I think you’re getting at this above, but in my mind, the difference between boycotting and cancelling is that boycotting opposes something an organization is DOING (or not doing), and cancelling opposes who someone IS. So the purpose of boycotting is to apply pressure to an organization to change their behavior. The purpose of cancellin…
I think you’re getting at this above, but in my mind, the difference between boycotting and cancelling is that boycotting opposes something an organization is DOING (or not doing), and cancelling opposes who someone IS. So the purpose of boycotting is to apply pressure to an organization to change their behavior. The purpose of cancelling is permanent exile, as a way to send a message to the rest of the community- don’t be like this person. The cancelled person can’t return to good graces by changing their behavior. Joe Rogan didn’t “say something racist,” he “IS A racist,” and no amount of apologizing on his part will change that. To the cancel squad, Joe is a lost cause and can only serve the greater good as a cautionary tale. This is why E “boycotts” Spotify- to encourage them to change their behavior in not broadcasting “a racist”- and when they do as E wishes, E is happy to renew their subscription. But there is no behavior for Joe to change- he is “cancelled” forever. No forgiveness, no redemption. So, exactly your point- it CANT be about getting the subject to change their behavior. It can only be about punishment, example-setting, and moral superiority.
"I think you’re getting at this above, but in my mind, the difference between boycotting and cancelling is that boycotting opposes something an organization is DOING (or not doing), and cancelling opposes who someone IS."
Hmm, yeah this is a good distinction. Like I said, I don't have a problem with somebody cancelling their Spotify subscription because they don't like Joe Rogan. If Rogan's show were the wall-to-wall racism some people seem to think it is, I probably wouldn't want to support his platform either.
My problem is a) that so many people are willing to decide who somebody IS without ever even listening to them (again, Rogan has thousands of hours of podcasts and most of the people condemning him have only ever seen one heavily edited clip).
And b) as you say, the idea that making a racist joke makes somebody an eternal racist. And not just any racist, but a racist so damnable that they need to be removed from public life forever. It's the whole "one-strike, even if it was decade ago" rule that makes it all so repulsive.
I think you’re getting at this above, but in my mind, the difference between boycotting and cancelling is that boycotting opposes something an organization is DOING (or not doing), and cancelling opposes who someone IS. So the purpose of boycotting is to apply pressure to an organization to change their behavior. The purpose of cancelling is permanent exile, as a way to send a message to the rest of the community- don’t be like this person. The cancelled person can’t return to good graces by changing their behavior. Joe Rogan didn’t “say something racist,” he “IS A racist,” and no amount of apologizing on his part will change that. To the cancel squad, Joe is a lost cause and can only serve the greater good as a cautionary tale. This is why E “boycotts” Spotify- to encourage them to change their behavior in not broadcasting “a racist”- and when they do as E wishes, E is happy to renew their subscription. But there is no behavior for Joe to change- he is “cancelled” forever. No forgiveness, no redemption. So, exactly your point- it CANT be about getting the subject to change their behavior. It can only be about punishment, example-setting, and moral superiority.
"I think you’re getting at this above, but in my mind, the difference between boycotting and cancelling is that boycotting opposes something an organization is DOING (or not doing), and cancelling opposes who someone IS."
Hmm, yeah this is a good distinction. Like I said, I don't have a problem with somebody cancelling their Spotify subscription because they don't like Joe Rogan. If Rogan's show were the wall-to-wall racism some people seem to think it is, I probably wouldn't want to support his platform either.
My problem is a) that so many people are willing to decide who somebody IS without ever even listening to them (again, Rogan has thousands of hours of podcasts and most of the people condemning him have only ever seen one heavily edited clip).
And b) as you say, the idea that making a racist joke makes somebody an eternal racist. And not just any racist, but a racist so damnable that they need to be removed from public life forever. It's the whole "one-strike, even if it was decade ago" rule that makes it all so repulsive.