# data[].attributes.body
During the Summer of 2020, HBO decided to remove the film Gone with the Wind from their streaming service due to its blatant depiction of racial stereotypes. Long has this film been described as one the "best movies of all time", HBO decided to pull the movie in the hopes of one day bringing it back on their service. However, with a discussion on the historical context of the movie, and why racial stereotypes were depicted in such a way. In this clip, you can see both President Trump and his Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, shame HBO for its removal of the film. In addition to asking the question of "Where do we draw the line?" The clip discusses the fact that many people find 'Cancel Culture' to have gone too far, and suggesting that there is no limit to what people will "cancel". McEnany even goes as far as to jokingly suggest on cancelling President Washington and President Jefferson, due to their owning of slaves. With this "suggestion" she is further insinuating the fact that there is no end to this idea of 'Cancel Culture'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Today's 'Cancel Culture'

# data[].attributes.body
This past week, singer and songwriter, Nicki Minaj came under heavy skepticism due to her public discussion on her hesitancy to get the COVID-19 vaccine. She claimed that a friend of hers became impotent as a result of receiving the vaccine. In addition, Minaj also declined to attend the Met Gala on September 13th, because attendants were required to be vaccinated. As a result of her speaking out publicly against the vaccine, many people berated her for her lack of knowledge on the vaccine, as well as using her celebrity status to turn people against the vaccine itself. As a result, Minaj fears she will be yet another victim of 'Cancel Culture'. More recently, as depicted within this tweet, Minaj went live on Instagram the other night and compared the US 'Cancel Culture' to Communist China and stated; "Don't y'all see what's f***ing happening? Don't y'all see that we are living now in that time where people will turn their back on you... but people will isolate you if you simply speak and ask a question,".

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 16, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Nicki Minaj slams America’s fixation on cancel culture following vaccine controversy, compares country to communist China https://t.co/aHFXBCSmlF

# data[].attributes.body
Here is the Instagram Live post on Nicki Minaj's profile. Within this video she rambles on about being called a "liar" and a "fake" as she states in the video that she was invited to the White House to meet with Dr. Anthony Fauci (Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States) and Vivek Murthy (Surgeon General of the United States) to discuss COVID-19 and the vaccine. The White House later stated that they did invite Minaj to have a conversation with people from the White House, but not with the two individuals she listed. But rather, Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary stated: "We offered a call with Nicki Minaj and one of our doctors to answer her questions she had about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine...it was simply an offer to have a conversation." In her post, Minaj also continued to discuss her "cancelling" in which she was suspended from Twitter due to her speaking out against the vaccine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Barbie (@nickiminaj)

# data[].attributes.body
This opinion piece written by a Rabbi provides an interesting perspective on the idea of 'Cancel Culture'. Within this piece, Rabbi David Wolpe describes a situation in which a friend of his was publicly cancelled. Whilst he believes his friend deserved this, his friend did spend time apologizing to those he hurt, as well as atoning for his mistakes. Rabbi Wolpe believed the sincerity in his friend's endeavors for forgiveness. He describes situations such as these, where people find themselves on "a path back from shame to forgiveness". In situations such as these, Rabbi Wolpe turns to his religion of Judaism, in which there are a series of guidelines in which it explains on how one copes with offense and fosters forgiveness. Rabbi Wolpe also relates this back to the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur it is traditional to wear white, white shows the slightest stain and "Reminds us of the shrouds in which we will one day be buried. We do not have forever; we must struggle to right our souls now." He explains that the day of Yom Kippur does not buy you absolution, but is a day in which you are offered guidance as as you seek forgiveness. Rabbi Wolpe believes that the traditions observed on Yom Kippur are something that can be attributed within our day-to-day life as we battle the idea of 'Cancel Culture'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit Credit... Artwork by Claire Merchlinsky / The New York Times

Rabbi Wolpe is the senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles.

A friend of mine was publicly canceled. He deserved it and he knew it. He spent a year working with a rabbi and a therapist, during which time he tried to track down those he had hurt and apologize to them, often more than once. We can't see inside one another's hearts, but I believe in the sincerity of his change.

What I sometimes wonder - both in my role as a rabbi myself and as a denizen of our broader culture of accountability - is how my friend, or any one of us, can find a path back from shame to acceptance.

To answer the question, I turn to my religious tradition, which is predicated on the perhaps unfashionable belief that people can change. It's a tenet that is especially on my mind as we approach Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, on which Jews fast, pray and ask forgiveness of one another and of God. Not everyone observes this holiday, of course. But in its practices, I believe there is wisdom that can help all of us navigate the sometimes unforgiving nature of our contemporary culture.

There will always be things we cannot fully forgive and people who do not deserve to be restored to good reputation. And forgiving someone does not necessarily mean readmitting that person to your life. In most cases, however, Jewish teachings insist that fair judgment does not require damnation. Judaism, like many other world religions, maintains that human beings are capable of transformation. For example, one of the figures of the Talmud, Resh Lakish, began as a bandit and became one of the greatest rabbis of the age. His conversion was fueled by the belief of another rabbi, Johanan, who saw potential in him. The more we believe in judging by potential, that what people do is not the sum of who they can be, the more likely we are to create a society that can help people move past shame.

Judaism offers a series of ideas and guidelines for how to cope with offense and foster forgiveness. On Yom Kippur, it's traditional to wear white, not only because white shows the slightest stain, but to remind us of the shrouds in which we will one day be buried. We do not have forever; we must struggle to right our souls now.

If you have caused offense or harm, Yom Kippur does not magically buy you absolution. But the traditions surrounding the day do offer guidance for seeking forgiveness. First, you must apologize to those you've hurt, sincerely, as many as three times. The apology should not come weighed down with justification, but rather should acknowledge the other person's hurt and express sincere regret.

Second, serious, sustained reflection is required to try to change who you are. The Hebrew word for repentance, teshuvah, also means return. To repent is to return to what once was, what became hidden through coarseness or impulse. It is also to return to God and to the community. But slow, careful restoration takes time. The one who is sorry today and expects to stride right back, unblemished, is naïve or conniving.

Third, you must change your ways. The sage Maimonides teaches that one who says to himself, "I'll sin and then, repent" cannot be forgiven. Sorrow is not a strategy. It is a vulnerability and it is a promise.

And what if you are the one who has been hurt? Jewish tradition urges us to consider why it is so hard to forgive. There is a savage self-righteousness to public shaming. If I forgive you, truly forgive you, then I must restore moral parity; I am no better than you. Accepting that steals the satisfactions of resentment, but it is essential: Jewish law insists that once someone has been forgiven, you must never remind the person of that fact. To do so is to re-establish a hierarchy that true forgiveness disavows.

To forgive also forswears vengeance. When I have been hurt, I wish to see you hurt. There is both a personal and an abstract desire for justice: People who do bad things should be punished, and especially people who do bad things to me. We rarely admit to ourselves how often this desire to punish wrongdoing is a personal impulse in moralistic clothing.

It's also worth noting that anger at others, even when merited, can be personally destructive. In the Bible, the words "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18) are preceded by "you shall not bear a grudge." As has been aptly said, to bear a grudge is to drink poison hoping the other person will die. It gnaws away at us, embittering the life of the hater. Forgiving your neighbors is one way of loving them, and learning to love yourself.

Public shame is a powerful and sometimes necessary punishment. In the case of my friend, it made him realize that the trigger for his anger was in him, not in the conduct of others. But it can also be brutal, and I believe that too often, lifetimes are remembered by their worst moments, and complex personalities reduced to their basest elements.

On Yom Kippur, as Jews all over the world confess our sins, we will beat our chests, a sort of spiritual defibrillator to get our hearts beating anew. The liturgy asks of the "court on high" permission to pray with those who sin.

And who among us is exempt from that group? I stand each year with a congregation of people who have hurt one another, families and friends and strangers and co-workers. Like my friend, all of us seek to be forgiven - for we are imperfect and striving and in need of love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | So You've Been Canceled: A Yom Kippur Atonement Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rabbi Wolpe is the senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. A friend of mine was publicly canceled. He deserved it and he knew it. He spent a year working with a rabbi and a therapist, during which time he tried to track down those he had hurt and apologize to them, often more than once.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst this title initially suggests a topic that could possibly be "Anti-Cancel Culture", the article is very much in favor of the 'Cancel Culture' surrounding the new movie PAW Patrol: The Movie. The article coins this term "copaganda" that they believed is quite heavily displayed in both the television show and the new movie. The "copaganda" shown is through the character Chase, a German shepherd police officer. The majority of the rescues that are shown depict Chase as being the titular hero throughout the film, which many believe is used to indoctrinate children into a pro-police stance. Not only this, but as shown through each characters special traits and abilities as rescuers, it is quite obvious that each rescue could have been successfully handled by only Marshall (Fire Department dog) and Skye (Air Rescue dog). Yet, Chase remains the main hero of the story. In addition, out of the six original characters: Chase, Marshall, Skye, Rocky, Rubble, and Zuma; only one of those dogs is a girl. Therefore, not only does the article criticize the show for its depiction of "copaganda", but also its "patriarchal gender performance".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cancel culture mob brands Paw Patrol 'copaganda' which 'indoctrinates children into a pro-police stance'

Paw Patrol team facing wrath of woke brigade and show branded 'copaganda'

Critics claim the hit animated children's show shows the police in a positive light

Cartoon's detractors say Chase, a German shepherd police officer, is portrayed as being more valiant than the other characters

They are the intrepid canine rescuers with an inexhaustible ability to solve even the trickiest of problems.

But now the Paw Patrol team are facing one of their toughest situations yet: the wrath of the woke brigade.

Critics of a new big-screen version of the hit animated children's show have branded it 'copaganda' for showing the police in a positive light.

In one of the more bizarre social media controversies, the cartoon's detractors say Chase, a German shepherd police officer, is portrayed as being more valiant than the other characters.

In one post, a furious critic wrote: 'Paw Patrol is absolutely copaganda and the fact that they centre Chase as the star is meant to indoctrinate children early in a pro-police stance.'

Another fumed on Twitter: 'Pretty much all of the rescues that happened could be handled by Marshall (fire dept dog) and Skye (air rescue dog) - yet they centred the movie around Chase (the police dog) being the hero.'

Meanwhile, a scene in the film in which Chase says he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder has been accused of encouraging children to believe police are empathetic.

It is not the only criticism to be levelled at the U-certificate movie from those on the Left.

In its review, The Guardian suggested it was 'authoritarian neoliberal propaganda' and criticised its 'patriarchal gender performance' as most of the animated puppies are male. Only one of the six original dogs - Skye, a cockapoo helicopter pilot - is female.

The rest of the patrol - motto: 'No job is too big, no pup is too small' - comprises Marshall, a dalmatian firefighter; Rubble, a bulldog construction worker; Rocky, a mongrel who drives a recycling truck; and Zuma, a labrador who travels on a hovercraft.

The series was created in 2013 by British TV writer Keith Chapman, the man behind Bob The Builder, and has been named one of the top ten children's TV programmes of all time in a poll.

Those who made the 'copaganda' claims could cite research which show Chase has been the 'first responder' 222 times in the eight series of the TV show, compared to nearest rival Rocky, who has been given 162 emergencies to solve.

Paw Patrol: The Movie, which features Kim Kardashian and Jimmy Kimmel in voiceover roles, has taken £35 million at box offices around the world since its release earlier this month.

Variety, the respected film industry magazine, gave the film a glowing review, describing it as gripping and with a 'cheeky sense of humour'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Now cancel culture mob brands Paw Patrol 'copaganda'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Paw Patrol team facing wrath of woke brigade and show branded 'copaganda' Critics claim the hit animated children's show shows the police in a positive light Cartoon's detractors say Chase, a German shepherd police officer, is portrayed as being more valiant than the other characters They are the intrepid canine rescuers with an inexhaustible ability to solve even the trickiest of problems. But now the Paw Patrol team are facing one of their toughest situations yet: the wrath of the woke brigade.

# data[].attributes.body
Betty Hart, an actor, director, and faith facilitator talks about a time well before the term ‘Cancel Culture’ came into existence, she had a personal experience with her own father that caused her to “cancel” her own father and not talk to him for over 10 years. Hart continues to describe ‘Cancel Culture’ as something that is much bigger than personal issues, but rather has to do with the cancellation of someone of prominence that has done or said something that has upset others. The decision has then become to make that individual, persona non grata. However, Hart talks about this is idea of ‘Cancel Culture’ in the private realm, specially having to do with her own personal experience with her father. She talks about the idea of “cancelling” people within our private lives, “cancelling” those who love us and care for us. But instead of feeding into this idea of ‘Cancel Culture’ within our private lives, Hart discusses the need for us to move away from ‘Cancel Culture’ and instead move towards “Compassion Culture”. A culture in which we find a way to forgive one another and move past our differences. With this idea, Hart hopes that as individuals we become more open-minded to our differences in one another and therefore, more compassionate to one another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canceling cancel culture with compassion  | Betty Hart | TEDxCherryCreekWomen

# data[].attributes.body
This article announces that after years of protests and vandalism surrounding the statue, the General Robert E. Lee statue was removed on September 8th, 2021. After having been installed for 130 years, the 12-ton statue was removed and placed into storage, over a year after Governor Ralph Northam announced its impending removal. The statue had become a symbol of the Confederate agenda during the Civil War, as well as, a symbol of Southern pride. With it once being the focal point of an affluent white neighborhood, the removal of the statue is just one more paramount example of 'Cancel Culture' in today's society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Wednesday, the state of Virginia removed the 12-ton statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee more than 130 years after it was installed in Richmond.

Despite its massive size, it was lifted from its pedestal in one piece and is headed for storage. Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, was there as the statue came down and appeared pleased by its removal. A crowd also chanted and cheered as the statue of Lee - atop a horse - was lifted into the air by a crane.

Northam announced plans to remove the statue in June 2020 during nightly racial justice protests in Richmond after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, but that plan was held up by lawsuits, including one from a group of residents from Richmond's historic Monument Avenue that wanted to keep the 61-foot-tall memorial intact. Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court decided to bring it down.

In the decades following its construction in 1890, the statue became a focal point for a wealthy, all-white neighborhood; Lee was later joined by statues to other Confederate leaders. In 1996, a statue of Black tennis champion Arthur Ashe was added to the avenue despite serious opposition under the direction of then-Gov. Douglas Wilder, the first Black person to serve as governor of any state since Reconstruction.

Lee's statue was the largest Confederate monument in the city of Richmond and one of the largest in the country. Nearly every other Confederate statue in Virginia's capital was removed last summer, either by protesters or the city itself at the request of Mayor Levar Stoney.

Activists have celebrated the removal of the monument but have noted it was only one of the demands they've made. They said they'll continue calling for major structural reforms to the state's criminal justice system.

Officials said the graffiti-covered pedestal will remain in place while discussions continue about the future of Monument Avenue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Virginia's Massive Robert E. Lee Statue Has Been Removed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than a year after Gov. Ralph Northam ordered the 12-ton statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee to be removed, it was lifted from its pedestal in Richmond, Va., to be placed into storage.

# data[].attributes.body
As a result of the uptick in the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, following the barbaric murder of George Floyd, the two Confederate memorials displayed in Wilmington, NC were partially removed in June 2020. For over a year the remnants of the statues remained, however, usually draped in black tarps, further displaying the Black Lives Matter Movement. Fast forward to August 2021, the City of Wilmington moved forward with their permanent removal. For months, prior to their removal, police would patrol the area in which the monuments were located in the hopes of deterring further defacement of the monuments. However, it was later deemed that the continued exhibition of the monuments was a matter of public safety. Due to the representation of racial injustice that the monuments stood for, the City of Wilmington, came to an agreement with the Cape Fear 3 (CF3), a local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), that the monuments would be returned to the nonprofit (its original owners). In addition, any costs that were procured as a result of the monuments removal would be covered by the CF3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
City of Wilmington contracted crews to remove the two pedestals of the two Confederate statues that were stowed away in June 2020 at the height of Black Lives Matter protests across the city. (Port City Daily/Shea Carver)

WILMINGTON - The City of Wilmington blocked off streets in downtown Wilmington - from Market and 3rd to Orange streets - early Sunday morning to remove two pedestals that were home to century-old Confederate monuments. The pedestals were the last remains of the controversial statues that have made headlines over the past year.

In June 2020, the city removed the statues in the middle of the night and stowed them away to an undisclosed location while it decided what moves to make next. The decision came at the height of 2020's summer protests, spurred by the murder of George Floyd - not to mention on the heels of the firing of three Wilmington cops, whose racist conversations and threats were caught on a dash-cam recording (Port City Daily first broke the news).

Two weeks ago, the city announced it came to a settlement agreement with Cape Fear 3 (CF3), the local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), to return the monuments to the nonprofit, its original owners. The city also agreed to cover costs of removal and interim storage until the chapter could figure out what to do with the memorials.

According to the Cape Fear Historical Institute, the bronze and granite George Davis monument on Market Street, which stood 8-feet tall and weighed 1,700 pounds, was unveiled by CF3 in 1911. To pay for the statue, the chapter held a fundraising campaign, with the bulk of donations coming from philanthropist and historian James Sprunt. Davis was the attorney general of the Confederate states and a known secessionist, who argued in the mid-1800s, "The division must be made on the line of slavery. The State must go with the South."

The monument at 3rd and Dock streets, also known as the "Boney Monument" - paid for by the will of Gabriel James Boney, who named CF3 to erect the statue - featured two bronze and steel sculptured Confederate soldiers. A document from UNC notes the memorial of the soldiers stood "as the figures of courage and sacrifice," with the Latin phrase "Pro Aris et Focis" inscribed on it, which translates to "for God and country." The document also mentions the stone pedestal was defaced in 1950 and had to be replaced.

The monuments have become a point of contention for activists throughout recent years. The CF3 conceptualized the George Davis statue in 1901, only three years after the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. Last summer's Black Lives Matter demonstrations drew in protesters, who often gathered in front of the memorials with signs; police patrol was increased near the medians in response.

Protesters often demonstrated in front of the Confederate monuments in the summer of 2020. (Port City Daily/Photo by Mark Darrough)

The City of Wilmington decided the statues were a threat to public safety, an exemption which would allow their removal according to the object of remembrance statute 100-2.1, created in 2015. On June 25, 2020, the city removed both monuments temporarily.

"In light of growing controversy around the monuments, a curfew on pedestrian activity in the vicinity of these two monuments has been in place since Saturday, June 20," the city then stated. "This underscores the need to temporarily move these monuments in accordance with NC law, which requires state approval for any monument of remembrance to be permanently moved but allows an exception for temporary removal in the interest of public safety."

A little over a year later, the city has concluded, after research from city officials, it does not retain ownership over the monuments.

On July 5, it received a letter from CF3's president Rhonda Florian stating the organization owned the statues.

One of the exemptions allowing an object of remembrance to be abolished from public property comes when the memorials are privately owned, and are "the subject of a legal agreement between the private party and the State or a political subdivision of the State governing the removal or relocation of the object," according to the statute.

"City of Wilmington staff performed a thorough review of city records and researched the legal matters concerning objects of remembrance," city spokesperson Jennifer Dandron confirmed to Port City Daily last week.

City attorney John Joye said they found century-old council-meeting minutes, as well as information from a city board-of-commissioners meeting expressing the city permitted the statues to be erected in both medians. Yet, Joye said he found nothing to prove the city's proprietorship and concluded the city was a "de facto steward" of the monuments.

He made a presentation to city council on Aug. 2, 2021 at its agenda briefing meeting to show the city's findings. Council then voted 6-1 on a settlement agreement to return the monuments to its rightful owners.

Amid the news, disharmony mounted within CF3 who wrote to the city to inform its president, Florian, had no authorization to take back the statues. The president of the state division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) joined the voices. Sara Powell wrote to Joye on official UDC letterhead that Florian didn't act with authorization from her board and in fact blindsided the organization.

"The members had no idea of her actions until they heard it from the news media," Powell wrote.

Powell maintained the statues were a gift to the city and pointed to a 1909 news article reporting on a George Davis dedication ceremony.

"There is no evidence that I could find, no evidence whatsoever, that there was ever an offer of gift, an offer of dedication, there is no written or any indication that there was an acceptance of such on the part of the city," Joye said over a week ago. "The city granted permission, and then the city over the years has acted as a de facto steward."

Powell is firm the monuments should be returned to their original locations. The UDC has pursued lawsuits in other cities across North Carolina to uphold the state statute. At the beginning of the year, it appealed the North Carolina Supreme Court decision, which dismissed its request to have a Confederate soldier statue returned to downtown Winston-Salem.

"The city stands by its decision to enter into a valid and binding agreement with CF3 and will continue to abide by its terms," Dandron told Port City Daily Aug. 9.

A release from the city on Sunday morning noted "the city has fulfilled its obligations by moving the statues and pedestals to interim storage until Cape Fear 3 initiates the transfer of possession."
Read full coverage from Port City Daily about the Confederate monuments:
Have tips or comments? Email [email protected]
Subscribe now and sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remnants of Confederate statues now removed from downtown Wilmington | Port City Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WILMINGTON - The City of Wilmington blocked off streets in downtown Wilmington - from Market and 3rd to Orange streets - early Sunday morning to remove two pedestals that were home to century-old Confederate monuments. The pedestals were the last remains of the controversial statues that have made headlines over the past year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
also : the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling (see ) as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure For those of you who aren't aware, cancel culture refers to the mass withdrawal of support from public figures or celebrities who have done things that aren't socially accepted today. This practice of "canceling" or mass shaming often occurs on social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. At a Republican National Convention where speakers' rage about cancel culture has been clear, former Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann used his speaking slot to introduce himself as "the teenager who was defamed by the media." The relative difficulty of doing something good and the prolonged waiting period to receive credit for it is why cancel culture has flourished. It offers quicker social rewards. Cancel culture is supported as a tool to stop offensive and harmful behavior, while others find it problematic and toxic. cancel culture warriors the cancel culture movement: the people who engage in or support this practice I have to admit that I'm not opposed to the majority of legacies, groups of people, and trends being scrutinized by the cancel culture. In fact, the response to many of the ideologies and personalities that have been "cancelled" is, in most cases, long, long overdue. But I have a few concerns ...

Odd Habits and Quirks

Which of the following best describes an easily irritated person?

Test your knowledge - and maybe learn something along the way.

TAKE THE QUIZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The meaning of CANCEL CULTURE is the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure; also : the people who engage in or support this practice. How to use cancel culture in a sentence.

# data[].attributes.body
Within this article you can begin to see a brief introduction into what 'Cancel Culture' is. This article breaks down the idea of 'Cancel Culture' and where you see the different sides, in particular when it comes to political parties. The trend for those who are liberal in terms of their political alignment, see 'Cancel Culture' as: “A movement to remove celebrity status or esteem from a person, place, or thing based on offensive behavior or transgression.” (Woman, 30s, Liberal Democrat) Or, similarly, people can view this less as a removal of celebrity status, and more as a way to maintain "political correctness". Where, from people who alignment more with conservative views, see 'Cancel Culture' as: “[Cancel culture is] trying to silence someone that does not have the same belief as you. Basically, [it’s] taking their First Amendment rights away. It violates affected people’s civil rights.” (Man, 50s, Conservative Republican) Lastly, there are also some that fall more in the middle of the debate of cancel culture, or people who's political standing tends to be more moderate. This is depicted within the article through this quote: [Cancel culture] means rewriting history and stopping the acknowledgment of facts because they are offensive to a racial, religious, ethnic, economic group, etc. It is the rewriting of history to make people comfortable by ignoring facts - things that really happened - good or bad.” (Man, 70s, Moderate, no partisan leaning) This showing that some view 'Cancel Culture' as a way to make people comfortable with the past, by erasing what was offensive to some.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People have challenged each other's views for much of human history. But the internet - particularly social media - has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it's never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray.

The phrase "cancel culture" is said to have originated from a relatively obscure slang term - "cancel," referring to breaking up with someone - used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation's political discourse. There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it's a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn't even exist.

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share - in their own words - what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Who's heard of 'cancel culture'?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase "cancel culture" varies - sometimes widely - across demographic groups.

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center's survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they've heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

There are gender and educational differences as well. Men are more likely than women to be familiar with the term, as are those who have a bachelor's or advanced degree when compared with those who have lower levels of formal education.

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define 'cancel culture'?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about "cancel culture" were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

The most common responses by far centered around accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said it describes actions people take to hold others accountable:

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans' responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people's actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture.

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive - and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don't deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don't deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans - but just 22% of Democrats - believe this type of action generally punishes people who don't deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor's degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor's degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn't deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it's because people are not taking the context of a person's post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people's answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people's differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain - in their own words - that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What's the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it's a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment.

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don't like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who've heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn't deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view - that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Emily A. Vogels, Monica Anderson, Margaret Porteus, Chris Baronavski, Sara Atske, Colleen McClain, Brooke Auxier, Andrew Perrin and Meera Ramshankar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. adults explain - in their own words - what they think cancel culture means.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling was "cancelled" once again. Having previously been "cancelled" as a result of her homophobic tweet that stated: "If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased." But prior to this, Rowling received immense backlash for outing an article that used the term "people who menstruate", instead "women". Implying that one can only be considered a woman, if they menstruate. Her comments against the LGBTQIA+ community caused her to be "cancelled" in June of 2020. This article written in May of 2021, once again, confirms her cancellation. As a result of her homophobic comments, the organizers of a New Zealand Harry Potter themed book festival decided to cancel the event in its entirety. The organizers stated: “The overwhelming response was there was a risk around causing distress to particular members of the community and that was the last thing we wanted to do, we always thought Booktown should be an inclusive, welcoming place for everyone, so we took the decision not to go with Harry Potter." This example of 'Cancel Culture' examines a way in which the organizers of, Booktown festival used the practice of 'Cancel Culture' to benefit a community and stand in support of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A New Zealand book festival canceled a Harry Potter-themed quiz due to J.K. Rowling's seemingly transphobic remarks. Reuters

A Harry Potter-themed event at a New Zealand book festival has been canceled over author J.K. Rowling's controversial comments on gender.

Organizers of Featherston's Booktown Karukatea eliminated a quiz about the popular young adult series after Rowling tweeted a series of opinions that some called transphobic, according to Stuff.

The best-selling British author was swiftly met with backlash by many in the LGBTQ community, and some stars of the Harry Potter films.

The controversy started when Rowling panned an article for using the term "people who menstruate" instead of "women" last year.

"If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased," she tweeted.

Organizers said they consulted with literary experts and LGBTQ community members before shelving the popular segment, according to the article.

"The overwhelming response was there was a risk around causing distress to particular members of the community and that was the last thing we wanted to do," festival board chairman Peter Biggs said.

"We always thought Booktown should be an inclusive, welcoming place for everyone, so we took the decision not to go with Harry Potter."

J.K. Rowling came under fire after tweeting several seemingly transphobic opinions that were widely criticized.

Reuters

Some local gay advocates told the outlet they agreed.

"I think it's a strong decision that shows they're really trying to be an inclusive community and support their rainbow and transgender young people," Tabby Besley,​ of Inside Out charity, reportedly said.

The May 6 book festival is set to examine "cancel culture," which one local feminist activist said was ironic, according to the outlet.

"I think they might be trying to capitalize on the current fad of cancel culture," Jenny Whyte said, according to Stuff.

"Featherston Booktown has a session selling tickets to a panel discussing cancel culture, so there's an irony certainly."

Whyte, who identifies as a lesbian, told the outlet she does not think Rowling's comments were transphobic.

"It's really funny that all the way from the UK where a world-famous writer has gotten into trouble for expressing quite compassionate and reasonable views, all the way down to tiny little Featherston. It encapsulates the whole madness of it quite well," she reportedly said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book festival cancels Harry Potter segment, citing J.K. Rowling's comments on gender

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Harry Potter-themed event at a New Zealand book festival has been canceled over author J.K. Rowling's controversial comments on gender. Organizers of Featherston's Booktown Karukatea eliminated a quiz about the popular young adult series after Rowling tweeted a series of opinions that some called transphobic, according to Stuff.

# data[].attributes.body
This article takes a look into the idea of 'Cancel Culture' and how it has spurred out of control and given increased control over to social media and the trolls that hide behind their screens. With social media holding more power in our day-to-day lives, 'Cancel Culture' has become less about protecting those who are vulnerable and instead, turned into a hunt to punish those who are different or think differently from us. The article at one point states: "Rather than being a way of speaking truth to power, [cancel culture] has spun out of control and become a senseless form of social media mob rule." In addition, the article gives examples of some who have been in the unfortunate circumstance of being "cancelled", and some of whom that have worked their way back into society and gained forgiveness or reconciliation from those they have wronged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is cancel culture a mob mentality, or a long overdue way of speaking truth to power?

# data[].attributes.body
This article takes an interesting approach when it comes to defending the 'Cancel Culture' movement. Jess Hilarious (aka Jessica Moore), received intense backlash as a result of her fearful reaction due to four Sikh people boarding her plane. The comedian stated: "If I’m scared, I’m scared. Fuck y’all. Fuck how y’all feel.” As a result, the comedian was "cancelled" for her xenophobic, Islamophobic, “ignorant,” and insensitive comments towards an already marginalized group of people. However, shortly after, Jess issued a short, but tearful apology to her fans for her obvious racial profiling and lack of respect for marginalized individuals. Jess Hilarious then defended the idea of 'Cancel Culture', explaining that she didn't fully comprehend the power she possessed given her prominent role in society. She stated that as a result of the backlash she received for her racial comments, she was able to learn from her biases and make amends with those she'd wronged. As a result, the comedian promised to donate $15,000 to the families of the Christchurch Mosque shootings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Cancellation isn't personal. It's a way for marginalized communities to publicly assert their value systems through pop culture."