Is cancel culture a bad thing?

I haven’t really made up my mind about this one. From what I’ve seen so far it’s usually pretty deserved. I suppose it’s inevitable an undeserving person will get targeted sometimes. Trump Jr. is whining about it right now, which is enough to make me really like the idea as it applies to him and his daddy. It might be the only real consequences any of them face. They’ve kicked the impeachment hearing down the road and the longer it takes the more likely it seems people will want to move on an not convict him. He’s still got plenty of backers, so even cancel culture might not be very effective in the long run. The social media ban has put a cramp in his still for now, but how long before he finds another way? Like maybe a nightly tv show. I keep thinking “Please, please, please pardon yourself.” That would really poke a hornets nest that would be hard for him to recover from. Could they really let a president have that kind of power? I’m just afraid he’s going to get away with everything, like he always has before.

He may. But then he’ll die like the rest of us. Short life. Long memory in history.

Far as “cancel culture”, new name, same thing as groups doing a boycott of products or companies. It’s a way the public with their money show their group power as a consumer.

I’m not familiar with all the ins and outs of it. No doubt it can be misused - but overall a very effective tool for corporate or people in power/influence being responsible or somewhat accountable for their actions and words; products and ethics (Nike runners, remember).

1 Like

“Cancel culture” is a recent negative derogatory term used by those dissatisfied with ones striving for change.

Change is good, and we must continually ask ourselves “is this good, does it serve society, or should it be scrapped”? Institutions should not be exempt from examination, and if necessary, demolition.

People want to demolish the KKK. Is that cancel culture? Even the Boy Scouts … what about them? What about cigarettes, or killing seals for fur?

Just because an institution or process has been around a long time, it’s longevity is no reason to cling to it.

And those who decry “cancel culture”, where were they when the citizens tore down the statues of Saddam Hussein? Or when Nazi symbols were destroyed after WW2?

Who decides, who is offended, and who will suffer if those institutions or symbols still remain?

Have never heard the term before. Had to look it up. Sounds a lot like the practice of ‘shunning’ found in some religious sects ,such as the Amish. Love to see that tried on Trump. However, I can imagine that it might be a bit harder for him to get the massive loans it seems he will need to avoid bankruptcy [yet again]

PS Not aware that Nike really learned very much, nor many other companies exploiting workers in poor countries. Companies like that revert to old ways as soon as no one is looking.

1 Like

I’ve been told my whole life that we should let the market regulate itself. That the government should keep its hands out of the market.

And of course; now that free marketeers don’t like the outcome (them getting de-platformed by the market); and are starting to scream for it to be regulated. :woozy_face:

1 Like

It is a pathetic cycle. In the 50’s and 60’s the big three US automakers were in full support of a free market without regulation. But as soon as the Japanese auto manufacturers made serious inroads on the US market, they were the first ones to plead for tariffs against Japanese imports.

I wonder how many anti-maskers who were refused service in stores because they refused to wear masks fall within the Venn diagram of proponents of a free and unregulated market.

It is human nature to embrace and support procedures and regulations that benefit you, and it is human nature to oppose that which work against you. But it is hypocrisy to change your position when your comfortable life is upset.

I hold to the personal position that we must walk a careful path of moderation, between the extremes. Be it politics or the market, regulations should be structured not to benefit any sole industry or group, but society as a whole. With long term goals in mind.

Yes, it sucks that so many coal miners are facing an uncertain future. But how many people suffer because of the pollution caused by burning coal?


In some countries, like India and China, reliance on coal for electricity in 2015 reached more than 70 per cent in both countries.

In China, according to the World Health Organization, ambient air pollution was responsible for 1.1 million deaths in 2016. Similarly, in India, air pollution contributed to 1.2 million deaths in 2017. A University of Chicago study reports that air pollution in India reduces life expectancy by 5.3 years on average.

1 Like

It’s occurred to me watching the startling events of this election, and the Capitol riots, that I’ve always viewed the rise of autocrats and dictators through the lens of hindsight.

I always marvelled that not enough good people acted or spoke up, but now I’m seeing it unfold in real time, the Orwellian way Trump doubles down on outrageous lies, until people start to wonder if there is some truth in them is deeply worrying.

Of course frightened disillusioned people are a lot less questioning when an enigmatic leader tells them they’re on their side, understand their pain and will fight for them and what they believe in.

Scary stuff…

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth”

To hear Trump and other Republican senators peddling lies, and then even quote Orwell as if they’re the one’s fighting mendacity, is a very disconcerting state of affairs.

You just have to try and keep looking for and telling the truth, and hope the US constitution is as robust as you have always thought, and will preserve democracy.

Make no mistake , Trump rewrites history in his favour, almost everytime he speaks. Read the transcript of his Jan 6 speech, it’s truly astonishing the way he racks up obvious lies, peppering his speech with self agrandising rhetoric, and peddles those lies as if only an enemy of America and free speech and democracy would dare to disagree.

This has been a startling and longstanding tactic of Trump’s rhetoric, to use disparaging cliches to decry anyone who dares oppose him in any way. Note these insults generally are based on divisive binary terms along existing bi partisan political divides.

If you disagree with him ever, on anything then you’re labelled a left wing radical with a socialist agenda. His key supporters use the same rhetoric describing themselves as Patriots, as if any opposing viewpoint negates that status.

He and his supporters constantly claim they love free speech and democracy, and again the implication, sometimes loudly voiced, is that those who oppose them do not, and on and on it goes.

Note in his Jan 6th speech after repeating the lie the election was stolen, he asserted the whole world agreed, and now viewed American elections as undemocratic. I can’t speak for other countries, but I can tell you now that the opposite is true in the UK, where the general tone has been one of disbelief and increasing alarm at Trump repeating this lie.

The reaction to the violent insurrection has been one of anger and dismay mingled with incredulity.


I was taught Keynesian economics, which teaches government intervention in the economy. One way was huge public works in times of depression to create demand for goods and services. (FDR’s New Deal) The reserve bank would also deliberately raise interest rates in times of Inflation to reduce demand. This was called ‘a credit squeeze’.

Pretty simple stuff. We were taught that inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods”. Worked too. Until it didn’t.

In the mid 60’s-early 70’s came stagflation. A New economic model was needed.

Along came monetarism, teaching that the market should be left to find its own level. That was just peachy. Then came the sub-prime mortgage disaster in 2007 and subsequent international financial crisis. What did governments do? Let the market find its own level? Noooo, governments everywhere bailed out the banks, a text book Keynesian response.

I’m no economist. I’ve simply expressed my understanding. I welcome correction of any factual errors.

1 Like

If economics is somewhat interesting - this can give you lots of “homework”…

The above game can be cooperative or non-cooperative. The cooperative game assumes that both authorities operate in the same macroeconomic circumstances and optimise their decisions by taking into account what their partner may consider important.
In the non-cooperative game model (Nash, 1951), the government - trying to maximise its objective function - is faced by restrictions such as budget constraints, the central bank’s decisions and the macroeconomic conditions that cannot be controlled by either of the players. The central bank - seeking to optimise its decisions without compromising its main goal, which is keeping prices stable without deviating from the inflation target - has to deal with constraints such as the government’s decisions, economic circumstances and specific impediments affecting the implementation of a monetary policy

I don’t claim to understand it on any in-depth level (layman’s maybe) … but for me it’s interesting in the “struggle”

Simpler explanation…

Of “the struggle”

The market that produced the slave trade, and the depression and that perpetuates global poverty. Yes this was Thatcher’s mantra. I suppose it depends what one’s ultimate goal is.

I’ve never understood why so many Americans get so bent out of shape at the word socialism.

Public transport, public health public educations, welfare programmes, these are all examples of how capitalist democracies have incorporated aspects of socialism into their economies. And of course how they interfere with market forces.

Ironic isn’t it?


The Populist Trumpistas and the Alt-Right oppose private companies “deplatforming” and “cancel culture”, but they are not free-market Capitalists.

Speaking as a free-market Capitalist, I have no problem with content policies of private Internet companies, as long as competition is free to arise and offer an alternative. Also, I like niche interest Forums like this over Facebook or Twitter, so no damns given for them.


The sub-prime lending Crisis was entirely a U.S. Government problem. The Government both insured the banks and institutions that made the sub-prime loans and via The Community Re-Investment Act, forced the institutions to make the sub-prime loans. The U.S. Government subsidized and enabled this crap behavior and then bailed out the institutions with Trillions of taxdollars.

Also, building codes, zoning policies, and Government “urban renewal” programs from the 1930s to the 1970s all drove up the cost of housing so that people were made dependent on financing to get and keep housing.

Again, a government-caused problem for which everyone seeks a government solution. It always violates The Law of Holes: When you’re in a hole, and you don’t want to be, stop digging.


You wrote:


The market that produced the slave trade, and the depression and that perpetuates global poverty.


Slavery existed long before Capitalism and in places without Capitalism, in the form of tribal warfare booty and under Paraoahs, Feudal Lords, Kings, Government-backed Mercantillists, Ubersturmführers, and Commissars.

The original Free-Marketeers Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, and the French Physiocrats all opposed slavery and colonialism on both moral and economic grounds.

Also, The Great Depression was caused by restraint of trade, not freedom of trade. Companies in foreign nations borrowed money from U.S. Banks, hoping to manufacture goods and sell them to the U.S. for profit to pay the loans. Trade barriers kept them from selling to the U. S., they couldn’t profit to pay the banks, the companies went broke, and the banks failed.

Also, between nominal private ownership of farm plots in Red China and techniques of The Green Revolution, billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. If China went full free market Capitalist, they would lifted even further out of poverty.

I do not think Capitalism means what you think it means.

In my experience: no one is.

But on a side note: why are you randomly capitalizing words?


To answer your question, it’s the same reason people capitalize Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, etc. Just seems to go with the territory.

You are capitalizing words I’ve never seen anyone else capitalize. I was hoping you could tell me why?

For example:

You capitalized that for a reason; I’m reading what you wrote and trying to understand it; but I can’t seem to fathom the reason. Could you help me out?

Which is why I never said capitalism exclusively produced the slave trade.

Now are you saying free market trade between the american colonies and imperial britain didn’t produce a slave trade? Are you saying that putting human rights before unfettered capitalism could not have helped avoid that slave trade?

Did I champion any of those systems in my post?

Good, so they favoured legislation over completely unfettered markets then? Or did they simply voice an opinion that went catastrophically unheeded?

As for the depression…

“There is no consensus among economists and historians regarding the exact causes of the Great Depression. However, many scholars agree that at least the following four factors played a role.”

  1. The stock market crash, no restriction on markets caused this.
  2. A run on major banks, this is caused by a perception they are going to fail, and depositors panicking to withdraw cash, thus causing the very thing they are trying to avoid.
  3. The gold standard, and though this might have been linked to trade imbalances these were due to a number of factors, free trade can still produce trade imbalance, since some economies are far stronger and will produce surplus goods, as the US dud during this period, so they can sell more cheaply, no tariffs or interference in the market is necessary here, a free market can produce the same effect. In fact legislation to control global trade could have helped protect weaker economies.

“Such imbalances gave rise to significant foreign gold outflows to the United States, which in turn threatened to devalue the currencies of the countries whose gold reserves had been depleted. Accordingly, foreign banks attempted to counteract the trade imbalance by raising their interest rates, which had the effect of reducing output and prices and increasing unemployment in their countries. The resulting international economic decline, especially in Europe, was nearly as bad as that in the United States.”

  1. Decreased international lending and tariffs.

Now here is a contributory cause not attributable to free markets. Though of course, I’m not suggesting interfering with free markets is guaranteed to be successful, especially if it is driven by national self interest, as was the case here.

Bottom line free markets would not have avoided the great depression, proper international legislation just might have.

Hmm, another straw man argument, since I made no comment on China, or their economic policies under the communist regime that has slowly evolved into a state controlled capitalist economy.

You seem to think pointing out that unfettered markets can cause catastrophic suffering, means one advocates for any and all alternative straw man policies you can show also contributed to economic disasters and hardship? Hardly a sound rebuttal.

I think the arguments for and against might be a little more complex. In the UK our health service, and welfare state, have long been state funded and controlled, and for all the problems associated with that I still think they are essentially better for the wellbeing of our citizens whilst they are not given over to free private enterprise.

The idea that only unfettered capitalism works is only true if your main aim is to preserve such a system inviolate. That the constant creation of wealth and expansion of such systems is all that matters.

How are free markets going to address climate change or the exponentially increasing population for example? I’d say we were polishing the deck of the Titanic if we don’t address them effectively.

For myself, I can understand the benefits to a proposed idea. Then I wait to see the evidences of ideas in reality. The dis-advantages usually arise also, in which case, another idea can correct or balance the issue.

I find idealism or extremism in any idea normally brings a large disadvantage and negative effect to humanity as a whole (albeit some, be it few, within our species may thrive in the extreme).

What led the US out of the Great Depression? Socialist policies in the New Deal. For example, the Hoover Dam was built by the taxpayer and employed many people for many years.

Personally, I do not advocate any political dogma. They all have shortcomings. IMO the best path for any nation is to adopt socialist programs at times, (interstates), free market, communism (egalitarianism), heck, even a monarchy if the economic and social problems indicate a specific path of growth, social reform, and recovery.


Precisely, rather I judge policies on their individual merit, capitalism, socialism, radical, these are are generally pigeonholes people create to decry anything that doesn’t match their own ideological beliefs.

1 Like