Culture Wars/Current Controversies

Cancel culture is the left’s version of broken windows policing

By Meghan Daum, Medium

The end of 2019 saw several conflicting reports about the severity — and even legitimacy — of cancel culture. It’s bad. It’s not that bad. It’s real. It isn’t that real. Imposed largely by social-media-based arbiters of up-to-the-minute standards of justice, cancellation in this context refers to social and cultural excommunication imposed on people who’ve committed anything from actual criminal acts (like Harvey Weinstein committing sexual assault) to offenses so minor as to be imperceptible to any but the hungriest scavengers of online shame (like the Iowa man whose efforts to raise money for charity resulted in brief viral fame that led to the surfacing of offensive tweets dating back to his adolescence).

For all the unpleasantness of such predicaments, some argue the threat is overblown. After all, Louis C.K., disgraced in 2017, is currently on a world tour. Kevin Hart, who stepped down from hosting the Oscars last year amid an uproar over years-old homophobic tweets, has a new Netflix series. J.K. Rowling, who in recent weeks has been labeled a TERF (that stands for “trans exclusive radical feminist”) for tweeting in support of yet another person deemed to be a TERF (it’s a long story) has become something of a free-speech hero for refusing to apologize.


3 replies »

  1. “(The Human Rights Council says there were 26 such deaths reported in 2018. That’s 26 too many, but the frequent use of “epidemic” around the issue might warrant some examination — not to mention contextualization within the broader conversation about violence against women, 1,600 of whom were killed that year.)” – She should contextualize this even further and metion how many men died of violence. But as in all of us, she is blind to her blind spot.

    • Then, again, this is the same woman who said in her interview with reason that she belives that one in four women are sexually assaulted on campus, a number that came from a literal rape apologist. You can’t expect a lot from her.

    • This article gets it better: “Many women’s groups and other feminists frequently attempt to portray a picture of a society that is mostly violent toward women. They use this propaganda to get politicians to pass gendered violence laws, like the Violence Against Women Act.

      The irony of this is that violence against women is one of the least common forms of violence in Western Countries. In fact, society is so programmed since childhood to never hurt women that even violent criminals typically avoid hurting women during the act of committing a crime, while they are far more likely to hit or injure male victims.

      This is reflected in the actual numbers, which paint an entirely different picture than feminists would like people to believe.

      When adjusted for all violent crime, discrepancies between races tend to disappear. However, males are still far more likely to be the victim of all violent crimes except sexual assault. This is actually why feminists focus so much on sexual assault, because it’s the only crime that affects more women than men. However sexual assault only makes up 8% of all crime, with innocent male victims making up the majority of the victims for the remaining 92% of all violent crime.

      Note: A common defense feminists will make for not caring about this issue is that “men commit more violent crime”. However, most violent criminals are raised by violent parents, and mothers acting alone actually make up the majority of child violence cases – with boys more commonly the victims, especially in the case of child murder.

      Therefore to get to the root of violence, we should actually be caring more about violence against boys and men – and in particular protecting innocent boys before they become victims of abuse, and the cycle of violence starts.

      A Violence Against Boys Act would go much further to stopping violence in society than any other anti-violence act.”

Leave a Reply