While perceived transgressions face amplified public reproach in modern times, the proclivity to socially condemn or economically sanction perceived offenders has become markedly more widespread in contemporary communities. While the intention behind cancelling culture may be to hold individuals accountable for their actions, it often leads to harmful consequences and stifles meaningful dialogue. This essay will argue why cancel culture is detrimental, focusing on its impact on freedom of speech, mental health, and societal division. Cancel culture menaces our right to speak freely. When people dread the risk of cancellation for their voiced thoughts, self-censorship might kick in, or they might choose silence over dialogue. Such fear casts a chill on free speech; it blocks the …show more content…
The unrelenting dread of potential public humiliation or social exile is capable of steadily eroding an individual's psychological health, culminating in worries, unhappiness, and other mental struggles. Recent studies led by the APA have demonstrated that subjecting someone to public humiliation and social estrangement can negatively impact their psychological well-being in meaningful ways, leaving them more likely to experience a lack of self-worth and seclusion from others. In extreme cases, the relentless scrutiny and criticism associated with cancel culture can even lead to self-harm or suicide. Furthermore, cancel culture exacerbates societal division by creating an 'us versus them' mentality. When people are quick to bully and cancel others for their perceived transgressions, it fosters an environment of hostility and animosity. This 'cancel or be canceled' mentality only serves to deepen existing divisions and prevent meaningful conversation and understanding. Instead of promoting empathy and reconciliation, cancel culture reinforces tribalism and polarization, hindering the possibility of genuine societal
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
As a social process theory, drift and Neutralization sees a crime to be a part of wider social interactions. It views social order as non objective and non consensual and posits that there is not a single fundamental social goal that is held by all social groups; rather there are many different overlapping social values within a society, both conventional and delinquent: legitimate and illegitimate. Drift and Neutralization Theory posits that individuals learn values and delinquent behaviours through their exposure to sub-cultural values. “Deviant or delinquent (or criminal) subcultures do not reject ‘dominant’ values and beliefs. Instead, there is tension between inclinations to adhere to mainstream values and beliefs.” This sees that criminals can drift between deviant and conventional behaviours and how to use various techniques of neutralisation to rationalise their criminal activity. In analysing McVeigh’s motives, his learned sub cultural values can be examined to demonstrate how he was able to rationalise his violations of the law and how he came to drift from non delinquent to delinquent actions. The techniques of neutralisation; denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
Ostracization impairs the four basic human needs; belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. It dramatically raises anxiety levels, causes depression, despondency and sometimes actual physical pain. Some people recover differently and use the act of violence to cope with this event. Some individuals want to see other people suffer as a way of dealing with social unacceptance. They use other people's pain and grieving as a way of healing themselves. In the end, recovery from social unacceptance is difficult and is not an easy situation to come back
Zadro, L., Williams, K.D., & Richardson, R. (2004) How low can you go? Ostracism by
The term "censorship" originates from the Latin censere, "to give as one's opinion, to assess" (Culture Shock: Who Decides? How and Why?: Definitions of Censorship). In contrast to this seemingly simple definition, contemporary usage offers no agreed-upon definition of the term or its' appropriate usage, most specifically concerning the highly conteste...
To make a person wear a shirt or hold a sign at a busy street corner that has what they did written on it is humiliating. Enduring a punishment like that takes a toll on a child physiologically. Being humiliated in public lowers a person’s self-esteem tremendously, especially teens since many are struggling to be confident in their own skin and are unsure of whom they are as a person. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s,
Today, not only the culture in America but also the culture of human beings in their entirety, has been transformed by socially deviant acts. Some of these historical transformations have been for the better. Others have not. Regardless of the outcome, most acts of deviance are made in an attempt to better society. If the opposite effect is experienced, society reverts to a previous structure.
Witherbee, Amy and Cushman, C. Ames. "Counterpoint: Sometimes Censorship is Necessary." 2011. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 March 2012.
We play into the hands of the chaos this deviance brings about when we accept what damages us. The moral thread of our society is one that holds together civility and the refinement of our culture. We must take better care of this thread, else we shall suffer from the wounds that a lack of moral integrity can leave. Challenge yourself to start changing your attitude from one of injurious tolerance, to one of an idealistic quest for improvement. Works Cited Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert Bork, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 1996.
Most people opposing restrictions on freedom of speech believe it will open doors that may threaten expression and lead to more extreme forms of censorship. What much of the opposition fails to realize is that our government has “drawn lines between protected and unprotected freedom of speech before without dire results” (Lawrence 64). When the abuse of one right threatens the preservation of another our government must pick their poison and decide which side calls for protection in each situation. This can be seen by ...
Our children should be free to think, free to challenge, and free to make their own decisions.” Conclusion : Hopefully now you have gained a better understanding of the role that censorship plays in America’s schools. It is a guiding factor that influences the minds of the future, and must be treated accordingly. The purpose of this speech is to raise awareness about this issue, so that we can change it for the better.
Digital communication has evolved in such a rapid time. Some say that it is bad, others say it is good, and other say it can be good and bad. In Gerald Graff’s and Cathy Birkenstein’s book, They Say/I say, they have a chapter that talks about digital communication. They talk about the pros and cons on it as well. Digital communication is destroying young user’s ability to communicate but it also is helping spread viral memes quickly, and bringing people together.
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.