I love your stints on BAR pod, and all that you write. I just had this thought about the mindset you describe: ‘you must be a particularly brave and consequential person to be victimized in this way,’ as a plausible explanation for why someone (say, my 21 year old daughter) who’s called herself he/him for 8 years while taking no steps to modify her body (thank god) continues to bang the pronoun drum. Because it leads in 10 out of 10 cases to ‘being misunderstood,’ due to its incoherence. Making her a brave and consequential victim. Makes as much sense as any other theory! This is too long for a first time comment, sorry— and thanks. 🙏
Thanks Jenny, and I'm very sorry to hear things are difficult with your daughter. The incredibly annoying (and nonbinary) standup Sofie Hagen has a joke about how the function of novel pronouns is to cause social friction - basically they signal who knows the codes and who doesn't. I don't know your daughter's situation and there are lots of reasons people (especially young people) can become strongly attached to emblems of identity, but this is definitely one of them.
One hundred percent this. Having people who care about you (rather than being admirers or fans) is indispensable - people who want what is best for you to the point that they will call you on your bullshit if you're being self-destructive.
The Lou Perlman molestation stuff was glossed over in about 30 seconds, the conclusion being he was probably asexual, or something. It definitely felt like a lot was left unsaid...
I'm very glad you've posted this because I was genuinely doubting my own memory - could it really have been so cursory? Handwaving with some talking heads taking the "probably asexual" perspective is, well - people close to Savile said the same thing. Doesn't mean Pearlman was Savile-esque; does mean very much less than the producers seem to intend it to.
I also wonder how much autism can play a part when people go mad on the internet? As in, it becomes a special interest of theirs to the exclusion of all other things that might keep them grounded.
Also, their social skills might be a little shaky, so even non-cancelling behaviours from real life friends are misinterpreted as cancellations.
I'm thinking specifically of a man trying to get all his friends to join in on a campaign that was getting him cancelled and getting angry at the gentle pushback "I don't ask you to join in on my causes" and viewing that as the friendship ending.
I feel like someone with more a neurotypical understanding of human interrelationships would have maintained that friendship.
That's an interesting point. One thing I have realised, slowly, about online interactions is that it's very easy for me to "fill in" the missing information - because conversation on the internet is very "lossy" - with what I think "should" be there. Meaning I tend to round everyone up (or indeed down) to roughly like me, while not having access to a lot of the cues that in face-to-face encounters would tip me off about someone's state of mind. On a couple of occasions I've revisited an online relationship with new knowledge about that person, and realised that the gaps in information have been concealing things as serious as substance abuse or psychosis. I believed in my version of who they were, even though that version was, in retrospect, substantially an elaboration based on certain snippets of text. I'm not sure if this is exactly to your point but I guess the connecting factor is: without the context of a physical encounter, we can lose the ability to understand what the other person is actually telling us.
I think about this a lot because my experience was as apolitical as it can get, yet also has happened to many people who have found themselves "radicalized" (if you can use that term outside of politics.)
Something you've not mentioned that I think is quite relevant is the degree to which opposition has sunk their teeth into you: which is to say, are you allowed to move on, or are you still being followed around by people who froth at the mouth at your mere existence? And are there "well meaning" people on "your side" that want to keep you up to date on all that? Are you catering to this new group instead? Are you stuck being reactive? You do have to make a choice to step away from that but it's hard. Even though my shunning was not political I still have flying monkeys coming my way 7 years later (!) -- I can't even begin to imagine if it was something consequential.
I think what you're describing here is a part of the cancelling dynamic that is very close to (maybe indistinguishable from) stalking - I don't know if you listened to my BarPod or read the judgement in the case I talk about, but both "sides" in that were monitoring each other intensely; the judge's remarks essentially end with her saying "please leave each other alone now and get on with your lives".
One thing I was "fortunate" in (although it's a weird kind of good fortune) is that I had close friends going through similar experiences at the same time as me who had also experienced stalking, and were able to apply that experience to navigating cancellation: crucially, they came with the understanding that a relationship of hostility is still a relationship, and if you don't want to be in that relationship, then you need to act like it and not engage. (Obviously there are people who won't respond to that and will continue to pursue you.)
There were also people among my friends who, as you describe, wanted to bring abusive comments to the subject's attention. They're not my friends any more, because their interest was in perpetuating the drama above anything else. You sometimes have to make calls about who is actually invested in your best interests, and cut out the people who aren't.
I think comparing it to stalking is spot on -- I've definitely seen outright cyber stalkers in my area, blogs dedicated to people like me that keep tabs. For a while I had a statcounter and noticed the same IP was refreshing my Tumblr 14+ times a day! It really does add to the self-involvement/forgetting anything else exists that you mention is essential to lose touch.
"a relationship of hostility is still a relationship" -- absolutely. It seems so basic to say but it gets a lot of resistance-- I recently was doing some digging into anti-fandom profitability (because there are "super fans" with that have hostile relationships!) and it was interesting that some mentioned they didn't want what they were against to go away because they needed it to position themselves against it.
Have you considered there might be a broader element to being outraged at cancellation other than personal grievance? For example that it might arise from a sense that cancellation (essentially being outcast from the tribe) is a political act, especially when it involves banning from social media platforms. Do you feel unconcerned that unknown people, in privately owned businesses/organisations are deciding what speech and opinions are allowed to be heard?
Weird comment. I haven't written about people who are "outraged" about "banning from social media platforms". I've written about people who become radicalised after an experience of ostracism.
To your question about whether I am "unconcerned that unknown people, in privately owned businesses/organisations are deciding what speech and opinions are allowed to be heard?" - this is a question you could have settled with a fairly cursory google of my work, but I do think there's a shocking naivety in *expecting* privately owned businesses/organisations to act with civic responsibility.
The mass handing over of public discourse to techcorps was a very bad idea, which as a society we have acceded to on a global scale. I don't feel any better about Musk Twitter, with its clearly partisan policy on deranking content, than I did about pre-Musk Twitter, where I was one spicy GC tweet away from losing my account. Both are bad. I don't think recognising that badness is a justification for moving into extremist politics, though. Probably better to make a donation to FIRE or Index on Censorship.
"the thin reality of the internet to imperfect, fleshy life."......On the plus side is the vast digital information eco-system that we all too easily take for granted. But there are downsides..... its ever greater surround-sound encroachment into our lives. In the haunting words of British philosopher John Gray:
“Instead of the daily encounters that enable communities to sustain a common life, random collections of solitary people are protected from each other.... Rather than connecting in troublesome relationships, they are turning to cyber-companions for frictionless friendship and virtual sex. The contingencies of living in a material world are being swapped for an algorithmic dreamtime. The end-point is self-enclosure in the Matrix – a loss of the definitively human experience of living as a fleshly, mortal creature..... the defiant smile in the face of cruel absurdity, the glance that began a love that changed us forever, a tune it seemed would always be with us, tears in the rain.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
I think about this a lot. There is something uniquely horrible about being cancelled (and materially horrible too, when it comes with loss of job, income, career etc). But I think it probably affects those more who are more vulnerable to start with. So like other big negative life events, those who have better resources (mental health, good family or social network etc) are simply likely to cope better. And there are different types of cancellation, of course - having some really horrible months on socials isn’t the same as all that plus losing a career you’ve spent a lifetime building up. But I think even if they come out swinging, and carry on swinging - the people who ‘go mad’ I suspect are people who have specific vulnerabilities in the first place. Being ostracised can be brutal, but more so for someone carrying around a lot of pain and from childhood bullying, for example. I think a lot of the draw of radicalisation involves the desire of finding a ‘tribe’ or a home. I say this knowing it will likely be scoffed at, but I’m not saying all extremists are poor little traumatised souls etc. Just that what makes people more likely to weather a cancelling without losing their compass is probably what makes them better able to cope with adversity in general. Not everyone has that strength, but it’s not always their fault either.
I love your stints on BAR pod, and all that you write. I just had this thought about the mindset you describe: ‘you must be a particularly brave and consequential person to be victimized in this way,’ as a plausible explanation for why someone (say, my 21 year old daughter) who’s called herself he/him for 8 years while taking no steps to modify her body (thank god) continues to bang the pronoun drum. Because it leads in 10 out of 10 cases to ‘being misunderstood,’ due to its incoherence. Making her a brave and consequential victim. Makes as much sense as any other theory! This is too long for a first time comment, sorry— and thanks. 🙏
Thanks Jenny, and I'm very sorry to hear things are difficult with your daughter. The incredibly annoying (and nonbinary) standup Sofie Hagen has a joke about how the function of novel pronouns is to cause social friction - basically they signal who knows the codes and who doesn't. I don't know your daughter's situation and there are lots of reasons people (especially young people) can become strongly attached to emblems of identity, but this is definitely one of them.
https://www.instagram.com/sofiehagendk/reel/CunIFm7OaxE/
Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh, Sarah!
I think a strong friendship network that doesn’t enable you has a really strong role to play as well
One hundred percent this. Having people who care about you (rather than being admirers or fans) is indispensable - people who want what is best for you to the point that they will call you on your bullshit if you're being self-destructive.
The Lou Perlman molestation stuff was glossed over in about 30 seconds, the conclusion being he was probably asexual, or something. It definitely felt like a lot was left unsaid...
I'm very glad you've posted this because I was genuinely doubting my own memory - could it really have been so cursory? Handwaving with some talking heads taking the "probably asexual" perspective is, well - people close to Savile said the same thing. Doesn't mean Pearlman was Savile-esque; does mean very much less than the producers seem to intend it to.
I also wonder how much autism can play a part when people go mad on the internet? As in, it becomes a special interest of theirs to the exclusion of all other things that might keep them grounded.
Also, their social skills might be a little shaky, so even non-cancelling behaviours from real life friends are misinterpreted as cancellations.
I'm thinking specifically of a man trying to get all his friends to join in on a campaign that was getting him cancelled and getting angry at the gentle pushback "I don't ask you to join in on my causes" and viewing that as the friendship ending.
I feel like someone with more a neurotypical understanding of human interrelationships would have maintained that friendship.
That's an interesting point. One thing I have realised, slowly, about online interactions is that it's very easy for me to "fill in" the missing information - because conversation on the internet is very "lossy" - with what I think "should" be there. Meaning I tend to round everyone up (or indeed down) to roughly like me, while not having access to a lot of the cues that in face-to-face encounters would tip me off about someone's state of mind. On a couple of occasions I've revisited an online relationship with new knowledge about that person, and realised that the gaps in information have been concealing things as serious as substance abuse or psychosis. I believed in my version of who they were, even though that version was, in retrospect, substantially an elaboration based on certain snippets of text. I'm not sure if this is exactly to your point but I guess the connecting factor is: without the context of a physical encounter, we can lose the ability to understand what the other person is actually telling us.
I think about this a lot because my experience was as apolitical as it can get, yet also has happened to many people who have found themselves "radicalized" (if you can use that term outside of politics.)
Something you've not mentioned that I think is quite relevant is the degree to which opposition has sunk their teeth into you: which is to say, are you allowed to move on, or are you still being followed around by people who froth at the mouth at your mere existence? And are there "well meaning" people on "your side" that want to keep you up to date on all that? Are you catering to this new group instead? Are you stuck being reactive? You do have to make a choice to step away from that but it's hard. Even though my shunning was not political I still have flying monkeys coming my way 7 years later (!) -- I can't even begin to imagine if it was something consequential.
I think what you're describing here is a part of the cancelling dynamic that is very close to (maybe indistinguishable from) stalking - I don't know if you listened to my BarPod or read the judgement in the case I talk about, but both "sides" in that were monitoring each other intensely; the judge's remarks essentially end with her saying "please leave each other alone now and get on with your lives".
One thing I was "fortunate" in (although it's a weird kind of good fortune) is that I had close friends going through similar experiences at the same time as me who had also experienced stalking, and were able to apply that experience to navigating cancellation: crucially, they came with the understanding that a relationship of hostility is still a relationship, and if you don't want to be in that relationship, then you need to act like it and not engage. (Obviously there are people who won't respond to that and will continue to pursue you.)
There were also people among my friends who, as you describe, wanted to bring abusive comments to the subject's attention. They're not my friends any more, because their interest was in perpetuating the drama above anything else. You sometimes have to make calls about who is actually invested in your best interests, and cut out the people who aren't.
I think comparing it to stalking is spot on -- I've definitely seen outright cyber stalkers in my area, blogs dedicated to people like me that keep tabs. For a while I had a statcounter and noticed the same IP was refreshing my Tumblr 14+ times a day! It really does add to the self-involvement/forgetting anything else exists that you mention is essential to lose touch.
"a relationship of hostility is still a relationship" -- absolutely. It seems so basic to say but it gets a lot of resistance-- I recently was doing some digging into anti-fandom profitability (because there are "super fans" with that have hostile relationships!) and it was interesting that some mentioned they didn't want what they were against to go away because they needed it to position themselves against it.
Have you considered there might be a broader element to being outraged at cancellation other than personal grievance? For example that it might arise from a sense that cancellation (essentially being outcast from the tribe) is a political act, especially when it involves banning from social media platforms. Do you feel unconcerned that unknown people, in privately owned businesses/organisations are deciding what speech and opinions are allowed to be heard?
Weird comment. I haven't written about people who are "outraged" about "banning from social media platforms". I've written about people who become radicalised after an experience of ostracism.
To your question about whether I am "unconcerned that unknown people, in privately owned businesses/organisations are deciding what speech and opinions are allowed to be heard?" - this is a question you could have settled with a fairly cursory google of my work, but I do think there's a shocking naivety in *expecting* privately owned businesses/organisations to act with civic responsibility.
The mass handing over of public discourse to techcorps was a very bad idea, which as a society we have acceded to on a global scale. I don't feel any better about Musk Twitter, with its clearly partisan policy on deranking content, than I did about pre-Musk Twitter, where I was one spicy GC tweet away from losing my account. Both are bad. I don't think recognising that badness is a justification for moving into extremist politics, though. Probably better to make a donation to FIRE or Index on Censorship.
"the thin reality of the internet to imperfect, fleshy life."......On the plus side is the vast digital information eco-system that we all too easily take for granted. But there are downsides..... its ever greater surround-sound encroachment into our lives. In the haunting words of British philosopher John Gray:
“Instead of the daily encounters that enable communities to sustain a common life, random collections of solitary people are protected from each other.... Rather than connecting in troublesome relationships, they are turning to cyber-companions for frictionless friendship and virtual sex. The contingencies of living in a material world are being swapped for an algorithmic dreamtime. The end-point is self-enclosure in the Matrix – a loss of the definitively human experience of living as a fleshly, mortal creature..... the defiant smile in the face of cruel absurdity, the glance that began a love that changed us forever, a tune it seemed would always be with us, tears in the rain.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
I think about this a lot. There is something uniquely horrible about being cancelled (and materially horrible too, when it comes with loss of job, income, career etc). But I think it probably affects those more who are more vulnerable to start with. So like other big negative life events, those who have better resources (mental health, good family or social network etc) are simply likely to cope better. And there are different types of cancellation, of course - having some really horrible months on socials isn’t the same as all that plus losing a career you’ve spent a lifetime building up. But I think even if they come out swinging, and carry on swinging - the people who ‘go mad’ I suspect are people who have specific vulnerabilities in the first place. Being ostracised can be brutal, but more so for someone carrying around a lot of pain and from childhood bullying, for example. I think a lot of the draw of radicalisation involves the desire of finding a ‘tribe’ or a home. I say this knowing it will likely be scoffed at, but I’m not saying all extremists are poor little traumatised souls etc. Just that what makes people more likely to weather a cancelling without losing their compass is probably what makes them better able to cope with adversity in general. Not everyone has that strength, but it’s not always their fault either.
Well now I'm sad that I've never been cancelled because it means I'm a nonentity....