Why does cancel culture not concern itself with murder and violence?
Just a disclaimer here, this is a question about violence. Now, I'm known as what might be considered an established pacifist. I do not exclude violence from the list of things that intrude on peoples' boundaries. That is to say I don't support it, which, in ultra layman's terms, is acknowledged to be because it's a form of escalation and often has no possible form of compensation. And I look at everything I see with what people actually do get away with, and I want to know why.
We live in a society trying to put in more effort to maintain what it sees as a kind of righteous balance. If an artist, writer, singer, etc. says something, the even the art is not exempt. If JK Rowling blasts her mouth off again, her stocks have been known to plummet. If Elon Musk tries to appeal to the wrong people, his own stocks have been known to plummet. The people are speaking, as many say. However, one area of what one might call controversy that I notice the people never speak on is terrorism (and anything related to death, if it's random and not related to a specific group of people). And I was thinking about this while reading Mistborn, where the heroes get away with some nasty stuff and one of the messages amounts to the whole "the ends justify the means" vibe. But if the way they think is par for the course, why even put this thing some people call "cancel culture" on a high altar? Once in a while, it's common to have to answer to some misunderstanding, but I notice violence (if nothing else is attached) is often just an "unconventional view". And that kind of thing is all we see in the news on some days, and nobody feels like it, I don't know, misrepresents anything? Bottom line, why is general violence treated so differently?
1 reply
Alright. I'm gonna take a stab at this based on my own understanding and readings, and the assumption that you asked in good faith. We're going to break this up into a few things to answer your question.
The short answer is that murder/violence and cancel culture are not in the same box. It is a comparison of apples, oranges, and bananas.
The Merriam-Webster definition of cancel culture is: "The practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure."
Murder
The reason there isn't cancel culture (from my perspective) around this is that it is a direct violation of the social contract. You took a life, and it is up to the criminal courts to hold you accountable for the action. In essence, you're arrested for this and tried; you're already canceled, but by the state that's trying you.
Violence
Cancel culture does exist around this, but it depends on what is known. I believe that you only see it when there is a perception that the justice system has failed and the conscience of the masses thinks it needs to exact some sort of justice. That's where you see people being ostracized for domestic violence, accusations of sexual assault, etc. The criminal justice system hasn't acted on it for whatever reason, so others feel that it is their responsibility to do so.
The Moral Contract
Cancel culture is a social weapon that is used against people who are believed to have violated the moral social contract, and they are ostracized for those reasons. For example, Colin Kaepernick was canceled because he was kneeling for the Super Bowl (even though he didn't break any law, as the action is protected by the First Amendment), but because of the social moral conscience in 2016, his action was seen as an affront and thus had to be punished.
Hopefully this helped answer your question.