PC culture and cancel culture: is it warranted?


Over the past few years, it has become painstakingly clear that cancel culture has a grasp on the internet. The idea is that if an audience invests time and attention into a creator, they have every right to strip them of that time and attention if they have a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest is usually contrasting political views or poorly made jokes, according to the American left.

Many people argue that their methods of ruining people’s careers and lives are extreme. 

To some extent, it might be. Entertainment is a need; laughter is a necessity. Picking and choosing what entertainment can stay based on people’s personal opinions is what the right has been doing to the left for years, so it seems hypocritical.

It is crucial to handle sensitive topics with sensitivity. But there is a gray area. After all, it is customary that coping with the world’s most terrifying and upsetting issues—as well as personal ones—through laughter is normal and healthy. When people started trying to be more politically correct, the intention was not to remove dark humor entirely but rather to handle these jokes with a more empathetic tone.

When asked if PC culture was killing comedy, student Evie Ossenkop disagrees. “I don’t think so at all because offensive media is often associated with bad jokes, and I think PC culture is just a nicer way of saying stuff,” she said.

She goes on to explain further. “I think canceling people is extreme. People should be held accountable for their actions, so it makes sense that whatever you post on the internet, people have the ability to feel whatever way they want to about it. However, I don’t think anyone other than that platform’s moderators or owners should be able to push people off the said platform.”

Companies like Twitch and Youtube have rules and regulations to deal with the most extreme situations. They have banned or struck people for offenses.

But what about the people who experienced unfair demonetization and banishment? And what about those who got away with what they were doing?

On the other side, there is the idea that people need to take a stand and boycott whatever they find offensive and unacceptable. And there is some truth to this as well. People on the internet get to say whatever they want, as long as they think there are no consequences. They are safe in their room, which leads to situations like pointless arguments on Facebook, at the least, and cyberbullying at the worst. With issues like cyberbullying affecting teens and kids of all ages, it is clear that something needs to change about the anonymity of the internet.

Forrest Abrahamson, a student at North who sees this side, agrees. “… Saying anything you want on the internet with no consequences would give people the idea that blatant racism, homophobia, bullying, and overall bigotry is okay, which it’s not,” Abrahamson said.

A peer and good friend of Forrest, Shadow Bennett, adds to this. “There needs to be limitations.”

The same is noted for the high positions of influencers, content creators, and even brand awareness. These people should hold accountability for their actions and words because they have more impact than one would think. They have a following, and in that following are the people who truly devote most of their time, money, and attention to these idols, and it is an unhealthy relationship because once that idol says something insensitive, these people will believe that the idol is not the one in the wrong. These people’s beliefs switch.  On the other hand, they could be hurt or feel personally wronged by something they said, causing someone to feel a crushing weight.

Of course, this is all just another divided debate. People, at the end of the day, are entitled to their own opinions. The backlash for that is something they have to deal with themselves.

If you have any questions or concerns about this article, contact Amelia Samuel at [email protected]