Ranting On...Cancellation Culture

Carlos Maza

I am not someone that particularly likes partisan podcasts or partisan discussions from talking heads/pundits.  I am a political junkie, someone who eats up the minutia of politics, but I don't like seeing people discuss or debate issues, and am not someone who enjoys listening to this for hours on end.  The entire concept of someone like Sean Hannity is lost on me not just because of his politics (though that's probably enough), but instead because I think it's tedious and boring.  What I find fascinating in politics is reading about specific races, or perhaps documentaries about a specific issue, but actually watching people have debates between each other about an issue or concept is exhausting and dull; I don't get why, if people like this sort of thing, they don't just watch C-Span and watch the actual politicians who make the actual decisions hash through these issues.

Which is why I was surprised as anyone when I began to really like Carlos Maza, whose show Strikethrough on Vox is basically a dissection of the news, and in particular Fox News.  Admittedly this is partially a slight crush thing on Maza, who is about as cute as a talking head can get between his giant brown eyes and consistent nerdiness (he frequently launches into Dungeons-n-Dragons jargon that I don't get but find adorable), but putting my crush aside, he's very good at getting straight to the point of the news, frequently shows that I don't watch but am aware are important in the political landscape, and finding exactly why they might be problematic or concerning (he'd be the first to likely point out that me admitting I have a crush on him isn't great journalism, but I also believe in honesty).  This is completely keeping with the Vox brand, as Ezra Klein has done a good job of crafting a left-of-center media outlet that rarely feels like it's skewing the truth to fit its agenda, and has become one of the few sources of news I go to to decipher complex issues.

Maza yesterday tweeted something that stuck with me, and summed up a nagging feeling I've been having on social media, especially in the past few months.  Yesterday, after the unveiling of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's plan for paying off student loans, there was a healthy debate of people displaying "thumbs up" style gifs in support of Warren's plans, and the occasional hot takes from people like Joel Pavelski, a writer for GQ Magazine who tweeted, then largely took back, "I don't know if people are aware of this but you could just not attend a college you can't afford."  Maza's tweet (which said, in case he deletes it making this article make no sense, "I recognize the value of communal shaming and also know that I'm going to be absolutely wrecked if/when the Twitter hordes come for me.  I've experienced it before and it was an actual nightmare.  Seeing people you admire make fun of you.  It's really scarring.") on the surface seemed to be "subtweeting" Pavelski's, as the two have at least been friendly (publicly) on Twitter based on a quick search of their tweets (reminder: everything you say on the internet stays there forever).  This made me think-is Maza correct, in assuming that perhaps we are all just one bad tweet from everyone in our circle "cancelling" us?

I think, like most of his videos, this opens up a discussion worth having, as cancellation culture has gotten out-of-hand.  I feel in some cases a public shaming can be healthy.  Considering the odious, frequently racist or dangerous things said by the likes of Laura Ingraham or Tucker Carlson on their programs, it makes sense to me to that people know who their sponsors are, and call them out for it.  But when we cancel a specific person, particularly for what appeared to be an inarticulate tweet or for trying to publicly figure out their opinions of an issue, what is that really accomplishing?

I see this with the Democratic Primaries, with people insulting, ridiculing, and shaming supporters of Pete Buttigieg, insinuating that a curiosity about a smart, capable man running for president is a bad thing (it's not, particularly if you're like me and still deciding whom you're going to vote for & want to learn more about a rising candidate).  I see it with the arts, where having an appreciation for a film or TV show that is starring or produced by someone "problematic" makes people jump to assume you support the worst aspects about that artist.  I saw it this past week with several Twitter accounts I like getting attacked simply for following Aaron Schock on Instagram, never-minding the reasons why someone might follow him (perhaps ironically?).  And I see it with something like Pavelski's tweets yesterday, where a public musing has the entire Twitterverse not just out to argue with him (which is fine-public discourse is good, and even I engaged in it), but making it seem personal and forcing him to fit into a specific mold in order to stop his cancellation.  That's wrong, in my opinion, and stifles a discussion about ideas.

After all, I don't know that I agree with every aspect of Sen. Warren's plans, even if I like where her head is at.  I don't know if it's correct to forgive debt across-the-board, but I'm aware that student debt relief is a problem that hurts our economy and is increasingly terrible.  I had just shy of $50k worth of student loan debt when I left college twelve years ago (if memory serves me correctly), a number that surely would be higher today, and it took me twelve years of throwing extra cash each month to finally finish the loan.  I put off buying a house, a car, a dog, travel, all things that would have stimulated the economy and I'm not alone.  But I'm also aware that the "tax the rich" well can only be gone to so many times, and I think that universal healthcare & climate change may be more damning financial problems to our society than student loan debt, so I want to understand what Warren's way of paying for these other issues are, as well as what her opponent's views are, before I start countering with other people that their viewpoint is inaccurate.  It's entirely possible that, say, putting a time limit on student loans or putting parameters (you can only be expected to pay a specific percentage of your annual income for ten years) would be a more affordable plan that gets the same results AND solves other pressing problems.  I don't know, and neither do you, because we still haven't seen all of the proposals from all of the candidates yet, and signing up for the first candidate to get out-of-the-gate isn't a great way to select a leader, even if a Twitter-happy president has conditioned us to believe that the quickest reaction is the best one.

This is why I'm not getting into one political corner too soon, and starting to demonize the rest of the internet (to be fair, I'm not big on demonizing at all, but I'm not even making an impassioned speech for anyone at this point).  I like Warren and may well vote for her, but I like Harris, Beto, Buttigieg, Biden, Gillibrand, Booker, Inslee, and Klobuchar too (names that are not on that list are not on there for a reason-I'm undecided, but I'm not available for everyone).  I'm going to base my decision not with who gives the shiniest rollout, but with who can handle the heat of what will be a very tough, close campaign, and I'll likely donate to multiple campaigns before everything is over.  I also am going to try a little harder to stay away from jumping on cancellation bandwagons, especially if that person seems to be being cancelled for simply publicly questioning policy rather than something more nefarious.  Public shaming can have its place, but it's a tool that needs to be used with more care than it currently is, because as Mr. Maza said-it could easily come for your random comment next.