You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Cancel Culture’ tag.
Collin May has published a long, ambitious essay in the C2C journal (Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium) on cancel culture, “hate” rhetoric, and the modern left’s moral posture. It is broader than I would write, more philosophical than most readers will tolerate, and occasionally overbuilt. But it names a pattern that matters, and one I return to often here: once “hate” becomes a universal accusation, institutions stop persuading and start policing.
May’s most useful contribution is not just the complaint (“cancel culture exists”) but the mechanism: “hate” stops being a moral description and becomes a category that pre-sorts who may be argued with and who may simply be managed.
That is the issue.
Not whether hatred exists. It does. Not whether some speech is vicious. It is. The issue is what happens when “hate” becomes the default label for disagreement, skepticism, refusal, dissent, or plain moral and factual judgments that cut against elite narratives.
At that point, the term stops describing and starts doing administrative work.
You can watch this happen across the institutions that shape public life: media, HR departments, professional bodies, universities, bureaucracies, and the expanding quasi-legal space around speech regulation. The sequence is familiar. Someone raises a concern about policy, ideology, language rules, school programming, medical ethics, public safety, immigration, religion, or sex-based rights. Instead of answering the argument, the institution reframes the speaker. Not wrong—harmful. Not questioning—spreading hate. Not participating in democratic friction—a threat to social order.
That move changes the rules of engagement. A wrong claim can be debated. A “hateful” claim can be quarantined. Once a claim is reclassified as harm rather than argument, the institutional response changes with it: less rebuttal, more restriction.
This language matters because it is not only moral language. It is managerial language. It justifies deplatforming, censorship, professional discipline, reputational destruction, and exclusion from ordinary civic legitimacy. It creates a class of people whose arguments no longer need to be answered on the merits. It also trains bystanders to confuse moral panic with moral seriousness.
May explains this through a large historical and philosophical genealogy. Fair enough. I am less interested in the full genealogy than in the practical result in front of us. In plain terms: the rhetoric of “hate” is often used to centralize authority in institutions that no longer trust the public and no longer feel obliged to reason with them.
That is one reason trust keeps collapsing.
People can live with disagreement. They can even live with policies they dislike. What they do not tolerate for long is being handled—being told their questions are illegitimate before they are heard. Once citizens conclude that institutions are using moral language as a shield against scrutiny, every future statement gets discounted. Even true statements are heard as spin.
And then the damage compounds. If “hate” is defined so broadly that it includes dissent, genuinely hateful speech becomes harder to identify and confront. The category gets inflated, politicized, and cheapened. Meanwhile, ordinary democratic disagreement becomes harder to conduct without professional or social risk.
That is not a confident free society. It is a managerial one.
Canada is not exempt. We have our own versions of this habit: speech debates reframed as safety debates, policy criticism recoded as identity harm, and public disputes (including over schools, sex-based rights, and even routine civic rituals like land acknowledgements) routed through tribunals, regulators, HR offices, and media scripts instead of open argument. The details vary by case. The mechanism does not. This tactic is not unique to one political tribe, but it is now especially entrenched in progressive-managerial institutions, which is precisely why it has so much reach.
The answer is not to deny hatred exists, or to become casual about cruelty. The answer is to recover civic discipline.
Name actual incitement when it occurs. Enforce existing laws where there are real threats, harassment, or violence. But stop using “hate” as a catch-all for disfavoured views. Stop treating condemnation as a substitute for evidence. Stop teaching institutions that the way to win an argument is to disqualify the speaker.
May quotes Pope Francis on cancel culture as something that “leaves no room.” Whether or not one follows his full historical argument, that phrase captures the operational problem.
A liberal society cannot function if citizens are only permitted to disagree inside moral boundaries drawn in advance by bureaucrats, activists, and legacy media.
The test is simple: can a claim be examined without first being moralized into silence?
If the answer is no, that is not moral confidence. It is institutional insecurity backed by power.
That is the pattern worth naming. And that is why essays like May’s, even when they overshoot, remain worth reading.
References
Collin May, “Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium,” C2C Journal (February 16, 2026), https://c2cjournal.ca/2026/02/hearts-of-darkness-how-the-left-uses-hate-to-fuel-its-21st-century-universal-imperium/. (C2C Journal)
In 2018, Roseanne Barr faced swift and severe backlash after posting a racially insensitive tweet about Valerie Jarrett, leading to the cancellation of her successful sitcom, Roseanne. Despite her subsequent apology and claims of being unfairly targeted, Barr’s career suffered a significant setback. In contrast, recent events have highlighted a perceived double standard in the entertainment industry. Jimmy Kimmel, known for his late-night political commentary, faced suspension from ABC following criticism from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr over remarks about conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The network’s decision to suspend Kimmel came amid pressure from the Trump administration, raising concerns about potential government overreach and censorship in media (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times).
Roseanne Barr has publicly criticized the disparate treatment, expressing frustration over the media’s response to her firing compared to the support Kimmel received. She contends that her termination was politically motivated and that she was unjustly slandered, while Kimmel is afforded opportunities to rehabilitate his image. Barr’s comments underscore ongoing debates about cancel culture and the inconsistencies in how public figures are held accountable for their statements (Hindustan Times, The Daily Beast).
This situation prompts a critical examination of the standards applied to public figures and the influence of political pressures on media decisions. The contrasting outcomes for Barr and Kimmel highlight the complexities of accountability and the role of political affiliations in shaping public and corporate responses to controversial statements.
References
*** Correction – Having checked the archive it appears the picture featured in this post is fabricated. Here is what transpired on May 29, 2018 –
Good catch tildeb, thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy of the quoted material.
Cancel Culture is a term that is is now common parlance, but what exactly is it and what are the conditions that foster such a blight on our society and social systems?
Many of the actions of the activist-Left (or woke) when they attempt to cancel a person in society are enumerated on the list below. One of the most striking features is the precipitous drop in the notion of mutual respect and dialogue – your ideological opponents are the ‘oppressive enemy’ rather than co-constituents of the society you both share.
Cancel Culture is the epitome of binary thinking and the dehumanization of people you classify as your opponent(s) and it is cancerous blight on cultures that value freedom of speech and rigorous debate of contentious issues.
So in light of the quotation’s last line – Proper diagnosis precedes an effective cure – we must educate ourselves in order to fight against what ails our cultural landscape.
“Rather, cancel culture and totalitarian societies are variations of the communal motif of Nisbet’s “revolutionary community.”
First, the revolutionary community is premised on the myth of human goodness. Core to any society is a founding myth of how the world works. For cancel culture, all problems in society are the result of some oppression, which can only be removed through “the liberative action of revolutionary violence.”
Second, such liberating violence is necessary. Only through force will our society be freed from its oppressions. Peaceful change through persuasion is to bargain with the oppressors. This is manifest in the bloodshed of the French and Russian Revolutions. It manifests in cancel culture as the vicious attack upon the perpetrator. This is not traditional violence, but the intent is the same: destruction of a person’s life. A wayward tweet results in doxing, ruining one’s economic and social prospects for life. It may not be literally burning down one’s house, but it is intended to have the same effect. Jonathan Rauch has gone so far as to compare literal assassination attempts such as those targeting Salmon Rushdie with the character assassinations of cancelations. This tenet of the revolutionary community is the reason.
Third, the holiness of sin. Nearly all consider violence under certain circumstances necessary, if regrettable. Public denunciations may be appropriate in certain circumstances, likewise cutting off friendships, firings, and so on. They are a last resort when other measures to bring repentance and change have failed. Not so for the revolutionary community. “Acts such as murder, kidnapping, treason, torture, mutilation, vandalism, and arson” are holy when carried out in the name of revolution. So such social violence wrought by cancellations are holy, they are noble, the very essence of righteous rage. Hence, celebrations when the canceled attempt suicide.
Fourth, the revolutionary community values terror. Fear has long been used to achieve certain behavioral outcomes. The crucifixion, public floggings, stake burnings, and the like were effective because they instigated fear. For the revolutionary community, terror is an essential part of the community because for revolutionaries it is a species of justice. It is the means whereby both the targets of terror get their comeuppance and everyone else is shown what lies in store should they dissent. The message is clear: silence or your life. Evidence of self-censorship indicates that this tenet is effective.
Fifth, the totalism of the revolutionary ideology. The revolutionary community seeks to advance its vision to every nook and cranny of life. Cancel culture is aimed at any communication through any medium at any time. The efforts of “offense archaeologists” work only because of the totalism inherent in cancel culture. Nothing said or done at any time anywhere—public or private—is beyond the reach of its total account of good and evil. It is why years-old comments lead to firings and forgiveness is impossible. Apologies, no matter how groveling and demeaning, are only proof of unforgivable guilt.
Sixth, the principles and tactics of the revolutionary community are always derived from an elite. Relatively few scholars at elite universities dictated the terms of woke ideology and its antecedents undergirding cancel culture. While a single Twitter warrior, student, or disgruntled citizen may spark a canceling campaign, the ideological basis upon which they do so is derived from the elite.
Seventh, centralization. This is the element from which cancel culture diverges and it is cancel culture’s most salient distinction from a totalitarian society. Cancel culture lacks the centralization of a totalitarian state, although some think it is a precursor to such a society. For now, cancel culture remains decentralized. Those who carry on canceling campaigns have no discernable central command, but they do have a totalist vision of how their doctrines dominate all of society.
Proper diagnosis generally precedes an effective cure.”
Imagine being reported for misconduct for saying that :”If a woman cannot stand in a public place and say ‘men cannot be women’, then we do not have women’s rights at all.”. I cannot believe the college even entertained the thought of sanctioning Kelvin Wright. The woke rot has tunneled deep into our institutions. :/
“And then there’s Kelvin Wright, an army surgeon who shared a quote from me on his personal Facebook page: “If women cannot stand in a public place and say ‘men cannot be women’, then we do not have women’s rights at all.” He was reported by a junior colleague for misconduct, and though he’s recently been cleared of wrongdoing he found the investigation so “hellish” that he has left the service.
◉ ◉ ◉
Why all this matters isn’t because it’s unfair to me, although it is. It’s because what I’m trying to shout from the rooftops is that women’s rights are being destroyed in the name of a parody of social justice; that politics and policymaking are turning towards ideology and away from evidence; and above all that a socio-medical scandal is being played out on the bodies of children.”
York University sets the bar low because challenging the intellectual assumptions of the student body is considered an act of ‘violence’. Read that right folks, hearing alternative world views will negatively affect student safety… at a University.
“Two days before I was due to travel to York, the event was cancelled. Days earlier the student union had removed the details of the event from the website, mumbling about ‘thorough risk assessments’. Essentially, they’re worried about spending more money on security for these events, so the organisers then usually cancel because they are then liable for the additional cost incurred.
This group of airheads have decided that I would be their maximum of 5/5 likelihood to breach the university’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy. The fact that I am a woman of working-class origin, an out lesbian, and a lifelong feminist is obviously irrelevant to these privileged kids who think being pansexual or non-binary is an oppression.
Some choice quotes from student activists on the Student Solidarity Network Instagram account include: ‘Julie Bindel’s whole career is founded in supporting the mass homicide of sex workers.’ I was called a ‘bigot’, ‘dangerous’, and someone that regularly peddles hate speech and incitement to violence against marginalised groups. I was also labelled a homophobe and a misogynist, with over 40 years of my campaigning against male violence and women’s oppression dismissed.
If this anti-democratic, censorious bullying is allowed to continue, universities will become nothing more than breeding ground for men’s rights activists. We must put an end to it.”
The coddling bullshit is real. The softheaded trigger warned genderation is pathetic.
No idea is sacred in a society that values freedom of speech and expression. Yet, if one questions the tenets of trans-ideology then seemingly all bets are off. Disrupting one’s professional career, receiving threats, losing opportunities to speak are all possible consequences of questioning trans-ideology. That fact in itself should give pause to anyone who fancies calling themself progressive. Robert Jensen writing for commondreams.org writes eloquently on this topic.
“To be clear: Humans do create cultural meaning about sex differences. Humans who have a genetic makeup to produce sperm (males) and humans who have a genetic makeup to produce eggs (females) are treated differently in a variety of ways that go beyond roles in reproduction.
In the struggle for women’s liberation, feminists in the 1970s began to use the term “gender” to describe the social construction of meaning around the differences in biological sex. When men would say, “Women are just not suited for political leadership,” for example, feminists would point out that this was not a biological fact to be accepted but a cultural norm to be resisted.
To state the obvious: Biological sex categories exist outside of human action. Social gender categories are a product of human action.
This observation leads to reasonable questions, which aren’t bigoted or transphobic: When those in the transgender movement assert that “trans women are women,” what do they mean? If they mean that a male human can somehow transform into a female human, the claim is incoherent because humans cannot change biological sex categories. If they mean that a male human can feel uncomfortable in the social gender category of “man” and prefer to live in a society’s gender category of “woman,” that is easy to understand. But it begs a question: Is the problem that one is assigned to the wrong category? Or is the problem that society has imposed gender categories that are rigid, repressive, and reactionary on everyone? And if the problem is in society’s gender categories, then is not the solution to analyze the system of patriarchy—institutionalized male dominance—that generates those rigid categories? Should we not seek to dismantle that system? Radical feminists argue for such a radical change in society.
These are the kinds of questions I have asked and the kinds of arguments I have made in writing and speaking. If I am wrong, then critics should point out mistakes and inaccuracies in my work. But if this radical feminist analysis is a strong one, then how can an accurate description of biological realities be evidence of bigotry or transphobia?
When I challenge the ideology of the transgender movement from a radical feminist perspective—which is sometimes referred to as “gender-critical,” critical of the way our culture socially constructs gender norms—I am not attacking people who identify as transgender. Instead, I am offering an alternative approach, one rooted in a collective struggle against patriarchal ideologies, institutions, and practices rather than a medicalized approach rooted in liberal individualism.
That’s why the label “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) is inaccurate. Radical feminists don’t exclude people who identify as transgender but rather offer what we believe is a more productive way to deal with the distress that people feel about gender norms that are rigid, repressive, and reactionary. That is not bigotry but politics. Our arguments are relevant to the ongoing debate about public policies, such as who is granted access to female-only spaces or who can compete in girls’ and women’s sports. They are relevant to concerns about the safety of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions. And radical feminism is grounded in compassion for those who experience gender dysphoria—instead of turning away from reality, we are suggesting ways to cope that we believe to be more productive for everyone.
Now, a final prediction. I expect that some people in the transgender movement will suggest that my reproduction/respiration analogy mocks people who identify as transgender by suggesting that they are ignorant. Let me state clearly: I do not think that. The analogy is offered to point out that an argument relevant to public policy doesn’t hold up. To critique a political position in good faith is not to mock the people who hold it but rather to take seriously one’s obligation to participate in democratic dialogue.
In a cancel culture, people who disagree with me may find it easy to ignore the argument and simply label me a bigot, on the reasoning that because I think a certain ideology within the transgender movement is open to critique, I obviously am transphobic.“
Cancel culture is the mirco level of what is happening in many parts of our online culture. The macro: group dynamics, power dynamics, and class are what drive the process. As critical thinkers and active citizens we need to be aware of both levels and how they interact and form the popular social currents in our society.
The most often suggested tonic to cancel culture is free speech. I tend to agree with that proviso, but I would add that free speech is not enough to guarantee a social dynamic that is immune from the ravages of cancel culture. Free speech must be coupled with a citizenry that has the wherewithal to think deeply about issues and be capable of frank analysis of the positions and arguments that they make, otherwise the utility of free speech becomes decidedly limited.
People have to be able to agree to listen to each other for free speech to work as we imagine it should. Yelling at each other from ideological fortresses accomplishes nothing.
I would suggest that the ability to compromise is one of the key ingredients that is required to make a society that values liberty and freedom work. There is a great deal of work to do in this regard as the barriers in place, as described by the JSTOR article, enumerates. Overcoming cancel culture will involve not only improving our own critical faculties, but also helping others make that very same transition.
“Perhaps more than anything else, cancel culture will be seen as an intrinsic part of life lived publicly in this decade, with the downfall of powerful Hollywood producers, racist and sexist comedians, white supremacists, and clueless corporations left in its wake. Cancel culture, not unlike cyberbullying, has also had its more “innocent” victims, ordinary citizens who said the unacceptable thing in a public forum. Is the destructive power of cancel culture too much?
Many perceive this phenomenon of cancelling as a very new and scary thing that young people do, so much so that they’re ready to cancel the whole thing. Even Barack Obama weighed in on it recently, cautioning young people not to be overly critical and judgmental, as though the very idea of “cancelling” must always wrong and unreasonable, regardless of what is being criticized or how problematic it may be. Obama’s negative reactions to this kind of power being wielded by a groups that are relatively powerless, as an establishment figure (no matter how benevolently he presents himself), are perhaps not unusual.
The social psychologist John Drury shows that the discourse around crowds, collectives, and people power have historically been problematic and negative, revealing the class biases and political ideologies of those commentators who describe them. Communities and crowds out of step with societal norms are often presented as something to be feared, and this is something many of us internalize. Crowds are scary. Even as we speak, there’s civil unrest, protests, demonstrations, and strikes happening all around the world, for a myriad of different reasons, in a decade that began with the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street protests. These movements have not often been described in flattering terms.
The kind of language that’s used to talk about groups of people assembled together—or their collective actions seeking to change the status quo—often maligns communities as irrational, “mobs” or “rioters” with uncontrolled, invalid emotions, a kind of faceless contagion that presents a threat to civilized, law-abiding society and the ruling establishment. As Drury points out, this language systematically delegitimizes the aims of these collectives as being trivial, if not dangerous:
If the crowd is pathologized and criminalized, then its behaviour is not meaningful. There can therefore be no rational dialogue with it. Since the crowd is not part of the democratic process, it is legitimate and even necessary to suppress it with the full force of the state.
No one could argue that it’s pleasant to be at the bottom of a pile on, virtual or not. It’s true that people can band together for the wrong reasons, but, funnily enough, they can also band together for very good reasons. Cancelling someone, in terms of public shaming, or shunning, or just being criticized, is, again, nothing new, though it is arguably different in how quickly and severely it can happen online. The English professor Jodie Nicotra points out that such a thing has always been a part of community life and, in fact, a part of building and maintaining a community’s values. Whenever people have deviated from the norm, there have been public acts of shaming, from the scarlet letters or village stocks of Puritan life to the ritual public head shavings of thousands of French women who were suspected of fraternizing with German soldiers in World War II.
Cancel culture is, on the one hand, less severe than these acts of public shaming, because it is mostly linguistic and communicative. On the other hand, it can seem more extreme, because unlike these historical events of past shaming, it’s unconstrained by geographical space and can involve large numbers of people in what can become an unrelenting personal attack. And that certainly can have unintended repercussions. Because social media, especially Twitter, is loosely joined together by a network of weak ties, it actually makes it easier for new, especially negative information, such as rumors or criticisms or even fake news, to spread quickly. It’s not constrained by closely linked social circles where information eventually stops spreading after repeatedly being shared by multiple people.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…