It’s been in the news a lot, but I’d like a working definition from the right.
In my mind, it’s a product of our distilled capitalism gone wrong. The citizens of this country realize that their money is worth a lot more than their vote in terms of enacting change. A public figure has the right to say something racist, and indeed, they are not arrested or censured by the government. If they do that though, don’t I have the right not to support them with my money? Their public image is a commodity, and their actions have devalued that commodity to me.
Dr. Seuss is an especially interesting case because it almost doesn’t apply here. Nothing is banned, and nobody called for the books to stop being published. 6 books the estate of Dr. Seuss recognized as having racist imagery (and didn’t sell well anyway, I doubt most people even knew the titles existed) were voluntarily taken out of print. There’s no outrage, the left applauds their initiative and introspection.
Ultimately, when I see people upset about “cancel culture” I see a group upset that the free market no longer covets their opinion. Welcome to the pitfalls of unrestrained capitalism. The markets haven’t cared what minorities think for hundreds of years.
You have the right to free speech, but it has consequences. As long as the government isn’t making laws infringing on your speech, your rights have not been taken, you’re simply facing accountability for your actions.
So, what does “cancel culture” mean to you?