Can We Cancel Cancel Culture?

Ultimately, I believe we are all responsible for our behaviors. While our histories shape who we are and forces beyond our control may impact us, it is up to each us to learn and grow, to take ownership of our choices, and to face the consequences of our actions.

By extension, I believe we should hold others accountable as well, which we can do through the application or withholding of our time, attention, money, and votes.

We can use those important resources at our disposal to communicate that what someone has done or said is not ok, that they have lost our support.

Enter cancel culture, where people band together to ostracize or punish someone for misstepping. The collective expression of disapproval and the exertion of social pressure to keep people in line can be a powerful phenomenon… but I'm over it.

We’ve taken a good idea – holding people accountable for their words and deeds - and swung the pendulum entirely too far.

To use behavioral economist and author Dan Ariely’s words, humans are predictably irrational. Our brains have to quickly sift through and make sense out of so much information to keep us alive that they’ve developed shortcuts, which lead to errors in the way we process that information. It takes a lot of mental effort to systematically, intentionally sort through everything, and we just can’t be bothered to do that much of the time.

The result is that, while we like to see ourselves as logical, rational beings, we just aren’t. Our thinking tends to be distorted, inconsistent, skewed, and illogical.

And before you take offense and decide to cancel me, know that I’m including myself in that category as well.

All humans are susceptible to faulty logic.

Cancel culture is the result of some of our finest distorted thinking and logical fallacies running rampant, with a hefty dose of conformity thrown in.

If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C.

That’s solid logic, right? Sure. Of course.

But sometimes we act like if/then statements guarantee logic, even when they’re sorely mistaken. We confuse assumption with fact, and we make wild leaps in drawing conclusions.

Take this example: If you eat meat, then you’re ok with animal cruelty. Right?

Not necessarily. It could mean that you have an iron deficiency and need animal protein, that you just really love the taste and mouthfeel, or that you are adept at mentally separating food on your plate from animals in the wild. Perhaps you eat only humanely sourced meat. Maybe there’s a medical condition that requires it. Who knows?

My point is that we need to watch out for if/thens and question them to make sure we’re not jumping to some overly simplified, black-and-white conclusion.

If the ice cream shop owner actually did the things he was accused of (we also need to separate facts from rumors, assumptions, and opinions), then he’s a terrible person and anyone who gives him money condones his actions. OR The ice cream shop owner was behaving in an out-of-character manner due to undiagnosed bipolar disorder and anyone who gives him money likes ice cream… or doesn’t watch the news… or was in the neighborhood and needed quick carbs to regulate blood sugar… or whatever.

Do you see where I’m going here?

When we don’t question our assumptions and when we jump to conclusions about what things mean, we might feel smug in our opinions, treating them like facts, but we might be wrong or misguided.

I’d argue – and have more than once – that nothing is inherently good or bad. It depends on the context. And in this day and age, we have to be particularly careful because we might not even get the full context. Go with me for a minute.

Words taken out of context convey very different things. “I saw a sign that read ‘I hate [insert group of people]’” is very different from “I hate [insert group of people].”

One is sharing an observation while the other is sharing an opinion.

Now imagine what would happen if someone said the longer sentence during an interview, and then the video got clipped and went viral. All of a sudden, this person seems like they have a highly offensive opinion. Yes, they technically said the words “I hate [insert group of people],” but they did so in the course of describing a sign they saw. Context matters.

We live in a world with short attention spans and the technological capability to modify audio and video recordings. Sound bites spread like wildfire, and it is beyond easy to take things out of context.

When we hear little bits of information, we need to pause and consider things like: What’s the full story here? What’s the context? What information might I be missing? If we don’t, we’re at risk for jumping straight to a logical-seeming but faulty conclusion: That person is a bigot.

Humans are tribal creatures, and there are some amazing social forces at play in our lives (e.g., reciprocity – if you do something for me, I feel compelled to return the favor). Social pressure can be beneficial, but mob mentality can also lead to really negative outcomes.

History is riddled with examples of groupthink, a psychological phenomenon in which a group of people reach consensus – and take action – without actually doing due diligence. In an effort to keep harmony in the group, people stop thinking critically. They stop questioning or expressing dissent. People mold their beliefs to fit the herd or jump on the bandwagon action-wise, following along like lemmings.

But they may not even know it’s happening, which brings us back to faulty logic and distorted thinking. When combined with mob mentality, we are vulnerable to getting swept up in cancel culture. That’s fine when being cancelled is actually warranted but devastating when it is isn’t. (Some people or things seem to get cancelled at the drop of a hat while others repeatedly do or say egregious things with very little recourse. It’s quite twisted.)

And if you are someone who does pause to consider context – do I have the whole story? – or operates from a place of compassion – I can understand how or why things unfolded the way they did – you might run the risk of being cancelled yourself.

It’s the illogical if/then kicking in again.

If you don’t cancel them, then you are in agreement with them.

No. Not necessarily. That’s a very black-and-white way of looking at the world.

We don’t have to throw the baby out with the dishwater.

But it is difficult to go against the grain, to stand up for a more tolerant view, or to extend grace to someone.

Not exactly the same as cancel culture but certainly its first cousin are false dichotomies. These black-or-white battle cries are making us more marginalized and less tolerant.

Built upon the same glitchy thinking we’ve already talked about, false dichotomies hold that you are either one or the other.

It’s either perfect or it’s a failure.

It’s right or it’s wrong.

Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter.

Pro-Palestine or pro-Israel.

Liberal or conservative.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us.

They attempt to oversimplify things in a way that ignores nuance and shades of gray. They’re trying to turn life into a forced choice option – is it true or false? – when it’s really more of a multiple choice situation.

As we head into an election season here in the U.S., I can feel myself already starting to brace. I am dreading how the cancel culture mentality and false dichotomies are going to bring out the worst in us.

Yet, I am hoping that we can band together to create a culture of compassion and reason.

Can we be humble enough to question our own assumptions and entertain the idea that we might be wrong? Can we be patient enough to think things through and tolerant enough to consider other viewpoints? Can we be brave enough to give people the benefit of the doubt? Can we give each other grace while still holding each other accountable?

Can we cancel cancel culture?

Written by Dr. Ashley Smith

Peak Mind Co-founder