‘De-platforming’ and cancellation are the most visible forms of so-called ‘cancel culture’, but there are subtler ways in which public discourse is constrained when it comes to engaging with contentious issues.
Some useful insights Michael, especially the continuum you proposed. It appears that cancelation too can come from the Left and the Right, witness the meltdown in 2017 following Yassmin Abdel-Magied's comments on Anzac Day, the Right trying to ban books in the US and even I saw recently on Sky News they were basically implying Woody Allen should be cancelled even though he has never been charged with anything. The role of language is also interesting, terms like 'Islamophobia' and 'Anti-Semitism' can be used to shut down debate on a religion and a government's actions respectively, while if you don't have 'lived experience' on a topic you can be made to feel that your views on it have little or no legitimacy.
Some useful insights Michael, especially the continuum you proposed. It appears that cancelation too can come from the Left and the Right, witness the meltdown in 2017 following Yassmin Abdel-Magied's comments on Anzac Day, the Right trying to ban books in the US and even I saw recently on Sky News they were basically implying Woody Allen should be cancelled even though he has never been charged with anything. The role of language is also interesting, terms like 'Islamophobia' and 'Anti-Semitism' can be used to shut down debate on a religion and a government's actions respectively, while if you don't have 'lived experience' on a topic you can be made to feel that your views on it have little or no legitimacy.
What criteria do you propose for those issues which merit response 1 or 2?