Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Right-wing Supporters of Cancel Culture

Published by

Clarissa

on

This dude is either a world-class hypocrite or is suffering from anacephaly. Hounding people like a pack of rabid dogs for making a clumsy online joke or expressing an opinion that was OK until three seconds ago is not “the basis of civilization.” It’s terrible, disgraceful behavior.

According to this definition of civilization, Stalinism was the most civilized society of all.

It is quite curious to observe how everybody who supports cancel culture has completely absorbed the far-left belief that words matter more than actions. It’s all about what somebody said. As a society, we tolerate all kinds of exceptionally bizarre and even anti-social actions. Words, though, are sacred. Saying the wrong words and not saying the right words scandalizes us like almost no form of behavior does.

This is precisely why cancel culture is bad, no matter who does the cancelling. It reinforces the noxious belief that words can harm. There’s one step from this very erroneous and dangerous conviction to hate speech laws and “silence is violence.”

Now that the cultural tide is turning and everybody is getting tired of left-wing sloganeering, we have the perfect opportunity to examine the underlying principles of this pernicious mentality. It’s not bad because it was wielded by bad people. It’s bad because its foundational beliefs are untrue. Men are not women. Words do not kill. Objective reality exists. It’s OK to say what you think even if it makes somebody uncomfortable. What the flying butter dish are we conserving here if we can’t even conserve the right to speak, joke and think for ourselves?

14 responses to “Right-wing Supporters of Cancel Culture”

  1. Avi Avatar
    Avi

    Thank you for saying this. The Holy Inquisition and the hounding of heretics are among the darkest pages of Christianity.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    People who say this are defining cancel culture incredibly broadly (which I suppose is easy to do with such a vague term.) Yes, even back in the freewheeling 90s you would’ve been fired from your teaching job if you went on national TV and announced your strong support for legalizing man-boy sex. Technically you’ve always been able to get “cancelled” for your opinions. What didn’t happen in the 90s is people hunting through your social media and private correspondence for wrongthink, and numerous, constantly shifting mores that are impossible to keep up with and easy to run afoul of. One of these things is just society having a few baseline values, one is a totalitarian surveillance culture. They try to equate the latter with the former.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Now even private text messages aren’t off limits. It’s shameful. People are hounded for exchanging a joke in private. A Home Depot cashier was hounded out of her job. I don’t know what she’s supposed to have said and I don’t care. Whatever it was doesn’t merit this.

      Terrible, terrible behavior. Disgraceful.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Believing objective reality exists is lonely. Even with the clarity it brings. I’m sorry.

      With all the people espousing alternative facts, relying on truthiness, finding a consensus reality is harder than ever. And then everyone sneers at you thinking you’re crazy because objective reality conflicts with their motivated reasoning, and they yammer about ‘fake news” and “biases” saying “facts don’t care your feelings” but assert the facts of how people feel is more important than any kind of reliable statistics.

      Maybe this wouldn’t be happening if people didn’t do so many drugs. Then you wouldn’t need to protect yourself from contact or second hand delulu.

      Like

      Reply
  3. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    The right to f*ck anything and anyone you want, as long as he/she/it/they consents.

    It’s the only right modern people care about.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I’m glad I’m no longer on the left because the amount of time and energy dedicated to debating what’s consent and what’s not consent and what revoking consent looks like is extraordinary. The concept of consent is deified to such a degree that it almost requires its own scripture.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. Stringer Bell Avatar
    Stringer Bell

    Can we make an exception for people in actual power? Getting a cashier fired is of course beyond the pale, but can we at least fire people like Claudine Gay? At some point institutions (and god knows academia is probably first on the list) will need to be purged if we want some sense of normalcy back. Like, even to wind back the culture war clock to the innocent “color-blind” 90s will require a massive realignment.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Of course, but such people have done enough actual malfeasance and acts of corrupt that we won’t need to bother about their jokes and text messages.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        “we won’t need to bother about their jokes and text messages”

        Yeah, private text messages are one thing. Gay was fired because her dissertation was largely plagiarized not because of what’s app messages that someone hacked…

        There should be a (fuzzy) line between public and private. Tracking down and persecuting people making off color jokes about the Trump shooting is stupid and counterproductive (offensive humor has long been part of how individuals and societies process trauma).

        On the other hand, a teacher on tik tok excitedly sharing how they discuss their genitals or sex lives with 6 year olds…. I’m a lot less tolerant of that. No one hired you to do that, Mx. Transie McGenderqueer….

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          We also shouldn’t assume that people’s opinions are statements of intent. For instance, if I say that men aren’t women, this doesn’t mean I’m going to be unfair to transgender students. If on the other hand, I were to say that I’m planning to persecute such students, that would not be OK. We need to stop overreacting to everything. It’s possible to wear a Palestinian pin as a doctor and not plan to murder every Jewish patient you come across. It’s possible to laugh at BLM and not plan a genocide of black people.

          Like

          Reply
  5. Avi Avatar
    Avi

    What happens if one criticises the Chinese Communist Party in China? What happens if one does the same thing in Taiwan? What happens if one blasphemes in an Islamic society? What happens if one blasphemes in a secular Christian society? What happens if one attacks the government and government policies in Iran? What happens if one does exactly the same thing in Iceland or in the USA?

    And yet, just check what happened to people involved with a magazine (“Compact”) that dared to criticise the current policies of the German government. Just see what kind of reaction has been unleashed by the Federal Minister of Justice, Nancy Faeser, who used to write for an Antifa magazine before she became a minister.

    I don’t know what “a society with a few baseline values” looks like, but I know what Wrongthink is and what the Thoughtpolice looks like when I see it in action.

    I don’t know whether we in the West really did enjoy the advantages of a truly liberal society for a very brief time, but if we ever did, it’s over now, no matter which party is in power. It’s the paradigm that has shifted, and it ain’t pretty.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Stringer Bell Avatar
      Stringer Bell

      Yeah I sympathize with this to a certain extent. If you constrain yourself with “principles” and your opponent doesn’t, you’re relegating yourself to being a beautiful loser permanently. Which is why we can make some sort of compromise. Leave proles alone, but destroy powerful lefties in charge of institutions. I feel most people in society are politically pretty inert. Maybe only 5% or 10% of the left is hardcore; the rest will just change their opinions when the change comes. Lets go after the hardcore segment.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Stringer Bell Avatar
    Stringer Bell

    On a side note, I think scaring people into adopting your beliefs will never take in the long run. The harder task is to make your beliefs attractive, which happens when the elites adopt those beliefs. And the middle class strivers follow. Right now ideas like “shout your abortion” are cool because they signal your status. Instead of banning abortion, make abortion a low-class value.

    The long term project for the right is to make stuff like marrying early, going to church/place of worship, having kids, not being addicted to porn and video games and tinder etc. the cool/elite values to strive for. That’s the way.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      That’s the only way. We have to persuade. And it shouldn’t be that hard because this is what makes people happy. It’s what works. Online dating and bar-trawling out of loneliness at 35 is nobody’s recipe for happiness. Our side offers joy, comfort, sweetness, purpose, and love. The good stuff that will never stop being enjoyable.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts