Regardless - "some companies won't work with you" is effectively a blacklist for those who don't have traditional backgrounds. Another point is that the online social circles acts as a support network for some disenfranchised folks (queers like myself), and when that gets turned against them, it gets ugly.
I don't think I'm exaggerating that we're in a satanic panic against certain kind of art and works.
(Not providing public links out of real concern for safety, but happy to if individuals DM me here.)
"cancel culture" has always existed. The only thing that is changing is that who is "cancelled" is no longer chosen by TV producers and news editors (ie, white men), but democratically by self-directed popular discourse.
In 2003 the Dixie Chicks said at a show in london, "We don't want this war, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas". Immediately their recording contracts were cancelled, venues would no longer book their shows, radio stations would no longer play them, MTV stopped showing their music videos, they lost all of their sponsorships, and their colleagues in the genre ostracized them and started including segments in their shows about how the Dixie Chicks are terrorists.
If that's not cancel culture, what is? Why is it okay and normal for white male venue owners, disc jockeys, and record label CEOs to destroy somebody's career for a single sentence of political speech, but "political correctness run amok" when marginalized people on twitter decide that they aren't going to buy tickets to a show with a comedian who's known for assaulting female stagehands?
"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
Surely if you think that majoritarian tyranny is bad, you must also believe that minoritarian tyranny is far worse, right? Such as when a select few individuals of a particular racial, gender, and social class, have complete control over popular media, with the sole power to decide who is successful and what damaging information about powerful people can becomes public knowledge and which is kept secret?
Also, quoting Mill while claiming that an individual consumer freely choosing to not buy a product is "tyranny" is laughable to the highest degree.
Yes, congratulations, you found the point.
The current media landscape is nothing like that, because the current media landscape is only about 10 years old. For all of modern history until the introduction of social media sites like youtube, twitter, and facebook, the only way to spread information or opinion was to get the editors of for-profit media companies to agree to publish you.
It is beside the point but also worth pointing out that also until very recently, like the last decade, the editors of those institutions have been of a very particular gender and racial demographic.
The new media, with all of it's "discourse" is democratic editorialism. Welcome to the freest market of ideas the world has ever seen. You can't call up your buddies Ailes, Rosenthal, Jordan, Sorenson, and Klose to tell the public what to think about you anymore.
> Lastly, again your third paragraph is a straw man.
We're talking about "cancel culture" here, aren't we? The phenomenon where members of the public decide based on new information to stop buying products because of the beliefs and actions of their creators? What is that if not the democratic free-market action that Mill so often advocated as the optimal way to organize society?
These are two different things, though. You can disempower the majority without empowering the minority. Power is not a zero-sum game - you can disclaim it without handing it over to someone else.
More broadly, just because some power can be exercised by somebody, doesn't mean that it has to be exercised by anybody. To the extent that it may be necessary for a functioning society, it's generally best to decentralize power to the extent possible - think council democracy and similar arrangements, where decisions are made at the lowest applicable levels, and delegation of power flows upwards, not downwards. Some real-world approximations of these can be seen with the Zapatistas, and more recently in Rojava. In both cases, there are local governments that can democratically ban certain things as you've described - but, being local, their power is inherently limited in scope. Thus, it's tyranny of the local majority, and dissenters are free to move away and organize their own communities that do not implement such bans (but still federate with others that do).
To the second point: I would disagree in the sense that (a) it is dangerous to conflate 'people in a position of power actively using their established power to censor others' and 'mere disagreement'. Censorship becomes censorship when there is active harassment. (b) The latter example of marginalized people on twitter disagreeing isn't such - until the threats are stated. And there is a lot of horizontal violence that exists on that platform.
The way I'd personally reframe this issue of (self)-censorship is that we're in a moral panic wave - certain platforms have made it incredibly easy for creators to be mobbed if they step out of acceptable discourse, regardless of their politics.
It's another thing for some nobody to lose a job as a stock broker because they made a joke about the 3/5ths compromise that was funny enough to go viral on TikTok where it then pissed off some other nobodies and then all the blue checks piled on.
The Dixie chicks were playing with fire and they knew it. Some rando isn't.
When 1 person decides to make a new law, that's autocracy, and it's a bad thing. When a supermajority of voters decide to make a new law, that's democracy, and it's a good thing.
When a couple dozen editors, CEOs, and DJs decided to end the Dixie Chicks' careers by banning them from access to all channels of outreach to the public, that was a bad thing and also censorship.
When tens of millions of people decided they don't want to go to Louis CK's shows anymore and he's finding it hard to find an audience as a result, there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of people independently deciding that they don't like you is not censorship.
Is it, really? Even if the new law is extremely oppressive to the minority?
I mean, our drug laws are a mess that caused extreme grief (prison etc) to millions of people by now. But they were supported by wide majorities of the electorate. Were they a good thing? How about the Prohibition? Sodomy laws?
If it's a small unrepresentative number of people who dislike a person, group, or thing, why would anybody care?
Oh wait, is that anti-Semitic to say? Then was it anti-white of you to say?
Also being cancelled for opposing a war that was engineered by globalist neocons is not proof that the interests of white males used to be the basis for cancelling people lol.
And there's nothing "democratic" about this lol, the cancelling is still done to suit the interests of those "white" people who run these organisations. No one cares if some people don't want to buy some tickets to a show, they care when Mastercard and Visa have secret blacklists of anyone to the right of Mitt Romney that they don't allow to transact on their monopoly global financial network.
The only way to stop this is enforcement with teeth.
Ethically, this is why we have organizations like the ACLU, ADA, and many, many others to be the enforcement with teeth. It's an uphill battle. I would disagree in the sense that pushing back against censorship - particularly of minorities - has many battlegrounds, not just enforcement with teeth. Greater social awareness/acceptance, education (history of blacklisting of sexual minorities for example), grassroots activism of simply supporting authors at risk of being deplatformed ... no sense in ignoring a tool that's available.
So, blacklisting: check. Excommunication: check. I'd rather not wait till it goes down further.
In response to the murder, the writer was pretty much universally condemned and the a bill was introduced in the legislature to ban writings of that sort.
The fact that so many have convinced themselves that somehow we're in some new illiberal age is comical.
In the states, just off the top of my head: the McCarthy era, the reaction to the 1968 Olympic raised fist incident
Aren't those examples of the kinds of things we want to stop doing?
So you are agreeing Cancel Culture is bad and we should find better ways to peacefully disagree with each other?
Which is why that's where most of the whining that this is a new and dangerous phenomenon is coming from.
Heck, the government hyperfocus on rooting out Communism began almost immediately after the suggestion of turning the same apparatus against the KKK was rebuffed because of that organizations loyalty and patriotism.
There's nothing new about receiving negative feedback for having and expressing unpopular opinions. That's really common in pretty much every single social group I've been in, including on HN.
There's totally a difference, but you honestly think that this is a new thing that never used to happen?
Apparently not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comedy_television_seri...
No, but I do think it's a lot easier for someone to tweet out an inappropriate joke or get caught on video doing something obnoxious today--that have at least the potential to blow up to a greater degree than a few decades ago.
And your claim is that this sort of thing just started happening in the last decade or two?
That's probably because you weren't listening, possibly because it was 30 years into the right whining about that under the label “political correctness” and everyone had learned to tune it out.
Now they've got a new label and marketing effort behind selling it as the boogeyman, and everything old is new again.
The underlying mechanism has not really changed.
Nobody gives a shit when Uber classifies their drivers as independent contractors to stiff them on benefits, but everybody cares about the propriety of master/slave replication terminology. We're dealing with police violence by capitalizing Black in our style guides. Etc etc etc.
I think quite a few people gave a shit? I think you're attacking a straw man, it is perfectly possible to have opinions on small stylistic issues (like master vs main) while also thinking that there are fundamental economic things that need to change.
I'm sure that people 'care', and I suppose I'm straw-manning those people.. I'm not straw-manning the system. Time and again, challenges to monetary order aren't permitted but puritanical word-propriety is encouraged. It's an energy outlet.
I agree very much with this statement, but somehow have reached the opposite conclusion about whether "cancel culture" is a big problem that we need to spend a lot of time addressing. To me, that seems to be playing into the same issue you identified.
I was more being descriptive than prescriptive, I'm just posting here.. but it's a problem that all of the energy and outrage go into stylistic and cultural bullshit. In a perfect world we could channel that energy into community organizing, electoralism, or other forms of people getting out there and interacting with the groups they claim to speak for.
Their appeal lost in the UK just last week.
You're saying that you think that your job would be in danger if you said publicly that you thought that universities should be race-blind?
What has changed is that the Internet and the associated record of a person's conduct online can make the town very, very big indeed.
"We're gonna hurt some people ourselves to get even" is the devil speaking.
Where in this thread do I justify or emulate? Please quote something from any of my posts that would give you the impression that I approve of "cancel culture".
However, if people are genuinely concerned about chilling speech, then why are they spending so much effort to call out SJW in a tiny handful of big cities instead of raising hell about the overt and often legal discrimination that happens in tens of thousands of rural communities?
It's hard for me to take the concern about cancel culture seriously when the concern is exclusively focused on one side of the political/cultural divide even though the phenomenon happens far more on the other side of that divide. I have zero confidence that such concerns are genuine.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I'm saying ;-)
AFAICT every example in the article. I always assume that the contents of the article are upthread because I always assume people read the article before commenting :)
Aside from the article, my impression is that "cancel culture" has a more specific meaning than you seem to prescribe. One on hand, we never called it "cancel culture" when a teacher is fired for being gay. And on the other, CPAC's theme this year is "America Uncanceled". My understanding is that, at this point, the term does have political content.
So yeah, "cancellation" has some left-wing connotations, but it's not something that only the left can do. Further, there absolutely are hypocrites who criticize "cancel culture", but who happily try to cancel people they don't like. Hypocrites are bad, but there are still lots and lots of principled critics of cancel culture (indeed, I'm pretty sure most of the Harper's letter signatories are left-of-center). That there are hypocrites doesn't validate cancel culture.
Also, if you're upset about the left-wing connotations, the proper response is not to try to legitimize cancel culture, but rather to persuade your political associates to behave better for sake of the brand.
TL;DR: Canceling is bad no matter who does it; recently it's mostly been the woke left who have been doing it so it does have some political connotations; sometimes people are disingenuous in criticizing "cancel culture".
Passing off Liberty as a bastion of free expression because they invited Sanders to give a speech is beyond disingenuous, and a perfect example of the enormous double standard in discussions of "cancel culture" right now.
> In the general case, you're not allowed to teach at Liberty unless you're a very specific type of conservative christian.
Let's not pretend that you are allowed to teach at Harvard, at least in certain departments, without a very specific political leaning. And certain other political leanings are not allowed in any department.
> A statement of faith is a required component of the faculty application packet.
UC requires a mandatory "diversity statement" for faculty job applications:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/19/mathematician...
I can't speak to all of Harvard's departments, but I know it's completely possible to have a wide variety of political viewpoints in SEAS. The faculty itself is probably to the right of the immediately surrounding community (that that this means much in Boston Metro, but I think it's probably true in the case of SEAS).
> UC requires a mandatory "diversity statement" for faculty job applications:
Diversity statements typically focus on a certain type of service and teaching activity.
The "how it effects my teaching and advising" part of the statement could talk about making special efforts in your teaching to help first generation college students, or supporting students who aren't neurotypical, or being really good at working with the specific circumstances of students who come from non-traditional backgrounds (eg adult learners).
The outreach/service portion of the statement could discuss bringing resources to underserved rural communities. Or providing learning opportunities for prisoners. Or a million other things.
Source: actually did this. Got job offers.
The fact that you think writing a "diversity statement" means you have to fit a certain political mold says a lot more about what you think diversity means than about diversity statement requirements. The diversity statement is about proving that you can at the very least create an inclusive learning environment for people from non-traditional backgrounds. Why in god's name should this be political, or in fact not a requirement for a teacher?
Comparing diversity statements to statements of religious faith is absurd. If you can't write a page about eg helping autism spectrum students succeed in CS 1, and someone else can, then you might not be the best candidate for a CS 1 lecturer. Opinions on the Westminster Catechism, on the other hand, are not relevant to teaching students about linked lists.
An individual who I thought got a raw deal and was completely misunderstood, when he gave his speech.
As far as I can tell he’s done well for himself since then, but that’s because he already had a network of connections.
One misconstrued speech was all it took to ruin a chance to lead a premier east coast uni.
The idiocy of that conversational arc is basically the point I’m trying to make.
Now I’m responding to the assertion to that one doesn’t need to be of a certain stripe to make it in liberal institutions.
You downplay and say that a Harvard pres. position is highly political; which is fair, but the reaction also shows that a pervasive and intolerant groupthink is present.
It may tolerate the odd dissenting professor, especially if they’re protected by tenure, but the buck stops there.
No such protections for students first making their way into the world.
Not exactly a bastion of free thought and discourse.
What _you_ and Harvard in general think of as a wide variety of political viewpoints, and what _actually_ constitutes a wide variety, are likely very different things.
I know well what a wide variety of political viewpoints looks like, because I’ve lived in at least three extremes. Have you?
Harvard’s faculty is left of center in aggregate (did I ever say otherwise?) but they aren’t uniformly radical and there are a lot of moderates and conservatives in the ranks.
That's complete nonsense. Harvard's law department is run by Mary Ann Glendon, notorious catholic dominionist and staple of anti-abortion activism in the US.
The "liberal college professor" meme is a right-wing canard, which only holds true as far as people who believe in evidence driven investigation and deep thought, such as those who serve in science departments, are unlikely to form a religious conservative reactionary worldview.
Could you be any more disingenuous?
And no one has ever suggested that other groups don't engage in this sort of activity when they're in power.
Show me a single college with a policy that explicitly discriminates against Christians.
I grew up in the Midwest and outside of the city. When I visit home, I pretend to believe in God, lie-by-omission about my bisexuality, stay silent about politics, pretend to say grace at dinner, and go to Church on Sunday mornings. If I didn't, then in many ways I'd not longer be welcome in that social group. Finding a iving-wage job in the local community would certainly be impossible. There are only a few tech firms and all the owners are members of the same bible study.
Want to see real cancel culture? Live in any of America's many culturally homogeneous rural communities for a month. Put up a Biden sign in panhandle.
None of this is a defense of cancel culture, but it's worth keeping in perspective that way more "cancelling" goes on in deeply conservative communities than in extremely liberal communities. We just call it "keeping American a Christian nation" instead of "cancel culture".
I'm on the autism spectrum, as are many others around here. Social rules are hard in the best of times. Now they are impossible to follow, and breaking them is outright dangerous.
But I can keep to myself, I guess I'll be fine.
My point here is not to defend cancel culture, but rather to point out that something like it has always existed and still exists on the right. IMO the only solution is everyone realizing this fact and explicitly agreeing to some form of detente.
I'm not holding my breath, but step zero is both sides realizing that the their side also does the thing they're complaining about.
The age of Enlightement and the idea of liberalism have been so powerful because they programmatically went against any kind of censorship. Their ideas helped to see how humans are truly all equal, that we all share what it means to be human.
Identity politics set out to destroy these ideas. It is the enemy of liberalism, of a free flow of ideas, of a will to see us all as equals. It divides us into groups, based on biological features like the color of our skin, our age and our genitals.
This insanity will not end well.
I'm sorry that you've had to go through those experiences, but not everyone rural or Christian is like that, and it's very harmful to characterize them that way. It's not accurate to stereotype Christians as hateful any more than it's accurate to stereotype Muslims as supporting terrorism. They are extremely diverse groups with some truly bad subgroups, but also some good ones, and most subgroups are in-between. The extremes aren't representative of the group as a whole.
And Donald Trump and Fox News have a heck of a lot of cultural and institutional power.
Can you point to a single example of a hiring or T&P policy that overtly discriminates on the basis of religion?
I certainly can. Wheaton College, Cedarville University, and Liberty University come to mind. None of those places will hire non-Christians, and a Statement of Faith is a required component of every faculty application.
The standard isn't "can't include God", but "must fit the facts". God is unprovable and untestable; making a theory depend on a God makes the theory unprovable and untestable. Most scientists who also have religious beliefs don't see the two conflicting; their religion gives the why, their profession the how.
Or more succinctly, no one is blackballing scientists for saying "I believe God caused the Big Bang". But claims of, for instance, "I believe the world was created 6000 years ago over a period of 7 literal days" requires some evidence beyond "My understanding of the Bible tells me so", and doesn't jibe with your initial statement of empirical scientific study.
The bible, esp. genesis, is taken metaphorically, or else a lot of problematic interpretations will arise.
Also, even scholars of the Abrahamic faiths do not readily disclose their intimate religious faith, lest their work be discredited — such as a professor who studies Christianity, but holds Islamic faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQhMllQ-ODw&feature=emb_logo
Granted, but what's the logic here? We ought to content ourselves with regression so long as no one is being imprisoned or killed? We want to progress, not regress. We don't want a conformist society, we want a tolerant society[^1]. We want free speech[^2], not compelled/coerced speech. We want ideas to compete freely so the best rise to the top; we don't want a prescribed set of beliefs to be forced on everyone.
[^1]: (yes, I know all about the Paradox of Tolerance and how some use it to give themselves moral license to persecute anyone they deep intolerant).
[^2]: No, I'm not talking about the strict 1st Amendment legal definition, but the broader principle.
I think for it to imply "it's okay to backslide" we have to have actually broached a time we've backslid -from-. Pursuant to the article, I don't really consider it backsliding if authors are now having second thoughts about writing from cultural perspectives other than their own. They have to be selective, of course, but we don't need, for instance, a white author writing about noble savages. That's not to say a white author can't write a western; it does mean they need to be very careful with the tone of it, or, yes, risk offending people. And recognize that some people will be offended no matter what, so they also need to recognize that some people aren't worth listening to.
It's called sensitivity, not censorship. Yes, sensitivity might lead to self-censorship, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And you may miss the mark, and there will be consequences, and you might hit the mark but still have angry people, but angry people have yelled about every piece of literature we have. It's a balancing act, and it always has been; and I would contend consequences now are the weakest they have ever been.
I wasn't assuming or presuming, I was asking.
> What/when are we backsliding from? There was never some 'golden age' where comments anathema to the culture at large wouldn't have consequences.
We're not just talking about comments that are "anathema to the culture at large", we're often talking about comments that offend only about 10% of the population. Things like "citing a celebrated academic's work on the efficacy of nonviolent protest" or "quoting a black man who wished more attention was paid to other issues in his community [besides police violence]" or "accidentally making the 'ok' gesture". With that out of the way, to answer your question more broadly, it has been rare in my life for people to be terminated even for quite controversial speech, and certainly not due to explicit pressure from large, often coordinated groups of strangers. If you were the public face of a company you were expected to steer clear of controversy, but ordinary people didn't need to fear a loss of income or access to healthcare.
The worst of it was during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when it was controversial to be seen as unpatriotic, but even then I think ordinary people were mostly insulated from the effects (i.e., it was "punching up"), the effects weren't especially chilling, and society quickly rallied around shared free-speech values and righted itself. For what it's worth, I don't think conservatives 15 years ago were morally better than today's woke progressives; rather, I think the difference is social media (notably, conservatives canceled Colin Kaepernick almost immediately after social media cancelation came into existence).
> It's called sensitivity, not censorship.
I didn't call it censorship?
> Pursuant to the article, I don't really consider it backsliding if authors are now having second thoughts about writing from cultural perspectives other than their own.
I've never found "ends justify the means" arguments to be very compelling, personally.
> And you may miss the mark, and there will be consequences
One problem with cancel culture is that there are consequences even if your speech is perfectly correct and moral, e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest. It turns out people with few scruples about canceling also tend to lack scruples about whom they target. And to be clear, "consequences" aren't "you've offended someone and now they won't speak with you"; rather, they're "you've offended someone and now they've rounded up a hundred people to harass your employer into firing you with the express purposes of making an example out of you for other would-be non-conformists".
> I would contend consequences now are the weakest they have ever been.
I strongly disagree. Worse by far than any time in my memory.
> I strongly disagree. Worse by far than any time in my memory.
And yet we have literal nazis posting on social media for the world to see, with the occasional one losing their job, and that's it. Hardly a chilling effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...
Is it just social media, or is it media? When somebody does a thing visibly enough to rile up a crowd... the crowd gets riled. What's new here? The words "cancel culture".
The argument exists as a cover for constant relitigating of ideas that by all rational measures have lost in the "marketplace of ideas" time and time again.
If every single astronomy journal ever released contained a segment arguing about the merits of geocentrism because a few wackos continue to demand their right to "free speech and open debate" (which in reality means: unlimited speaking time on somebody else's platform), there would be no room for new science amid all the repetitive debunking.
Some debates are settled. Geocentrism is wrong. Racism is wrong. The holocaust happened. Authoritarianism is bad. Facts exist.
Moreover, "marketplace of ideas" is a metaphor for what happens in a society that has a high degree of free speech: the best most valid ideas rise to the top. You argue that the marketplace metaphor doesn't work because bias exists and because ideas vary in validity, but that doesn't make sense--these facts are the very mechanism by which the marketplace metaphor works: in speech-tolerant societies, a diversity of ideas compete and the best, most valid ideas rise to the top irrespective of bias.
This is a myth perpetuated by selective cultural memory. The Nazis were all about "free speech" before they were in power. They frequently complained about "Free speech" when papers published editorials criticizing them, or when their public appearances were protested, or when opinion pages didn't present "both sides".
One widely used Nazi propaganda poster from 1928 even showed Hitler with a big "CENSORED" block over his mouth, captioned "Only One of the 2000 million people in the world is not allowed to speak in Germany"[1]
> in speech-tolerant societies, a diversity of ideas compete and the best, most valid ideas rise to the top irrespective of bias.
I'm not sure that you understand what "bias" means. Bias is that which leads people to believe in ideas that are false for various sometimes difficult to quantify reasons. The fact that evidence opposing flat-eartherism is available has not prevented that idea from gaining popularity, in fact it is more popular today in 2021 than it ever has been.
The "marketplace" metaphor itself exposes that the argument comes from a utopian perspective, the argument only works if you pre-suppose that a free and unregulated economic market produces best results, but we know from experience that it produces monopolies, child labor, and bread doped with sawdust.
Public discourse is like a market in some ways, namely that people with more money are able to advance their ideas further by buying media outlets and marketing broadly and engaging in deceptive communication that exploits cognitive bias to acquire more believers, in just the same way as people with more money are able to buy out and undercut competition and exploit addictions and consumer psychology to get more sales than their products deserve.
1. https://twitter.com/_amroali/status/1190809322315534336?s=20
The first thing nazis did was to revoke free speech rights. That's an example of authoritarianism and free speech being opposites.
> Indeed, authoritarianism in general and Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc in particular always starts with speech restrictions
Authoritarianism virtually requires restrictions on speech to come into its own.
Lest you think this only happens to the Alex Jones of the world, look at what's happening in the young adults world: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/01/young-adult-au...
It's a pretty big deal when that company is your employer. We need better protections around speech in this country. Firing someone for something they said cannot be a one-sided decision. At the minimum, the worker deserves the chance to go to court/arbitration
Probably also worth noting that one does have the right to go to court if one believes one was wrongfully terminated. When Google fired James Damore, he sued. But the National Labor Relations Board ruled the firing was justified because he had made not-legally-protected statements that risked creating a hostile work environment.
There is no starting over, because there is no anonymity or way to become obscure/forgotten.
Sometimes I miss the lulz of the sheep being taken to slaughter by tubgirl and goatse.
It isn't something you would want to boast about running and would have people thinking ill of you but it doesn't really trigger outrage.
The problem isn't that ideologues are new, it is that ideology has seeped into the highest levels of education and culture. You have people across the spectrum of disciplines and stances afraid to contradict the received knowledge of the masses (or one of usually two sects).
This hasn't been the case for a LONG TIME.
In 200 BC, if you were excommunicated from a tribe, it would be horrible, but you could walk 20 miles and join another tribe that hasn't heard or bought into the ostracization.
In 2021 AD, if you are excommunicated from an industry on the internet, there's nowhere else you can physically go. The entire intellectual globe is connected online. Excommunication is now worse than it used to be -- it's global.
When has this ever happened? There's lots of claims that people have been cancelled and can never work in their field again, but actual examples never seem to materialize.
The companies don't have to believe you did anything wrong. They just have to fear that the mob might believe it and hurt their bottom line.
I suppose it depends how fine grain you can be when considering eras, but there were periods even within my own lifetime that were much more tolerant. In the 90s, there was a period where the influence of religious prigs had waned, and the secular prigs had yet to be taken seriously. The internet in particular was pretty wide open to ideas of all sorts, and no one would seek to ruin your life over disagreements.
If you coursen the grain to wider epochs, then yes I think you're correct.
And is that good?
I can't recall another era were young authors were afraid of being marginalized by other young people for being young and having radical (and sometimes plain stupid) ideas.
I remember old, conservative people doing it to youngsters, but not to themselves, despite being the ones with bad - sometimes very bad - thoughts.
[1] https://uproxx.com/movies/pedro-pascal-sister-trans-lux-gina...