From the beginning of civilization, people have created social rules that everyone in their community had to follow. If these rules were broken, the community would take action and punish the offender. This same concept is still applied today under the name of Cancel Culture. Cancel Culture is the criticism and ostracization of an individual from their community in response to some social transgression. In today’s world, everyone’s lives are layed out on the internet for everyone to see… and to criticize. The ability for millions of anonymous people to hold the power to destroy someone's reputation is where many have problems with cancel culture. While others see it as a way to keep the powerful accountable. Neither one of these viewpoints is wrong in its own right. However, I believe the most accurate understanding of Cancel Culture lies somewhere in the middle.
When it comes to people like Jordan Peterson, the line between freedom and speech and cancel culture is hard to define. The problem that most face when it comes to people like Peterson is defining whether or not his actions/ speech are enough to be considered a call to action that would manifest into conflict. If so, then the actions could be considered cancellable because he is actively trying to create conflict and embolden intolerance. However, the other side of the coin is that he has the right to speak his mind on the internet and he is not responsible for the actions of others. This is reasonable because content creators have influence over their audience, but inevitably they can't control the way their audience reacts to their content. This means that it becomes hard to blame someone like Peterson for the actions of their followers.
So how do we address controversial individuals like Peterson? I would say that for the sake of intellectual freedom, Peterson should be allowed to stay. His viewpoints are drastic at times. However, he is consistently supporting his opinions with a detailed understanding of the socio-political aspects that are involved. He understands that these issues he’s talking about don’t take place in a vacuum and must be addressed accordingly. Now, if his content begins to spur genuine civil unrest and it is clear that he is making a call to action then cancellation can be considered.
To be honest, I don’t have a super firm stance on Peterson. Before this class, I hadn’t heard a whole lot of stuff from him so I didn’t have any preconceived notions about him. From what I’ve seen, I understand the issues that people have with him and the content he creates. However, the ability for individuals to speak their minds and pose ideas that contradict others is a freedom that everyone should be given. This means that everyone should be allowed to express themselves, even if they rock the boat. In my opinion, this is the definition of overall societal tolerance. Since there are so many people all around the world with varying viewpoints, it will be impossible to have one resounding opinion that everyone will accept. Because of this, we all must be tolerant of the other side and hope that they return the favor. In theory, this would allow everyone to feel like they’re being represented.
References
ContraPoints, director. Canceling | ContraPoints. YouTube, YouTube, 2 Jan. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8. Accessed 7 Nov. 2022.
“Jordan Peterson: Why Cancel Culture Is Feminine Bullying.” YouTube, YouTube, 5 June 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrXDzFlyzx0. Accessed 7 Nov. 2022.
I totally agree, with Peterson there’s that line where he uses free speech in a way that people really get offended but he’s not using hate speech so there’s no reason for him to get cancel. He knows to choose the right words and his posture doesn’t get out of control. Everybody must be allowed to freely express themselves even if one gets uncomfortable because that’s part of the diversity on ideas and ways of thinking. As you mention it’s all about being tolerant with each other’s opinions. Great job, Keelan!