In order to assess whether Silvergate was a victim of "cancel culture," we need to have a common understanding of this phenomenon of "canceling." It seems like your post hints at, but doesn't provide, such a working definition.
If cancel culture is limited to silencing those whose views are not popular or accepted, then walking out on Silvergate's speech was not "canceling" him - he was still allowed to speak to anyone who could bear to listen.
However, let us suppose that the phenomenon of cancel culture is meant more broadly. Cancel culture could be defined to include evaluating (perhaps unfairly) words and actions outside of their intended context, and then doing what one can to remove from the public discourse those words and actions that are believed to be incongruous with the mores of the present time and context. Silvergate used a term that is generally considered offensive in way that he thought was non-derogatory. His audience, in an effort to remove the word entirely from the public discourse, refused to hear Silvergate's speech. When the audience acted to "cancel" the offensive word (if we allow the above definition), Silvergate's ability to communicate became collateral damage; in that sense, maybe that makes him a victim of cancel culture.
Of course, this point is muddled by the reality that the audience, in walking out, was signaling that they understood and disagreed with Silvergate's thesis - that we should not refuse to hear works that include this offensive word lest we miss out on hearing important ideas. In this case, it's harder to say that they didn't understand his point because they clearly signaled a rejection of it.
I don't comment to say he was or wasn't a victim of "cancel culture," but to say that, without a clear definition of terms, it's not possible to assess whether what happened here was "cancel culture."
Dan, thanks for this thoughtful engagement. But I don't think the students were attempting to "remove the word entirely from public discourse." They were protesting Silverglate's use of the word; it's not obvious, for example, that they would have protested the use of the word by a black speaker. (And one could raise arguments for or against the merits of such a distinction.) Regardless, though, I don't think this makes Silverglate a victim of cancel culture. Had they sought to punish him for his public talk, then I think there is a stronger case to be made that he was the object of a cancellation effort. All of this is to say that while I agree we lack a fully articulated working definition, I *think* we can say that someone is not a victim of cancel culture if there has been no effort to undermine/belittle/de-platform that person.
The Minimalists (Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus) basically say, “if ‘it’ does not add value to your life, cancel it.” In a world of Twitter, FB and Instagram, I understand the need for a “cancel culture.” Cancel culture is the in thing to do—it’s easier than challenging the person, or digging deeper into the reasons or questions; and it is the counter to the barrage of stuff coming at us from everywhere. However, a lot of times, I think we need to cancel a culture, not the person. We can cancel the n-words, for example, but still engage the person and keep them as a human, despite their beliefs or structures.
(I apologize for any misspellings or lack of edits. It’s not a lack of caring or understanding. I have aphasia, so it’s a wonder that i can write at all. *This is Jeff’ Donnithorne’s little sister, btw. 🙃)
Bekah, it's great to hear from you! Thanks for reading and engaging. Great point about the challenge of digging deeper. And you also make a good distinction between people and the ideas they hold. That's an essential practice for living in a deeply divided society and core to understanding of tolerance: tolerating (and even loving) other people does not (and cannot) mean embracing their ideas and actions as good and right.
In order to assess whether Silvergate was a victim of "cancel culture," we need to have a common understanding of this phenomenon of "canceling." It seems like your post hints at, but doesn't provide, such a working definition.
If cancel culture is limited to silencing those whose views are not popular or accepted, then walking out on Silvergate's speech was not "canceling" him - he was still allowed to speak to anyone who could bear to listen.
However, let us suppose that the phenomenon of cancel culture is meant more broadly. Cancel culture could be defined to include evaluating (perhaps unfairly) words and actions outside of their intended context, and then doing what one can to remove from the public discourse those words and actions that are believed to be incongruous with the mores of the present time and context. Silvergate used a term that is generally considered offensive in way that he thought was non-derogatory. His audience, in an effort to remove the word entirely from the public discourse, refused to hear Silvergate's speech. When the audience acted to "cancel" the offensive word (if we allow the above definition), Silvergate's ability to communicate became collateral damage; in that sense, maybe that makes him a victim of cancel culture.
Of course, this point is muddled by the reality that the audience, in walking out, was signaling that they understood and disagreed with Silvergate's thesis - that we should not refuse to hear works that include this offensive word lest we miss out on hearing important ideas. In this case, it's harder to say that they didn't understand his point because they clearly signaled a rejection of it.
I don't comment to say he was or wasn't a victim of "cancel culture," but to say that, without a clear definition of terms, it's not possible to assess whether what happened here was "cancel culture."
Dan, thanks for this thoughtful engagement. But I don't think the students were attempting to "remove the word entirely from public discourse." They were protesting Silverglate's use of the word; it's not obvious, for example, that they would have protested the use of the word by a black speaker. (And one could raise arguments for or against the merits of such a distinction.) Regardless, though, I don't think this makes Silverglate a victim of cancel culture. Had they sought to punish him for his public talk, then I think there is a stronger case to be made that he was the object of a cancellation effort. All of this is to say that while I agree we lack a fully articulated working definition, I *think* we can say that someone is not a victim of cancel culture if there has been no effort to undermine/belittle/de-platform that person.
The Minimalists (Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus) basically say, “if ‘it’ does not add value to your life, cancel it.” In a world of Twitter, FB and Instagram, I understand the need for a “cancel culture.” Cancel culture is the in thing to do—it’s easier than challenging the person, or digging deeper into the reasons or questions; and it is the counter to the barrage of stuff coming at us from everywhere. However, a lot of times, I think we need to cancel a culture, not the person. We can cancel the n-words, for example, but still engage the person and keep them as a human, despite their beliefs or structures.
(I apologize for any misspellings or lack of edits. It’s not a lack of caring or understanding. I have aphasia, so it’s a wonder that i can write at all. *This is Jeff’ Donnithorne’s little sister, btw. 🙃)
Bekah, it's great to hear from you! Thanks for reading and engaging. Great point about the challenge of digging deeper. And you also make a good distinction between people and the ideas they hold. That's an essential practice for living in a deeply divided society and core to understanding of tolerance: tolerating (and even loving) other people does not (and cannot) mean embracing their ideas and actions as good and right.