I think you've strained the analogy to breaking point here. People aren't, by and large, declared racist in a court of law. We don't expect the same evidentiary standards when taking about where a person said or did something racist, sexist, etc as we do in a criminal case. This would be obvi…
I think you've strained the analogy to breaking point here. People aren't, by and large, declared racist in a court of law. We don't expect the same evidentiary standards when taking about where a person said or did something racist, sexist, etc as we do in a criminal case. This would be obviously insane.
And on that note, what "open admission" or "damage repair" are you looking for as reparations for cancel culture? What would this look like? Who should be apologising? The white guy who snapped a photo of Emmanuel Cafferty? Or the very likely white guys who fired him? Who should receive the apology? How is any of this working in your mind?
Cancel culture was and is terrible. I've written condemning it several times over the years. I even condemn it in this very article. But again, the fact that some people went over the top doesn't mean that racism/sexism/etc no longer exist. Nor does it mean that the only way to detect bigotry is to have a notarised letter, signed in triplicate, declaring that the person in question is racist. Or that if you can't meet that impossible evidentiary standard, you should default to making excuses for it
I don't and never have thought the solution to bigotry, except in the most egregious cases, should involve firing somebody. I've never, not a single time, made a defence of cancel culture. I'm saying that knee-jerk reactions to anything, even bad things, are almost always childish and irrational and make matters worse in the long run.
And that the "cover" which you rightly point out is being provided to bigots is being provided by the people whose knees are doing the jerking.
TLDR: I'm just not very impressed with or sympathetic to people who abandon reason and nuance, regardless of the consequences, because they blame entire groups for the excesses of a minority of people, many of whom, I'll remind you, were white.
Because, again, if someone is knowingly providing cover to bigots because they're mad at cancel culture, what is the meaningful difference between them and the bigots?
"That is how the courts are supposed to work."
I think you've strained the analogy to breaking point here. People aren't, by and large, declared racist in a court of law. We don't expect the same evidentiary standards when taking about where a person said or did something racist, sexist, etc as we do in a criminal case. This would be obviously insane.
And on that note, what "open admission" or "damage repair" are you looking for as reparations for cancel culture? What would this look like? Who should be apologising? The white guy who snapped a photo of Emmanuel Cafferty? Or the very likely white guys who fired him? Who should receive the apology? How is any of this working in your mind?
Cancel culture was and is terrible. I've written condemning it several times over the years. I even condemn it in this very article. But again, the fact that some people went over the top doesn't mean that racism/sexism/etc no longer exist. Nor does it mean that the only way to detect bigotry is to have a notarised letter, signed in triplicate, declaring that the person in question is racist. Or that if you can't meet that impossible evidentiary standard, you should default to making excuses for it
I don't and never have thought the solution to bigotry, except in the most egregious cases, should involve firing somebody. I've never, not a single time, made a defence of cancel culture. I'm saying that knee-jerk reactions to anything, even bad things, are almost always childish and irrational and make matters worse in the long run.
And that the "cover" which you rightly point out is being provided to bigots is being provided by the people whose knees are doing the jerking.
TLDR: I'm just not very impressed with or sympathetic to people who abandon reason and nuance, regardless of the consequences, because they blame entire groups for the excesses of a minority of people, many of whom, I'll remind you, were white.
Because, again, if someone is knowingly providing cover to bigots because they're mad at cancel culture, what is the meaningful difference between them and the bigots?