The REAL Cancel Culture?

Post Reply New Topic

I am a long-time subscriber to Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Actually, only since the 80s which probably makes me a novice compared to most subscribers!

Last year, ASF&F published an editorial critical of the previous US President. In the March/April 2021 Brass Tacks section, several letters from long-time subscribers were printed. What all these letters had in common, was that although the correspondents believed the quality of Analog's literary offerings continued at a high level, the editorial has compelled them to cancel their subscriptions.

It occurred to me that this action is limited to members of the Right Wing. Moderates, and members of the Left Wing, encounter expressions of animosity toward the usual targets e.g. Barack Obama, George Soros, I don't need to give examples, in the media they consume and have long ago learned to live with it, assuming that their failure to share these opinions will alienate them from the "mainstream" one way or the other. I would be surprised if many "liberals" cancelled a subscription to a favorite magazine just because it published an article arguing that Joe Biden is a criminal because he uses his position to shield his son Hunter from justice. Encountering this sort of nonsense on a daily basis, they i.e. we have somehow learned to deal with it.

Such a knee-jerk response as to cancel a long-standing subscription due to a single editorial seems to me a example of behavior that is largely limited to the Right. This has to the the REAL Cancel Culture.

It's projection and it's completely in-line with the martyr complex that informs that bloc's mindset.

Cancel culture can happen on both sides of the political divide.
The left is much better at doing that, however.

It would depend on the content of the letters whether it constituted "cancel culture"...

If the letters were stating that the individuals were cancelling their subscription, along with their reasoning, it would appear to be a boycott, rather than "cancel culture" - They are making a decision which affects only themselves, not forcing others to cancel their own subscriptions\prevent others from continuing to enjoy the publication (which is what "cancel culture" involves doing). As with the editorial in question, it was a decision by the publisher of the magazine to include those letters in a later edition, not the authors of them - Were they published with the knowledge\consent of the authors, or were they written to explain to the publisher why they were cancelling their subscriptions and the publisher decided on their own to incorporate them in a later edition?

Some context would also help: Was this the first time anything "political" regarding either side had been included in an editorial by this publication (what happens in other media is irelevent - They were cancelling as subscription to this specific publication)? If so, you may have had a number of those who cancelled their subscriptions not doing so because of the target, but rather because they believed the focus of the publication was changing\likely to change, and they felt the publication was moving away from their reason for subscribing - If I was subscribed to a publication regarding an area of interest (particularly should I have been doing so for an extended period, and so knowing whay to expect) and saw an editorial which was unrelated to the magazine's purported content (whether I agreed or disagreed with the editorial content), I'd be hesitant to continue with my subscription as well given the change in editorial focus from the original subject matter to something unrelated could herald a change in direction for the publication as a whole...

Put simply:
* an action which affects only the person taking it (canceling a subscription, refusing to buy a product) is a boycott. These generally explain the reason for the action (are conditional), and should the cause behind the action be revoked, the boycott ceases and those boycotting the product\service will return to using it.
* an action which seeks to prevent others from accessing a product\service is "cancel culture". This is often performed by people with no "skin" in the game\people whose only "sacrifice" is the time\"effort" required to make the demands.

The point where they merge\the divide blurs is where a large enough number of boycotts cause a company to remove availability to a product\service to all, regardles of whether the consumer was boycotting it or not - If the change is made and those who boycotted the product\service do not return, then it was an example of "cancel culture", but if they return, then it was not.

In fact, political editorials were quite common in the past, in particular during John W. Campbell's tenure as editor (he was in fact the most well-known editor having been active during the "golden age of SF"). He held extremely right-wing views but readers across the political spectrum gave him a pass because he was otherwise such a good editor.

So in general, where you went astray in your response is that you parsed my OP in terms of the concept of "Cancel Culture" as promulgated by the Right. It would help to understand what Cancel Culture really is. It is a contrived concept invented out of whole cloth by a pervasive Doublespeak campaign conducted by the Right's Ministry of Truth (the chief Minister being Rupert Murdoch) to disparage any sort of progressive initiative of which the Right disapproves. In doing so, it has been made a part of our language and unfortunately many in the Left now feel obliged to defend themselves against this "charge" whereas in fact they should just ignore it.

In my case, I was using the phrase "cancel culture" facetiously because these long-time subscribers were literally cancelling their subscriptions. In this way I thought to poke a bit of fun at these snowflakes.

Hope this helps!

So the magazine is meant to be left wingist or neutral? If neutral, then there is something wrong because it is not normal for one side or the other to cancel unless some view has deeply upset them.

Prehaps one needs to examine thw article or articles in thw magazine lately?

Here is thw issue that I have noticed with political views. The left are blinded from knowing how the right feel, and the right are blinded from how the left feel, and the ones in rhe middle are usually blinded from seeing both sides or they see all sides and stay in that middle ground.
The real problwm with the middle ground is if they get into power nothing gets done. The left and the right do great things because they are following one direction or the other while the middle ground has no direction other then to protect itself.

I am saying this about the middle ground not knowing where the middle ground is in the USA. Here in the UK the left and the right look for "Right or wrong" while the middle ground tries to go by popular oppinion, which is what I call "Wishy washy" because they go wherever the tide takes them and just drift along.

So my thoughts are about the political realm is that it is better to be on the far left or the far right then in the middle, as at least one has direction, and the opposing sides can bring the extremes back to a form of sensibility... But that is preferable to standing in the middle because one has no goals or carizma, and if one as, where does one apply it because one has no direction to head for.

Its a physically small science fiction magazine. Some science fact discussion, but mainly just a place for science fiction writers to get published. Its not political, not partisan, nothing like that.

Havent read it myself for years, but the way the OP describes Analog - it sounds like it hasnt changed much since the time I read it often.

What seems to have changed is the public. During the Trump years folks on both sides of the divide seem to be more touchy. And take offense at perceived bias than back in the Eighties.

The cancel culture from the left is louder and more aggresive.
I haven't seen right wingers harassing twitter users for expressing views different than theirs, do they?
And I mean today not the past, whatever restrictions for freedom of speech were in the past from the conservative side is an example of the left doing the same.

As the OP I'll have to confess I basically never use Twitter so I'd have no way to know.

I hope I am not a victim of confirmation bias, but I can't recall cancer cancel culture coming from the right in modern times.

So we're all just imagining freedom fries?