter condemning cancel culture (thought to be an escalation of call-out culture) on the basis that it threatens the right to free speech, "the lifeblood of a liberal society", arguing that it promotes an "intolerance of opposing views [and] a vogue for public shaming and ostracism". It's a fascinating line to take - to argue that something endangers free speech by telling others that they don't have the right to theirs.

The debate is rampant. Others argue that our right to free speech doesn't make you entitled to hate speech. The trans activist Munroe Bergdorf says, "cancel culture is not the same as being held accountable for your actions". The journalist and author Owen Jones argued on Twitter that "All too often, 'cancel culture' becomes a means for very rich and very powerful people to pretend they are victims when people respond to very controversial things they have used their huge public platform to say". The situation has become heated indeed.

There are many pitfalls of cancel culture if we take it to mean boycotting a person and expunging them from society. "When does 'cancelling' cross over with bullying?" asks the psychologist, lecturer and author Dr Audrey Tang. "The number of Lea Michele's co-workers who spoke up about her poor behaviour may have been making a point, which Lea Michele addressed, but I refer to the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack. What outcome do those calling for change actually want? Unfortunately, when we say anything, we simply do not know how others will react."

"Psychologically, cancel culture carries echoes of Melanie Klein's 'Splitting Theory,'" says the psychotherapist Lucy Beresford. "This is where small children separate the world into good or bad, and can't integrate or tolerate the two sides of someone or something. For example, when a parent stops them having ice-cream between meals, they are 'all bad' and the child will be furious, whereas when they kiss the child goodnight, they are now 'all good' and the child is content. As we grow up, ideally, we are able to hold in our hearts the idea that someone can have different views from us and still be a good or decent person. Cancel culture doesn't allow for the same kind of nuance."

One of the potential issues with cancel culture is how it taps into feelings of shame, which rarely helps or propels an individual to learn and make positive changes. Essentially, it renders cancel culture ineffective when it comes to social justice, which is its goal. The research professor Brené Brown, who has spent two decades studying vulnerability, shame and empathy, says that shame is rarely productive.

We think we can shame people into being better, but that's not true

"We think that shaming is a great moral compass, that we can shame people into being better, but that's not true," says Brown in a recent episode of her Unlocking Us podcast. "Here's a great example that comes up a lot when I'm talking about parenting. You have a kid who tells a lie, so you shame that child, and say, 'You're a liar.' Shame corrodes the part of us that thinks that we can be different. If I'm a liar, if that's who I am, how do I ever change? How do I ever make a different decision? This is versus 'You're a good person and you told a lie, and that behaviour is not OK in this family.' Everyone needs a platform of self-worth from which to see change."

Shame is different to guilt, which can prompt positive behaviour. "When we see people apologising, making amends and changing their behaviour, that is always around guilt," says Brown. "Guilt, the whole 'I am bad', is not easy. It creates psychological pain, 'I have done something that is inconsistent or incongruous with my values or who I want to be.' When we apologise or make amends for something we've done and change our behaviour, guilt is the driving force. It's a positive, socially adaptive experience."

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

The activist and author Jenna Arnold, who was one of the key organisers of the history-making Washington Women's March in March 2017, agrees that cancel culture is unproductive on the basis that the shame associated with being wrong deters people from moving forward. "It doesn't leave space for redemption, and while this isn't an opportunity to pardon those who have caused harm, it is worth the exercise of watching the very important role humility and responsibility can and need to take in a world that is trying to right its way."

The idea of pushing someone out - because they have said or done something perceived to be offensive - leaves no room for growth or learning. Matt Haig describes cancel culture as "anti-progress because it is anti-change". "Cancelling people pushes them away and makes them more likely to find spaces where bad views are the norm," he says. "Obviously, if someone has been convicted of, say, violence or sexual assault then they need to be punished, but cancel culture isn't that. Cancel culture, as I see it, involves the shutting down of different perspectives and treating people like mere disposable artefacts in the cultural economy."

Cancel culture involves the shutting down of different perspectives and treating people as disposable

If the purpose of cancel culture is a method to achieve justice for marginalised groups or people, then its influence isn't as great as we've been led to believe. Of individuals who have been 'cancelled' over recent years, many are still working and enjoying relative success. Many have not seen long-term boycotts - R Kelly still makes music, Woody Allen still shoots films and Louis CK still performs.

The problem with cancel culture is that it has become too broad, and near meaningless. R Kelly was cancelled over decades of sexual-assault allegations, yet so too was Jodie Comer for dating a Republican. There is no proportion. It is used in so many different contexts, both heavy and light, that it oversimplifies, and loses its weight because it allows those who have engaged in dangerous and/or harmful rhetoric and behaviour to ride on the backlash.

"When something becomes 'fashionable' it can lose meaning," says Dr Tang. "For example, when the debate around Dominic Cummings' lockdown behaviour was a social-media trend, the calls were to resign, but why not a hefty fine? Why not a suspension? In the workplace 'you're fired' is not the only option. We should not allow the complexity of the human brain to be reduced to a hashtag."

In the eyes of cancel culture, people are reduced to good or bad with no room for anything in-between. "The process is like air-brushing someone or something out," says Beresford, "It doesn't allow for the possibility that two sides could ever agree, or learn from each other, or could persuade each other of their arguments - or even agree to disagree."

Being told you're wrong is not the same as being cancelled

That's not to say that individuals should not be held accountable when they air a questionable view or do something wrong. Call-out culture is just that, the idea that we can challenge someone's opinion or action without deleting them, therefore leaving them with room to grow and learn. "Being called out has made me a better person," said Jameela Jamil on Instagram. "Not being cancelled has enabled me to be accountable, learn from my mistakes, and go on to share those lessons with others and do good with my privilege. Most of us have the potential to do that."

This content is imported from Instagram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

When we decide to call someone out, we must resist a combative approach if we want to have the best chance of helping that person see the issues with what they may said or done. Most of us respond to criticism with defensiveness. Dr Tang says the best results come from talking to someone privately and also to challenge without accusation.

"Ask a question first to generate explanation. For example, 'When you said x what did you mean by that?'" advises Dr Tang. "It doesn't have to be nasty, nor humiliating. In fact, the more diplomatic you are, the more likely you are to effect a change of mind and that is after all, what you want. A subtle private message to see if they acted in error is more likely to influence than having a go. The latter only results in defensiveness that neither party wants fundamentally. The debate often turns on wanting to win rather than any form of learning."

Instead of calling people out, we must start calling them in

Jenna Arnold says we must use forms of restorative justice that don't make people feel threatened and therefore less likely to want to change. She wants to evolve our concept of call-out culture, instead arguing for 'call-in culture'.

"My aim is to provide practical tools to use as we start listening with open hearts to others and inviting them to listen to us in the same manner - as, instead of calling people out, we start calling them in," she says. "We must put aside the urge to win - or maybe just redefine what winning means. We're not stirring the pot with the goal of a neat resolution or a concrete answer; rather, we want to start uncomfortable conversations for the sake of urgently needed exploration. This can be hard to fully internalise. Yet this hard work is the most essential antidote to the polarisation widening the rifts in society and within ourselves."

By calling each other in, rather than out, when it comes to debate, we take into account the fundamental human desire for acceptance and to be part of a collective.

"Human beings yearn for community," she says. "We are longing to belong to something bigger than ourselves. Inviting people into the conversation - calling each other 'in' versus calling each other 'out' - is key to our survival. But that doesn't only need to happen in the wake of an awkward statement, bumper sticker or post-election conversation. We need to share ideas and seek out the perspectives of others in our communities, throughout our lives. We're no longer allowed to go back to sleep, no matter who is in the White House or how fair the world suddenly becomes. Being a citizen is active, hard, constant work."

We live in a society where it's easier than ever to have our voices heard - social media was designed for it. What we must do now is listen, regardless of which side we fall on. The free-speech argument is two-fold - progress will not be achieved through silencing either party, whether that's 'cancelling' someone, or by dismissing one's right to criticise. Being told you're wrong is not the same as being deleted. It's time to listen, process and move forward.
Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for more from Harper's Bazaar, straight to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cancel culture: a force for good or a threat to free speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's begin with what cancel culture is and what it isn't, because it has come to mean a great deal of different things to different people. To some, it poses a grave danger to free speech. To some, it is a new take on 'political correctness gone mad' and a method used by the intolerant left to enforce a puritanical censure.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinions from American Daytime Television Chat Show

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinions from American Daytime Television Chat Show

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ7mpkoWuAw

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018736547/is-cancel-culture-repressing-freedom-of-thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly half a century ago, Australian philosopher Peter Singer was presented with a quandary.

He'd been approached by paediatric doctors facing an ethical dilemma: what to do about children or babies born with disabilities so debilitating their lives could be considered inherently "unhappy"?

Singer is a proponent of utilitarianism: broadly speaking, he thinks people should act in such a way to minimise suffering, and to maximise happiness.

After mulling the question over, he came up with an idea.

"We decided that, yes, it was a reasonable decision for parents and doctors to make: that it was better that infants with [certain severe disabilities] should not live."

This idea has followed him around ever since.

Peter Singer is often called one of the world's most influential philosophers; he lectures at Princeton University in New Jersey and has contributed significantly to philosophical thought in several areas, including arguably spearheading the modern vegan movement.

Earlier this year it was announced Singer would appear in New Zealand for a talk about Effective Altruism at the SkyCity Theatre in Auckland - but within weeks the company withdrew the venue, amid a backlash from disability advocates arguing Singer's views didn't deserve a platform. (Singer will now appear at a Trusts Arena venue in Te Atatu - the organisation says in a statement that arguably, refusing him permission to speak could be a breach of the Bill of Rights.)

This isn't the first time this issue has cropped up recently.

Former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash had an event at Massey University cancelled in 2018, and right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux were also de-platformed that same year - with both decisions influenced by public outrage.

But this case is a bit different: Singer is a world-renowned philosopher, a person whose professional role is to conceive and debate boundary-pushing ideas and arguments.

Journalist and broadcaster Graeme Hill has interviewed Singer twice, and wrote an article in the New Zealand Herald in February arguing Sky City should've let him speak.

Hill says a type of groupthink is evolving in which people who see themselves as morally "right" take a perverse joy in de-platforming people they disagree with.

"The rejoicing ... finding something, anything, which doesn't fit the polite society narrative ... they can be held down, lose their jobs, [be made] exempt from society from that point forward."

Hill says the situation is comparable to the zenith of McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s - and that a societal pushback may be required.

"It behoves us to recognise when that sort of thing is happening, and to pull back and have a good think about it.

"Mao killed millions of people through neglect, hubris and horror ... I'm not talking about that.

"But it really is dystopian ... if you feel, right, the opinion is all on my side, therefore we are RIGHT - it's easier to be caught up in it.

"And Bertrand Russell always rings in my ears: one ought to always entertain one's opinion with an element of doubt."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The philosopher whose thoughts are being cancelled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly half a century ago, Australian philosopher Peter Singer was presented with a quandary. He'd been approached by paediatric doctors facing an ethical dilemma: what to do about children or babies born with disabilities so debilitating their lives could be considered inherently "unhappy"?