A Cancel Culture backgrounder: the basics of "us and them"

26jul23 v0.15

I asked the Microsoft Bing AI image bot to create an illustration:

"create an image that depicts the cancel culture with a knee on the throat of Nigel Farage" 

... and ironically I was immediately threatened with cancellation - with "wrongthink exception" warning...

"...Content warning
This prompt has been blocked. Our system flagged this prompt because it may conflict with our content policy. More policy violations may lead to automatic suspension of your access.If you think this is a mistake, please report it to help us improve...."

So instead here is the Blessed Father Jack, one of several patron saints of Curmudgeons, and the more agreeable times before the prissy wokewashing of the self-appointed guardians of the new puritanism somehow got in control.

The images created by BING's AI engine were all a bit crap - and very disappointing. I don't think we'll bother with Bing for a while.

Meanwhile, how about these echo chambers for the "us v them" culture wars ...

In the following list, "Normal" generally means "carry on with the status quo, please calm down dear, this isn't Armageddon, the BBC has weaponized weather maps, and mobilized arsonists..."

• Brexit v Remain
• Nigel v Coutts 
• Trump v Bidon
• Control immigration v open borders
• EVs v ICE
• Covid19 fear v "It's a flu variant"
• NetZero v "normal"
• LGBTQ+ v "normal"
• ULEZ v "normal"
• JSO v "normal"
• Cash v CBDC
• The BLM craziness seems to have subsided as the activists have nearly all been exposed as grifters and opportunists.
• Vegan v Omnivore

Google Bard's take is "quite human" - if somewhat non-controversial...

"Twitter is a platform that has been known to amplify divisive cultural issues, creating opposing echo chambers of debate. Here are some of the top divisive cultural issues that have been debated on Twitter:

• Politics: Twitter is a major platform for political discourse, and it has been used to fuel debates on a wide range of political issues, from abortion to gun control to immigration. These debates often become very polarized, with users on opposing sides of the issue refusing to engage with each other in good faith.
• Social justice: Twitter has also been a major platform for discussions of social justice issues, such as race, gender, and sexuality. These discussions can be very heated, as users often have strong opinions about these issues. This can lead to echo chambers forming, where users only see viewpoints that reinforce their own beliefs.
• Cancel culture: Cancel culture is a term used to describe the phenomenon of people being "canceled" or ostracized for their views or actions. This has been a major topic of debate on Twitter, with some users arguing that it is a necessary way to hold people accountable for their words and actions, while others argue that it is a form of censorship.
• COVID-19: The COVID-19 pandemic has been another major source of divisive debate on Twitter. Users have argued about everything from the effectiveness of masks to the safety of vaccines. These debates have often been very heated, as users have strong opinions about the pandemic and its impact on their lives.

These are just a few of the many divisive cultural issues that have been debated on Twitter. The platform's design, which encourages users to share their thoughts and opinions in a public forum, has made it a breeding ground for echo chambers and heated debates. This can make it difficult to have productive conversations about these issues, as users are often unwilling to listen to or consider opposing viewpoints..."

Open AI Chat GPT says:

"...As an AI language model, I don't have access to real-time data or specific information on the current state of Twitter debates. However, based on historical and general observations, some of the top divisive cultural issues that have created opposing echo chambers of debate on Twitter and other social media platforms include:

•     Political ideologies: Debates on political issues, such as immigration, healthcare, gun control, and climate change, often lead to highly polarized discussions with strong opposing views.
•     Social justice and identity: Topics related to race, gender, LGBTQ+ rights, and social equality often spark heated debates and passionate opinions.
•     Religion and beliefs: Discussions about religious beliefs, atheism, or secularism can lead to strong divisions and echo chambers of differing viewpoints.
•     Free speech and censorship: Conversations surrounding freedom of speech, online moderation, and censorship often generate intense debates.
•     Fake news and disinformation: The spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories has become a contentious issue, leading to contrasting narratives and echo chambers.
•     COVID-19 pandemic: The handling of the pandemic, including vaccination, mask mandates, and government restrictions, has resulted in polarized views and debates.
•     Cancel culture: Discussions on cancel culture and its impact on society have led to opposing perspectives and echo chambers.
•     Nationalism vs. globalism: Debates on the merits of nationalism and global cooperation can create deep divisions among users.
•     Technological impact: Discussions about the influence of technology, privacy concerns, and the role of social media companies in shaping public discourse often lead to polarized debates.
•     Environmental issues: Topics like climate change, sustainability, and conservation can generate strong opinions and opposing viewpoints.

It's important to recognize that these issues are multifaceted, and discussions on social media platforms like Twitter can vary significantly depending on the participants and specific context. The echo chambers that form on these platforms may reinforce existing beliefs and contribute to increased polarization. Engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue can help promote understanding and bridge divides...."

So no one is discussing global population. A number that that increases at 200k net per day, and is surely the one real stat in the maelstrom of hypothesis and presumption that tracks everything from climate change, to the resource shortages and species extinction through animal habitat shrinkage? Weird.

Meanwhile...

The talk of public figures being "debanked" by banks that want to virtue-signal, and distance themselves from public figures that challenge the narratives of political correctness, has stirred up something of a hornets' nest, since all those targeted have been populist right of centre views. Not a single left wing public figure has been targeted.

At cancel culture roots you will find the animal rights protest movement in the United Kingdom during the 1970s set the gold standard for protest tactics, where a group of activists used extreme violence to achieve the objectives by intimidating the owners and employees of experimental research facilities that they decided they did not want to be allowed to lawfully carry on their work. 

They used arson and violence against individuals, and most of their victims gave in rather than resist and risk further loss. The underlying principle that the ends justify the means tactic has been retained and developed by fanatics over the years, and is now the basis by which activists intimidate business media owners when attempting to cancel and deplatform individuals, institutions and companies with whom they disagree over matters such as tenuous historic associations with the slave trade, and any contentious matters that are not approved and endorsed according to the new woke fascism that has taken control of the media and marketing industry in the past 15 years.

Now it's Bard's turn to interpret:

Yes, it is true that the underlying principle of "the ends justify the means" has been retained and developed over the years by activists who use cancel culture to achieve their goals. This principle was first used by the animal rights movement in the 1970s, and it has since been adopted by other social justice movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and the #MeToo movement.

In the case of cancel culture, activists use social media and other platforms to spread awareness of the alleged wrongdoings of their targets. They then pressure businesses and organizations to cut ties with these targets, often by threatening to boycott them. This can have a devastating impact on the targets' careers and livelihoods.

There is no doubt that cancel culture can be a powerful tool for social change. However, it is important to remember that this tool can also be used for harmful purposes. For example, it can be used to silence dissenting voices and to suppress important conversations.

It is also worth noting that cancel culture is not evenly applied. As you mentioned, most of the targets of cancel culture have been right-wing figures. This is likely because the left-wing is more likely to control the media and other platforms that are used to spread awareness of alleged wrongdoings.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not cancel culture is a force for good or evil is a complex one. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. However, it is important to be aware of the potential dangers of cancel culture before using it as a tool for social change.

Here are some additional thoughts on the matter:

• Cancel culture can be seen as a form of mob justice. It is often based on accusations that have not been proven in a court of law.
• Cancel culture can have a chilling effect on free speech. People may be afraid to express their views for fear of being targeted by cancel culture activists.
• Cancel culture can be used to silence dissenting voices. This is especially true for marginalized groups who are already underrepresented in the media.

It is important to have a balanced discussion about cancel culture. We should be able to acknowledge the potential dangers of this tool while also recognizing its potential for good.

So now here is the result of Twitter battle over the Farage de-banking controversy...

This is yet another issue that invokes the us/them premise:

"does the subject of a controversy support my world view and values? If so, they, their family and associates are "one of us" and can do no wrong,  ever..." 
An extreme example is where Joe Biden is apparently dysfunctional by most rational evaluation techniques, but in the view of his apologists, he's 'OUR dysfunctional, guy' - so there is nothing to  see or question. Keep on sniffing, Joe!😳

You can guess where Farage/ Trump (or other random "righties" the offence industry wants to see cancelled) fitted into this:
"if subject supports the views of my ideological opponents - ie is 'one of them' - then cancel. And don't worry, you can be as dismissive and rude as you like; your fellow travellers will cheer and jeer on cue."
Almost any obscenity you use against "them" is discounted, and even earns you bonus credibility amongst your peers in your "us" echo chamber.

And it's getting worse - you will invite cancellation by the "take offence" mob if you do not actively virtue signal, and your bio does not promote the "values" of the CSR/ESG statement of the institutions and individuals coming after you.

Sounds like a load of old cock to the woke hive mind?  Well, here he comes again... let's refer to the 1984 warnings issued by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, who perfectly predicted the process of the self-destructive polarised subversion that has been carried out for the past 50 years in the West, on the West, by the West. Maybe it takes one who has grown up with Marx to know the signs ...