It's like a fresh headline comes out each week proclaiming "cancel culture" has taken down another victim. A comedian gets cancelled from a show, a celebrity gets ridiculed, and a politician sends a strategic apology tweet. The narrative: cancel culture is some sort of inevitable lynch mob determined to ruin lives and silence free speech. But look closer, and it's a less sensational reality that unfolds. Cancel culture, as widely characterized, doesn't exist, or at least not in the popularized way. It's an easy knee-jerk excuse for discomfort with societal transformation, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
The cancellation myth that permanently disintegrates on superficial examination. In a few instances, numerous individuals who were allegedly "cancelled" remain successful in their fields and have become even more powerful. Dave Chappelle sold out performances following a series of controversies. Despite continued criticism, J.K. Rowling's novels remain at the top of bestseller lists. Louis C.K. won a Grammy following his scandal, indicating that mainstream acceptance can rapidly return.
Even political operatives who have been "cancelled" will inevitably reinvent themselves as profitable platforms, accruing zealot bases that capitalize on outrage and victimhood. By no means silenced, the vast majority of "cancelled" individuals use outrage to become more noticed, even more funded, and even more powerful, occasionally even framing "cancellation" as some sort of badge of honour or that constructs their brand.
What we see most of the time isn't cancellation, it's accountability. And it's healthy to be able to distinguish between the two. When someone with a vast platform says or does something hurtful, public outrage is a warranted response, not a sinister conspiracy. Elites were once relatively insulated from accountability for their actions; now, the internet has utterly transformed the power dynamic. Social media has given ordinary people a voice they never possessed, and they've used it to call for sweeping accountability demands. Crying out behaviour is distinct from shutting it up. It's a call for accountability, apology, improvement, or at least some recognition that harm has been done and needs to be made right.
However, it is also noteworthy to determine who gets "cancelled" and to what degree, revealing ingrained societal biases that persist despite apparent advancement. Disadvantaged groups like women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities have more severe backlash and less redemption. On the other hand, wealthy celebrities and politicians with privilege, vast networks, and institutional power ride out the storm relatively unharmed, often becoming more popular with their grassroots constituencies. Some even suffer actual harm from public shaming, including loss of employment, collapse, or interruption of life. Still, the apparent trend is that influential individuals hardly ever experience actual harm. And if anything, the spotlight shines brighter; with it, there is the possibility of reward.
So why does hysteria regarding cancel culture continue? Partially, because it is to the interests of those who profit from avoiding blame. Shouting "cancel culture" is a very effective rhetorical trick as it frames the argument in terms of victimhood, not responsibility. It lets perpetrators of harm and institutions deflect attention from harm and rebrand themselves as victims of a hysterical crowd. Moreover, news sources happily cover such stories because anger generates attention, and attention produces advertising dollars. "Free speech under siege" is an evergreen advertising narrative that leverages public fear and grievance. It's easier and more profitable to blame speech for censorship than to get involved in the ugly, difficult discussions about harm, privilege, and institutional change.
In addition, the myth of cancel culture manifests deep-seated social anxieties regarding changing norms. As more marginalized groups become more visible and influential, those who are used to being dominant feel threatened. The pushback against "cancel culture" is, in fact, a pushback against progress itself, an effort to preserve the status quo in the name of defending "free expression."
Last of all, maybe the question is not "Is cancel culture real?" but "Why are we so terrified of being held responsible?" Instead of fixating on a staged moral panic, we should be working to establish a culture where mistakes are confronted, apologies are genuine, and it's not merely possible but de rigueur that one will become. Criticism is not cancellation. Becoming is not erasure. Real progress demands the courage to confront harsh realities, not hiding behind self-righteous victimhood shrieks. The actual danger to free speech is not outrage from the public, but rather it's a culture where only the elite can speak without consequence and the rest must be silent in the face of tyranny.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. If you have burning thoughts or opinions to express, please feel free to reach out to us at larra@globalindiannetwork.com.
