In studying the various works of Cancel Culture, I believe I can narrow its prime purifying works down to ten leading values:

(1) Punishment must be consolidated. If someone does (or is accused of doing) something wrong in one aspect of their life, then the punishment for that moral failing ought to be applied to every aspect of the wrongdoer’s life.

Corollary: All artists and their art are synonymous. If an artist is determined by Cancel Culture to be guilty of an offence, then so too is their art, and so both should be removed from public consideration.

(2) All morally problematic opinions are produced by bad people. Therefore, if you are on the wrong side of a moral disagreement with Cancel Culture, then you yourself are unfit for polite society.

Corollary: Cancel Culture has a strict no-nuance policy; any attempt by a troubled thinker to consider distinctions, exceptions, or gradations in a moral failing are just as evil as promoting the worst version of the allegedly unethical behaviour.

(3) Silence is violence. It is not sufficient for a person in the public eye to simply not state the wrong opinion; they must also publicly acknowledge the correct opinion.

Hint: When Cancel Culture does receive the correct opinion from a problematic celeb, the no-nuance policy still applies, and the previously violently-silent person can and should be micro-critiqued for any deviations in language or tone from Cancel Culture’s guidelines for correct thinking.

(4) Context doesn’t matter. If a contemptuous phrase seems innocuous when surrounded by introductory statements and explanations, those clarifying portions of the message will be removed so that the unclothed result can be broadcast on mainstream and social media.

Corollary: Historical context doesn’t matter either; no matter how much “positive change” a historical figure might have brought forth in their historical circumstances, their entire existence will be checked against our modern mores.

(5) Intention doesn’t matter. The worst possible interpretation of an enemy thinker’s meaning is always the right one.

Hint: Cancel Culture curators are invited to conjoin Intention not mattering with Context not mattering for super cancelling power.

(6) Privacy is for the righteous. While privacy is a vital right of all good people, if you are recorded saying something offensive to your spouse, you are not a good person, and so Cancel Culture shall judge you as though you were speaking at a public convention.

Hint: Combine the right to judge private moments with Context and Intention not mattering for best results.

(7) You are your worst moment. If you’ve ever done (or considered doing) something morally questionable, that bad behaviour (or thought pattern) defines you for life, and repentance is never sufficient.

Exception: Cancel Culture reserves the right to forgive the very worst in society on condition that they unconditionally support Cancel Culture’s currently approved opinions. So, if a reformed neo-nazi becomes an anti-racism trainer, they will be recognized as an infallible truth-purveyor.

(8) Association equals unconditional agreement. If a newly problematic thinker has ever been friends with, shared a stage with, or liked a Twitter post of a now cancelled thinker, that association can be used as evidence in a future cancellation trial.

Corollary: It is best to never converse with—let alone debate—thinkers on the wrong side of a moral dispute.

(9) Privilege denunciation. The race, sex, gender, sexuality, and other identifications matter when assessing the validity of a person’s arguments (as well as their art).

Exception: If a wrongful arguer’s identity matches that of a group that Cancel Culture has entrusted themselves with protecting, then the inconveniently-raced-or-gendered person will be ignored, or if necessary, criticized for betraying “their own people.”

(10) Cancel Culture shrugging. It is best when speaking publically that Cancel Culture members downplay the power of Cancel Culture. Instead, Cancel Culture agents are advised to treat the effects of Cancel Culture as minor inconveniences which powerful people experience when they do evil things.


  1. That was a nice job of analysing Counter Culturists. ‘Throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ is an apt description. However, I must admit that in my own experience if I disagree with someone having a certain point of view which is ‘very close to the heart’, I find it very difficult to separate the person from the point of view, particularly if the point of view is brought up repeatedly,and eventually will assign to the person an encompassing character (you are not a good person) that may be at odds with other things they say or do. I really agree with the points you make about the CCs ignoring or distorting anything that doesn’t fit their point of view.

  2. Thanks TCM! Yeah, as I’ve said before in my Cancel Culture series, I too enjoying thinking that my favourite artists have favourable personalities. However, as I think you’re indicating, when we promote a public-shame based requirement of such we incentize mischaracterizations and the attacking of people instead of their arguments.

  3. I agree with your mischaracterize comment and that it is very easy to fall into that trap. When you used the word? ‘incentize’ in your response, you may have wanted to use the word ‘incentivize’. The only possible meaning for ‘incentize’ that I can think of is that it comes from the word ‘incendiary’ which of course means tendency to burn up, which is the opposite of what you intended to say. As such, I can only assume that your reputation as a writer is now toast (incendiarized bread), as reasoning from the particular to the general, spelling being the particular and writing being the general, you have impugned yourself (omigosh I’m out of breath again). On another note, I was reading that the Greek philosophical movement was outlawed by the Romans at the time of the empire. Imagine how many Greek philosophers never even got the chance to write because of this.

  4. Thanks Tom2. Shockingly, I did, in fact, mean “incentize” as I believe Cancel Culture soldiers are paid a 10,000 cents a cancellation. Okay, not my best work. But, in my defence, I don’t have an explanation for my poor spelling so I was forced to invent (would you accept, “incent”?) something on the fly.

    Meanwhile, that’s fasinating information re the censored Greek thinkers druing the Roman Empire. Yes, it’s sad to think that we might have another Plato or Aristotle who never shared what was on their brilliant mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *