Cancel Culture: Fear of the Mob | Tom Nicholas
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- A video about Cancel Culture and "mobs".
Chapters
0:00 The Canceling of Tom Nicholas
01:01 1. Introduction
07:12 The Apology
09:20 2. The Birth of the Mob
16:50 The Livestream
19:43 3. The Madness of Crowds
28:09 Things Escalate
29:26 4. Online Mobs and Public Shaming
36:55 The Book Deal
39:45 5. The Mob and the Individual
47:20 Thanks!
Credits
Thanks to all the amazing creators who contributed bits to this video!
Commenters:
Commenter 1: @HeyIt'sVadim
Commenter 2: @Thought Slime
Commenter 3: @We're In Hell
Commenter 4: @Jack Saint
Commenter 5: @Second Thought
Commenter 6: @Jordan Theresa
Commenter 7: @JohntheDuncan
Commenter 8: @What's So Great About That?
Commenter 9: @thelitcritguy
Livestream Host: @The Serfs / @The Serf Times
Publisher: @Curio
Some Copy about the Video for the UA-cam Algorithm
In this month's video, we're looking at cancel culture (or call-out culture or "public shaming" depending on your preference). In 2015, the pop-psychology writer Jon Ronson published a book called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed", which argued that the contemporary internet (Twitter most of all) had become an increasingly hostile place on which users would frequently gather together to ruin the lives of those with which they disagreed. Since then, this idea (which has since come to be referred to as "cancel culture") has gained popularity, with the media dedicating countless screen hours and column inches to worrying about the "online mob".
Concerns about cancel culture reached fever pitch in 2020. It was the year which both saw the publication of the "Harper's letter" and J.K. Rowling receiving backlash for doubling-down on her problematic rhetoric.
As ever, we're going to be taking the longer view, considering what these contemporary fears about woke "Twitter mobs" might inherit from historical fears about physical ones.
Support the channel on Patreon at / tomnicholas
If you've enjoyed this video and would like to see more including my What The Theory? series in which I provide some snappy introductions to key theories in the humanities as well as video essays and more then do consider subscribing.
Thanks for watching!
Twitter: / tom_nicholas
Instagram: / tomnicholaswtf
Patreon: / tomnicholas
Website: www.tomnicholas.com/
#cancelculture #canceling #tomnicholas
Thanks for watching! Support the channel whilst getting Early Access, copies of scripts, commentary tracks and more by heading to patreon.com/tomnicholas
I had to fight with UA-cam's automated systems for 3 days to ensure this video was monetised which really reminded me of how important my Patreon supporters are to the sustainability of this channel (and, by proxy, to the sustainability of me as a human being!). So a big shout out to everyone who supports me over there!
I've always found it interesting that in my home country of America, we are taught their is no greater virtue than that of "individualism"; as long is it is "rugged individualism", which is related to being financially individual/independent. Being an "individual" is also promoted and endorsed as long as it's not "too individual", which of course completely negates it. This idea of being different within a certain "range" or "bounds" is part of every aspect of what you could call social interaction like taste in music, fashion, films etc.
That "range" in thought has also become not nearly as wide as once was acceptable, and I would hypothesis that is because our social groups have become much more homogeneous with social media. We have become more susceptible to "cancelling" and backlash because we communicate primarily with those in our own "crowd". Once we express something more individual or different from that crowd we are more likely to be cancelled by that particular crowd. I think you can find this when it comes to cancel culture as a whole too. When someone like Bret Weinstein is cancelled by the "woke" left he is in turn embraced by the Dave Rubin's of the world. So while there are instances of cancel culture at a broader level I would put that it happens in a more focused "tribal" way more often than not.
When it comes to nuance I think if a particular view is looked at by an actual large audience there will be nuance; if it is examined by single "tribes" as mentioned earlier, it won't
UA-cam is really doubling down on critical content. There is a video on the CIA & foreign coups in the channel Second Thought, and one has to go past 3 youtube notifications/warnings of "this content is unsuitable or offensive" to access it.
Its not abouts the size, its about the bone structure XD
Sophie was a pleasent surprise.
Charles Bukowski
The Genius of the Crowd
there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average
human being to supply any given army on any given day
and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace
those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
beware the preachers
beware the knowers
beware those who are always reading books
beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone
beware the average man the average woman
beware their love, their love is average
seeks average
but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect
like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock
their finest art
"My great, great, great grandma actually died in the french revolution - Jess antoinette"
Couldn't stop laughing at that one. Underrated joke.
that was so good
Saw that too😂
Shout out to Jordan Theresa! Would recognise her voice anywhere!
As a French-Canadian I can confirm that all people from France sound exactly like that all the time.
Thank you, I studied long and hard perfecting that accent.
No they don't! they only sound like that attempting to speak English, 99% of the time they sound a 100% ridiculous and incomprehensible.
Question: if there are no skunks in France, but instead only in North America...does that make Pepe Le Pew French Canadian instead?
If so... You have a lot to answer for.
'Else you get cancelled
As a Canadian with a French girlfriend who is constantly making fun of French people... seconded
When we speak english, yes absolutely. Exactly like that.
The calculated insincerity, self congratulatory snark, and victim language of the notanapology segment is perfectly done. Bless you.
Michael Richards; he never really apologized for his racist tirade in the 2000’s. He would say “sorry” then add in some self pitying caveat that need it obvious he was not being sincere.
I actually think one of the biggest issues with online communication is that we're NOT aware that we're part of a crowd. Most of the time when we choose to call someone out on Twitter for example, we're not fully aware of how many other people are already saying the same thing. Say for example if you were at a party and heard someone across the room say something racist, and then you heard someone else say "hey that's racist" and another person saying "yeah you shouldn't say that" and then the original person saying "oh yeah sorry", you would feel the need to then add to that conversation "um actually that was racist. Can you believe what this guy just said?" and neither would everyone else in the room feel the need to give their opinion. But online it doesn't feel meaningfully different to be one of those first people or to be part of the entire room all yelling in unison. It's not that it's not valid to be offended at someone being racist but being online means that no one has the full overview of the entire conversation.
Pair that with the fact that social media is inherently political despite masquerading as simple communication. If you're online, you're a public figure. Every message is a shout above the crowd. A lot of people assume this means they have to be their own political candidate and engage in constant debate, constant attacks and commentaries on every goings-on. Otherwise they're 'wasting their platform'.
"I will NOT be silenced by them!"
**unplugs microphone, continues to yell**
Subtle, yet accurate. Nice work on this one.
Glad you enjoyed that, thanks!
I hope Lance was in on the joke xD
@@Tp_hedgelinghog Hilarious if Lance has no clue what's happening here haha
Can't be silenced by them if I silence myself (insert Roll Safe meme image)
@@Tom_Nicholas pardon the surprise but:
How on earth did you get that to work?
^refering to all your cleverly designed self-made examples of the cancel culture stereotype.
Thanks for explaining what a "crowd" was. Been a while that I've seen one myself...
Stephen Reicher's work (the chap I mention at some point during the bit about Jon Ronson's book) is really interesting in talking about crowds and trying to find an actual, more complex framework for understanding how crowds operate.
@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks!! I had the impression even standard sociology textbooks don't cover crowd psychology at all.
Ironically Reicher is now on SPI-B advising the government on the pandemic, and ended up being one of the government's harshest internal critics for not doing enough to help people socially distance
Heheheh... what are the chances for the stars to align that we right now are actually going to experience a pandemic
haha true one year later any crowd is kind of weird
People also use “mob mentality” as an excuse ie. “I was calling caught up in the crowd. I don’t necessarily agree with what was being said or done. I was only shouting those words and doing those things because of peer pressure. I shouldn’t be held personally responsible for things everyone was doing!”
Criticism is one thing…
death threats, threats of rape, threats of harm to friends, loved ones, and even pets, leaking a persons home address, stalking, and swatting are serious problems
The standard "youtuber apology" has evolved so far through all these years. However Logan Paul’s apology for the Suicide Forest thing is still my absolute favourite.
I have made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgement
You could tell he really felt bad when talking about the money loss on his part lol.
@@Tb0n3 Don't defend creeps you creep...
They learn a lot from politicians.
“I am sorry that people were offended” or “I am sorry that my actions caused outrage” are not apologies. They are saying you still think you are right and the haters wrong, just that the stir you caused upset you because it hinders your popularity or monetization.
@@RustOnWheels Whenever grown adults make that sort of "apology" i have to laugh bcos I used to pull the "I'm sorry I pissed you off :/" thing when I got in trouble as a kid and was consistently hit with "that's not a real apology!"
"Am I the evil one? No, it's the filthy peasants with their ludicrous desire to not starve who are wrong!"
That's the best username ever.
Man, I miss the old aristocracy. These new rich have such fragile egos, whining about losing followers from their living room the size of a house, ruining the rare fabric of their couches with their tears. At least monarchs would mock the masses before their executions. Our current dominant class is just so pathetic.
Usually yes.
Classic blindspot when it comes to lynching mobs, racist mobs, capitoll attacking mobs and many more.
am I so out of touch? no. it's the children who are wrong.
"Sire, the peasants are revolting." "You can say that again!"
"I'm not used to speaking from the heart without a script". *Quickly checks script to see what to say next*
It's so on the nose I love it.
"You're not used to seeing me speak without a script."
*cuts to looking at script*
mATE i'm wheezing
Cancel Culture be like:
People are so judgmental I can tell just by looking at them.
That what I always say to get out of jury duty. "I can tell when someone's guilty just by looking at them and that one sure looks guilty to me."
Hear! Hear!
Clearly, we need someone unbiased like InfinitiSin to make all our decisions. There is no way this could go wrong. :)
LMAO
I'm trained and have quite a few years of experience in behavioral science and psychology. A lot of people say they can tell, but it's completely subjective since it falls under the art of aesthetics. What is aesthetically pleasing to one's eyes is an eye sore for others or simply doesn't bother some. However I will say that in professional and clinical settings (assuming on this last one) that you do indeed tend to develop a skillset that can quickly and somewhat accurately make an assessment. Most people on the internet don't have this training or experience though, so many will say they can tell just to seem smart. Ask them specifically about theories or phenomenon that falls under the psych 101 umbrella and they fall apart lol
"...who gets to be thought of as an individual and who is a mob..." That. Very much. Thank you.
I did want to do a much longer section on expanding some of those thoughts but it was a bit too much of a detour! Glad it gave you some food for thought!
@@Tom_Nicholas I bet! That could be a whole video series on its own
When they're all repeating the same words without thought then yeah they are a mob
@@mjkittredge the assumption you just made about people not putting any thought behind what they’re saying is a totally baseless one and ironically ties back to the question you were responding to
@@mjkittredge Lol, of course, people aren't thinking when they go out of their way to protest and join in on public chants.
As a person who's joined in on chants, as most people have, I recall keeping my brain throughout the ordeal.
I took me 12 days to watch this because I was tired to hearing people talk about Cancel Culture, but this was probably the best, most in-depth discussion I've seen and very glad I watching it (as I do with all your videos).
Plenty people are against cancel culture when it’s turned against them or their idols, and then will turn around to bully someone off Twitter
I remember when you asked us to vote whether there should be introductory skits and I can’t believe that now there might be a parallel universe where this never happens. Breaks my heart 💔😂
Haha, yeah, I think we're a long way from that now!!
As a French person, I confirm that I do not exist.
- This message was sent by a Russian bot.
I KNEW IT.
As a French Canadian, I can confirm we are are not French. Just like Tom clearly wasn't.
Does this mean that we Aussies can form a solidarity with the equally non existent French now?
The French Language is clearly made up to troll brave English people.
It's so obvious, I am still baffled no one figured it out already.
As a person that migrated to France, I think I can say with some authority that French people are all exactly like they are portrayed in the "French revolution" bit - and proud of it.
This is cool it changed my perception. I agreed with my siblings when they shared their fear of how being in a crowd could affect them. But now having some context as to where this idea originates, I can see that this fear wasn't based in much evidence, and the personal anectodes didn't show that it could make you violent or irrational. There are also sometimes agitators used to cause confrontations and give police "justification" to use violence and "pacify" the crowd.
So you choose to belief that parts of your crowds get infiltrated and undermined. Sounds to me like you do get affected by being in a crowd.
Cancel culture is a problem, but mostly for already marginalized people, who end up trashed and endlessly harassed by people who 99% agree with them but 1% think they are demon-landlords incarnate.
Yes, the people screaming cancel culture are the ones canceling people. It is just more far right projection.
"French people, *if we're even allowed to say that anymore!*" 🤣
Cancelled by ess jay dawlou
French (derogatory)
@@rivvie the new f-word
Really appreciate the part on how all crowds/collectives are viewed as "mobs" irrespective of context or content, and how "a mob is a mob is a mob" is a convenient generalised construct based on wilfully ignoring details and specifics and nuances
I'm really glad it gave you something to think about!
I agree. This portion also made me think that “conventional” understanding of crowds also makes it easier for bad actors to inflame and direct them and then claim no responsibility.
This idea of mob mentality ends up serving two purposes: 1/discounting group or mass movements as being irrational regardless of their methods or philosophy and 2/deflection of responsibility for a groups’ violent actions.
As Tom enumerates instances of group action that were planned or were directed at certain goals or achieving specific objectives it makes consideration of violent mob actions even more frightening. Because what follows is the understanding that witch burning villagers or sheet wearing “crusaders” engaged in violence not as a result of some alchemical crowd reaction, but instead as part of a planned, rationalized attack. A way of purging the unwanted.
I’m thinking of the recent event that cannot be named, and how after many public and political figures spoon fed their crowd of supporters they immediately began to distance themselves from the resulting violence by framing the participants as a mob, people who lost control of themselves in their excitement or passion.
@@Tom_Nicholas 💯
It's the reason for all these unconstitutional laws, where it's now ok to run over protesters. Who could have foreseen this after Charlottesville?
@@robertnicholls9917 impeding the flow of traffic is not a safe nor is it a necessarily peaceful form of protest. If you aren't protesting in the middle of the street, you don't have to worry about being run over... it's why we don't play street hockey on a busy highway...
How can you seriously think the way you do? There's serious problems in your logic, or lack thereof.
Hey Tom, new to the channel, only found it last night and I just had to say how well put together and informative your videos are. A perfect balance of soild innformation and great entertainment. Amazing work my dude, looking forward to absolutely binging all your stuff!!
Absolutely love this! Love how you did a better job at covering 'the mob' than my lecturers lol. Also, it'd be interesting to look at 'mobs' or popular protests where there was no set or precise or generally agreed goal (French Gillets-Jaunes, and I think Turkey had one too in the last few years). I would say though, that there is somehow a 'mob' effect that exists but not so much bcs of psychological reasons and lack of rationality but bcs of the nature of communication and the feeling of belonging. So, nuanced and complex arguments are reduced to radical and sometimes contradictory bits. The thing is the ppl sharing those bits might have very different understandings and perspectives of it, like you could have one person that doesn't get it at all whilst another half-agrees with it but sees the power that an impactful slogan can have. Basically the mob is an effect of strawmanning or reducing smt so much so as to rally as many ppl as possible behind it, which is essentially what politics has always been about. Though, I'm sure there are also some things very specific to the digital age to do with 'cancel culture'.
Oh my God, the way you phrased "the privilege to be an individual" and "a certain implied homogeneity to a group made up of countless individuals" made me realized THAT'S probably why some CisHet White guys get SO upset when people refer to them as a grouping like that.
They're not used to having that individuality stripped away and suddenly being talked about as part of a group, sometimes as if that group is a homogeneous entity and not made of diverse individuals.
Great video! Loved the collabs/cameos.
As someone who used to think they are a cis het white guy, yeah that's it exactly. There really no group identity, no solidarity there. You're just a person that exists. And there's this arrogant assumption that everyone else must see themselves in the same way. Since you view yourself as primarily an individual, everyone else must be primarily individuals as well; group identity is illegitimate, and so it's really just an excuse used to gain access to special privileges.
(I'm bi af, if you are wondering.)
Imo it's quite degrading for anyone to talk about them as just a part of a demographic group. Like, if someone just started grouping 'the gays' I wouldn't be very happy. It's better when done in the context of a mass movement but doing it to someone's face is just distasteful and rude.
@@ves14 I agree with you, I think though that the OP was saying that people outside of the 'cishet white male' grouping are more used to both putting up with the rudeness of people doing that and the advantages of voluntarily seeing themselves as part of a group. Whereas there is and was more of a tendency towards rational individualism and being seen as your own person among the group now suddenly being referred to as 'cishet white men, the monolith' so it is more jarring to suddenly find themselves labelled as merely part of a group.
Even this is a little bit of a generalization though because there are certain groups and societies where a 'cishet white male' has a stronger bond of brotherhood with other men, or sees himself as inseparable from the family unit.
I cover some of this on my video on "whiteness" (which I'm sure is an imperfect treatment of the topic but might be of some interest).
@@ves14 uh, that is literally what happens everyday, and no, it depends on context, because it turns out, there are things gay men do as a group, much like cishet white men.
also pointing out LGBT people are part of a group with particular characteristics is not a problem for us because we've always known ourselves to not be the norm. It is offensive to straight, white, cis men because they have always thought themselves to be normal, that nothing but their own experiences and memories shape who they are. They are disturbed by the realization that LGBT, women and black people, to name a few, have always known: we're not all equal, we do not have the same rights and who we have been born as largely influences every single aspect of our lives.
Great video as always! I am so sick of seeing people perpetuate the idea that receiving any kind of criticism is the same thing as being "cancelled".
Thanks, I'm glad you got something out of it!
Such a cancelable comment, ya woke is the same if you in anyway don't agree with me your woke and trying to cancel( silence me) but we are all working class and they are the 1 percent of the extremely luck... So as the story of humind kind goes, Spelled incorrectly on purpose;)
There is a massive difference between "getting criticism" and ruining someone's career, life, mental state and more. Shame on you.
I dabbled with the idea of suicide due to cancel culture. I put on 50 pounds due to stress eating from cancel culture. I developed clinical PTSD due to cancel culture.
You dont know the half of what your Twitter "Criticism" can do to a person.
People have committed suicide due to the internet bullying that is cancel culture.
You are not a good person, nor is anyone committing this horrid act of modern witch hunting.
@@damintten you failed high school english didn't you
sick of seeing being called a transphobe, climate change denier, racist, misogynist, bigot, white supremacist, right wing, anti vaxxer etc for having any kind of criticism or skepticism...
Thank you so much for this insightful video. I would love to see a future video further exploring the Mob and the Individual.
‘Cancel culture’ for the most part is either people being criticised for their actions whilst retaining the majority of their power and status...or it’s a #blankisoverparty filled with facecams and ‘you should have followed ___ instead’ and then it’s often forgotten about two days later.
"Crowds tend to be violent"
Shows a peaceful Belarus protest.
Long live Belarus, Жыве Беларусь!
I need to learn to read Cyrillic.
@@jacobrzeszewski6527 "Žive Belarus"
Живе вічно!
Hope you guys get ehat you want
"I Pity the Rule: You Guessed It, Even More Rules" 😭
I'm so glad someone enjoyed this joke. It looked funny on paper but I wasn't sure how well it would land being spoken!
@@Tom_Nicholas definitely a highlight of the discourse ty king
@@Tom_Nicholas It was hilarious! And Curio's delivery *chef's kiss*.
All too often I find myself looking at things in a solid black-or-white. Thank you for showing me how important nuance is in making opinions.
Most topics in news (and 'social media' news) are presented in a false dichotomy, so you are forced to pick a side and fight for it. Turns out, the side you're more tempted to pick will often be exaggerated or overzealous in some ways you might not have time to notice - but those opposed to your side, will, and will get free support with pointing that out, that you won't get if you wanted to make improvements on "your" side - you can't make improvements, you can't even hold a single thorough conversation by default, you can only argue. Forever.
Pick up a different take, if you were holding some other values you might currently disagree with, what would your actual thoughts be; now consider how reliable you might find any of the too many outlets you can see that 'cater' for that; would you have the same experience? You would, wouldn't you? No improvement, no coherent coversation; only argument. Forever.
The people who run the conversations and get to pick which bits to focus on, who to invite, which questions to ask, in which order; they know this very well, and make good use of it. It's why they're in charge of the conversation.
We can't have any resolutions or progress, only constant artificial conflict.
Amazing, loved this video. Also I would DIE to see the Tom Nicholas video all about the French revolution, I love learning about the French revolution!
Um, I wasn't asked to collab on this project?! You're canceled fur sure now!!
jp, great work as always! 🦊
I'm sorry, there was only so many roles! Perhaps in the future if I do some guest bits again! And thanks!
@@Tom_Nicholas haha, s'all good my dude. Just memeing on ya.
Yeah for sure I imagine we'll come together on something eventually.
Much love.
You were clearly busy collaborating with Justin 👍
Fur sure...nice
"I love Jacobin"
"The magazine? I really like it aswell"
Me, thinking of the revolution and of Robespierre fighting the despot, "sure, that's what I meant"
I've not read much of Jacobin itself, but I do quite enjoy its UK sister publication Tribune (which I wrote a short piece about a British TV show for last year for)..
@@Tom_Nicholas Jacobin is a preety good magazine. They have some takes that are too milquetoast for me, but as far as the american mainstream press goes, they are easily the best (it is a low bar, but they do have some interesting articles). I never heard of Tribune, but I will check out your article
lol so in this scenario you're just saying "i love jacobin" as a non-sequitor?
Jacobins the social movement ot order, and hunted down in a jacobin scare?
Call the 19th century royal police!
@@james_chatman it's hilarious how jacobin or DSA will be called neoliberal milquetoast toothless scum, while also having chuds accuse them of being tankie stalinist propaganda
It's a really simple sequence of events that has occurred:
1. The internet feeds people tailored content.
2. They inadvertently wind up in an echo chamber.
3. They become partisan.
4. With all of the nuanced mediator types gone or outnumbered, empathy dies.
5. Society fractures at the seams. Us vs them. No further discussion required.
[citation needed], substantiate your claims. cause the way it comes across here just sounds like you're in something of an echo chamber if you believe that with 0 factual evidence lmao. like, >no further discussion required, really? pathetic.
@@janesk1 You see why the church wouldn't let anyone study? he is smart but he is wrong and now he will subvert whatever he thinks of reality to prove his point and people will follow him and people will start wars for it. Worth it...
@@janesk1 Point #1 and #5 are observable. I just connected the dots between them.
Dude, internet? Really? No. Your number #1 makes no sense. FB for sure, but the entirety of the internet? If anything it would giant corporation feed tailored content.
@@EricHamm It's less obvious sure, but how often do you use a URL instead of a search engine? There's also tailored advertising, regional versions of sites, subreddit and fandom wars, or how about how wikipedia spawned conservapedia then conservapedia spawned rationalwiki etc.
Excellent presentation and style.
I find the biggest issue is a lack of learned, formal critical thinking skills. Something I think in modern society, should be an essential element of formal education as math or science is. As well as critical thinking education through outreach. Understanding our conscious and unconscious biases and what can be viewed as use of propeganda to promote these biases through practices like 'cherry picking'.
At the centre of this video essay for me, the underlying pin is freedom and the use of the word freedom. As my learning of critical thinking skills has developed over the last decade or so 'freedom,' or what I find more exact, 'freedoms' has fascinated me. Our use of the word, which most of us do with no real definition and can lead to discourse in which all the sides involved are communicating different meanings as if they are using the same meaning and we are not even aware of this. A problem with the expression of concepts generally. Most of us actually use the word without even being aware that it underlies many complicated concepts like how a freedom can contradict another freedom, or the private and the commons, or the privelage of freedom as accumalated through multiple factors. Whether this be your accent, or your dollar value, or even just biology and this is just the tip of an iceberg of factors that can increase or decrease your freedoms.
Have subscribed fella.
I just watched to the end and saw your reference to consensus. I think censensus is essential. It is part of our evolution, dare I say it is written in to our DNA. Our species has existed in an environment of consensus for so much, much, much longer than the relatively recent rise of the expression of the individual, which as far as I understand began with the introduction of surplus resources. The dominance of the individual and the widening of inequality just speeds us along the track (Not road unfortunately.) to extinction. Whether that be physical extinction, or the extinction of all knowledge. The bright burning expansion of knowledge through developments in communiation tech may well have made us the most informed idiots in history.
I belong to a volunteer run, collective in Newcastle and learning consensus I find both essential and rewarding but not easy.
The internet has also made me think about what freedoms are valuable and must be protected and what freedoms are disposable or even detrimental. I think the freedom to waste all your time in front of a screen on the internet is a bad thing and most people actually do better in pretty much every way once that freedom is taken away from them. You also have the thing about soft power and how much that affects freedom.
Is giving access to addictive substances freedom? Or is it actually making people more free to forcefully take them away?
Countless studies have proven that true freedom is something nobody really desires. People desire a sense of structure and purpose and a sense of beloning.
With the internet especially it has given a level of freedom of information but if anything that access and accessibility has spread misinformation and hate speech more than ever before.
as a (half-)Haitian, the French are fair game to mock, my friend.
Y'all really mocked them in your revolution 👀
@@LeftOfBori we paid a hefty price for it (literally) but tbh, worth 😌✨
As a french having recently learned about the twisted shit France has done to Haiti... I understand and approve.
As a full Haitian, 1st generation American, mock away my half Haitian, mock away 🤧
I think Haiti should be given one of the channel islands so they can put up a giant statue about the Leclerc expedition.
I love Tom and feel like we have to cancel him on ironic principle. Uggh.
Haha, nooooooooooo...
the acting at 9 minutes ish, that was good, gonna sub. I've watched a couple of your vids and they are fantastic, looking forward to watch more videos
Wonderful work here, Tom! I would love to see a video engaging the Nuances of crowd dynamics I.e. emergence and smartmobbing/ superorganismic behavior and Bloom's/Toynbee's thesis on the lucifer principle and the clash of civilizations and the impact of kuhnian paradigms on culture. I can provide links if this is too obtuse a request LOL
"I've been to France but your opinion has the right to a fair hearing"
Haha, I'm glad people enjoyed those comments, they took AGES to animate!
@@Tom_Nicholas They're absolutely lovely (as is the entire video, but that's nothing new!)
I'm so sick of celebrities online, man. They get so much special treatment and they don't even undertand how good they have it.
Unfair callouts obviously exist, but celebrities have the tools to defend themselves from a 500 page spurious callout. As well as the clout and support network to support them. They can't know what an unfair callout feels like. They'll never be called out like common people.
cancel culture does not only attack celebrities. Random people are attacked too.
@@fuckamericanidiot then turn off your phone and enjoy the multimillions of dollars that you have.
the thing to note is also that celebrities are also far more available for attack. while one unknown person might draw a crowd, celebrities draw masses of crowds.
Don't they also get death threats of them and their family members and stalkers?
@@micramism6431 ...along with crowds of supporters.
This is a fun and lively video about mob and cancel cultures. Like how you are able to distill complicated concepts in a fun and lively way.
Tom Nicholas sounds like a British person imitating a French person, which is exactly what I expected, but that doesn't make it any less unsettling.
My boy Tom Nicholas really out here getting cancelled by UA-cam staff for talking about right-wing terrorism
Haha, yeah the irony of this was not lost on me.
(I actually don't know whether that's technically "irony" or not, but you get my drift...)
@@Tom_Nicholas I wouldn't say that it directly contradicts the main argument of the video (about irrational mob rule), but rather it shows a more insidious aspect of online discourse. That there is a reciprocal relationship between expected cultural values of individual parties. In this case that would be the one between YT algorithm/ToS and content created for profit on the platform. How we behave online is dictated by what we think we can get away with, and what we can get away with is, in turn, dictated by data collection of people's online behaviour.
PS: Love the citations in the video. I hate it when someone brings up e.g., "a Swedish study concluded that..." without proper references.
Welcome back with another interesting timely exposition and set within it's historical context.
Truuu
Right wing? This is mostly left wing job, in europe left wings are practicing this cancel culture more than no other.
That apology video bit is some top quality cringe material. Great work!
Haha, glad you enjoyed that bit!
I’m a Singaporean.
Your videos are always so insightful, thought.
Gr8 video!
Keep it up!
The people complaining about "cancel culture" now were the same people complaining about "political correctness" in the 90s and early 2000s. It's incredibly interesting to look at this through the lens of revolutions, which I don't think is done nearly enough. This is definitely one of my favourite videos of yours!
I accept your apology and understand that I just couldn't handle the intensity of your art.
As someone as someone of wholly French descent, I cannot begin to express how offended I am by this video (and yes, we Irish lie a lot). Love your work, man.
very refreshing, thank you. I've been struggling with the "cancel culture" idea, trying to put my finger on the trick...
So I use the sponsor block for youtube, and I just love how a good portion of the apology has been flagged as self promotion that I might want to skip! Feel it truly underlines the point you were making.
Tom: “What kind of a shape for a country is that?”
Spain: 👀
1: "We are mildly disappointed, you should know better"
2: "oh no im being canceld"
1: "No you are not"
2: *doubles down on thing*
1: "ugh."
You'll NEVER silence me.
Aren't there some people who are threatened and intimidated out of jobs or opportunities for a joke that people don't like, or a position that is taken as controversial?
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Not really. You hear people say this a lot, but there aren't really that many examples. Just so you know I don't want to get into a debate.
@@rileykim6068 OK, sounds good. I would like to put forward names like Scarlett Johansen, Aziz Ansari, Justine Sacco, Kevin Hart, Nicholas and Erika Christakis, and Bret Weinstein as a few examples.
I'm not saying I think all of these people are faultless or that they were all impacted equally, but when it comes to a 'free' society, we operate on the ideal that it is better that 10 criminals go free than one person is falsely imprisoned. If we lose the cultural standard of 'innocent until proven guilty', than the words in the laws that say as much won't stand for long.
Actually this is not the only possible scenario. One may initially get called out, and, if unresponsive, subsequently cancelled (or not).
The society imposing social norms is nothing new.
What is new is that currently even an opinion held by a small fraction of society may be amplified through platforms as if it were a social norm (which it isn't, unless supported by the majority).
This might not be a problem in itself. But the opinion which fuels the call-out might be based on a mere cultural/lingiuistic preference or a set of unverified facts, which would mean that one might get called out on the basis of a whim or an unverified/false accusation.
Pluralism in speech and thought and presumption of innocence might be not valued by the ones engaged in the call-out.
Such call-out might damage the quality of the public discourse even if the person is not 'cancelled'. It would be damaging enough if the one is forced into silence.
I love your unapologetic and unfiltered videos taking on the big boys. You are going to be big someday.
Was waiting for the Rudé quote, very happy that you read him for this video :)
Especially in light of recent events, I find it interesting that when a crowd is demanding social progress, then that crowd makes everyone in it a mindless barbaric reactionary, but when that crowd's purpose is to make a quick buck, them it's supposed to be a rational actor.
Hit the nail on the head
To be fair, I think a lot of people were actually in for a social purpose. You always had the argument to "stick it to the hedge funds" which is more of a social argument than a monetary one. I also agree that most people secretly still prioritized money however
Why yes, one actually hurt the elite where it hurts where the other just bitch abt their ego
It's the same idea of 'well I would support them if they didn't attack the police'. In the context of the BLM protests, for example, the expectation isn't for their to be no violence its that BLM shouldn't resist when being attacked by heavily armed mob of police.
You aren't expressing a desire for no violence, just a preference for who the violence should happen to. Likewise, when a crowd protests to protect establishment interests it's 'protecting our ideals' but when its a crowd protesting for social progress and change its a mindless riot
@@sophiemason8444 >protesting societal change is a mindless riot
>BLM shouldn't resists when being attacked by police squads
Bro what
god the bitchy snark in sophies performance is such an enormous mood. love it.
Haha, they were awesome to work with! So grateful they were up for it!
It was perfect!
@Azhag Dark He might get cancelled for it.
I've always perceived cancel culture from the perspective of the criticized person. To me, cancel culture means that a criticized person, company or institution is AFRAID of reacting to a backlash in an appropriate way, by explaining their decision process or standing their ground against the accusations, because they fear a decline in public opinion and/or revenue. To me, it's not about the "mob" demanding that some statement or person is taken down/thrown out, it's about the criticized entity complying to that demand out of fear. And this is definitely a behavior that can be witnessed more and more, even in universities, where controversy should actually be celebrated instead of feared. When I use the word "cancel culture" it is to criticize the institution or company for giving the shit storm what they demand, without even trying to defend themselves.
2 examples I recall very well from the past 2 years:
1. In 2020, when the German Research Foundation celebrated their 100th anniversary, they published a short message formulated by a German in form of a video. In the context of the video, he used the wording "those who follow science, haven't understood science". The rest of the video provides the according of the context, from which it is clear that he meant "those who follow blindly", however, ripped out of its context, it can be easily understood as "don't listen to scientists", which happened and generated a big shit storm in social media, based on which, the video was removed again. Ironically, this lead to a second shit storm by people who had understood the message correctly, were now complaining about the cancel culture, which in reverse lead to the video being re-published after a few days. Perfect example of fear-of-the-social-mob, leading to cancellation (of a previously well curated piece of media) and to the cancellation of that cancellation.
2. I think it was last year, Robert Martin, one of the most prominent and most experienced software-developers in the world, you could say, got his invitation for speaking at a developer conference removed, after a social media shit storm was launched about his critique of Israel's settlement politics. As I'm not sure how critique of a country's politics influences your competence in speaking at a software-developer conference, I'd call that example also fear of the social media mob.
These are just 2 examples that came right from the top of my mind from recent years. So, yes, maybe cancel culture is not as big as some may think (yet), but it's a starting trend that I can clearly see rising
Damn these comments just keep getting dumber and dumber
The thing with groups is that people feel more comfortable and can do things they otherwise would not dare.
This is the point of a group, to empower the members.
In a unified crowd you are able to stand up against the ones in power.
In a unified crowd the people can hold a conversation at the same level of those in power.
If the ones in power speak with violence the unified crowd will speak with the same language.
From what I can tell, the 'typical' story of 'cancellation' works something like:
1) Public figure of some sort either says or does something controversial, or something they said and did in the past that was controversial is brought to light.
2) People online react to this, each according to their nature and opinion. Those who don't care say nothing. Those who disapprove give voice to that disapproval. Those that approve may give approbation, but approval is typically less likely to spur someone to reply than disapproval.
3) The chorus of disapproval freaks out the public figure's advertisers/publisher/other corporate sponsor, who associate that choral voice as indicating a public relations problem or loss of profit.
4) Said corporate sponsor cancels the public figure.
5) That action is blamed on the people that voiced their disapproval (and increasingly on a 'culture war' epithet) by those that approved.
There's a disconnect, I feel, between 4 and 5. Maybe because blaming a publisher for taking actions that they believe will benefit their business is hard to justify in most cases. Or at least, hard to stir up a legion of disapproval in support of. 'Cancel Culture' therefore becomes a sort of Straw Colossus...a titanic construct of reaped grains around a scaffolding of thin rationales, to be sneered at and punched in lieu of having any kind of meaningful discussion about the specific situation at hand.
I feel like you're ignoring your own disconnect from 1-->2 then. Why not let the few people who say it best express their disapproval, instead of having tens of thousands of people tag bosses, corporate sponsors, etc., saying "whyyy~?!" (and then forgetting about them a week later and moving on to the next target)
What I mean is if you literally know it's a *typical* story, why approve of reenacting it over and over?
Unless you're such a fan of 4 that it overrules 4 obviously leading to 5?
Which you are.
This whole comment section is filled with people who pretends they just want 2, but really want 4 (or really just want the Terror, they dream of beheadings)
@@TransRoofKorean You have me wrong. I'm not a fan of any of it. Neither do I have a problem with any of it. The reason I bring it up is because it illustrates something interesting. Step 2 is really just a lot of people expressing opinions. Some might take 'action' as you say, contact bosses or whatever, nothing NEW about that though. Boycotts, letters to managers, advertisers...those have long histories. What's new is how easy it is now. How low the bar is set. But is that a problem? If so, why? Each person is doing their own thing; from each of their own points of view, they are one voice, exercising this peculiar right of expression.
If it was just ten of them, or a hundred of them...it wouldn't matter. But if there's ten million, or a hundred million...then it matters very much.
But is it their fault there's so many of them? If so, why? If not...who's fault is it?
@@maxsalmon4980 Well, I'll apologize for saying you're a fan: consider that as being directed at every single one of the diehard socialists in this doomed comment section.
Yes, my point is, it's their fault. What the mob does is the fault of the individual members of the mob. Promoting mob mentality is not something that should be condoned. Choosing to be part of the mob is willful.
It's always the individual's fault. In the case of (yes it exists) "cancel culture", there are tens of thousands of individuals, each and every one of which is at fault, collectively pointing out the fault of another. They're just doing it with tweets instead of rocks.
That's my opinion anyway. My further opinion is this video would be laughably horrible, if only so many morons didn't buy into it so fully.
@@TransRoofKorean Okay but one thing you're missing is the idea of mob psychology. Of course the mob is made of individual people, but there's a psychological disconnect people experience when in the mob. This disconnect allows things to usually escalate to the point of say, Roman Plebs burning down the Senate or French peasants cutting the heads of tens of thousands of people.
@@55Noco I'm not missing that, I'm pointing out that individuals can choose to not participate in the Twitter mob-style "making your voice heard" that causes peoples' lives a hell of a lot of damage, instead of excusing it, which seems to be the entire point y'all have here
i think something that may be kind of superficial of a detail is still maybe sort of important? that for a cancelling (or what it really is -a large scale criticism by several individuals that can include, as you said, anything from genuine critiques to outright abuse and bullying) to take place, there are prior expectations. if rowlings audience was comprised completely of transphobes, then she wouldnt be as insulted and undermined; potterheads had an expectation of rowling to act as an understanding and critical authority figure, and not as a prejudiced paranoid entity bestowed with clout and power as a respected celebrity. the cancellation took place, then, because peoples expectations were let down. im not saying that there are not "outside people" also coming in and wanting to participate in the public shaming: surely some long time haters of the potter books or of rowling herself came out of the woodwork glad to find other people finding her flaws. but at least for me, what i see most is disappointment. i daresay that a mixture of disappointment and frustration is what moves these mobs, and as negative as those two emotions may seem, these are also what one experiences when ones worldviews are challenged. perhaps the people in the food riots thought life couldnt get any worse, and then were disappointed and frustrated to see just how much the upper classes were willing to screw them over. anger, and mass anger, are tools of change: it is a tool of democracy, and as such those who criticize cancel culture and mob mentality, saying that it presents a threat to democracy, always sounded quite silly to me. free speech means that you can not only say what you want, but that other people can answer to what you said however they want. freedom goes both ways. and complaining about it makes one much more aligned with authoritarianism or one of its ugly siblings, where the word of the authority is unquestioned.
now, in the case of relative unknowns where an ugly comment or statement reaches millions of unknowns, i think this speaks less of cancel culture (i had never heard about sacco until very recently, researching the issue of cancel culture, as i believe sacco isnt a celebrity in the first place) and more of how internet, and especially social media platforms, have become a stage where people sometimes forget they have entered of their own accord. everything one says and states there should, in my view, be as curated as anything one says in the public sphere: to be aware of how socially inappropriate such comments would be, and the ways it could be misinterpreted. thats why i think twitter brings out the worst in people: opinions that people hold and would share with friends and family, and properly discussed and challenged in that safe space, are launched into the world with no second thought or further deliberation. thats why you get roseanne being cancelled by stating something she thought but hadnt shared openly before. and, as ecen non celebrities feel threatened by the criticism and replies of disagreement, they double down instead of learning their mistake or rethinking their statement. and then is when the people who agree with that opinion come out, ready to create an echo chamber and even begin the radicalization of an otherwise very little politically motivated person.
sorry for the long rant. i think this issue is fascinating, and how it intersects with history and modern technologies is simply amazing as a display of how social relationships work and have been working for centuries. i agree that it is not a coincidence that a realization of the power of the masses, in display both by the #metoo and the BLM movements, and associations like the proud boys and other far right groups, have led to a public awareness of the power that numbers have, and the capability to wield that power aided by the massive organization tool that the internet can be.
great video, as usual. wonderful to see sophia in a cameo!
Yeah, I mean, in relation to the food riots, it was at a point when feudalism was fading and capitalism was beginning to take hold. So there was still a sense among the peasantry that the rich would provide for them (in these specific cases, it had previously been the law that the local poor had to be allowed to buy grain first and at a cheaper rate, only then would any excess be sold on or kept in storage). Part of the outrage thus stemmed from, as you say, a feeling that the social contract had been torn apart.
This comment though ✨
It’s weird how canceling only seems to happen on Twitter specifically, I wonder if the designers of the website have intentionally created an outrage machine to get more interaction
@@Sentient_Blob Twitter absorbed Tumblr's population, following their porn ban. Tumblr has always been a hotbed of hyperfragile insane reactionaries, to the point of being a shorthand for crazy internet people.
Good points! Gives me more to ponder. ✌️😎
The whole france shaming bits are so funny.. it's literally all the bad youtube apologies 😂
Cancel culture, exists, and you don't need to even be political about it. Just dive into the world of fanfiction, and the triffles around fans arguing about petty issues and how far a fandom is willing to go in order to make their point prevalent, even if that contradicts the author's original intent. And then again, it doesn't even need to get political. Just kill the wrong character (in their opinion/wishes), ship together the wrong characters (in their opinion/wishes), or have a non upfront clear relationship between two characters of the same sex that may or may not be flirting and with that implying their sexuality and… there you got it, the PROSECUTION by fans goes to places I'm not even willing to admit and terrifies me.
I understand that, in the political landscape, the term "Cancel Culture" is used as a weapon to de-legitimize valid arguments of a collective that may have pretty solid points. However, we fail to admit here that not because there are many people in the so-called "mob", it automatically mean that everyone in that collective is completely versed on what they are fighting for, when most of the cases many are just going along under pretty populists generic slogans and ideas which, by the way, are needed in order to bring the most possible quantity of people to side with you, because using pretty generic ideas that most of us would identify with, is the easiest way to get them on board, but that, on the other hand, lack the required context and any profound thought behind the people who support this movements.
And yeah, recently this is used against the right wing political or right winged celebrities, but it also happened against left wing people by those on the right wing, with pretty strong effects. For instance, in Spain, my country, where the vast majority of the people here is right winged, and the left is unfortunately pretty fragmented, so it's usually the left who gets "cancelled" and with strong repercusions for the people involved. So far as to get people in jail for just singing a song against the Monarchy. Pretty bad, distasteful, arrogant, unpolite, unfortunate, and stupid song, BUT just a song nonetheless. So it's a double edged sword. Recently, a best seller here written by a supposed female, was revealed to be written by 3 men when the book got an award. They were working under a pseudonim. A feminist library dedicated to preserve literature written by women, decided to take out that book from their shelves in an excersise of coherence. What do you think happened here? Yup, the library got cancelled online. A LOT. So much that they even got death threats. So... yeah. The right also knows how to use cancel culture.
The mob exists. And it exists in every corner with a bigger or smaller size. Flat-earthers exist. They are a mob. And the internet helped in bringing them together making them a small mob, but a mob nonetheless. But what happens when that "mob" grows big enough to achieve certain objectives against an individual? Even when you are not even discussing anything political?
Every side is fighting for the deletion of certain "words" or "concepts" because by saying that this or that doesn't exist, we can reconfigure the world. By eliminating this concept, we are in fact in the middle of what happens in 1984 with the Newspeak, where you delete words or strip meanings of those words in order to manipulate the world. If we say that war doesn't exist, and instead we just call it the absence of peace, you are denying a reality.
It happens when we say that Cancel Culture doesn't exist from the left, or when transphobia, misoginy, racism or any kind of bigotry doesn't exist from the right.
I agree that we need to analyze every situation case by case. But really: Do you honestly think that people really pause to analyze what's happening whenever someone gets backlash? I'm not that optimistic, that's why we need to talk about cancel culture, and the consequences when that goes out of hand.
Canceling this video while waiting for it. Since cancelling is likely a very effective strategy with a high power level, I am sure this will be very troubling for poor Tom!
Haha, wait until you see the video...
@@Tom_Nicholas I better not eat my words!
@@Tom_Nicholas yeah yeah, you think you’re so smart with your reflective video about cancel culture but some day we’ll get you too ..;)
lol at the profile pic used for the "classical liberal" commenter starting at 28:26! Too true. Amazing detail, Tom!
I'm so glad people spotted some of those little touches. I almost didn't bother doing the comments as it was so fiddly!
@@MrTTnTT "This kind of "classical liberals" aren't a good example of real classical liberals, I wish to inform you that we, the true believers, shun those people as they haven't engrained our non-ideology deep enough to support it, in contrast to us who are the true danger!
@@MrTTnTT Try not to put words in my mouth! Nowhere did I or Tom (in any part of his video in any way) say that most or even many so-called classical liberals are white supremacists. What we're actually saying is that there are _too_ many people (and I'm sure you'll agree that a single one is one too many in this case) who use a facade of classical liberalism to mask white supremacist beliefs--even if those people are unaware of the implications and consequences of their beliefs.
tl;dr No, my comment wasn't saying "Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi."
@Juliet Starling A single one is too many as long as we agree on what white supremacy is, as that kind of undercover agent would be an example of trying to lead people into. When you include the ones whose beliefs' "lead to white supremacy" I think you say that we disagree on what that means, at least in part. (As I think the implications are in the beliefs of the people who make that connection, and can't justifiably be tied to the people who either a) reject that premise or b) haven't thought about it.
That you apply these two so close together leads me to believe you haven't thought about what makes them different and whether that might warrant different terms. Briefly, the difference is between white supremacist as in a believer that white people are worth more as humans than others and should consequently be treated better, and people who believe in principles whose upholding would compromise an immediate righting of past wrongs made on grounds of such beliefs. To me, beliefs are important (as what we make decisions based on), and using the term to refer to these two kinds of people in the same breath frankly bothers me. The former kind might perhaps be inclined to join the KKK. The latter would never consider it - as it goes against their beliefs. More, they could be expected to treat people equally well regardless of race. To call both white supremacists simply leads to confusion, and should be discouraged for how misleading it is.
I don't think I put words in your mouth. I think I left that pretty open. I just expressed a wish.
@@MrTTnTT You said you wished people who say what I did would "see that the vast majority of [classical] liberals aren't of that kind, and that that kind is actually scorned when identified." In other words, you're implying that I don't understand that the vast majority of classical liberals aren't white supremacists.
But as I said, that's not the issue. The issue is that too many classical liberals eventually go down the path of white supremacy (as aforementioned, unintentionally or otherwise) even while still believing themselves not to be functionally racist. Again, nowhere did I call classical liberals white supremacists; that wouldn't even necessarily make sense. That's why I said that some classical liberals are _functionally_ racist or enable racism even while they claim to oppose racism.
You can try to put all this on me ("As [you] think the implications are in the beliefs of the people who make that connection"), but I'm not the classical liberal functionally allowing a prison-industrial complex to disproportionately incarcerate POC (at least, this happens in the US), or allowing US imperialism and "international" financial institutions to pilfer the Global South for natural resources and slave labor. You can tell me all about how classical liberals actually oppose these things, but my point is that ultimately, their ideology will always fail to make any substantial change in these concerns. Hence, their worldview leads to a society that both passively and actively (under so many euphemisms and deflections) upholds white supremacy. White supremacy is an unfortunate and (we can only hope) unintended consequence of classical liberal ideology.
To be clear, this isn't a critique that I merely direct at classical liberals; it goes for all capitalists who claim to oppose racism--including the social democrats (progressive liberals). Of course, at this point and many before it, we've been opening up new cans of worms.
About the part with Charles Dickens: What had made him draw these conclusions about "the mob", if Le Bon with his "work" on "psychology of crowds" was not around yet?
"Lost your job, your friends"
Clever Tom. Showing Toby Young as you say that, who doesn't have either of those... Smart.
A very interesting video about mobs, but what worries _me_ about so-called cancel culture has a lot more to do with punitive justice and the process by which "guilt" is assigned.
The statute of limitations does not seem clear, which is my criticism of cancel culture. In addition, there is a more insidious vein which lives off the platforms, where companies like VISA freeze the accounts of people who have been wrongly accused of being a part of the alt right. It comes down to trusting algorithms to be able to characterize people, and I'm of little faith in the likes of Google and Facebook.
This is sort of my problem with the video too. The focus is on the idea of the mob, which while a part of the idea of cancel culture, is not the only aspect. The video spends far more time discussing mobs than it does on other aspects of what people call cancel culture, such as punitive justice (like you said), lack of forgiveness, guilt by association, and most importantly, platform failure by twitter and other social media companies.
So while I think this is a great video on the historical idea of the mob, I do not believe this is all that effective as a critique of cancel culture because its sort of a partial strawman. By focusing so much attention on the mob, Tom doesn't address other aspects of "cancel culture" that are much more difficult to defend like how it seems to happen to women far more than men and for lesser transgressions.
This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time.
Watch contrapoints video if you actually want to hear the cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, because you can't find that in this video.
I'm not familiar with this UA-camr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.
+
Tommy doesn’t care.. he thinks the Left wing mob might have a point because he agrees with their dumbfck ideology
I think you make good points but I think I’ve felt something like intoxication in a crowd. Definitely at protests especially some level anxiety and awe and yet also inspiration and a wind behind my back. I’m not saying that just being in a crowd does that but in certain crowds I’ve at least felt something.
i imagine it could be the feeling of having power, unity with other people near you, and an immediate sense of duty could be a powerful psychological force. The same dynamic in a military maybe
You should both check out Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". I think what you're talking about is a consequence of what he calls the "hive switch" being triggered. And yes, military training is one of the examples. Another is a rave party.
I mean that isn't surprising that you feel something like that when you participate in something that's obviously huge. That is pretty natural for humans to feel some sort of grand emotion when we participate in something we feel is bigger than ourselves. The big difference obviously is that this feeling doesn't make you mad or particularly violent it just gives you a sense of awe at what is happening.
The saga of you being “cancelled” is is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. The apology was pure gold. 😂
I know it'll never happen but everyone should watch this video. The doxastic change I went through in just the first half of it is astounding.
This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time.
Watch contrapoints video if you actually want to hear the cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, because you can't find that in this video.
I'm not familiar with this UA-camr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.
@@PackinForSuperbowl I do, luckily. I did have an exaggerated emotional response to this video. Wasn’t used to seeing bs accepted by tons of people for a while. Last time it was the what I’ve learned video trying to divert attention from the inefficiencies of the meat industry to the food waste, while simultaneously presenting claims that place meat production is more inefficient than vegetarian food production with average food waste.
I gotta step back into general cynicism that yes, there are frauds everywhere misleading incredible amounts of people and there is nothing I can do about it, the best I could do is reach a few tens of people, so I might as well give up and accept people are going to take the bs they are fed.
It really does turn out mobs are stupid. Maybe less stupid than individual people, but stupid nonetheless.
Something that jumps out to me surrounding the ever more frequent cancel culture critiques is its portrayal as a novel phenomenon. In this video, it comes up first in the Harper's letter when they portray the exchange of information as "daily becoming more constricted," and again with Ronson when he claims that the limiting of discourse is in the start of a "renaissance." It always seems that such framing makes it seem as if there was a point where discourse flowed freely, a point where its bounds were not so severe, a point which was ended by the "invention" of cancel culture by leftist millennials. Really? Was there ever a point where discourse was not restricted based on power structures, where people did not lose their livelihoods because of actions or comments? This framing of cancel culture as novel is therefore somewhat misguided in my eyes; I wonder if it could be better characterized as an adaptation of existing power structures to the social media age as opposed to something borne out of some nature monolithically inherent in the social media generation.
At some point I want to make a full video on Jurgen Habermas' notion of the public sphere which will dig into a lot of this kinda stuff (particular the way in which "the discourse" is actually highly restrictive in who gets to contribute to it in any meaningful way). I just need to find a good "hook" for it so that people will actually watch it, haha!
Very succinct and insightful! Thanks for bringing this into the discussion as it is in my opinion a very important and often neglected point.
It is if people have completely forgotten about the history of stand-up comedy, music, and video games. There were always people both on the left and the right who wanted to cancel things that they found uncomfortable. I don’t think there’s really a solution to this problem. Sometimes you just have to deal with the assholes around you because killing the mall is just too inconvenient.
You can't possibly deny that cancel culture is becoming hyper sensitive to the point that people are "cancelled" for a meaning a small group of people derived from a statement, but was not actually said. There is a difference between now and then, and that is the advent of the internet with the addition of the mass adoption of social media. This did not existed in the past.
Companies will fire someone if even one person complains of a post someone made, a post often times expressing in opinion that was fine yesterday but today not so. This may have happened on a smaller scale in the past, but this has become a far more common fenomina
Late to the party but yes, so much yes. Žižek talks about this exact thing too in one of his books:
"There is an even greater problem with the underlying premise of
those who proclaim the “death of truth”: they talk as if once before (say, up to the 1980s), in spite of all manipulations and distortions, truth did somehow prevail, and that the “death of truth” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Already a quick overview tells us that this was not the
case: how many violations of human rights and humanitarian
catastrophes remained invisible, from the Vietnam War to the invasion of Iraq. Just remember the times of Nixon, Reagan, Bush... *The difference was not that the past was more “truthful” but that the ideological hegemony was much stronger, so that, instead of today’s greater melee of local “truths,” one “truth” (or, rather, one big Lie) basically prevailed.* In the West, this was the liberal- democratic Truth (with a Leftist or Rightist twist). What is happening today is that, with the populist wave which unsettled the political establishment, *the Truth/Lie which served as ideological foundation of this establishment is also falling apart. And the ultimate reason for this disintegration is not the rise of postmodern relativism but the failure of the ruling establishment which is no longer able to maintain its ideological hegemony.* We can now see what those who bemoan the “death of truth” really deplore: the disintegration of one big Story more or less accepted by the majority which brought ideological stability to a society. The secret of those who curse “historicist relativism” is that they miss the safe situation in which one big Truth (even if it was a big Lie) provided the basic “cognitive mapping” to all. In short, it is those who deplore the “death of truth” that are the true and most radical agents of this death: their motto is the one attributed to Goethe, _"besser Unrecht als Unordnung,”_ better injustice than disorder, better one big Lie than the reality of a mixture of lies and truths."
TL;DR: To those accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression; their metanarratives of how the world works, what's good and what's not begin to be challenged and put under greater scrutiny.
Loved the curio cameo, I could feel their character internally screaming in every sentence 😂
They were amazing!
@@Tom_Nicholas writing was brilliant, you made me laugh a fair few times - the fake livestream comments were painfully accurate 👍 satire done right
I know I come late to the conversation, but I felt the need to add my 2 cents worth. I enjoyed the video, and the breakdown of the history and meaning of the crowd/mob, both physical and digital. But, and I might be alone in this view, this is NOT what I consider “Cancel Culture”. A group, or “digital crowd” as it were, speaking out against a wrong or perceived wrong is fine and actually a good thing, it’s what starts or keeps the conversation going to make us as a species better. “Cancel Culture” is is the “
De-platforming” or removal of another’s ability to converse, “Doxing” or the release of ones info for nefarious reasons, getting people fired or removed from society, and even the physical harassment and even sometimes violence that comes from Doxing (including at times, murder). This is what I consider the spectrum of Cancel Culture, and the dangerous part of the “mob”...
I think your interpretation of cancel culture ist quite on point!
@@Tom444493 Like I said, its my interpretation of Cancel Culture.
The digital crowd speaking out against something wrong or perceived as such in itself is not bad, but the digital crowd is doing it in a way that they imply that voice has to be silenced. You see that in their rethoric. The are louder and louder, the louder, the more aggressive, the better. They really want you to shut up.
I got backlash when I defended the autistic people as they have a condition called hyperfixation and so if they fix with Harry Potter books they get relief from anxiety from getting Harry Potter contents, since JKRowling controversy, these books are demonized by the activists and they attacked autistic people for sticking to the franchise and supporting the author. Well, I was deliberately offended and asked to kill myself. Yeah receiving death threats impressed me a bit. It was the first time in my life and I am 38.
This is not just calling out something you dont like.
What a wonderful summary on the present moment. Thank you brother!
“Few ideas have captured the collective imagination of the internet in the past year or so, more than that of cancel culture. For the uninitiated, get out now... get out while you still can.”
cancel culture is a legitimate problem but only in hyperspecific and very niche internet subcultures where any real celebrity would be too embarrassed to tread, where this exact lack of nuance has been a defining feature for years
Sure, like the Phoenix area poetry scene.
@@randolphgallagher7942 nothing has ever grasped my interest as strongly as these seven words
Interesting. So do you view old tweets or statements dug up that negatively impact someone's career or life to not be a part of cancel culture, or do you feel that it isn't a problem, or something else entirely?
@@OntheOtherHandVideos first you’re gonna have to define your terms. What is ‘old’? A year or twenty years? Is the age relevant? Has the person who posted it clearly demonstrated change or not? What is ‘negatively impact career’? A celebrity making 9 million dollars instead of 20 million, or a teacher becoming homeless?
I think your question falls into the trap of the exact lack of nuance that this video is specifically about
@@OntheOtherHandVideos i personally dont think thats part of cancel culture, digging up 10 year old tweets is just plain weird. For example a drag queen (NBB) was just called out/canceled for making transphobic commeng towards another queen. I then saw people bringing up tweet of other queens sayjng the word tranny but like who really was super woke about trans issues in 2011? I sure as hell was transphobic back then n now im a trans man. Judging people by the social standards of today but puttimg that on the past just seems weird to me. As much as people hate it sometimes " it was a different time" is the actual valid answer.
Please do a video on psychological reactance theory! It's so fascinating, dovetails with this video well, and can be used to understand ::broadly gestures at everything::
It was hillarious! ROFL! Great satiric dig! Love your videos! Very informative and cool.
I definitely agree nuance is important, but I think there's something particularly toxic about social media backlash, especially for women, POC and LGBT+ people. Being bombarded with graphic and violent hate seems to come alongside genuine criticisms with 'cancel culture'
The arts community especially is absolutely awful for this, and it seems like a big missed point to me to discuss cancel culture without its disproportionate impact on marginalised in any public space.
Neurodiverse and disabled people are also disproportionately affected by this kind of hatred. In general, minorities are affected more than privilaged people, which is something we really should be addressing cuz it's a sign of some pretty significant implicit bias.
Contrapoints video on this subject was much better and addresses some of what you mention.
I personally think that "Cancel Culture" is the wrong word to use here. It's nothing more than the same societal dynamics that we've always dealt with playing out online again, any black man will be able to tell you how just one misstep will make people think of him as a violent beast and any trans woman can tell about how not fitting perfectly into the box cis women assign to you can lead to people declaring you a sexual predator. And both of these things actually to a large degree comes back to who gets the privilege of being seen as an individual which is what he was talking about which is why the Cancel Culture term inherently just ends up reinforcing those same societal dynamics that we experience.
The whole idea of the critique of cancel culture is about retaining nuance and being able to distinguish between the cases. It is true, nonetheless, that some people have weaponized this term to defend themselves in cases in which they just want to avoid taking into account their critics. Although I cannot deny the reality of it, I also have to state once again that cancel culture, far from being just a broad term some people use to disqualify criticism, exists and has its own characteristics. I think the video made by Contrapoints on this subject offers a very good explanation of them (the process of abstraction, essentialism, the transitive property, etc.). On the other hand, you did a good debunk of "the madness of the mobs" argument, which is somehow related to this topic, although I do not think the term cancel culture can be dismissed just because crowds often act rationally orientated towards their political goals or moral principles.
I found it a bit funny how you emphasised the need to retain nuance and see the details of every case to make a judgement, yet you often talked about J.K. Rowling's tweets in the video and barely mentioned the content of any of them, thus making it easier for your viewers (most of us, people who'd give you a fair amount of interpretative charity) to think of them as negative (or worst than they were), even if we have not read them.
JK Rowling tweeted Transphobic comments, and people criticised her for that. There is no more context needed.
@@chinggiskhan6678 so you don't get to decide for yourself if you agree with that assessment?
@@duncandl910 There really isn't more context needed. She tweeted blatantly transphobic tweets and deserved the criticism that came flying her way.
@@chinggiskhan6678 No context needed? Like, you don't even need to read her comments to know they're transphobic? One person saying they are is enough?
@@OLucasZanella I did read her comments, and they were really Transphobic
Very thoughtful and well reasoned. Thank you!
I think Contrapoints' theory of abstraction and essentialization explains how cancel culture works a lot better than the mob rule theory
How is that theory?
It sure works... But is it truly how we want to go about these things?
Cancelling is like putting someone in prison without the person actually going. And it's so easy to cancel someone.
Cancel culture is not a valid way to handout justice, as it fundamentally ends in vilification and discrimination.
Jesus Tyrone Christ is gettin canceled on twitter the same as being prosecuted by the govt do you figure
Jesus Tyrone Christ do you think someone tweeting 'this fella is shitty' is the same as prison
@@ryanrobinson2522 Of course not? Obviously I didn't mean it literally, yet you're forcing yourself to think it so.
The amount of production you out into these videos is AMAZING!!
Interesting to compare/contrast this analysis with the very personal tale from ContraPoints and the experience of actually "being canceled."
And the recent issue and video from Lindsay Ellis
This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time.
Contrapoints video actually has cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, unlike this video.
I'm not familiar with this UA-camr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.
Cancel Culture is a big issue in my opinion but not for celebrities / tv hosts , actors , comedians etc / its more an issue for creators on the internet like youtubers and twitch streamers. On an unrelated note twitter is filled with echo chambers for both the right and the left
anyway great vid
Brilliant breakdown of the topic.
Really glad I found your channel!
Tom's suggestion that the popular concept of "The Mob" is a canard is an interesting provocation. Emphasising the, so called, mob as a collection of thinking individuals with converging material and political interests, as opposed to a singular volatile and unreasoning entity, provides the sociological context to tug at the roots of the topical subject matter. Though a word on the relationship between the cancel culture narrative and the trend toward social media censorship might have been worthwhile.
One might say that the Chorus is Sophocles' tragedies represented the mob, devoid of negative connotations
Yeah, I think you're right that the "mob" as portrayed by the chorus is often portrayed as having much more insight than the central figures in Greek tragedy.
OK. No one seems to be asking:
Where did you get that amazing Vhs T-shirt? Love it so much. :)
And many thanks for this video. Such an enlightening view of the whole issue and always remarkable, even after many years of educating myself, how much I take for granted.
I like the use of the turf edger instead of the more popular pitchfork.
A very underrated mob weapon, when well sharpened.
The "classical liberal" with the celtic cross was such a nice touch ahaha
I was quite pleased when I came up with that one whilst I was trying to put together usernames...
that one stuck out to me too
Page 1 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, comedy gold right there.
I was hoping you also get to the topic of online bullying and how it gets more organized lately. That is also a thing. Taking out the trash is important, but in my experience, there is way more here than what you have touched on. Also, there are mobs and lynch mobs, and if you mention history probably both need to be mentioned.
He did (kinda)
he did
I like how you included "First" guy. He sounded exactly like I always imagined.
A+ on the youtube apology aswell; 100% accurate.
Your alt-right lunatic descent bit is also very convincing and accurate. Even shooting from inside a stationary car: Nice addition for realism.
Was "The smurfs" part of the joke? It's the serfs... I'm confused
Haha, yeah, that was just a stupid joke! Perhaps it didn't quite land!
@@Tom_Nicholas ah I see. :D Nice video though! Very informative and funny!
I'm here for the smurfs.
@@Tom_Nicholas i thought it landed. Like anything else it'll have a bumpy landing for some
@@Tom_Nicholas Lol I got the joke. It's a neat reference.
Damn, you could basically teach university level tutorials on these videos - that's the standard of quality and detail you provide. Excellent work Tom! I'm a final year student and I would have thoroughly enjoyed such a tutorial discussion.
Haha, perhaps I'll have to start doing some seminar livestreams after each video goes out!
I'll admit, I had avoided this video for a bit because of the thumbnail, after the intro I felt silly XD. Edit after watching the rest: Thoughtful analysis as always, Tom good stuffI liked how the bid evolved over the course of the video.