Ego — The Hidden Fuel of Cancel Culture
A sequel to a dialogue attempt
Recently I’ve read an article about cancel culture:
I agree with the article and see the perils of cancel culture. It’s a serious issue, we need more people standing up against the mob mentality. But after I read it, I was worried as to whether the article will have an effect beyond words of approval by people who agree with it. In my exprience, criticizing something which has rooted itself in a large part of the population seldom has an effect on those people — it makes them feel uncomfortable and the urge to escape this discomfort overflows any possible reasoning so they escape back into their echo chambers. Usually a more subtle approach is required to show people that what they strongly believe in does a damage to the society. Also, many of the people who participate in cancel culture aren’t even aware they are being part of it — something which the author of the above article demonstrated quite nicely in the sequel.
Here’s the sequel…
Curious about the intentions of the author and the effects of the article, I asked her about it:
Instead of an anwer I got a “by the book” example of irony:
The offended defensivenes, the projections, the sarcasm of the question marks and an army of millions of writers coming to the rescue. Reasoning overflown by the urge to escape discomfort. “No need to respond.” — a polite escape from a dialogue. And the “Ciao” at the end… a delicios cake of a self-indulgence! I bet she enjoyed it.
And as the cherry on top, she blocked me :) An attempt for a dialogue about cancel culture cancelled by the author who criticizes cancel culture! :)
To make it even more bizzare, it’s an author which…
…on one occasion criticizes another author for blocking her:
“He didn’t like when I said I found his words deeply offensive. And, hilariously, he blocked me 😂.”
…on another occasion speaks up for free speech:
https://medium.com/the-authentic-eclectic/the-silencing-c7b43814d0a
(There’s a link to an interesting video of Rowan Atkinson’s speech in that article, take a look at it. If you compare it to her actions, the irony just bursts out)
…on another recommends an article where Argumentative Penguin criticises the notion of being ofended:
https://medium.com/the-authentic-eclectic/delete-that-immediately-ebf09fc1f6fb
…and on another supports Penguin’s satiric critique of cancel culture:
https://medium.com/writers-blokke/cancel-this-then-b9d0976c9236
Marvelous! This case should go right into textbooks as an example of irony. Or hypocrisy.
You can’t criticise cancel culture and at the same time cancel a conversation when you feel uncofortable about it. Wait… yes you can. That’s exactly what she did. She also showed her hypocrisy and how unaware of it she is.
I started writing this article in a funny light, but while writing it I became aware of the hypocrisy of the author and it stopped being funny. It made me wonder… how can an author who otherwise supports free speech, communicates with notable authors who do the same, writes against cancel culture, and has a decent number of followers, go so low to block a dialogue before it even started.
Well… It’s ego.
Everyone is prone to the fallacies of their egos. Some manage it better, some worse, but when it gets hurt, most of the people act irrationally and forget about their principles and values — the ego in charge drives them into a defense battle. It doesn’t allow them to see the reality, it doesn’t allow them to see they have lowered themselves on the same level of people they criticise.
I wonder why was her ego hurt by a benevolent questions posted by a curious person she doesn’t even know? Does she have some deeper issues? Or she just had a bad day? Or is she just trying to boost her popularity by writing about popular topics she doesn’t really believe in?
Whatever her reason was, it’s not important. Ego always finds a way.
The ego fuels cancel culture, and many other dehumanizing behaviours. It makes us think “we are not like the others” and then it makes us close our eyes in front of our behaviour, because it doesn’t want us to stop believing we are better than those others.
You can criticise all you want, but until you lower your ego, direct the critique towards yourself too, introspect and try to see what your ego doesn’t want you to see, the critique will remain without credibility.
We won’t solve any societary problem, while the people who criticise it, also contribue to it. When dialogue is cancelled, the ego wins, and the society loses.
No need to respond. But please do if you feel like it, I won’t block you for expressing yourself or starting a dialogue.
