Cancel Culture’s Reach
While cancel culture’s reach is boundless in its pursuit of “social justice,” it has completely avoided certain people, mainly celebrities. Recently, makeup youtuber James Charles(who was previously accused of grooming underage boys) was recently accused of exchanging inappropriate messages with two minors. After the allegations started gaining immense momentum on Twitter and Tik Tok, he posted a video accepting “responsibility” for ”…my actions and how they were wrong,” However he also claimed that he was told by the kids that they were 18 (apparently both kids were around 16). Despite these and several other disturbing accusations James hasn’t been cancelled yet for his actions. While he was replaced as host for a show he co-created called ” Instant Influencer,” he hasn’t nearly faced the full backlash of cancel culture as many others have . He faces zero legal action and hasn’t even lost his sponsors. Currently he’s still making videos as if nothing even happened.
Another prime example of someone escaping Cancel culture is actor Jussie Smollett, “Empire” actor who claimed he was attacked by two white racists in Chicago in early 2019. His assailants, who he described to be wearing “MAGA” hats and allegedly beat him, called him slurs, poured bleach on him and even placed a noose around his neck. His story picked up national attention as people called to “Stop Racism!” He received support from thousands of people calling for justice. As time passed, his story unraveled. Chicago police were led to the Osundairo brothers, former extras on “Empire” who claimed that Jussie paid them to beat him up in an attempt to earn more fame. Smollett would be arrested on “16 felony counts of ‘false report of offense.” But on March 26,2019 the Chicago/Cook County District attorney’s office dismissed Smollett on all charges. Something that would normally receive insane backlash. But instead the whole entire incident was sweeped under the rug. Instead of tearing Jussie to pieces for is unbelievable hate crime hoax, the media would proceed to bury it with the reason that” “hate crime hoaxes are vanishingly rare.” With the website “Quartz” going so far to proclaim, ”The Jussie Smollett Case Shows Exactly Why We Need to Take Hate Crimes More Seriously.”
How are some people able to avoid the wrath of Cancel culture? Their isn’t a solid answer for it, but allow me to speculate. Certain people escape Cancel culture through political affiliation. Both examples along with several unnamed ones are all openly Democratic. People who tend to affiliate themselves with LGBT, POC, women, or other minority demographics rarely face cancel culture. It’s also possible that their followers turn a blind eye on their actions since it could damage their movements more than help them. Think back to Jussie’s or James allegation’s. If their actions were put on the front burner of the news and Social media, it would likely damage the groups they are representing(LGBT, POC). Can you imagine the potential setbacks the LGBT community would face if James Charles(a LGBT celebrity) grooming minors got on either Fox or CNN news? Or the how fast the the “Stop Racism!” calls would fizzle if Jussie’s hoax got the same national attention as his “attack” did? People “turn the other cheek” on theses awful actions in order to prevent their groups from receiving a damaged reputation.
Of course it could also be that they got lucky.
While certain people may avoid the wrath of Cancel culture. The rest of us aren’t as lucky. The idea behind it is to cancel the offender in order to fix the problem. But rather than fix it. Cancel culture makes it much worse. A example as to why can be seen in smokers. In a study conducted by researcher at UCLA two groups of smokers were brought in and given several tasks to do. Both groups were given several cigarettes of their favorite brand. The goal of the research was to see how long the groups could do their tasks before they need to smoke. The only difference between the groups is that group 1 was given a neutral message about their participation in the experiment while group 2 was randomly exposed to negative stereotypes about smokers culled from former antismoking campaigns. Through the experiment it was discovered that ”Participants exposed to the stigmatizing messages lighted up(smoked) sooner, on average, than participants in the control group. ” In fact after 40 minutes almost all of group 2 had started to smoke, while only 20% of group one did. One of the underlying reasons this happened is a psychological phenomenon known as stereotype threat were”…people are so anxious about being identified in a negative way that they end end confirming the behaviors they are trying so hard to disprove.” It’s basically like a self fulling prophecy, you end up becoming the thing your trying to avoid. Unfortunately this kind of behavior isn’t solely restricted to smoking either.
This kind of behavior can be seen by the targets of Human rights groups who are shamed as a tactic. In an article published by Cambridge university about rights groups shaming people it was stated that “Shame is indeed a potent motivator, but its effects are often counterproductive.” The article continues on by saying that “..shaming is likely to produce anger, resistance, backlash, and deviance from outgroup norms, or denial and evasion.” Meaning that through the efforts of shaming people the human rights groups are getting farther from their goals rather than closer to it. Resulting in the creation of more adversaries to their movement, causing the cycle to repeat. Cancel’s cultures attempts to snub out racism in people instead adds fuel to the fire. Pushing people away from their movements.
Reilly, W. Are Hate Crime Hoaxers Above the Law? . Acad. Quest. 32, 553–561 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-019-09829-x
Snyder, J. (2020). Backlash against human rights shaming: Emotions in groups. International Theory, 12(1), 109-132. doi:10.1017/S1752971919000216
Shaming Smokers Can Backfire — Journal Report – ABI/INFORM Collection – ProQuest (rowan.edu)
Vujić, K. (2021, April 05). A guide to the many, many scandals of James Charles. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://www.thecut.com/article/james-charles-allegations-and-accusations-explained.html
Holding myself accountable. (2021, April 01). Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjwRp8_lWA
Am I better off cutting out or reducing one of the examples I present in the beginning or rather the section I put after where I shot an idea as to why certain people may escape Cancel culture?
If I understand your question, JW, it’s:
Yes was the question I was trying to go for. Because I’m not entirely sure which one posses more value to the overall essay.
COMMAS and PERIODS go INSIDE THE QUOTATION MARKS. ALWAYS.
“social justice” ,
they were wrong,”.
hoaxes are vanishingly rare”.
The other punctuation errors involving quotation marks are harder to explain. You place random and unnecessary word spaces around quotation marks. Find and remove them. You also leave out needed word spaces around parentheses. Word processors including the WordPress editor should be calling your attention to these little issues. Heed the warnings.
JW, I can’t get past this sentence without commenting:
You’ve got to stop doing that. Your sentence means:
P1. Having read the first paragraph, JW, I feel disappointed that you haven’t shared an explanation for the “failure” of cancel culture to cancel James Charles. Your first two sentences don’t promise me anything except the FACT that not everybody gets canceled, but still, I read along wondering WHY some do and others don’t. If you’re planning to share that with me later, it’ll be too late (like a sign reading: Just Passed Scenic Views).
Now for language use. There may not be time to do enough feedback to first help you with your argument and structure and THEN do a round of grammar and usage editing, so I hope you’re OK with seeing this now. Your first paragraph, edited to remove extra language, grammar and punctuation improved.
There. I saved you 160 words you can use to tell me WHY Charles has not been cancelled by his fans, his sponsors. Was it because he bothered to “come clean” with his half-assed apology and acceptance of blame? Or is it because he’s not as big a hypocrite as other celebrities? If everybody expects him to be a little amoral, maybe fresh accusations don’t mean as much. You tell me.
(Saved you another 120 words. 🙂 )
I couldn’t find the source for your “Quartz” quote. Do you have one? I hope this revised paragraph helps clarify how your argument can focus on the details and at least EXPRESS the odd nature of Cancel Culture which appears entirely arbitrary in choosing its targets. Or have you found an explanation for their selectivity?
And now I want to ask, “What do these examples have to do with your apparent primary thesis that trying to cancel individuals for their transgressions drives them further into anti-social behavior?”
To answer your actual question, your anecdotal examples absolutely DEMAND that you provide an explanation such as the one that follows them in Paragraph 3. That said, do they contribute to your thesis, or are they examples of Cancel Culture (or examples of Un-Cancel Culture) without being examples of driving public people deeper into their obsessions or transgressions?
Does any of this help?
Yes it does professor, thank you for the feed back.
Post has been Regraded.
Thank you professor