Someone says something wrong – or perceived to be wrong – on the Internet, which generates a cascade of reactions of indignation, mockery, aggression and insults. Virtual lynching, cancellation, the names are numerous. It always happens. Sometimes a cancellation may even be right, but it is normal that an explosion of collective indignation is not guided by careful analysis of speeches and does not apply sanctions in moderation. Yet even though we regret this dynamic that commits so many injustices – and throws them in all directions, with all ideologies – it continues to occur.
Criticism of the cancellation is unlikely to have any effect, as it has no identifiable author; it is the result of thousands of uncoordinated autonomous decisions. The impact for those who experience it is brutal, but for each person who participates in the process, the act is minimal: make a comment, give a like. A rude comment alone would be meaningless. A wave of thousands of them psychologically shakes anyone.
Plus, the moment encourages you to join the dance. The subject is hot, people are outraged; How can I not also express my indignation, my mockery, my contempt? Nothing sells like conflict. Identifying and attacking a villain is guaranteed success. Join the debate as it happens. As a rule, those who approach the subject do not even know for sure how it is received by the object of criticism: are they cornered, frightened? Are you angry? Don’t you care? If I don’t say something, someone else will.
I know how my opinions have been misinterpreted by the diffuse network courts. In others, the interpretation was correct, but it simply did not please the majority. And I also know that it’s inevitable, there’s no point in fighting it. A few will listen, a few will make arguments – and those are worth interacting with – the rest, the vast majority, will ignore it and move on to the next distraction.
From an individual perspective, the only way out is resilience. It is up to those who are in this daily arena of opinion to get used to it, not to take insults from strangers personally and to train themselves to express themselves better. This moment also brings opportunities: it puts the opinion leader (and today everyone is a bit of an opinion leader) front and center, giving them even more space to express themselves.
On an institutional level, however, I believe there is a lesson to be learned. In the recent past, this wave of temporary indignation has had almost immediate institutional repercussions: dismissal, end of contract, disinvitations to events. Today, institutions are a little more resilient and understand that the wave of anger passes and everything returns to normal. Whatever the decision, the heat of the moment, with an outraged crowd at the door, is the worst time to make a decision.
The dynamic of cancellation is a consequence of the democratization of the debate. Everyone can talk and interact; This brings back passions. Getting on the right side is more important than the nuances. There is no gatekeeper of discourse to decide which reactions are legitimate and which do not deserve a megaphone to express themselves. The law imposes certain limits on threats, slander and prejudice, but these will always be insufficient. The sea is rough and calm will not come. There is no point in dreaming of other times.
PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.
About The Author
