Imposing social death on dissent (revised)
Siloing ‘call out’ or ‘cancel’ culture.
Writer and commentator Helen Dale has nicely labelled siloing the phenomena of different media outlets not only purveying very different opinions, but also paying attention to very different things.
For instance, even life-long left-wingers such as Glenn Greenwald, Freddie DeBoer or Andrew Doyle can get ‘right-coded’, and be increasingly cut out of progressive media, for having views that do not fit the preferred message.
It has been fascinating, and more than a little horrifying, to watch media (both commercial and public) evolve toward the Pravda model: being selectively informative, with the key service provided being telling you what it is currently acceptable to say.
‘Cancel’ or ‘call out’ culture provides a particularly striking example of such siloing. Large parts of media deny or downplay it while not covering (either at all or in any detail) actual cases. Or presenting them as rightful shunning.
This essay, by Josh Slocum, on his recent experiences, is an example of cancel culture in operation. The imperial demand to not have one’s feelings hurt via disagreement while imposing social death on others.
Such righteousness flows “naturally” from one’s own views being deemed so morally unimpeachable that any serious dissent must be due to ignorance, malice or some other failure of moral character. That folk like you own morality so thoroughly that only fools and bigots could possibly disagree. Indeed, disagreement is, in itself, a sign of bigotry.
I have already, in this Twitter thread, set out how revelatory Josh Slocum’s Disaffected podcast has been for me. It is a sad irony that the very processes that Josh has been so vividly exposing have now come for him.
I urge everyone to support Josh in any way they can.