“Cancel Culture”
A trendy new word that has swiftly acquired currency on social media in the recent
year is cancel culture. In principle, internet ostracism appears to be advantageous
since it empowers the public to hold prominent personalities accountable for
immoral behavior or other matters over which law enforcement has no control.
However, several examples have shown that this ability can be readily misused,
resulting in the "cancelling" going too far or persons receiving excessive amounts
of hatred. Cancel culture has repeatedly demonstrated that it can be disruptive,
intolerant, and unduly harsh, and it is plainly not good for our society.
Cancel culture is a phrase used by Generation Z to describe the practice of
canceling someone because of anything offensive. It is often argued if a person
should be removed for their behavior against different individuals, such as whether
sexist and racist individuals should be called out and taught a lesson. For example,
on Twitter, some kpop fans frequently use the "cancel, cancelling, or exposing
thread," which contains people who have been exposed due to their wrongdoings
or offensive tweets. Because of the toxic nature of the culture, people who are
usually exposed or cancelled on Twitter have been verbally abused, which may
have an impact on that person's mental health due to their lack of sensitivity to the
topic. I have a friend who was cancelled just for expressing a different view on a
tweet. People, in my opinion, should quit canceling and humiliating them in public
and instead teach them correctly in private.
Another concern is that the cancellation culture discourages free debate, instead
encourages the silence of opposing viewpoints. In the view of mainstream social
media, there is no place for compromise on contentious issues; people are either
morally correct or part of the problem. One major fault with cancel culture is that
individuals on the internet are often quick to "cancel" someone, creating a toxic
atmosphere for celebrities, influencers, and other public figures.
The fundamental argument in favor of cancel culture is that it empowers ordinary
people on social media by allowing them to hold famous personalities accountable
for damaging or disrespectful acts. I agree that consequences are important, but
"cancelling" someone is not an effective way to enforce them.
There is a difference to be made between holding people accountable and entirely
cancelling them. In most circumstances, we should merely draw attention to a
damaging conduct so that the individual does not repeat it, and encourage them to
apologize and do better the next time. If they resist, it may be necessary to adopt a
more forceful approach, such as placing them on a brief pause. Bringing the
person's reputation and perhaps the result of their career into the discussion by
threatening to "cancel" them, on the other hand, is typically unnecessary.
To summarize, "cancelling" individuals is an intrinsically undesirable activity. It
fosters intolerance, stifles the work of many in creative professions, and oppresses
those who have opposing views. Many influential people from a variety of
professions, backgrounds, and political ideologies have spoken out against it,
urging people not to rush to judgment. Yes, it is essential that people's actions have
repercussions, but this does not necessarily necessitate harsh criticism or constant
condemnation.
Cancel society categorizes individuals as either all "good" or all "evil," yet
humans are far more complex. Controversies are complicated, and lumping
transgressions of varying severity under the same umbrella phrase "canceled" isn't
fair to anyone involved. Simply stated, cancel culture puts more negativity into the
world than it removes.
In conclusion I do not agree with cancel culture. The reason behind this is
simple, exposing people based on a small mistake and making them look worse
than they are is wrong.
We are bound to use our right to freedom of expression, and we are all
obligated to make errors; no one is flawless, and neither are we.
