Surface Ripples

Cancel Culture

 I experienced a very mild incidence of ‘cancel culture’.  One of my Facebook friends posted a comment on their wall about the recent incident at the Oscars in which one actor struck another. Judging from the opinions expressed on social and general news media, opinion is divided on this case.

I expressed an opinion that ran counter to that of the friend who posted. About 24 hours later, I received a message from said friend advising me that they had deleted my comment from the wall as ‘they didn’t want to start an argument on their wall’.  

Our Facebook walls are our own property. They are ‘monarchies’ and we are the king, queen or dictator thereof. We have the right to say what stays on our wall and what doesn’t.

The corollary is that, if we post something in the public domain, we can expect comments. Not every person who comments may agree with us (as I’ve found). That’s what we call the right to free speech.  Provided it isn’t insulting or ‘offensive’ (which can mean many different things these days) they have a right to post.  Equally, removing comments with which one disagrees on one’s own posts is one’s right. 

Unfortunately, there’s a diverse range of opinions on this planet. Human beings generally tend to unite into ‘tribes’ united by disparate factors such as:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Political views
• Education, etc

One has only to look at the number of Facebook groups covering a multitude of special interests to realise how many diverse ‘tribes’ there are in this world.  Strength is in unity: e pluribus unum and all that…. But it means one group may disagree with another.

We can also be members of more than one Facebook ‘tribe’. For example, I can be a member of my school Facebook group, my university Facebook group, a Facebook group that unites fans of sci-fi - the list is endless.

Back to my original comment. Facebook is, first and foremost, a public forum. If we put something out in public (even if our comments are visible to ‘friends only’) it’s reasonable to expect people to react (favourably or unfavourably) depending on their point of view. Depending on the nature of the comment (I assume that it isn’t gratuitously or intentionally ‘offensive’), we can then engage in a discussion based on logic and reason, to discuss any contentious issues and agree a way forward or agree to disagree.

Thanks to social media it’s too easy to ‘cancel’ those whose values, opinions and comments disagree with us or ours. Whilst this may make us feel ‘good’ and/or ‘protected’, it means that we risk turning our social media platform into our own private echo chamber where only views that chime with ours are acceptable.

I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me. I am happy to engage in debate as described above. However, walking away suggests a lack of the emotional and intellectual maturity to engage in rational discussion and to argue a case with another.

Looking back on history, when rulers could not come to an agreement, they usually went to war, resulting in the wholesale slaughter and/or subjugation of the subject by another power. This has been constantly repeated and is, perhaps, the ultimate ‘cancellation’.

I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management.  I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website  provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.  For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610

Labels: Leisure, Social

posted by William Martin @ 14:43