I agree with the basic conclusion of this piece, so I’m just laying out my perspective here. It’s not meant as criticism.
Even if you take the worst interpretation of left wing cancel culture, it’s not plausible to claim that it interfered with the Republican Party’s ability to compete in free and fair elections.
But in the context of this administration, state directed right wing censorship clearly does threaten the ability of Democrats to fairly compete. I hope that threat doesn’t become reality, but I think the probability is in the 20-30% range.
Additionally, even during the height of cancel culture, there were plenty of centrist Democrats who pushed back; today though, my guess is that some Republicans may performatively object, but ultimately the GOP will yield to Trump in a way that Democrats ultimately didn’t yield to their own cancellation mobs.
Consequently, left wing cancel culture - even during the height of the Anti-Zionist insanity on college campuses - never threatened the ability of America’s culture and politics to make necessary adjustments.
Today, things are very different, and incomparably worse.
I'm not sure that counts as a "lie" from Kimmel. At best, I think you can say it was factually correct but some people were going to infer a likely false implication from it.
It was a statement about what the MAGA gang was doing. "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them".
That said I think a lot of people would probably infer from the context that Kimmel probably thought they were wrong and that the killer was really "one of them".
Anyway, we are splitting hairs here. But my view is he was only wrong in a third-degree sense.
Slight update: as far as I can tell, the claims that Tyler Robinson is left-ist and not a groyper is pretty thinly sourced. HIs mother said he moved left on LGBT issues, but that was it. She probably does not know what a groyper is. The memes on the bullets are probably not super definitive either way. It's probably still more likely than not he's left than a groyper.
Though, can't say I'm an expert. Would be happy to be proven wrong.
Agreed. Kimmel said that over the weekend, when the motivation of the shooter was still unclear, the MAGA folks were desperately pointing their fingers at others and doing their best to make political hay out of the situation. Completely true.
Absolutely. Also, some of the specific straws they were grasping at (LGBTQ+ markings on the bullets) indeed were false. So they were making up false statements to show he wasn't a right-winger, even though it looks like they were probably correct based on what we know now.
I’d bet there was something else up with Kimmel and his show at the network. Like, it was losing money, he was tough to deal with, he had pissed somebody off, etc. and this was a good excuse to get rid of him. (Not to mention he was no longer within a mile of being actually funny/entertaining, and was using his platform as a personal soapbox—but of course that had been going on for a long time, and likely contributed to the show losing money.) Similar to when a company restructures, it uses that opportunity to get rid of poor performers that it’s insufficiently motivated to deal with during status quo times.
This is some of the best insight I've seen into this issue. I have an intuitive sense of everything you're describing, but you stated it so clearly. Well done.
My only concern is whether the top-down retaliation we see from the left isn't far off in 2028/32, but rather much quicker. The Democratic Party is starved for some type of action and has complete control over most significant economic centers (CA, NY, IL, DC, WA) where large companies are headquartered. We have already seen retaliation from Newsom for the TX gerrymandering case, and Disney/Hollywood is within his jurisdiction. His incentive (out of principle or just to take the mantle of "the democrat who fights back") is to fuck over anyone who capitulates to Trump/GOP. Thanks to federalism, I think Newsom/Pritzker have many more options to punish defecting companies than people give either of them credit for.
Obviously, the biggest issue is still what Trump and Carr are doing now. But they're miscalculating the political threat the left can pose to them before 2028.
What you are missing is that top-down cancel culture can descend into authoritarianism much more easily than bottom-um.
Putin and Kim Jong don't need grassroot support to silence the critics.
It might be easier to escape at first, as the government focus on the most prominent critics. But eventually it can pervade the whole public discourse.
You may feel more comfortable online than you did a few years ago, but that may not last. The more cultural power and victories the right gains the more they will keep pushing. That’s what happened with the left. They won fight after fight and thought the tide was forever turning in their favor. The right is giving every indication that they feel the same way.
MAGA's "power is power" ethos reflects a turn to Yarvinism. That's how I interpret it. I wrote on this yesterday and how it's a form of surrender. https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/maga-yarvinism
I agree with the basic conclusion of this piece, so I’m just laying out my perspective here. It’s not meant as criticism.
Even if you take the worst interpretation of left wing cancel culture, it’s not plausible to claim that it interfered with the Republican Party’s ability to compete in free and fair elections.
But in the context of this administration, state directed right wing censorship clearly does threaten the ability of Democrats to fairly compete. I hope that threat doesn’t become reality, but I think the probability is in the 20-30% range.
Additionally, even during the height of cancel culture, there were plenty of centrist Democrats who pushed back; today though, my guess is that some Republicans may performatively object, but ultimately the GOP will yield to Trump in a way that Democrats ultimately didn’t yield to their own cancellation mobs.
Consequently, left wing cancel culture - even during the height of the Anti-Zionist insanity on college campuses - never threatened the ability of America’s culture and politics to make necessary adjustments.
Today, things are very different, and incomparably worse.
I'm not sure that counts as a "lie" from Kimmel. At best, I think you can say it was factually correct but some people were going to infer a likely false implication from it.
It was factually correct to say he was “one of them”?
It was a statement about what the MAGA gang was doing. "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them".
That said I think a lot of people would probably infer from the context that Kimmel probably thought they were wrong and that the killer was really "one of them".
Anyway, we are splitting hairs here. But my view is he was only wrong in a third-degree sense.
I made that inference, though I can now see the alternative explanation.
Slight update: as far as I can tell, the claims that Tyler Robinson is left-ist and not a groyper is pretty thinly sourced. HIs mother said he moved left on LGBT issues, but that was it. She probably does not know what a groyper is. The memes on the bullets are probably not super definitive either way. It's probably still more likely than not he's left than a groyper.
Though, can't say I'm an expert. Would be happy to be proven wrong.
Agreed. Kimmel said that over the weekend, when the motivation of the shooter was still unclear, the MAGA folks were desperately pointing their fingers at others and doing their best to make political hay out of the situation. Completely true.
Absolutely. Also, some of the specific straws they were grasping at (LGBTQ+ markings on the bullets) indeed were false. So they were making up false statements to show he wasn't a right-winger, even though it looks like they were probably correct based on what we know now.
I’d bet there was something else up with Kimmel and his show at the network. Like, it was losing money, he was tough to deal with, he had pissed somebody off, etc. and this was a good excuse to get rid of him. (Not to mention he was no longer within a mile of being actually funny/entertaining, and was using his platform as a personal soapbox—but of course that had been going on for a long time, and likely contributed to the show losing money.) Similar to when a company restructures, it uses that opportunity to get rid of poor performers that it’s insufficiently motivated to deal with during status quo times.
This is some of the best insight I've seen into this issue. I have an intuitive sense of everything you're describing, but you stated it so clearly. Well done.
My only concern is whether the top-down retaliation we see from the left isn't far off in 2028/32, but rather much quicker. The Democratic Party is starved for some type of action and has complete control over most significant economic centers (CA, NY, IL, DC, WA) where large companies are headquartered. We have already seen retaliation from Newsom for the TX gerrymandering case, and Disney/Hollywood is within his jurisdiction. His incentive (out of principle or just to take the mantle of "the democrat who fights back") is to fuck over anyone who capitulates to Trump/GOP. Thanks to federalism, I think Newsom/Pritzker have many more options to punish defecting companies than people give either of them credit for.
Obviously, the biggest issue is still what Trump and Carr are doing now. But they're miscalculating the political threat the left can pose to them before 2028.
What you are missing is that top-down cancel culture can descend into authoritarianism much more easily than bottom-um.
Putin and Kim Jong don't need grassroot support to silence the critics.
It might be easier to escape at first, as the government focus on the most prominent critics. But eventually it can pervade the whole public discourse.
We don't care about individual liberty or first-world institutions if we can't enjoy them in a (mostly) homogenously American ethno-state.
You may feel more comfortable online than you did a few years ago, but that may not last. The more cultural power and victories the right gains the more they will keep pushing. That’s what happened with the left. They won fight after fight and thought the tide was forever turning in their favor. The right is giving every indication that they feel the same way.
But Elon owns Twitter now. Why can we all still criticize him and his movement as much as we want there?
Maybe that stays true but maybe not. I’ve given up on trying to predict the future, but things are moving very fast.
MAGA's "power is power" ethos reflects a turn to Yarvinism. That's how I interpret it. I wrote on this yesterday and how it's a form of surrender. https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/maga-yarvinism