#canceling

🐍

the entire concept of cancel culture has already hurt how entire groups of young people view mistakes and controversies online.

lets say your favorite TV show actor ends up being a pedophile. what action SHOULD be taken? : spread awareness, stop supporting them, show EXTRA support to the rest of the cast, reach out to people in power to get them removed. you should not, EVER, find it normal to doxx them, send death threats, harass the rest of the cast, or "cancel" the entire show.

the idea that now watching the ENTIRE show gets you canceled is very strange and authoritarian. "you watch this show, so you must support and agree with the bad cast!" or. shocking idea. they support the rest of the show. example: good omens. yes, the original author sucks. no, i think its VERYYYYYY weird and unusual to harass innocent people for the actions of one person..????

🐍

lets say your favorite musical artist is canceled but they take steps to change. do they deserve forgiveness? well, it depends on a few things.

how severe was their crime?

who was hurt?

what have they done to improve?

for example, lets take three common examples i see online - proshipping, racism, and abuse.

proshipping: in severe cases can show uncomfortable or pedophilic ideals, doesnt hurt anyone, but needs clear signs of improvement and explaining. for example, somebody who drew proship art because they like little kids and somebody who drew it because they were groomed are NOT equal. if its for a reason which has deep psychological roots such as a desire to hurt children, they need to show severe and longlasting change.

regardless, if they have 1. good valid reason which shows no deep mental disturbance and 2. can prove recovery, they should be allowed to replatform.

racism: can range in severity from bigoted ideals to extreme harm, by principle is ALWAYS harmful to a minority group, and needs clear signs of improvement and explaining. people who have been silently/internally racist, verbally racist, and supported racist groups are NOT the same. as well, those who show racist ideals due to again, abuse, grooming, or upbringing and those who show racist ideals as educated adults with many available recourses are NOT the same. racism also has deep psychological roots in adults, but in teens, young adults, and kids may be learned.

regardless, if they can 1. show good VALID reason which shows no deep bigotry, real hatred, or mental disturbance and 2. can prove a change in ideals and recovery, they should be allowed to replatform. however, unlike the previous case, this crime DOES harm others, so they must also 3. find a way to fully amend for and ail harm caused, and 4. they are not required to be forgiven by any harmed group, and should be help with skepticism.

abuse cases: can range in severity very heavily and are NEVER black and white. ever. no exceptions. they are never black and white, get that through your skull first. that being said, they are extremely serious and vary from too many types to even define. they always harm at least one person, but every case is so different intent is hard to pin. what matters is again:

intent

who was harmed

severity

ability to change

for example, lets take somebody abusing their partner due to mental illness. their intent is bad, their partner was harmed, we can assume heavily, but ability to change is present. if its due to a mental illness they should NOT be forgiven for it, but should NOT be "canceled".

🐍

here we reach the grey area most people forget: no situation is black and white. canceling people is black and white. this person does not need harassment and attack or deplatforming, however their actions cannot be ignored. so what do we do?

we should be normal goddamn people.

i think people forget the only options arent "good or bad". this person needs to be held accountable, but ALSO receive help. their victim needs to receive help. they need to handle it privately, offline. if they person returns, they need to show clear sign of unrefutably proven change, but just like the last two cases, nobody is inclined to forgive them. people do bad things for reasons other than bad intent, and people do good things for bad intent. if you see a controversy and assume this person is evil, YOU are in the wrong until more info is given.

🐍

how should replatformed people be treated then?

people brought back online after controversy or harm should NOT be: attacked, harassed, treated as if they didnt change, or harmed.

they SHOULD be: treated with skepticism but basic human respect, held fully accountable for infractions, and small actions that lead to lack of recovery should be questioned and acknowleged.

🐍

what makes somebody unreformable?

actions which show unprovable recovery, such as wishes to harm others, abuse with lack of intent or reason, or racism against logic cannot in any way be proven to be "recovered from", and therefore this person should be treated with incredible skeptically if not with the precedent they may not have changed. if they cannot prove recovery, they should not be assumed to be recovered.

actions which show mental depravity, such as rape, murder, and pedophilia cannot in any way be proven to be "recovered from", and therefor this person should be treated with incredible skeptically if not with the precedent they may not have changed. if they cannot prove recovery, they should not be assumed to be recovered.

🐍

what about those who SUPPORT canceled people?

if the person supports the PERSON in question, they should be questioned for this decision, and treated with skeptically in extreme cases. they may be misinformed or be hopeful for recovery, but if the person is being socially convicted for a serious crime such as rape, their own ideals and beliefs should be of worry. as stated before though, its never under any circumstance okay to harass, attack, or harm anyone.

if the person supports the MEDIA related to the person in question, they should be questioned for this decision, and treated with skeptically in extreme cases, but generally it is much more passable. every single media according to cancel culture should be held at the paranoid reach of problematic, so it doesnt make sense to cancel a person for liking a media tied to a bad person. if theyre financially supporting a bad person they should of course be held to extreme questioning, but in general, it is in no way a show of personal ideals. they may not even know.

🐍

TLDR. canceling people is dumb, because all of you are seeing in black and white. "this person is abusive! this person is a proshipper!" okay but why. what was the intent? who was harmed? what steps were taken to recovery?