RP RD Eng 1201 1
RP RD Eng 1201 1
RP RD Eng 1201 1
Leah Senff
Prof. Sobocinski
ENG 1201
10 April 2021
A Better Way
Imagine this: You are on your way to school one morning, and a random thought pops
into your head - it could have been a thought from the previous night, or a reaction to something
that you just experienced. As you walk along, with your thumbs quickly typing on your
smartphone screen, you vent your thoughts in tweet out to your followers, neglecting a proof-
read. After all, that is what social media is meant for, right? To express your thoughts freely to
the world, and to get a glimpse into what others are experiencing? You go along with your day,
only to later be bombarded with relentless buzzing in your jean pocket. Your phone is blowing
up. “What could be happening?” you think to yourself. As you open your phone, countless hate
slurs and death threats trickle in in response to your thoughtless morning tweet - your heart
pounds in your chest because you realize something. Your life is never going to be the same.
This scenario reflects the stories of countless social media users who have been affected by the
toxic internet justice movement known as “cancel culture.” Proponents of online accountability
aim to correct the wrongs and offenses of others by silencing them, and responding with
negativity, insults, and sometimes even violence. The ever-increasing prevalence of media’s
“cancel culture” has evolved into a detrimental society-wide movement, and its focus on using
punishment and isolation to hold people accountable has proven insufficient in correcting and
The term “cancel culture” has become widely used only in the past few years, as this
form of online criticism has exponentially grown. Emily A. Vogels and other researchers at Pew
Research Center use their article “Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for
Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment,” to outline the many perceptions of this
idea among the public, and to portray its effects through statistical studies. The researchers begin
their article by explaining the roots of the term, “cancel culture.” They explain that the term
started as a “[reference] to breaking up with someone – used in a 1980s song,” and later evolved
into a “deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse” (Vogels, et al.). The casual use
of this expression has grown with the increase of social media use and online communication in
the pandemic era. Young people commonly use it in light conversation, while its weight and
implications are unbeknownst to many. In The New York Times article titled: “Tales from the
Teenage Cancel Culture,” writers Yar and Bromwich document the accounts of many teens who
have come face-to-face with this hateful online movement. One student defines that “[cancel
culture] can be a joke, but it can also suggest that an offending person won’t be tolerated again”
(Yar and Bromwich). Because this term has reached into various different contexts, it can be
difficult for many to determine when media harassment has gone too far.
By better knowing what cancel culture is and how to identify it, many can see how this
culture has increased greatly with the Coronavirus pandemic, isolating people and allowing them
the freedom to hide behind devices and look for others to scrutinize. Vogels and other
researchers at Pew Research Center speak to this current rise in internet and media use, and how
they “[have] changed how, when and where [challenging] interactions occur. The number of
people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s
never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray” (Vogels, et al.). There has grown
Senff 3
even greater accessibility to technology since the 2020 lockdown, as our modern society has
transitioned onto virtual, online platforms. This accessibility allows toxic forms of “cancel
culture” to manifest more now than ever, and its residual political and social polarization has
shown its lack of effectiveness. Yar and Bromwich state that “the phenomenon has intensified
since the outbreak of COVID-19. With so many people staying at home there has been a rise in
social media use, and with more time on social media there is more time for “‘cancellations’”
(Yar and Bromwich). In conclusion, the prevalence of “cancel culture” has become more
apparent than ever in the wake of the post-pandemic modern world, and its negative
Through observing the content that has resulted in these personal attacks via social
media, many observe the apparent political influences that fuels these challenges of social
justice. This division is seen in the differing views of what cancel culture is purposed for.
Fig. 1 - Pew Research’s graphic represents the data from a study done in September of 2020
that recorded the viewpoints of people across the political spectrum. This image portrays the
political influences that affect the way people perceive cancel culture (Vogels, et al.).
Senff 4
The researchers at Pew Research Center reveal “[t]here were some notable partisan and
ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents… Democrats are far more
likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting
offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%)” (Vogels, et al.). By observing these
differing political views on internet justice, readers can see how politics has had a role in the
In addition to the polarizing political intent behind some of these dismantlers, experts
have become critical of cancel culture’s potential violations of the right to free speech. Professor
and political scientist Peter Berkowitz discusses the importance of drawing a line between this
free speech and a destructive online environment in his academic essay in the Hoover digest. He
shares that, in the United States, free speech “[e]xpression is subject to a few specified legal
limitations… [leaving] abundant room in which citizens can readily encounter unorthodox,
dissenting, and, yes, deeply disagreeable opinions” (Berkowitz). He continues, saying “[w]hile
government always poses a major threat to free speech, it never represents the sole danger… old
nemeses of free speech--inherited authority, social pressure, and public opinion--show little sign
of abating” (Berkowitz). Berkowitz recognizes that the group shaming of others through social
media platforms to get a point across, in other words - cancel culture, stands as a looming threat
Along with the political implications and intentions of these attacks, an ever-changing,
socially activist undercurrent can also be clearly seen, creating a “mob mentality” that villainizes
people with differing beliefs and viewpoints. Questions have arisen among the public, as people
are wondering if these aggressive media mobs are actually improving victims’ respect and
overall awareness for minorities and justice issues. Researchers Alison M. Joubert and Jack
Senff 5
Coffin address these questions in their viewpoint essay, “Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms
are forever.” They state that “[t]he practice is becoming more like activism as entertainment:
where people join in because they find it fun, rather than because they believe it to be a worthy
cause” (Joubert and Coffin). These researchers dig into the mentality behind cancel culture, and
share that these justice-hungry media users often participate in silencing and attacking
individuals for the sake of “joining the movement,” rather than for the sake of improving our
society. This insight into the intentions behind cancel culture shows the overall danger of this
growing phenomenon
The “mob mentality” of cancel culture not only comes from the build up of group
thinking and peer pressure, but also stems from personal beliefs of correctness, creating fuel for
people to justify their viewpoints. The New York Times journalist Sarah Hagi writes about the
controversy of the questions surrounding cancel culture and social justice in her article, “Cancel
Culture Is Not Real-at Least Not in the Way You Think.” She shares Barack Obama’s thoughts
on the cultural movement, and his critique of the mindset that promotes “‘[t]his idea of purity
and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke,” ultimately “...condemning
cancel culture’” (Hagi). The vilification of celebrities and average people alike stems from the
flawed human perceptions of our own moral uprightness, regardless of if the pushback is
intended for the purpose of social justice and activism. Berkowitz shares that “[f]ree speech also
needs intellectual virtue. To benefit from the give-and-take that energizes a free society, we must
examine our own ideas' vulnerabilities,” namely being open to accepting others' opinions without
hating the person attached to the thought or idea (Berkowitz). He suggests that people should
focus on “restating accurately, interpreting reasonably, and looking for the kernel--or more--of
truth in opinions and positions that we are inclined to oppose” (Berkowitz). This balanced
Senff 6
approach to media interactions highlights the importance of empathy and understanding in the
lack of humility can create an unwillingness to accept and respect others’ opinions - creating a
Proponents of cancel culture claim that its “call-outs” benefit those on the
receiving end, but these supporters neglect the obvious harm outweighing the good. Social media
is intended to bring people together and to provide an outlet for others to share their experiences
and thoughts. It connects people who might otherwise never have interacted otherwise. The
dissension created through cancel culture’s accusation and punishment has distorted social
media’s ability to unite people. Many who experience cyber accountability explain that after
their harassment, they felt more isolated and disconnected than ever. The more well-known tales
of “cancellations” include the destruction of countless celebrities’ careers and platforms. The
sudden wide-spread hate for these figures reveals the true damage that can be done through
words, and proves the overwhelming harm that cancel culture can bring. While some celebrities
do need to be held accountable for their unacceptable actions, the cancellations more clearly
expose the threatening damage of “mob mentalities” that can tear reputations apart. In Hagi’s
article, she sources music star Taylor Swift’s reaction after her “cancelation,” about the pain that
she, and many others, experience from social media attacks: “‘When you say someone is
canceled, it’s not a TV show. It’s a human being,’ Swift told Vogue this summer. ‘You’re
sending mass amounts of messaging to this person to either shut up, disappear, or it could also be
perceived as, kill yourself’” (Hagi). This testimony shows the personal pain that Swift and many
others have faced as a result of internet scrutiny, and while some push backs call for correction
and growth, the majority aim to destroy the individual’s identity and produce harm, not good.
Senff 7
Not only are pop-culture icons facing the brunt of this pressure and scrutiny, but average
people, too, must endure the unbelievably harmful consequences that result from cancel culture.
More testimonies from The New York Times’ “Tales from the Teenage Cancel Culture” prove the
crushing impact that social media justice can have on a person’s wellbeing. One story tells of a
young girl who experienced sudden isolation and bullying that endured for the first two years of
highschool, without her understanding of any reason for these wrongdoings. She says, in our
modern culture, “[y]ou can do something stupid when you're 15…that shapes how people
perceive you,” and it has led to long-term damage in her self-image: “I’m very prone to
questioning everything I do…I have issues with trusting perfectly normal things…That sense of
me being some sort of monster, terrible person, burden to everyone, has stayed with me to some
extent. There’s still this sort of lingering sense of: What if I am?” (Yar and Bromwich). Another
story comes from a college student who describes their experience of being “canceled” by her
peers. She warns of the danger that comes from “applying huge abstract ideas of identity’s role
and…shrinking it into these interpersonal, one-on-one, liberal arts things” (Yar and Bromwich).
This article shares countless other stories of modern young people who have faced the negative
aftermath of a media culture revolving around blame and division. These testimonies from
average people expose the counterproductivity of a graceless media culture, and ultimately, its
destructive consequences.
Of all of the concerns that have risen as a result of cancel culture’s severity and
prominence, its most alarming deficiency is its lack of effectiveness - many wonder if these
media mobs are truly holding people accountable, or if they are using the mask of technology as
a vessel for judgment and graceless punishment. Pew researchers gathered statistics regarding
this dilemma, and found that, between the two camps of accountability and punishment, “roughly
Senff 8
a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust
punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some
of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at
others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster” (Vogels, et al.). What
these statistics show, and what other testimonies also reveal about cancel culture, is that there is
an overall lack of empathy and understanding in the online environment. This generates
judgemental media conditions overall, influencing those who may attempt to combat offensive
content. Where the true problem lies with cancel culture is its lack of correction paired with
understanding. Joubert and Coffin reject cancel culture’s bent to punish and isolate those with
“wrong” beliefs in their article “Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever." They instead
highlight the need for a more effective “context culture” that could utilize media platforms to
advance social justice without completely dehumanizing individuals. Joubert and Coffin say
“[t]he spirit of cancel culture—holding people accountable for their actions—is lost when being
cancelled means there is no opportunity for change nor space for growth.” The expression of
internet accountability that has become ever-increasing throughout the past five years proves less
effective because of its lack of constructive feedback and mercy. Social media could be used as a
tool to promote justice and mercy in our communities and allow people to hear outside opinions
Despite the overwhelming need for an improved media environment, some claim that
cancel culture is necessary and effective for the evolution of society toward equity and respect.
Some view cancel culture as a beneficial movement that allows people, specifically those in
minorities, to voice injustices and call-out insensitive media users to modern social agendas.
Sarah Hagi’s article provides information to back this opinion, as she pulls from her own
Senff 9
personal experience of the benefits of cancel culture for a minority: “I’m a black, Muslim
woman, and because of social media, marginalized people like myself can express ourselves in a
way that was not possible before. That means racist, sexist, and bigoted behavior or remarks
don’t fly like they used to.” (Hagi). The New York Times’ journalist shares that the scrutiny
pointed toward both public figures and everyday media users is for the good of society, and is
evolving our social landscape because of its high-stakes environment. Hagi continues, saying
“When they throw around terms like ‘cancel culture’ to silence me instead of reckoning with the
reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d
prefer I was powerless against my own oppression” (Hagi). Strongly asserting her refutation
against those who reject cancel culture, writer Sarah Hagi shares that online accountability is an
absolutely necessary space that allows the marginalized to use their voices. While alowing all
people to share their voices and experiences is important, Hagi fails to recognize the flaws and
negative consequences that have come as a result of cancel culture. Punishment and criticism do
not effectively promote change, and the current climate of internet justice is not positioned to
Contrary to popular opinion, cancel culture has not proved effective in holding people to
standards of societal morality, and in order to change the direction of condemning media
responses, people must choose to respond more respectfully in order to challenge unjust
viewpoints. Surprisingly, “58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media
is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who
don’t deserve it,” showing the nation-wide misconception of the actual outcomes that cancel
culture produces (Vogels, et al.). Although a majority of people, represented through the Pew
Research Center’s study, might view cancel culture as a successful avenue for accountability, the
Senff 10
reality of injustice seen through the shaming and dismantling of countless people will never truly
change our society. To conclude, changing the expressions of online justice “does not mean
giving public figures a free pass to say or do what they like; it's not giving up on holding them
accountable. It means opportunities to learn and change should not be shut down prematurely”
Causing destruction through its methods of isolation and condemnation, modern media’s
“cancel culture” lacks true effectiveness in calling people to standards of moral and social
justice. Almost everyone in today’s society has heard this term in some context, whether
conversational or political. This phrase has evolved to encompass so much more than the
removal of support from an individual, especially in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. As
isolation and virtual connection gained in popularity, the media accountability phenomenon grew
as well. The use of online platforms to call people out for inappropriate comments or actions
skyrocketed, and its destructive consequences have been left to show the ineffectiveness of this
movement. Next, many people use cancel culture to justify and promote their political agendas,
and the division and polarization that has resulted also reveals the failure of internet justice to
truly change culture for the better. Additionally, these messages, whether political or not, have
gained momentum because of mob mentality. This thought process cloaks itself as activism and
social justice, while in reality, a majority of these interactions include mass insults and threats
aimed at those who oppose a person’s views. While some might disagree that cancel culture
brings out more human evil than good, the evident climate of punishment and fear that has
evolved on media platforms proves unsuccessful. This is seen clearly through the testimonies of
countless well-intentioned people who experienced mob-shaming, only to have their reputations
destroyed without any chance for growth. Although some actions result in consequences and
Senff 11
action does not promote a healthy society, but, quite frankly, the opposite. Imagine this: You
return to your home after a long day, and check your notifications on social media. You realize
that a comment you tweeted out earlier that morning offended some of your followers - but
instead of responding with violence and hatred, they graciously correct you, stirring your desire
to have a greater respect and awareness going forward. What would it mean to create a media
environment with accountability and empathy? It starts with you. There is a better way.
Senff 12
Works Cited
Berkowitz, Peter. "Courage, not Cancellation: Free speech means citizens are willing
both to question and to be questioned." Hoover Digest, no. 3, summer 2021, pp. 27+.
u=dayt30
Hagi, Sarah. “Cancel Culture Is Not Real-at Least Not in the Way You Think.” Time,
Joubert, Alison M., and Jack Coffin. "Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever."
Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing
Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/UHXOQX894919510/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=
"Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever," The Conversation, 7 July 2020.
Vogels, Emily A., et al. “Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for
ernet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-
others-see-censorship-punishment/.
Yar, Sanam, and Jonah Engel Bromwich. “Tales from the Teenage Cancel Culture.” The
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/s
tyle/cancel-culture.html.