> But there's plenty of people being cancelled:

That second link is telling - they list 9 people; one lost a book deal, one had a book withdrawn, one had to switch to smaller publisher, and one lost an honorary charity position. How is this being cancelled?

I'm not sure that is an excessive description anymore.

Jerry Seinfeld, a mainstream comedian, stopped playing at college campuses years ago already because he was getting picked apart and no longer welcome. at precisely the place that is supposed to be the most transgressive and open to ideas! a place to expand minds, remember? now it fully embraces orthodoxy and censorship.

or take the case of Bret Weinstein. a liberal, progressive professor who was exiled from campus for not bending to the mob. now he's being called a eugenicist, white supremacist and more with little resistance. here's a transcript from Clubhouse just a few days ago:

Brett W: "Let me just say, I am an evolutionary biologist. I'm very interested in how language actually changes..."

Brooklyn: "A eugenicist."

Brett: "Say again?"

Brooklyn: "A eugenicist. That's what you mean as evolution..."

Brett: "No, no, no..."

Brooklyn: "Those are the same thing."

Brett: "No, it's not the same thing."

Brooklyn: "They are the same. They are the same. I've seen the research. They are the same. You will not argue that here, you're not about to wiggle out of that."

you can hear the whole exchange here: https://youtu.be/YyCj5UaG1kI?t=9900

this isn't just a one off thing, it's increasingly prevalent. if we're not already in an intellectual dark age, we're on the fast track to it. the trend line is clear.

I think what people need to understand is that there are dumb people on all sides of every movement every time in history.

Someone calling you a eugenicist is not a "cancellation." Moreover, Weinstein was not fired, and has an arguably more distinguished career now than before.

Perhaps he wasn't "canceled", but he was repeatedly slandered and bullied by these "dumb people" who have outsized power due to the current state of identity politics that grants them a certain amount of power in modern society.

They slandered him unfairly, then prevented him from responding unless he met their demands of sending cash via Venmo for some supposed slight against black creators.

They did this in a semi-public forum without any concern for him or his reputation. They did it with zero fear of repercussions because they are emboldened by the fact that our current society makes certain people completely beyond reproach due to the color of their skin (or other identity characteristics).

It was wrong, and the fact that people won't call it out when they certainly would if the variables were changed, is exactly why these "dumb people" will continue to do it. Stop giving them a free pass.

> Jerry Seinfeld, a mainstream comedian, stopped playing at college campuses years ago already because he was getting picked apart and no longer welcome. at precisely the place that is supposed to be the most transgressive and open to ideas! a place to expand minds, remember? now it fully embraces orthodoxy and censorship.

Was Jerry Seinfeld banned from any campuses? Or did he elect to stop performing at campuses? From everything I've read, it was a choice he personally made.

So, why did he make that choice? Well, because people didn't find his jokes funny. And moreover, they had reasons that they didn't find them funny. He couldn't stand the heat, and left the kitchen.

Free speech is not freedom from critical response. This isn't some failure of free speech on campus, it's a failure of one comedian to keep his material fresh.

comedians know how to take heat better than almost anyone. they stand on stage, alone. Seinfeld has done this literally thousands of times. think he's afraid of critical response? not remotely.

and it's not just Seinfeld, many comedians have said the same thing. as Dave Chappelle recently pointed out, the audience is the problem:

https://youtu.be/2MZZ__5F_-A?t=54

Only, he quit the circuit explicitly because he didn't like the critical response, so your hypothetical invincible ur-comedian doesn't match with reality. So Dave Chappelle is also blaming the audience because they don't think his jokes are funny. So what? No, entertainer, make funny jokes or get off the damned stage. The moment where you start trying to correct the audience and explain that your jokes are actually funny, you objectively aren't funny any more. Why not find a new audience, and make jokes about cancel culture? Sounds like there's a market for it.

Side note: was Seinfeld ever funny or were we just laughing at him the whole time?

That's a pretty melodramatic way of describing someone needing to find a new publisher or self-publish.

Previously, they may not have been able to disseminate their ideas at all or may have actually been jailed or killed to contain their ideas.

How would even prevent someone from being "cancelled" without taking away publishers' freedom of expression?

There have been people getting cancelled in very large number for thousands of years.

Crucially, nowadays, you can still communicate when cancelled. Perhaps to a smaller audience, but this is a necessity because of how human social interactions work.

> There have been people getting cancelled in very large number for thousands of years.

Yeah, and while the right loves to use “lynching” as a metaphor for the public criticisms they get that they also label as “cancel culture”, it's worth noting that when the cancel culture shoe was on the other foot regarding race issues, the lynchings (including of Whites) for expressing the wrong views were, frequently, not at all metaphorical.

This is just an awful argument. It's basically "things used to be worse, so you shouldn't say it's still bad".

> This is just an awful argument. It's basically "things used to be worse, so you shouldn't say it's still bad".

No, the argument is “things used to be more extreme in this precise area, so the argument that the present situation is a new and unique historical threat is false”.

What? That is an awful strawman. The question is whether cancel culture is a new phenomenon, or just a continuation of human social nature.

I'd suggest you read the entire thread to get context on the point of contention.

People choosing to no longer read content from or associate with a person who expressed a controversial opinion isn't new and it isn't even bad. That's the other side of the coin of free thought: people don't have to agree with you or listen to you and they're allowed to speak out against you if they want to.

Public and professional consequences have always existed and they always should. The idea that people should be able to do anything and never suffer repercussions for their actions would lead to an unhealthy world.

This is a misguided and ludicrous argument.

If you can write a book, you can self-publish on Amazon or on Amazon competitor's and reach a commercial audience billions large.

If a self-publishing marketplace for some reason won't take you, you can host a pdf on a $5/month server that can reach every internet connected individual with a format that can be read by that internet connected device.