Philip Jong

Increasing reliance on social media to resolve interpersonal discourse has led to the rise of cancel culture. In its most basic display, individuals of high social stature are being called out in public for a seemingly questionable act or opinion made in their past and are subsequently boycotted by the general populace until they are shamed into contrition for the transgression they have allegedly committed. It is an escalation of the current call-out culture, solely aimed to bring its targets into permanent disrepute. While such act might be rooted in social justice that has rightly exposed the immoral behaviors of certain public figures, its frequent misuse has also served to amplify the already toxic and mob mentality of the growing net (or internet) generation. Further, critics question both the fairness and the effectiveness of this new form of cultural boycott, arguing that it is often disproportionate, petty, impossible to defend, and easy to manipulate. Celebrities who received such backlash have rarely suffered any long-lasting consequences. Worst yet, some instigators seek to leverage the resultant drama to boast their own notoriety, thus delegitimizing any effort by genuine victims to call for public justice. As it exists now, the cancel culture cannot be seen as a form of social activism—to promote positive changes through moral behavior modeling and to resolve civil discourse through mutual tolerance and respect.