So How Do You Suggest We Hold People Accountable?

As of this writing, Joe Rogan has produced 1824 podcasts. Each of which seems to be in the 2-3 hour range. That’s a lot of words. Most of which I would quite happily never have heard.

But unfortunately, back in February, India Arie shared a video that ensured we’d all hear him use one particular word over and over again.

In my article, The Corrosive Cost Of Cancel Culture, I addressed the controversy surrounding Joe Rogan’s use of the n-word, as well as a racist joke he told on his podcast. I asked whether it would be better to use these incidents as teachable moments instead of opportunities to extract a pound of flesh. I asked whether the hysteria that often follows these events is really justified.

E thinks the hysteria holds a greater significance.

---

E:

So how do you suggest we hold people accountable? Essentially cancel culture and boycotts are nearly the same thing. Martin Luther King Jr. saw the efficacy of the boycott and it was successful in achieving legal gains. Rogan was pressured into releasing an apology video BECAUSE of cancel culture. Not because he grew into understanding on his own. Had there been no public backlash I dont know he would have addressed it.

---

Steve QJ:

So how do you suggest we hold people accountable?

I think we need to be extraordinarily careful with the notion of "accountability" because what we're really talking about is "retribution" in most cases.

What accountability is required for a nine-year-old joke that somebody has apologised for in your opinion? Again, Rogan acknowledges that the joke was racist seconds after making it. The story he was telling was obviously meant to be supportive of black people's experience. He got it badly wrong with that joke. No argument from me. But when you say accountability, what do you mean? This is the elephant in the room. Let's not hide behind his word "accountability.” Let's spell out what you think would be "fair".

---

E:

No I meant accountability. Rogan made the video apologizing in response to the public outcry. That displays the efficacy of the boycott (i.e. what we call cancel culture today).

I’m surprised you’re so forgiving of Rogan almost to the point of caping for him. That the joke was made a long time ago is significant and we should take that into consideration no doubt. However we should take into consideration that he was a grown man when he made the joke and didn’t offer a sincere public apology until his podcast was affected.

I’m not hiding behind anything. Accountability is the most apt word for what I deem appropriate. If anyone’s behavior causes undue harm or offense to someone else in a way that is almost universally accepted as wrong, there should be a penalty for it so as to correct what is wrong. So that an offense does not become an accepted cultural norm. I hope that clarifies things and thank you for your response brother!

---

Steve QJ:

That displays the efficacy of the boycott (i.e. what we call cancel culture today).

I got distracted from this point in my last reply, but no, boycotts and cancel culture are absolutely not the same.

First, there's the question of scale. Both in the size of the harm done, and also in the target. Cancel culture is not, at least as far as I see it, about complaining that somebody said something you disliked. That's called discourse. And that, I think was why Rogan apologised. I think he knew that what he said was wrong, and now it resurfaced he apologised. Nor is cancel culture choosing to cancel your Spotify account if you don't like Rogan's podcast.

But boycotts are about change. The Montgomery Bus boycott, for example, was about an existing problem that needed to be rectified. It wasn’t because black people were forced to sit at the back of the bus 9 years ago and they were demanding a performative apology from the CEO. It was because black people had to sit at the back of the bus at that time. There was also a clear aim; change the discriminatory practices that the bus companies were guilty of. Once the practices were changed, the boycott was a success. Nobody, as far as I know, was demanding a performative apology on social media. They wanted change, not to pillory people.

This is the problem with cancel culture. The vindictiveness is the only point. Not the issues. Not making the world a better place. It's the going after people's jobs, regardless of how much time has passed or the offence in question. It's the abuse and the death threats. It's the lies about what this person is really about. It's the missed opportunity to educate people, especially people who are basically reasonable, instead of turning them into martyrs.

So no, I'm definitely not “caping” for Joe Rogan 😅. I'm totally indifferent to him. He's a convenient example of this problem but, as many people have pointed out, he's going to be just fine regardless. The point is, plenty of people on a smaller scale aren't. The guy who was fired for making an okay symbol that some other guy decided was a white power sign, the family restaurant that was shut down because the owner's daughter sent racists tweets as a teenager (eight years prior), the professor who was suspended for legitimately teaching Chinese words that sound like the n-word, and many more, this is the real problem I'm pointing to. And it has nothing to do with accountability.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate you.

---

E:

There is virtually no discernible difference between cancel culture and boycott. Cancel culture has a negative connotation so people try to create a difference but the aims and objectives of both are paralleled. Both advocate ceasing the social, economic, political, or moral support of an individual, organization or other entity, accused of committing some grave offense. That is the fundamental objective of both. Both are used as a means to correct behavior deemed inimical to public health. The flawed characteristics you attribute to cancel culture can be ascribed to the boycott as well.

One can argue cancel culture also endorses change. When musicians or the public call for Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from their streaming service, they are saying "If you allow racists to utilize and profit from your platform, you are essentially sanctioning their behavior." It is good for Spotify and Rogan to know the public finds such behavior intolerable and there will be a penalty for it. That can produce great change!

While Rogan's comments may have been made years ago, I don't believe he made any serious effort to rectify or atone for his wrongdoings until this happened. The mere passage of time does not wash away your sins. You need to show you have grown from them and understand the harm done and it seems calls to remove Joe Rogan from Spotify and musicians removing their music accomplished that.

As for the examples you listed, the family restaurant was not called to be shut down because of racist tweets the daughter sent. Not for that reason alone. I looked it up and read into it and it has been said the restaurant has a history of mistreating Black customers. So you left that part out. If you are saying to cancel and never allow space to redeem is a problem then we agree. But cancelling aka boycotting can be a useful, nonviolent form of corrective action that raises public awareness and creates an educational opportunity for the offender to understand the consequences of their actions. We can go on for days I guess, but I think we're good here!! lol

---

“I don't believe he made any serious effort to rectify or atone for his wrongdoings until this happened. The mere passage of time does not wash away your sins.”

The puritanical, quasi-religious nature of cancel culture has been pointed out many times. But it still amazes me every time.

How exactly is Rogan supposed to “rectify or atone” for making a racist joke 9 years ago, other than by not doing it again? Which he hasn’t. What “serious effort” could he have made to “wash away his sins” to E’s satisfaction?

I asked this question right at the start, as I usually do when I meet a cancel culture defender, but I have never received an answer.

---

Steve QJ:

There is virtually no discernible difference between cancel culture and boycott.

I mean, you're of course welcome to continue to say this, but it's obviously not true. Even the definition of the word boycott:

“to withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. A punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.”

makes it clear that boycotts aren't about going after an individual's job or harassing them. Yes, cancelling a subscription to Spotify, for example, is like a boycott. I already agreed that this isn't cancel culture. But I also laid out a number of ways in which cancel culture is different from a boycott. Anyway yes, we'll just go on for days if we can't acknowledge these differences.

---

The most common strategy for defending cancel culture, at least in my experience, is simply refusing to acknowledge what it is. Its supporters conflate it with civil action, with protest, with the decision not to support a company or an individual you dislike.

But the truth is, cancel culture is a witch hunt.

Cancel culture is the practice of using minor or even imagined slights as justification to attack strangers. Of intimidating employers into firing their employess. Of making sure anybody thinking of saying the “wrong thing” will “learn what happens.” In short, it’s about power.

The point isn’t to undo “harm.” Because in almost every case, no harm was caused. No, the only point is the vindictiveness.