system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: 'cancel culture' is not new and it is a misleading descriptor for what people use it for in the first place.

I am posting this because I'm pretty sure I'm right but also feel like I'm missing some context or history to this since I am not on Twitter. Feel free to respond if you mostly agree but see holes in my argument or exceptions to what I am saying. Just please don't be mean or condescending, I am super open to my opinion being changed.

Whenever I see the term 'cancel culture' being used, it is one of two things

1. A celebrity or entity that is mad people are boycotting them because they genuinely did something awful (ex. billionaire 'Geoffrey' angry that people are boycotting his company after he set the entire north pole on fire)
2. or it is a celebrity, entity, or random online people who are upset about people dogpiling and harassing them or others for anything from minor or made-up offenses to actually bad things. (ex. people on social media platform sending death threats to fans of youtuber 'Rachel' and doxxing her because she misattributed a quote) Note: 'Rachel' could have done something genuinely bad and this would still be not ok.

The latter is bad in my opinion. However, I would argue that it is not cancel culture, as cancel culture refers to social or economic ostracism and not harassment towards the person in question or their fans/followers. Saying "I no longer want to follow CoolestYoutuber6573 because she likes the color purple and that is morally reprehensible and I think others with my mindset should do the same" is fine. Sure I would not agree, but as long as that person is not lying about CoolestYoutuber6573, is not harassing her, and is not harassing her fans for continuing to follow her, I think that's fine. The problem comes when harassment, doxxing, and just generally being unnecessarily cruel to the person you don't like or their fans occur. And while those things often coincide with 'cancelling', they themselves are not cancelling and shouldn't be misconstrued as being the same thing.

The former is an important extension of free speech in my opinion. Ordinary people should have the freedom to use their limited economic influence in ways that correlate with their viewpoints to a certain extent. This includes the ability to be able to boycott things without being criticized for the act of boycotting if they are able to. I also think it's something people have done for all of human history... If your neighbor Jeff does something awful and unforgivable, most of your neighbors who are aware will collectively agree to stop talking to him or at least stop bringing him cookies. You wouldn't call that 'cancel culture', but it's the same thing. And while there's a discussion to be had about when it is and isn't ok to abandon someone who has done something wrong and when you should forgive them, the ability to decide to leave behind someone who is causing you mental harm (if they are not dependent on you such as a child would be, I'm sure there are other cases) and the culture of accepting when people choose to do that is not a bad thing. Even if that someone is a celebrity or politician. *Especially* if that someone is a celebrity or a politician since you don't personally know them and have no obligation to be nice to them, only an obligation to not harass or endanger them by way of doxxing or other. Even if you disagree that it is ok to 'cancel' someone when the bad thing they did wasn't to you personally, I think people can agree that the 'culture' of attempting to socially or economically ostracize someone who does something that someone considers to be bad is pretty universal. Yes it's more accessible now for anyone to propose any reason to cancel someone, before regular people could do it by using virality online, media, celebrities, and rich people did it all the time by way of shit-talking, black-listing, and false accusations. It was the same thing and probably happened (on a large scale) just as frequently. If you are referring to the act of normal people doing it as opposed to more powerful people cancelling, that would go back to my point of 'cancel culture' being a misleading descriptor.

I think people use it to describe the culture of internet harassment and doxxing too often when that's not what it means. I also think it's just generally a silly term to use for a widespread phenomenon that isn't new and isn't really a 'culture' in the typical sense the word culture is used, even if you could argue that it isn't technically wrong.

***I think it would be similar to if people referred to breaking up a relationship as 'breakup culture'. Kind of weird because it's by no means an uncommon or new thing and while you can disagree as to when it is appropriate or if it is ever moral, I wouldn't really call it a 'culture'.***

'Cancel culture' seems like a misleading term to me, and I feel that it could be put in a better way.

TLDR: Whether you think it's good or bad it's a pretty normal part of human society to decide to stop interacting with someone you think did something bad even if it wasn't to you and even if you don't know them personally, so I don't see why it's referred to as a 'culture' and could be referred to in a more apt way.

**If possible I'd like to hear whether or not you think 'cancel culture' could be phrased better and what it should be called instead, and if not why.**

Edit: A lot of people are telling me why cancel culture is bad. My argument is NOT whether cancel culture is good or not. I am asking whether or not it should be called that. Please respond to my argument.
gpt
3 a tiny but obnoxious minority harassing corporations into banning someone. This is not a popular backlash, and it is not about losing followers.

The targets include Advertisers, social media platforms, payment processors, and venues.

This often takes the form of spammed leading and aggressive questions like why do you platform fascists?

On the more extreme end it's physical threats of violence against a hosting venue to force them to cancel an event.

It also isn't exclusive to public figures. As a result of the ok handsign hoax a mob harassed Disney and got a low level employee of Disney World fired and smeared.