Cancel Culture: Fear of the Mob | Tom Nicholas

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thanks for watching! Support the channel whilst getting Early Access, copies of scripts, commentary tracks and more by heading to patreon.com/tomnicholas

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I had to fight with KZbin's automated systems for 3 days to ensure this video was monetised which really reminded me of how important my Patreon supporters are to the sustainability of this channel (and, by proxy, to the sustainability of me as a human being!). So a big shout out to everyone who supports me over there!

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

I've always found it interesting that in my home country of America, we are taught their is no greater virtue than that of "individualism"; as long is it is "rugged individualism", which is related to being financially individual/independent. Being an "individual" is also promoted and endorsed as long as it's not "too individual", which of course completely negates it. This idea of being different within a certain "range" or "bounds" is part of every aspect of what you could call social interaction like taste in music, fashion, films etc. That "range" in thought has also become not nearly as wide as once was acceptable, and I would hypothesis that is because our social groups have become much more homogeneous with social media. We have become more susceptible to "cancelling" and backlash because we communicate primarily with those in our own "crowd". Once we express something more individual or different from that crowd we are more likely to be cancelled by that particular crowd. I think you can find this when it comes to cancel culture as a whole too. When someone like Bret Weinstein is cancelled by the "woke" left he is in turn embraced by the Dave Rubin's of the world. So while there are instances of cancel culture at a broader level I would put that it happens in a more focused "tribal" way more often than not. When it comes to nuance I think if a particular view is looked at by an actual large audience there will be nuance; if it is examined by single "tribes" as mentioned earlier, it won't

[@radioactivedetective6876]

KZbin is really doubling down on critical content. There is a video on the CIA & foreign coups in the channel Second Thought, and one has to go past 3 youtube notifications/warnings of "this content is unsuitable or offensive" to access it.

[@marocat4749]

Its not abouts the size, its about the bone structure XD Sophie was a pleasent surprise.

[@jiralishu]

Charles Bukowski The Genius of the Crowd there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average human being to supply any given army on any given day and the best at murder are those who preach against it and the best at hate are those who preach love and the best at war finally are those who preach peace those who preach god, need god those who preach peace do not have peace those who preach peace do not have love beware the preachers beware the knowers beware those who are always reading books beware those who either detest poverty or are proud of it beware those quick to praise for they need praise in return beware those who are quick to censor they are afraid of what they do not know beware those who seek constant crowds for they are nothing alone beware the average man the average woman beware their love, their love is average seeks average but there is genius in their hatred there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you to kill anybody not wanting solitude not understanding solitude they will attempt to destroy anything that differs from their own not being able to create art they will not understand art they will consider their failure as creators only as a failure of the world not being able to love fully they will believe your love incomplete and then they will hate you and their hatred will be perfect like a shining diamond like a knife like a mountain like a tiger like hemlock their finest art

[@MishaFlower]

"My great, great, great grandma actually died in the french revolution - Jess antoinette" Couldn't stop laughing at that one. Underrated joke.

[@jelef001]

that was so good

[@chrilin5107]

Saw that too😂

[@SianLondon]

Shout out to Jordan Theresa! Would recognise her voice anywhere!

[@NoChance18]

As a French-Canadian I can confirm that all people from France sound exactly like that all the time.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you, I studied long and hard perfecting that accent.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

No they don't! they only sound like that attempting to speak English, 99% of the time they sound a 100% ridiculous and incomprehensible.

[@Illiteratechimp]

Question: if there are no skunks in France, but instead only in North America...does that make Pepe Le Pew French Canadian instead? If so... You have a lot to answer for. 'Else you get cancelled

[@NaomiALJ]

As a Canadian with a French girlfriend who is constantly making fun of French people... seconded

[@ameliecarre4783]

When we speak english, yes absolutely. Exactly like that.

[@jasondulin7376]

The calculated insincerity, self congratulatory snark, and victim language of the notanapology segment is perfectly done. Bless you.

[@dkupke]

Michael Richards; he never really apologized for his racist tirade in the 2000’s. He would say “sorry” then add in some self pitying caveat that need it obvious he was not being sincere.

[@inefffable]

"I will NOT be silenced by them!" **unplugs microphone, continues to yell** Subtle, yet accurate. Nice work on this one.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Glad you enjoyed that, thanks!

[@Tp_hedgelinghog]

I hope Lance was in on the joke xD

[@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342]

@@Tp_hedgelinghog Hilarious if Lance has no clue what's happening here haha

[@Mercure250]

Can't be silenced by them if I silence myself (insert Roll Safe meme image)

[@enterprisestobart]

@@Tom_Nicholas pardon the surprise but: How on earth did you get that to work? ^refering to all your cleverly designed self-made examples of the cancel culture stereotype.

[@fh404]

Thanks for explaining what a "crowd" was. Been a while that I've seen one myself...

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Stephen Reicher's work (the chap I mention at some point during the bit about Jon Ronson's book) is really interesting in talking about crowds and trying to find an actual, more complex framework for understanding how crowds operate.

[@fh404]

​@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks!! I had the impression even standard sociology textbooks don't cover crowd psychology at all.

[@Alex_Deam]

Ironically Reicher is now on SPI-B advising the government on the pandemic, and ended up being one of the government's harshest internal critics for not doing enough to help people socially distance

[@chrisangel6833]

Heheheh... what are the chances for the stars to align that we right now are actually going to experience a pandemic

[@GlenCocoon]

haha true one year later any crowd is kind of weird

[@martianpudding9522]

I actually think one of the biggest issues with online communication is that we're NOT aware that we're part of a crowd. Most of the time when we choose to call someone out on Twitter for example, we're not fully aware of how many other people are already saying the same thing. Say for example if you were at a party and heard someone across the room say something racist, and then you heard someone else say "hey that's racist" and another person saying "yeah you shouldn't say that" and then the original person saying "oh yeah sorry", you would feel the need to then add to that conversation "um actually that was racist. Can you believe what this guy just said?" and neither would everyone else in the room feel the need to give their opinion. But online it doesn't feel meaningfully different to be one of those first people or to be part of the entire room all yelling in unison. It's not that it's not valid to be offended at someone being racist but being online means that no one has the full overview of the entire conversation.

[@jetrexdesign]

Pair that with the fact that social media is inherently political despite masquerading as simple communication. If you're online, you're a public figure. Every message is a shout above the crowd. A lot of people assume this means they have to be their own political candidate and engage in constant debate, constant attacks and commentaries on every goings-on. Otherwise they're 'wasting their platform'.

[@InfinitiSin]

Cancel Culture be like: People are so judgmental I can tell just by looking at them.

[@randolphgallagher7942]

That what I always say to get out of jury duty. "I can tell when someone's guilty just by looking at them and that one sure looks guilty to me."

[@jkishhabi]

Hear! Hear!

[@vincentmuyo]

Clearly, we need someone unbiased like InfinitiSin to make all our decisions. There is no way this could go wrong. :)

[@unclestarwarssatchmo9848]

LMAO

[@a.k.emerson1705]

I'm trained and have quite a few years of experience in behavioral science and psychology. A lot of people say they can tell, but it's completely subjective since it falls under the art of aesthetics. What is aesthetically pleasing to one's eyes is an eye sore for others or simply doesn't bother some. However I will say that in professional and clinical settings (assuming on this last one) that you do indeed tend to develop a skillset that can quickly and somewhat accurately make an assessment. Most people on the internet don't have this training or experience though, so many will say they can tell just to seem smart. Ask them specifically about theories or phenomenon that falls under the psych 101 umbrella and they fall apart lol

[@sardonofacab1377]

"Am I the evil one? No, it's the filthy peasants with their ludicrous desire to not starve who are wrong!"

[@santiagoacosta6614]

That's the best username ever.

[@marreco6347]

Man, I miss the old aristocracy. These new rich have such fragile egos, whining about losing followers from their living room the size of a house, ruining the rare fabric of their couches with their tears. At least monarchs would mock the masses before their executions. Our current dominant class is just so pathetic.

[@cristitanase6130]

Usually yes. Classic blindspot when it comes to lynching mobs, racist mobs, capitoll attacking mobs and many more.

[@andershine]

am I so out of touch? no. it's the children who are wrong.

[@randolphgallagher7942]

"Sire, the peasants are revolting." "You can say that again!"

[@LongForgottenJ]

People also use “mob mentality” as an excuse ie. “I was calling caught up in the crowd. I don’t necessarily agree with what was being said or done. I was only shouting those words and doing those things because of peer pressure. I shouldn’t be held personally responsible for things everyone was doing!”

[@RankinMsP]

Or I was supporting the main issue and not the bigoted side stuff (I less publicly support.

[@bxs361]

Great video as always! I am so sick of seeing people perpetuate the idea that receiving any kind of criticism is the same thing as being "cancelled".

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thanks, I'm glad you got something out of it!

[@damintten]

Such a cancelable comment, ya woke is the same if you in anyway don't agree with me your woke and trying to cancel( silence me) but we are all working class and they are the 1 percent of the extremely luck... So as the story of humind kind goes, Spelled incorrectly on purpose;)

[@trollking6315]

There is a massive difference between "getting criticism" and ruining someone's career, life, mental state and more. Shame on you. I dabbled with the idea of suicide due to cancel culture. I put on 50 pounds due to stress eating from cancel culture. I developed clinical PTSD due to cancel culture. You dont know the half of what your Twitter "Criticism" can do to a person. People have committed suicide due to the internet bullying that is cancel culture. You are not a good person, nor is anyone committing this horrid act of modern witch hunting.

[@bt3743]

@@damintten you failed high school english didn't you

[@JackFN_VR64]

sick of seeing being called a transphobe, climate change denier, racist, misogynist, bigot, white supremacist, right wing, anti vaxxer etc for having any kind of criticism or skepticism...

[@azhadial7396]

As a French person, I confirm that I do not exist. - This message was sent by a Russian bot.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I KNEW IT.

[@jeandanielodonnncada]

As a French Canadian, I can confirm we are are not French. Just like Tom clearly wasn't.

[@katherinemorelle7115]

Does this mean that we Aussies can form a solidarity with the equally non existent French now?

[@shytendeakatamanoir9740]

The French Language is clearly made up to troll brave English people. It's so obvious, I am still baffled no one figured it out already.

[@lisaw150]

As a person that migrated to France, I think I can say with some authority that French people are all exactly like they are portrayed in the "French revolution" bit - and proud of it.

[@BeautifulEarthJa]

I took me 12 days to watch this because I was tired to hearing people talk about Cancel Culture, but this was probably the best, most in-depth discussion I've seen and very glad I watching it (as I do with all your videos).

[@silversamantha]

"...who gets to be thought of as an individual and who is a mob..." That. Very much. Thank you.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I did want to do a much longer section on expanding some of those thoughts but it was a bit too much of a detour! Glad it gave you some food for thought!

[@silversamantha]

@@Tom_Nicholas I bet! That could be a whole video series on its own

[@mjkittredge]

When they're all repeating the same words without thought then yeah they are a mob

[@TheRikka21]

@@mjkittredge the assumption you just made about people not putting any thought behind what they’re saying is a totally baseless one and ironically ties back to the question you were responding to

[@aprincessofearthsea4875]

@@mjkittredge Lol, of course, people aren't thinking when they go out of their way to protest and join in on public chants. As a person who's joined in on chants, as most people have, I recall keeping my brain throughout the ordeal.

[@radioactivedetective6876]

Really appreciate the part on how all crowds/collectives are viewed as "mobs" irrespective of context or content, and how "a mob is a mob is a mob" is a convenient generalised construct based on wilfully ignoring details and specifics and nuances

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I'm really glad it gave you something to think about!

[@QuixoticAri]

I agree. This portion also made me think that “conventional” understanding of crowds also makes it easier for bad actors to inflame and direct them and then claim no responsibility. This idea of mob mentality ends up serving two purposes: 1/discounting group or mass movements as being irrational regardless of their methods or philosophy and 2/deflection of responsibility for a groups’ violent actions. As Tom enumerates instances of group action that were planned or were directed at certain goals or achieving specific objectives it makes consideration of violent mob actions even more frightening. Because what follows is the understanding that witch burning villagers or sheet wearing “crusaders” engaged in violence not as a result of some alchemical crowd reaction, but instead as part of a planned, rationalized attack. A way of purging the unwanted. I’m thinking of the recent event that cannot be named, and how after many public and political figures spoon fed their crowd of supporters they immediately began to distance themselves from the resulting violence by framing the participants as a mob, people who lost control of themselves in their excitement or passion.

[@krysisstorm2703]

@@Tom_Nicholas 💯

[@robertnicholls9917]

It's the reason for all these unconstitutional laws, where it's now ok to run over protesters. Who could have foreseen this after Charlottesville?

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@@robertnicholls9917 impeding the flow of traffic is not a safe nor is it a necessarily peaceful form of protest. If you aren't protesting in the middle of the street, you don't have to worry about being run over... it's why we don't play street hockey on a busy highway... How can you seriously think the way you do? There's serious problems in your logic, or lack thereof.

[@matthijs1247]

"I'm not used to speaking from the heart without a script". *Quickly checks script to see what to say next* It's so on the nose I love it.

[@emilyglass6625]

I remember when you asked us to vote whether there should be introductory skits and I can’t believe that now there might be a parallel universe where this never happens. Breaks my heart 💔😂

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, yeah, I think we're a long way from that now!!

[@Mikshvert]

"Crowds tend to be violent" Shows a peaceful Belarus protest. Long live Belarus, Жыве Беларусь!

[@jacobrzeszewski6527]

I need to learn to read Cyrillic.

[@elseggs6504]

@@jacobrzeszewski6527 "Žive Belarus"

[@glibbond168]

Живе вічно!

[@electricangel4488]

Hope you guys get ehat you want

[@supekele]

"You're not used to seeing me speak without a script." *cuts to looking at script* mATE i'm wheezing

[@josemaria8177]

"I love Jacobin" "The magazine? I really like it aswell" Me, thinking of the revolution and of Robespierre fighting the despot, "sure, that's what I meant"

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I've not read much of Jacobin itself, but I do quite enjoy its UK sister publication Tribune (which I wrote a short piece about a British TV show for last year for)..

[@josemaria8177]

@@Tom_Nicholas Jacobin is a preety good magazine. They have some takes that are too milquetoast for me, but as far as the american mainstream press goes, they are easily the best (it is a low bar, but they do have some interesting articles). I never heard of Tribune, but I will check out your article

[@helloocentral]

lol so in this scenario you're just saying "i love jacobin" as a non-sequitor?

[@marocat4749]

Jacobins the social movement ot order, and hunted down in a jacobin scare? Call the 19th century royal police!

[@za1231in]

@@james_chatman it's hilarious how jacobin or DSA will be called neoliberal milquetoast toothless scum, while also having chuds accuse them of being tankie stalinist propaganda

[@anwa3237]

That apology video bit is some top quality cringe material. Great work!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, glad you enjoyed that bit!

[@jan_Masewin]

Plenty people are against cancel culture when it’s turned against them or their idols, and then will turn around to bully someone off Twitter

[@NeoRipshaft]

I accept your apology and understand that I just couldn't handle the intensity of your art.

[@pmgcls11]

"I've been to France but your opinion has the right to a fair hearing"

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, I'm glad people enjoyed those comments, they took AGES to animate!

[@pmgcls11]

@@Tom_Nicholas They're absolutely lovely (as is the entire video, but that's nothing new!)

[@JordanSullivanadventures]

Cancel culture is a problem, but mostly for already marginalized people, who end up trashed and endlessly harassed by people who 99% agree with them but 1% think they are demon-landlords incarnate.

[@creamcheesekitty]

as a (half-)Haitian, the French are fair game to mock, my friend.

[@Palbizu]

Y'all really mocked them in your revolution 👀

[@creamcheesekitty]

@@Palbizu we paid a hefty price for it (literally) but tbh, worth 😌✨

[@timurozalp5882]

As a french having recently learned about the twisted shit France has done to Haiti... I understand and approve.

[@a.l.michael6240]

As a full Haitian, 1st generation American, mock away my half Haitian, mock away 🤧

[@hedgehog3180]

I think Haiti should be given one of the channel islands so they can put up a giant statue about the Leclerc expedition.

[@Z10ZeeTen]

My boy Tom Nicholas really out here getting cancelled by KZbin staff for talking about right-wing terrorism

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, yeah the irony of this was not lost on me. (I actually don't know whether that's technically "irony" or not, but you get my drift...)

[@jonashansen6391]

@@Tom_Nicholas I wouldn't say that it directly contradicts the main argument of the video (about irrational mob rule), but rather it shows a more insidious aspect of online discourse. That there is a reciprocal relationship between expected cultural values of individual parties. In this case that would be the one between YT algorithm/ToS and content created for profit on the platform. How we behave online is dictated by what we think we can get away with, and what we can get away with is, in turn, dictated by data collection of people's online behaviour. PS: Love the citations in the video. I hate it when someone brings up e.g., "a Swedish study concluded that..." without proper references.

[@DonnaSnyder]

Welcome back with another interesting timely exposition and set within it's historical context.

[@themajesticspider-man6116]

Truuu

[@Denward00]

Right wing? This is mostly left wing job, in europe left wings are practicing this cancel culture more than no other.

[@Thrna_1]

Tom Nicholas sounds like a British person imitating a French person, which is exactly what I expected, but that doesn't make it any less unsettling.

[@evilgeek87]

Especially in light of recent events, I find it interesting that when a crowd is demanding social progress, then that crowd makes everyone in it a mindless barbaric reactionary, but when that crowd's purpose is to make a quick buck, them it's supposed to be a rational actor.

[@whyamihere5732]

Hit the nail on the head

[@niklas5948]

To be fair, I think a lot of people were actually in for a social purpose. You always had the argument to "stick it to the hedge funds" which is more of a social argument than a monetary one. I also agree that most people secretly still prioritized money however

[@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542]

Why yes, one actually hurt the elite where it hurts where the other just bitch abt their ego

[@sophiemason8444]

It's the same idea of 'well I would support them if they didn't attack the police'. In the context of the BLM protests, for example, the expectation isn't for their to be no violence its that BLM shouldn't resist when being attacked by heavily armed mob of police. You aren't expressing a desire for no violence, just a preference for who the violence should happen to. Likewise, when a crowd protests to protect establishment interests it's 'protecting our ideals' but when its a crowd protesting for social progress and change its a mindless riot

[@Danny-mp8dq]

@@sophiemason8444 >protesting societal change is a mindless riot >BLM shouldn't resists when being attacked by police squads Bro what

[@WannabeMarysue]

I'm so sick of celebrities online, man. They get so much special treatment and they don't even undertand how good they have it. Unfair callouts obviously exist, but celebrities have the tools to defend themselves from a 500 page spurious callout. As well as the clout and support network to support them. They can't know what an unfair callout feels like. They'll never be called out like common people.

[@aienbalosaienbalos4186]

cancel culture does not only attack celebrities. Random people are attacked too.

[@bigbawlzlebowski8886]

@@fuckamericanidiot then turn off your phone and enjoy the multimillions of dollars that you have.

[@micramism6431]

the thing to note is also that celebrities are also far more available for attack. while one unknown person might draw a crowd, celebrities draw masses of crowds.

[@azdirtnaper]

Don't they also get death threats of them and their family members and stalkers?

[@theystoleitfromus]

@@micramism6431 ...along with crowds of supporters.

[@scarlettsmoak8977]

‘Cancel culture’ for the most part is either people being criticised for their actions whilst retaining the majority of their power and status...or it’s a #blankisoverparty filled with facecams and ‘you should have followed ___ instead’ and then it’s often forgotten about two days later.

[@RadicalReviewer]

Um, I wasn't asked to collab on this project?! You're canceled fur sure now!! jp, great work as always! 🦊

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I'm sorry, there was only so many roles! Perhaps in the future if I do some guest bits again! And thanks!

[@RadicalReviewer]

@@Tom_Nicholas haha, s'all good my dude. Just memeing on ya. Yeah for sure I imagine we'll come together on something eventually. Much love.

[@finneire1282]

You were clearly busy collaborating with Justin 👍

[@pedroivocarvalhofreire97]

Fur sure...nice

[@jeandanielodonnncada]

I love Tom and feel like we have to cancel him on ironic principle. Uggh.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, nooooooooooo...

[@coppermoth6069]

Criticism is one thing… death threats, threats of rape, threats of harm to friends, loved ones, and even pets, leaking a persons home address, stalking, and swatting are serious problems

[@sammyjones8279]

Not that that you're wrong, it's just... That's an *extreme* example

[@ethandennis9450]

Something that jumps out to me surrounding the ever more frequent cancel culture critiques is its portrayal as a novel phenomenon. In this video, it comes up first in the Harper's letter when they portray the exchange of information as "daily becoming more constricted," and again with Ronson when he claims that the limiting of discourse is in the start of a "renaissance." It always seems that such framing makes it seem as if there was a point where discourse flowed freely, a point where its bounds were not so severe, a point which was ended by the "invention" of cancel culture by leftist millennials. Really? Was there ever a point where discourse was not restricted based on power structures, where people did not lose their livelihoods because of actions or comments? This framing of cancel culture as novel is therefore somewhat misguided in my eyes; I wonder if it could be better characterized as an adaptation of existing power structures to the social media age as opposed to something borne out of some nature monolithically inherent in the social media generation.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

At some point I want to make a full video on Jurgen Habermas' notion of the public sphere which will dig into a lot of this kinda stuff (particular the way in which "the discourse" is actually highly restrictive in who gets to contribute to it in any meaningful way). I just need to find a good "hook" for it so that people will actually watch it, haha!

[@jkishhabi]

Very succinct and insightful! Thanks for bringing this into the discussion as it is in my opinion a very important and often neglected point.

[@jordanwhite8718]

It is if people have completely forgotten about the history of stand-up comedy, music, and video games. There were always people both on the left and the right who wanted to cancel things that they found uncomfortable. I don’t think there’s really a solution to this problem. Sometimes you just have to deal with the assholes around you because killing the mall is just too inconvenient.

[@paulleimer1218]

You can't possibly deny that cancel culture is becoming hyper sensitive to the point that people are "cancelled" for a meaning a small group of people derived from a statement, but was not actually said. There is a difference between now and then, and that is the advent of the internet with the addition of the mass adoption of social media. This did not existed in the past. Companies will fire someone if even one person complains of a post someone made, a post often times expressing in opinion that was fine yesterday but today not so. This may have happened on a smaller scale in the past, but this has become a far more common fenomina

[@plocky4275]

Late to the party but yes, so much yes. Žižek talks about this exact thing too in one of his books: "There is an even greater problem with the underlying premise of those who proclaim the “death of truth”: they talk as if once before (say, up to the 1980s), in spite of all manipulations and distortions, truth did somehow prevail, and that the “death of truth” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Already a quick overview tells us that this was not the case: how many violations of human rights and humanitarian catastrophes remained invisible, from the Vietnam War to the invasion of Iraq. Just remember the times of Nixon, Reagan, Bush... *The difference was not that the past was more “truthful” but that the ideological hegemony was much stronger, so that, instead of today’s greater melee of local “truths,” one “truth” (or, rather, one big Lie) basically prevailed.* In the West, this was the liberal- democratic Truth (with a Leftist or Rightist twist). What is happening today is that, with the populist wave which unsettled the political establishment, *the Truth/Lie which served as ideological foundation of this establishment is also falling apart. And the ultimate reason for this disintegration is not the rise of postmodern relativism but the failure of the ruling establishment which is no longer able to maintain its ideological hegemony.* We can now see what those who bemoan the “death of truth” really deplore: the disintegration of one big Story more or less accepted by the majority which brought ideological stability to a society. The secret of those who curse “historicist relativism” is that they miss the safe situation in which one big Truth (even if it was a big Lie) provided the basic “cognitive mapping” to all. In short, it is those who deplore the “death of truth” that are the true and most radical agents of this death: their motto is the one attributed to Goethe, _"besser Unrecht als Unordnung,”_ better injustice than disorder, better one big Lie than the reality of a mixture of lies and truths." TL;DR: To those accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression; their metanarratives of how the world works, what's good and what's not begin to be challenged and put under greater scrutiny.

[@randolphgallagher7942]

As someone as someone of wholly French descent, I cannot begin to express how offended I am by this video (and yes, we Irish lie a lot). Love your work, man.

[@chiffmonkey]

It's a really simple sequence of events that has occurred: 1. The internet feeds people tailored content. 2. They inadvertently wind up in an echo chamber. 3. They become partisan. 4. With all of the nuanced mediator types gone or outnumbered, empathy dies. 5. Society fractures at the seams. Us vs them. No further discussion required.

[@janesk1]

[citation needed], substantiate your claims. cause the way it comes across here just sounds like you're in something of an echo chamber if you believe that with 0 factual evidence lmao. like, >no further discussion required, really? pathetic.

[@hbtm2951]

@@janesk1 You see why the church wouldn't let anyone study? he is smart but he is wrong and now he will subvert whatever he thinks of reality to prove his point and people will follow him and people will start wars for it. Worth it...

[@chiffmonkey]

@@janesk1 Point #1 and #5 are observable. I just connected the dots between them.

[@EricHamm]

Dude, internet? Really? No. Your number #1 makes no sense. FB for sure, but the entirety of the internet? If anything it would giant corporation feed tailored content.

[@chiffmonkey]

@@EricHamm It's less obvious sure, but how often do you use a URL instead of a search engine? There's also tailored advertising, regional versions of sites, subreddit and fandom wars, or how about how wikipedia spawned conservapedia then conservapedia spawned rationalwiki etc.

[@dijo7n983]

"I Pity the Rule: You Guessed It, Even More Rules" 😭

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I'm so glad someone enjoyed this joke. It looked funny on paper but I wasn't sure how well it would land being spoken!

[@noahluke11]

@@Tom_Nicholas definitely a highlight of the discourse ty king

[@aussieevonne7857]

@@Tom_Nicholas It was hilarious! And Curio's delivery *chef's kiss*.

[@Stjaernljus]

1: "We are mildly disappointed, you should know better" 2: "oh no im being canceld" 1: "No you are not" 2: *doubles down on thing* 1: "ugh."

[@Tom_Nicholas]

You'll NEVER silence me.

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

Aren't there some people who are threatened and intimidated out of jobs or opportunities for a joke that people don't like, or a position that is taken as controversial?

[@rileykim6068]

@@OntheOtherHandVideos Not really. You hear people say this a lot, but there aren't really that many examples. Just so you know I don't want to get into a debate.

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

@@rileykim6068 OK, sounds good. I would like to put forward names like Scarlett Johansen, Aziz Ansari, Justine Sacco, Kevin Hart, Nicholas and Erika Christakis, and Bret Weinstein as a few examples. I'm not saying I think all of these people are faultless or that they were all impacted equally, but when it comes to a 'free' society, we operate on the ideal that it is better that 10 criminals go free than one person is falsely imprisoned. If we lose the cultural standard of 'innocent until proven guilty', than the words in the laws that say as much won't stand for long.

[@robocounsel]

Actually this is not the only possible scenario. One may initially get called out, and, if unresponsive, subsequently cancelled (or not). The society imposing social norms is nothing new. What is new is that currently even an opinion held by a small fraction of society may be amplified through platforms as if it were a social norm (which it isn't, unless supported by the majority). This might not be a problem in itself. But the opinion which fuels the call-out might be based on a mere cultural/lingiuistic preference or a set of unverified facts, which would mean that one might get called out on the basis of a whim or an unverified/false accusation. Pluralism in speech and thought and presumption of innocence might be not valued by the ones engaged in the call-out. Such call-out might damage the quality of the public discourse even if the person is not 'cancelled'. It would be damaging enough if the one is forced into silence.

[@neutrino1011]

This is cool it changed my perception. I agreed with my siblings when they shared their fear of how being in a crowd could affect them. But now having some context as to where this idea originates, I can see that this fear wasn't based in much evidence, and the personal anectodes didn't show that it could make you violent or irrational. There are also sometimes agitators used to cause confrontations and give police "justification" to use violence and "pacify" the crowd.

[@oskarmartin6486]

So you choose to belief that parts of your crowds get infiltrated and undermined. Sounds to me like you do get affected by being in a crowd.

[@maxsalmon4980]

From what I can tell, the 'typical' story of 'cancellation' works something like: 1) Public figure of some sort either says or does something controversial, or something they said and did in the past that was controversial is brought to light. 2) People online react to this, each according to their nature and opinion. Those who don't care say nothing. Those who disapprove give voice to that disapproval. Those that approve may give approbation, but approval is typically less likely to spur someone to reply than disapproval. 3) The chorus of disapproval freaks out the public figure's advertisers/publisher/other corporate sponsor, who associate that choral voice as indicating a public relations problem or loss of profit. 4) Said corporate sponsor cancels the public figure. 5) That action is blamed on the people that voiced their disapproval (and increasingly on a 'culture war' epithet) by those that approved. There's a disconnect, I feel, between 4 and 5. Maybe because blaming a publisher for taking actions that they believe will benefit their business is hard to justify in most cases. Or at least, hard to stir up a legion of disapproval in support of. 'Cancel Culture' therefore becomes a sort of Straw Colossus...a titanic construct of reaped grains around a scaffolding of thin rationales, to be sneered at and punched in lieu of having any kind of meaningful discussion about the specific situation at hand.

[@TransRoofKorean]

I feel like you're ignoring your own disconnect from 1-->2 then. Why not let the few people who say it best express their disapproval, instead of having tens of thousands of people tag bosses, corporate sponsors, etc., saying "whyyy~?!" (and then forgetting about them a week later and moving on to the next target) What I mean is if you literally know it's a *typical* story, why approve of reenacting it over and over? Unless you're such a fan of 4 that it overrules 4 obviously leading to 5? Which you are. This whole comment section is filled with people who pretends they just want 2, but really want 4 (or really just want the Terror, they dream of beheadings)

[@maxsalmon4980]

@@TransRoofKorean You have me wrong. I'm not a fan of any of it. Neither do I have a problem with any of it. The reason I bring it up is because it illustrates something interesting. Step 2 is really just a lot of people expressing opinions. Some might take 'action' as you say, contact bosses or whatever, nothing NEW about that though. Boycotts, letters to managers, advertisers...those have long histories. What's new is how easy it is now. How low the bar is set. But is that a problem? If so, why? Each person is doing their own thing; from each of their own points of view, they are one voice, exercising this peculiar right of expression. If it was just ten of them, or a hundred of them...it wouldn't matter. But if there's ten million, or a hundred million...then it matters very much. But is it their fault there's so many of them? If so, why? If not...who's fault is it?

[@TransRoofKorean]

@@maxsalmon4980 Well, I'll apologize for saying you're a fan: consider that as being directed at every single one of the diehard socialists in this doomed comment section. Yes, my point is, it's their fault. What the mob does is the fault of the individual members of the mob. Promoting mob mentality is not something that should be condoned. Choosing to be part of the mob is willful. It's always the individual's fault. In the case of (yes it exists) "cancel culture", there are tens of thousands of individuals, each and every one of which is at fault, collectively pointing out the fault of another. They're just doing it with tweets instead of rocks. That's my opinion anyway. My further opinion is this video would be laughably horrible, if only so many morons didn't buy into it so fully.

[@55Noco]

@@TransRoofKorean Okay but one thing you're missing is the idea of mob psychology. Of course the mob is made of individual people, but there's a psychological disconnect people experience when in the mob. This disconnect allows things to usually escalate to the point of say, Roman Plebs burning down the Senate or French peasants cutting the heads of tens of thousands of people.

[@TransRoofKorean]

@@55Noco I'm not missing that, I'm pointing out that individuals can choose to not participate in the Twitter mob-style "making your voice heard" that causes peoples' lives a hell of a lot of damage, instead of excusing it, which seems to be the entire point y'all have here

[@OddBunsen]

Tom: “What kind of a shape for a country is that?” Spain: 👀

[@loop7134]

Absolutely love this! Love how you did a better job at covering 'the mob' than my lecturers lol. Also, it'd be interesting to look at 'mobs' or popular protests where there was no set or precise or generally agreed goal (French Gillets-Jaunes, and I think Turkey had one too in the last few years). I would say though, that there is somehow a 'mob' effect that exists but not so much bcs of psychological reasons and lack of rationality but bcs of the nature of communication and the feeling of belonging. So, nuanced and complex arguments are reduced to radical and sometimes contradictory bits. The thing is the ppl sharing those bits might have very different understandings and perspectives of it, like you could have one person that doesn't get it at all whilst another half-agrees with it but sees the power that an impactful slogan can have. Basically the mob is an effect of strawmanning or reducing smt so much so as to rally as many ppl as possible behind it, which is essentially what politics has always been about. Though, I'm sure there are also some things very specific to the digital age to do with 'cancel culture'.

[@casir.7407]

i think something that may be kind of superficial of a detail is still maybe sort of important? that for a cancelling (or what it really is -a large scale criticism by several individuals that can include, as you said, anything from genuine critiques to outright abuse and bullying) to take place, there are prior expectations. if rowlings audience was comprised completely of transphobes, then she wouldnt be as insulted and undermined; potterheads had an expectation of rowling to act as an understanding and critical authority figure, and not as a prejudiced paranoid entity bestowed with clout and power as a respected celebrity. the cancellation took place, then, because peoples expectations were let down. im not saying that there are not "outside people" also coming in and wanting to participate in the public shaming: surely some long time haters of the potter books or of rowling herself came out of the woodwork glad to find other people finding her flaws. but at least for me, what i see most is disappointment. i daresay that a mixture of disappointment and frustration is what moves these mobs, and as negative as those two emotions may seem, these are also what one experiences when ones worldviews are challenged. perhaps the people in the food riots thought life couldnt get any worse, and then were disappointed and frustrated to see just how much the upper classes were willing to screw them over. anger, and mass anger, are tools of change: it is a tool of democracy, and as such those who criticize cancel culture and mob mentality, saying that it presents a threat to democracy, always sounded quite silly to me. free speech means that you can not only say what you want, but that other people can answer to what you said however they want. freedom goes both ways. and complaining about it makes one much more aligned with authoritarianism or one of its ugly siblings, where the word of the authority is unquestioned. now, in the case of relative unknowns where an ugly comment or statement reaches millions of unknowns, i think this speaks less of cancel culture (i had never heard about sacco until very recently, researching the issue of cancel culture, as i believe sacco isnt a celebrity in the first place) and more of how internet, and especially social media platforms, have become a stage where people sometimes forget they have entered of their own accord. everything one says and states there should, in my view, be as curated as anything one says in the public sphere: to be aware of how socially inappropriate such comments would be, and the ways it could be misinterpreted. thats why i think twitter brings out the worst in people: opinions that people hold and would share with friends and family, and properly discussed and challenged in that safe space, are launched into the world with no second thought or further deliberation. thats why you get roseanne being cancelled by stating something she thought but hadnt shared openly before. and, as ecen non celebrities feel threatened by the criticism and replies of disagreement, they double down instead of learning their mistake or rethinking their statement. and then is when the people who agree with that opinion come out, ready to create an echo chamber and even begin the radicalization of an otherwise very little politically motivated person. sorry for the long rant. i think this issue is fascinating, and how it intersects with history and modern technologies is simply amazing as a display of how social relationships work and have been working for centuries. i agree that it is not a coincidence that a realization of the power of the masses, in display both by the #metoo and the BLM movements, and associations like the proud boys and other far right groups, have led to a public awareness of the power that numbers have, and the capability to wield that power aided by the massive organization tool that the internet can be. great video, as usual. wonderful to see sophia in a cameo!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Yeah, I mean, in relation to the food riots, it was at a point when feudalism was fading and capitalism was beginning to take hold. So there was still a sense among the peasantry that the rich would provide for them (in these specific cases, it had previously been the law that the local poor had to be allowed to buy grain first and at a cheaper rate, only then would any excess be sold on or kept in storage). Part of the outrage thus stemmed from, as you say, a feeling that the social contract had been torn apart.

[@darthbee18]

This comment though ✨

[@Sentient_Blob]

It’s weird how canceling only seems to happen on Twitter specifically, I wonder if the designers of the website have intentionally created an outrage machine to get more interaction

[@ヴァリ-z3e]

@@Sentient_Blob Twitter absorbed Tumblr's population, following their porn ban. Tumblr has always been a hotbed of hyperfragile insane reactionaries, to the point of being a shorthand for crazy internet people.

[@erinmcdonald7781]

Good points! Gives me more to ponder. ✌️😎

[@dnys_7827]

god the bitchy snark in sophies performance is such an enormous mood. love it.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, they were awesome to work with! So grateful they were up for it!

[@katherinemorelle7115]

It was perfect!

[@object4124]

@Azhag Dark He might get cancelled for it.

[@KarlMarcus8468]

Hey Tom, new to the channel, only found it last night and I just had to say how well put together and informative your videos are. A perfect balance of soild innformation and great entertainment. Amazing work my dude, looking forward to absolutely binging all your stuff!!

[@gaphic]

cancel culture is a legitimate problem but only in hyperspecific and very niche internet subcultures where any real celebrity would be too embarrassed to tread, where this exact lack of nuance has been a defining feature for years

[@randolphgallagher7942]

Sure, like the Phoenix area poetry scene.

[@gaphic]

@@randolphgallagher7942 nothing has ever grasped my interest as strongly as these seven words

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

Interesting. So do you view old tweets or statements dug up that negatively impact someone's career or life to not be a part of cancel culture, or do you feel that it isn't a problem, or something else entirely?

[@gaphic]

@@OntheOtherHandVideos first you’re gonna have to define your terms. What is ‘old’? A year or twenty years? Is the age relevant? Has the person who posted it clearly demonstrated change or not? What is ‘negatively impact career’? A celebrity making 9 million dollars instead of 20 million, or a teacher becoming homeless? I think your question falls into the trap of the exact lack of nuance that this video is specifically about

[@Sl1mch1ckens]

@@OntheOtherHandVideos i personally dont think thats part of cancel culture, digging up 10 year old tweets is just plain weird. For example a drag queen (NBB) was just called out/canceled for making transphobic commeng towards another queen. I then saw people bringing up tweet of other queens sayjng the word tranny but like who really was super woke about trans issues in 2011? I sure as hell was transphobic back then n now im a trans man. Judging people by the social standards of today but puttimg that on the past just seems weird to me. As much as people hate it sometimes " it was a different time" is the actual valid answer.

[@rare_goth_metal_and_shoegaze]

lol at the profile pic used for the "classical liberal" commenter starting at 28:26! Too true. Amazing detail, Tom!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I'm so glad people spotted some of those little touches. I almost didn't bother doing the comments as it was so fiddly!

[@Bobylein1337]

@@MrTTnTT "This kind of "classical liberals" aren't a good example of real classical liberals, I wish to inform you that we, the true believers, shun those people as they haven't engrained our non-ideology deep enough to support it, in contrast to us who are the true danger!

[@rare_goth_metal_and_shoegaze]

@@MrTTnTT Try not to put words in my mouth! Nowhere did I or Tom (in any part of his video in any way) say that most or even many so-called classical liberals are white supremacists. What we're actually saying is that there are _too_ many people (and I'm sure you'll agree that a single one is one too many in this case) who use a facade of classical liberalism to mask white supremacist beliefs--even if those people are unaware of the implications and consequences of their beliefs. tl;dr No, my comment wasn't saying "Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi."

[@MrTTnTT]

@Juliet Starling A single one is too many as long as we agree on what white supremacy is, as that kind of undercover agent would be an example of trying to lead people into. When you include the ones whose beliefs' "lead to white supremacy" I think you say that we disagree on what that means, at least in part. (As I think the implications are in the beliefs of the people who make that connection, and can't justifiably be tied to the people who either a) reject that premise or b) haven't thought about it. That you apply these two so close together leads me to believe you haven't thought about what makes them different and whether that might warrant different terms. Briefly, the difference is between white supremacist as in a believer that white people are worth more as humans than others and should consequently be treated better, and people who believe in principles whose upholding would compromise an immediate righting of past wrongs made on grounds of such beliefs. To me, beliefs are important (as what we make decisions based on), and using the term to refer to these two kinds of people in the same breath frankly bothers me. The former kind might perhaps be inclined to join the KKK. The latter would never consider it - as it goes against their beliefs. More, they could be expected to treat people equally well regardless of race. To call both white supremacists simply leads to confusion, and should be discouraged for how misleading it is. I don't think I put words in your mouth. I think I left that pretty open. I just expressed a wish.

[@rare_goth_metal_and_shoegaze]

@@MrTTnTT You said you wished people who say what I did would "see that the vast majority of [classical] liberals aren't of that kind, and that that kind is actually scorned when identified." In other words, you're implying that I don't understand that the vast majority of classical liberals aren't white supremacists. But as I said, that's not the issue. The issue is that too many classical liberals eventually go down the path of white supremacy (as aforementioned, unintentionally or otherwise) even while still believing themselves not to be functionally racist. Again, nowhere did I call classical liberals white supremacists; that wouldn't even necessarily make sense. That's why I said that some classical liberals are _functionally_ racist or enable racism even while they claim to oppose racism. You can try to put all this on me ("As [you] think the implications are in the beliefs of the people who make that connection"), but I'm not the classical liberal functionally allowing a prison-industrial complex to disproportionately incarcerate POC (at least, this happens in the US), or allowing US imperialism and "international" financial institutions to pilfer the Global South for natural resources and slave labor. You can tell me all about how classical liberals actually oppose these things, but my point is that ultimately, their ideology will always fail to make any substantial change in these concerns. Hence, their worldview leads to a society that both passively and actively (under so many euphemisms and deflections) upholds white supremacy. White supremacy is an unfortunate and (we can only hope) unintended consequence of classical liberal ideology. To be clear, this isn't a critique that I merely direct at classical liberals; it goes for all capitalists who claim to oppose racism--including the social democrats (progressive liberals). Of course, at this point and many before it, we've been opening up new cans of worms.

[@sergioballes]

Cancel culture, exists, and you don't need to even be political about it. Just dive into the world of fanfiction, and the triffles around fans arguing about petty issues and how far a fandom is willing to go in order to make their point prevalent, even if that contradicts the author's original intent. And then again, it doesn't even need to get political. Just kill the wrong character (in their opinion/wishes), ship together the wrong characters (in their opinion/wishes), or have a non upfront clear relationship between two characters of the same sex that may or may not be flirting and with that implying their sexuality and… there you got it, the PROSECUTION by fans goes to places I'm not even willing to admit and terrifies me. I understand that, in the political landscape, the term "Cancel Culture" is used as a weapon to de-legitimize valid arguments of a collective that may have pretty solid points. However, we fail to admit here that not because there are many people in the so-called "mob", it automatically mean that everyone in that collective is completely versed on what they are fighting for, when most of the cases many are just going along under pretty populists generic slogans and ideas which, by the way, are needed in order to bring the most possible quantity of people to side with you, because using pretty generic ideas that most of us would identify with, is the easiest way to get them on board, but that, on the other hand, lack the required context and any profound thought behind the people who support this movements. And yeah, recently this is used against the right wing political or right winged celebrities, but it also happened against left wing people by those on the right wing, with pretty strong effects. For instance, in Spain, my country, where the vast majority of the people here is right winged, and the left is unfortunately pretty fragmented, so it's usually the left who gets "cancelled" and with strong repercusions for the people involved. So far as to get people in jail for just singing a song against the Monarchy. Pretty bad, distasteful, arrogant, unpolite, unfortunate, and stupid song, BUT just a song nonetheless. So it's a double edged sword. Recently, a best seller here written by a supposed female, was revealed to be written by 3 men when the book got an award. They were working under a pseudonim. A feminist library dedicated to preserve literature written by women, decided to take out that book from their shelves in an excersise of coherence. What do you think happened here? Yup, the library got cancelled online. A LOT. So much that they even got death threats. So... yeah. The right also knows how to use cancel culture. The mob exists. And it exists in every corner with a bigger or smaller size. Flat-earthers exist. They are a mob. And the internet helped in bringing them together making them a small mob, but a mob nonetheless. But what happens when that "mob" grows big enough to achieve certain objectives against an individual? Even when you are not even discussing anything political? Every side is fighting for the deletion of certain "words" or "concepts" because by saying that this or that doesn't exist, we can reconfigure the world. By eliminating this concept, we are in fact in the middle of what happens in 1984 with the Newspeak, where you delete words or strip meanings of those words in order to manipulate the world. If we say that war doesn't exist, and instead we just call it the absence of peace, you are denying a reality. It happens when we say that Cancel Culture doesn't exist from the left, or when transphobia, misoginy, racism or any kind of bigotry doesn't exist from the right. I agree that we need to analyze every situation case by case. But really: Do you honestly think that people really pause to analyze what's happening whenever someone gets backlash? I'm not that optimistic, that's why we need to talk about cancel culture, and the consequences when that goes out of hand.

[@0firelili0]

I definitely agree nuance is important, but I think there's something particularly toxic about social media backlash, especially for women, POC and LGBT+ people. Being bombarded with graphic and violent hate seems to come alongside genuine criticisms with 'cancel culture'

[@lwcaexii]

The arts community especially is absolutely awful for this, and it seems like a big missed point to me to discuss cancel culture without its disproportionate impact on marginalised in any public space.

[@astralura]

Neurodiverse and disabled people are also disproportionately affected by this kind of hatred. In general, minorities are affected more than privilaged people, which is something we really should be addressing cuz it's a sign of some pretty significant implicit bias.

[@jimmerskrimmerfriddet3246]

Contrapoints video on this subject was much better and addresses some of what you mention.

[@hedgehog3180]

I personally think that "Cancel Culture" is the wrong word to use here. It's nothing more than the same societal dynamics that we've always dealt with playing out online again, any black man will be able to tell you how just one misstep will make people think of him as a violent beast and any trans woman can tell about how not fitting perfectly into the box cis women assign to you can lead to people declaring you a sexual predator. And both of these things actually to a large degree comes back to who gets the privilege of being seen as an individual which is what he was talking about which is why the Cancel Culture term inherently just ends up reinforcing those same societal dynamics that we experience.

[@cinaedus8781]

A very interesting video about mobs, but what worries _me_ about so-called cancel culture has a lot more to do with punitive justice and the process by which "guilt" is assigned.

[@juliekring7574]

The statute of limitations does not seem clear, which is my criticism of cancel culture. In addition, there is a more insidious vein which lives off the platforms, where companies like VISA freeze the accounts of people who have been wrongly accused of being a part of the alt right. It comes down to trusting algorithms to be able to characterize people, and I'm of little faith in the likes of Google and Facebook.

[@w0lfleader123]

This is sort of my problem with the video too. The focus is on the idea of the mob, which while a part of the idea of cancel culture, is not the only aspect. The video spends far more time discussing mobs than it does on other aspects of what people call cancel culture, such as punitive justice (like you said), lack of forgiveness, guilt by association, and most importantly, platform failure by twitter and other social media companies. So while I think this is a great video on the historical idea of the mob, I do not believe this is all that effective as a critique of cancel culture because its sort of a partial strawman. By focusing so much attention on the mob, Tom doesn't address other aspects of "cancel culture" that are much more difficult to defend like how it seems to happen to women far more than men and for lesser transgressions.

[@aienbalosaienbalos4186]

This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time. Watch contrapoints video if you actually want to hear the cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, because you can't find that in this video. I'm not familiar with this KZbinr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.

[@Ivanm21]

+

[@mijo5964]

Tommy doesn’t care.. he thinks the Left wing mob might have a point because he agrees with their dumbfck ideology

[@kasiapasta7758]

This is very well reasoned but I feel something is amiss. Surely the concern is not that the crowd will become violent but whether or not I feel secure in either disagreeing with the crowd, even in part, or being associated with the individual the crowd has taken against without feeling I will automatically be ostracised. Engaging with the issue itself is exactly the point and labelling people as having the 'wrong opinion' without any reasoned argument does not help us to do this. I watch many KZbin channels where people recommend books and have encountered several instances when I've been encouraged not to buy/read a book because the author has expressed a questionable opinion. Putting aside the fact that the KZbinr rarely goes into any detail about what the opinion is and why it is objectionable, should I really refuse to read someone's work just because I don't share the same opinions as them on everything? I feel if I had that approach, I may be left with a rather short reading list and certainly have to banish many classics from the pile.

[@vegan.3176]

You mean opinions which are expressed in the books, or unrelated to the books?

[@smugmode]

Did he actually say not to read the book? I only remember him stating the problems it has. Nobody tells me which books to read! Lol but for real.

[@cphlmy]

This topic seems to boil down to the risks of saying something unpopular before a large group of individuals who mostly share similar ideas. Whether these dominating ideas are "right" or "wrong," and whether the thing being said is "good" or "bad" is a different topic. The video doesn't seem to prove or even try to prove that such risks are nonexistent or even small. Instead, it says that "sometimes consensus has emerged for a reason," implying, I guess, that "sometimes" there's something inherently bad in going against the consensus (and also it's individualistic to do so). So it remains unclear, whether it's actually risky to challenge "the consensus" and if it is, can it become a "bad thing," if it's possible for "the consensus" to be brought to life by the very same ruling class who "fears the mob."

[@aienbalosaienbalos4186]

This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time. Watch contrapoints video if you actually want to hear the cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, because you can't find that in this video. I'm not familiar with this KZbinr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.

[@fernandoterra4108]

This

[@Ansalion]

To me that wasn't what he was saying at all. In fact in most of the examples of mobs he used, the mobs were challenging the status quo and the powers that be. The British food riots weren't caused by some lords saying something unpopular before a crowd of peasants, it was caused by years of misrule and starvation. What he is saying is that mobs aren't unreasonable and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. If their reasons make sense, maybe they should be listened to instead of dismissed as cancel culture.

[@TumblrOzymandias]

@@aienbalosaienbalos4186 In her video Contrapoints presents an alternate definition of cancel culture. Her's is not the dominant usage of the term nor would she agree with the general usage. The purpose of Tom's video was very clearly to examine a specific rhetorical strategy common to conversations about cancel culture, it was not a comprehensive breakdown of the entire topic and it doesn't need to be.

[@cphlmy]

@@Ansalion What he actually said is that _some_ mobs are not unreasonable. Some other mobs may well be unreasonable (take "pogroms" in the Russian Empire for example). Tom may actually be successful at showing that labeling something as "a mob" doesn't automatically makes its actions unreasonable, but that's, I believe, not the point many (if any) of the viewers needed to be proven (as it's pretty obvious).

[@fy8798]

Canceling this video while waiting for it. Since cancelling is likely a very effective strategy with a high power level, I am sure this will be very troubling for poor Tom!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, wait until you see the video...

[@fy8798]

@@Tom_Nicholas I better not eat my words!

[@basilsalomonhelfenstein2451]

@@Tom_Nicholas yeah yeah, you think you’re so smart with your reflective video about cancel culture but some day we’ll get you too ..;)

[@かたわれ時-e7x]

All too often I find myself looking at things in a solid black-or-white. Thank you for showing me how important nuance is in making opinions.

[@lawrencium2626]

Most topics in news (and 'social media' news) are presented in a false dichotomy, so you are forced to pick a side and fight for it. Turns out, the side you're more tempted to pick will often be exaggerated or overzealous in some ways you might not have time to notice - but those opposed to your side, will, and will get free support with pointing that out, that you won't get if you wanted to make improvements on "your" side - you can't make improvements, you can't even hold a single thorough conversation by default, you can only argue. Forever. Pick up a different take, if you were holding some other values you might currently disagree with, what would your actual thoughts be; now consider how reliable you might find any of the too many outlets you can see that 'cater' for that; would you have the same experience? You would, wouldn't you? No improvement, no coherent coversation; only argument. Forever. The people who run the conversations and get to pick which bits to focus on, who to invite, which questions to ask, in which order; they know this very well, and make good use of it. It's why they're in charge of the conversation. We can't have any resolutions or progress, only constant artificial conflict.

[@krekcabnow2910]

I think you make good points but I think I’ve felt something like intoxication in a crowd. Definitely at protests especially some level anxiety and awe and yet also inspiration and a wind behind my back. I’m not saying that just being in a crowd does that but in certain crowds I’ve at least felt something.

[@Chocolate83Bunny]

i imagine it could be the feeling of having power, unity with other people near you, and an immediate sense of duty could be a powerful psychological force. The same dynamic in a military maybe

[@MrTTnTT]

You should both check out Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". I think what you're talking about is a consequence of what he calls the "hive switch" being triggered. And yes, military training is one of the examples. Another is a rave party.

[@hedgehog3180]

I mean that isn't surprising that you feel something like that when you participate in something that's obviously huge. That is pretty natural for humans to feel some sort of grand emotion when we participate in something we feel is bigger than ourselves. The big difference obviously is that this feeling doesn't make you mad or particularly violent it just gives you a sense of awe at what is happening.

[@RabidCoalla454]

“Few ideas have captured the collective imagination of the internet in the past year or so, more than that of cancel culture. For the uninitiated, get out now... get out while you still can.”

[@IsaacLouisDV]

Amazing, loved this video. Also I would DIE to see the Tom Nicholas video all about the French revolution, I love learning about the French revolution!

[@Adam-Friended]

Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society By: Nicholas A. Christakis

[@mr.lalnon5455]

Look! It's the guy who is still doing the anti-sjw schtick 5 years past it's expiration date!

[@5Chaor]

Hey you guys going to do another 4-Hour long live stream were you don't look at the research document that the person left.

[@Adam-Friended]

...says the guy who still thinks Marxism will work.

[@5Chaor]

@@Adam-Friended Did you actually read Marx or do any actual research.

[@Adam-Friended]

​@@5Chaor Yes, I've read Marx. We are happy to have Tom on our show. We love constructive dielectric. Here is a video I made on Marx you might actually like: "Marxism Explained by a Futurist / Transhumanist"

[@AlbusVacuus]

To me the takeaway of Ronson's book is more about how the mental stress of feeling hated by an enormous amount of strangers online will take a toll on the individual and how our brains are not adapted to deal with such things. If some assholes can suffer online repercussions you yourself feel are appropriate through that action. Good for you, but I'd rather not people be tarred and feathered digitally altogether.

[@hedgehog3180]

Tom clearly isn't saying that online harassment is good though. He's talking about how the idea of cancel culture is currently being deployed and the way it is part of a long running trend in western society to dismiss opinions when they're expressed by a large group of people.

[@AlbusVacuus]

@@hedgehog3180 i think we are having a certain disconnect here. Tom posits that Ronson's book is but the latest rationalization of "mob vs elite is bad actually". My main gripe is with this characterization of his work. I agree many would like to dismiss outraged masses as just mobs which don't know better.

[@MrMarinus18]

But I'm also not sure how bad it actually is. What he is mentioning accurately describes one of the most common forms of online outrage I have seen which is of overt corporate exploitation especially in the gaming space. Companies have tried to push the cashcow that is microtransactions and lootboxes for over a decade but while they have been successful to a degree the fact that old style games are still being made is largely due to the mob cutting them down every time they do so. I think the fear of cancel culture actually has more to do with the people afraid of it. To many the internet presented a way out of social pressure and now it no longer is that. Internet has got social pressures of it's own. Being shamed for doing something a group finds inappropriate is something that is as old as civilization itself. You can also flip the stript. Online mobs can't physically hurt you so isn't it very entitled to think you should be able to say anything you want without ever facing any consequences? Saying hard truths that people don't want to hear has never been easy and there have always been soft power to stop that and keep the status quo. What we need to worry about are hard power methods to stop it like an AI that auto bans any content before it can go public. If someone is intimidated by a mob to say the truth then their dedication to the truth is suspect. If someone truly thinks the truth should be let out cause it's that important they will have to face the backlash that comes with that.

[@AlbusVacuus]

@@MrMarinus18 i would have to reiterate that we are not wired for the scale of shaming the internet provides. Yes, institutions and big companies can and mostly weather it. But individual humans can suffer great psychological harm up to and including suicide.

[@MrMarinus18]

@@AlbusVacuus Hmm....that is a very good point. The end of internet culture as a whole seems like the only real solution. To be able to have it as a part of life but not dominate your life. That if you get "cancelled" you can just continue on living.

[@Archbringer]

I know I come late to the conversation, but I felt the need to add my 2 cents worth. I enjoyed the video, and the breakdown of the history and meaning of the crowd/mob, both physical and digital. But, and I might be alone in this view, this is NOT what I consider “Cancel Culture”. A group, or “digital crowd” as it were, speaking out against a wrong or perceived wrong is fine and actually a good thing, it’s what starts or keeps the conversation going to make us as a species better. “Cancel Culture” is is the “ De-platforming” or removal of another’s ability to converse, “Doxing” or the release of ones info for nefarious reasons, getting people fired or removed from society, and even the physical harassment and even sometimes violence that comes from Doxing (including at times, murder). This is what I consider the spectrum of Cancel Culture, and the dangerous part of the “mob”...

[@TomTomGo44]

I think your interpretation of cancel culture ist quite on point!

[@Archbringer]

@@TomTomGo44 Like I said, its my interpretation of Cancel Culture.

[@ipercalisse579]

The digital crowd speaking out against something wrong or perceived as such in itself is not bad, but the digital crowd is doing it in a way that they imply that voice has to be silenced. You see that in their rethoric. The are louder and louder, the louder, the more aggressive, the better. They really want you to shut up. I got backlash when I defended the autistic people as they have a condition called hyperfixation and so if they fix with Harry Potter books they get relief from anxiety from getting Harry Potter contents, since JKRowling controversy, these books are demonized by the activists and they attacked autistic people for sticking to the franchise and supporting the author. Well, I was deliberately offended and asked to kill myself. Yeah receiving death threats impressed me a bit. It was the first time in my life and I am 38. This is not just calling out something you dont like.

[@alistair1231]

Was "The smurfs" part of the joke? It's the serfs... I'm confused

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, yeah, that was just a stupid joke! Perhaps it didn't quite land!

[@alistair1231]

@@Tom_Nicholas ah I see. :D Nice video though! Very informative and funny!

[@bsorofman]

I'm here for the smurfs.

[@missyrivas8623]

@@Tom_Nicholas i thought it landed. Like anything else it'll have a bumpy landing for some

[@StNick119]

@@Tom_Nicholas Lol I got the joke. It's a neat reference.

[@caseydahl1952]

Thoughts and Prayers to Jordan Peterson and his meat coma.

[@nathanaelwaters2509]

I hope the meat coma wins

[@erikprantare696]

@@nathanaelwaters2509 booo

[@AdamApocalyptic]

@@nathanaelwaters2509 he's been back for ages

[@prod.hxrford3896]

@@nathanaelwaters2509 well he's alive and well and has been for a good while I hope that's salt in the wound for you

[@Liloldliz]

@@prod.hxrford3896 it's the salt on my plain beef

[@consentclub8431]

The people complaining about "cancel culture" now were the same people complaining about "political correctness" in the 90s and early 2000s. It's incredibly interesting to look at this through the lens of revolutions, which I don't think is done nearly enough. This is definitely one of my favourite videos of yours!

[@rockingrollin425]

The whole idea of the critique of cancel culture is about retaining nuance and being able to distinguish between the cases. It is true, nonetheless, that some people have weaponized this term to defend themselves in cases in which they just want to avoid taking into account their critics. Although I cannot deny the reality of it, I also have to state once again that cancel culture, far from being just a broad term some people use to disqualify criticism, exists and has its own characteristics. I think the video made by Contrapoints on this subject offers a very good explanation of them (the process of abstraction, essentialism, the transitive property, etc.). On the other hand, you did a good debunk of "the madness of the mobs" argument, which is somehow related to this topic, although I do not think the term cancel culture can be dismissed just because crowds often act rationally orientated towards their political goals or moral principles. I found it a bit funny how you emphasised the need to retain nuance and see the details of every case to make a judgement, yet you often talked about J.K. Rowling's tweets in the video and barely mentioned the content of any of them, thus making it easier for your viewers (most of us, people who'd give you a fair amount of interpretative charity) to think of them as negative (or worst than they were), even if we have not read them.

[@chinggiskhan6678]

JK Rowling tweeted Transphobic comments, and people criticised her for that. There is no more context needed.

[@duncandl910]

@@chinggiskhan6678 so you don't get to decide for yourself if you agree with that assessment?

[@chinggiskhan6678]

@@duncandl910 There really isn't more context needed. She tweeted blatantly transphobic tweets and deserved the criticism that came flying her way.

[@OLucasZanella]

@@chinggiskhan6678 No context needed? Like, you don't even need to read her comments to know they're transphobic? One person saying they are is enough?

[@chinggiskhan6678]

@@OLucasZanella I did read her comments, and they were really Transphobic

[@95north90]

Loved the curio cameo, I could feel their character internally screaming in every sentence 😂

[@Tom_Nicholas]

They were amazing!

[@95north90]

@@Tom_Nicholas writing was brilliant, you made me laugh a fair few times - the fake livestream comments were painfully accurate 👍 satire done right

[@abuaslam3714]

Cancel Culture is a big issue in my opinion but not for celebrities / tv hosts , actors , comedians etc / its more an issue for creators on the internet like youtubers and twitch streamers. On an unrelated note twitter is filled with echo chambers for both the right and the left anyway great vid

[@DeoMachina]

The "classical liberal" with the celtic cross was such a nice touch ahaha

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I was quite pleased when I came up with that one whilst I was trying to put together usernames...

[@dwc1964]

that one stuck out to me too

[@CocoaBeanWhip]

Interesting to compare/contrast this analysis with the very personal tale from ContraPoints and the experience of actually "being canceled."

[@WeepingPrince]

And the recent issue and video from Lindsay Ellis

[@aienbalosaienbalos4186]

This video fails to address all the real problems of cancel culture. Instead it addresses a weird strawman of the concept of cancel culture that says "cancel culture is random, aimless violence that springs up whenever groups of people are formed and all groups of people are evil". This video is a dam waste of everyone's time. Contrapoints video actually has cancel culture side's arguments with some degree of quality or care, unlike this video. I'm not familiar with this KZbinr, but this video is enough to see that they are absolutely careless with what they write. Simply asking anyone that has talked about cancel culture would have explained that this stupid version of the cancel culture argument is not what anyone means.

[@josephde-haan1074]

Excellent presentation and style. I find the biggest issue is a lack of learned, formal critical thinking skills. Something I think in modern society, should be an essential element of formal education as math or science is. As well as critical thinking education through outreach. Understanding our conscious and unconscious biases and what can be viewed as use of propeganda to promote these biases through practices like 'cherry picking'. At the centre of this video essay for me, the underlying pin is freedom and the use of the word freedom. As my learning of critical thinking skills has developed over the last decade or so 'freedom,' or what I find more exact, 'freedoms' has fascinated me. Our use of the word, which most of us do with no real definition and can lead to discourse in which all the sides involved are communicating different meanings as if they are using the same meaning and we are not even aware of this. A problem with the expression of concepts generally. Most of us actually use the word without even being aware that it underlies many complicated concepts like how a freedom can contradict another freedom, or the private and the commons, or the privelage of freedom as accumalated through multiple factors. Whether this be your accent, or your dollar value, or even just biology and this is just the tip of an iceberg of factors that can increase or decrease your freedoms. Have subscribed fella.

[@josephde-haan1074]

I just watched to the end and saw your reference to consensus. I think censensus is essential. It is part of our evolution, dare I say it is written in to our DNA. Our species has existed in an environment of consensus for so much, much, much longer than the relatively recent rise of the expression of the individual, which as far as I understand began with the introduction of surplus resources. The dominance of the individual and the widening of inequality just speeds us along the track (Not road unfortunately.) to extinction. Whether that be physical extinction, or the extinction of all knowledge. The bright burning expansion of knowledge through developments in communiation tech may well have made us the most informed idiots in history. I belong to a volunteer run, collective in Newcastle and learning consensus I find both essential and rewarding but not easy.

[@MrMarinus18]

The internet has also made me think about what freedoms are valuable and must be protected and what freedoms are disposable or even detrimental. I think the freedom to waste all your time in front of a screen on the internet is a bad thing and most people actually do better in pretty much every way once that freedom is taken away from them. You also have the thing about soft power and how much that affects freedom. Is giving access to addictive substances freedom? Or is it actually making people more free to forcefully take them away? Countless studies have proven that true freedom is something nobody really desires. People desire a sense of structure and purpose and a sense of beloning. With the internet especially it has given a level of freedom of information but if anything that access and accessibility has spread misinformation and hate speech more than ever before.

[@fredfredrickson5436]

Tom's suggestion that the popular concept of "The Mob" is a canard is an interesting provocation. Emphasising the, so called, mob as a collection of thinking individuals with converging material and political interests, as opposed to a singular volatile and unreasoning entity, provides the sociological context to tug at the roots of the topical subject matter. Though a word on the relationship between the cancel culture narrative and the trend toward social media censorship might have been worthwhile.

[@sub-harmonik]

what exactly are you claiming is a "fiction"? people in mobs can have good reasons for being there, and also be influenced by the mob. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, or a contradiction. Just because you can find examples of mobs with specific reasons doesn't mean there aren't also mobs that are influenced by the mob. I'd be curious to see this applied to the original example of the french revolution, for instance. While the mob might have had good reasons at first, there was definitely an influence by the mob in motivating its members, especially as time went on. (rather than being motivated by reasons "outside the mob" and reason based on principles). I think it would be odd to claim that the revolution of the enlightenment ended in reason.

[@truther249]

While I can agree that individuals can be influenced by the mob, (groupthink) I don't think it would make someone do what they otherwise wouldn't. The way I think about it is that mobs are very complex, they are made of individuals that unite to achieve some objective, but people may join who have different thoughts and they agree on the objective but not on the reasoning for achieving it. But returning to my point, I don't think this groupthink can make people do something they wouldn't do otherwise, I think what it does is give people a means to do something, and when the mob realizes they can do something to achieve their goals (thanks to numbers), obviously they become a lot more confident in demanding it. There are layers to it as well, some mobs being mild and some are wild, some of them result in violence and most of them do not. There are also layers of ideology individuals can have within a mob, some of them may see things a bit differently like not agreeing on the methods but still wanting to achieve the objective, while some of them see no other choice, and choose violence to achieve the objective. To participate in a mob at all you have to agree to some degree to their cause, or what you think the cause is. People who attend BLM protests aren't just any individual who comes across it and decides to participate because of "group-think, man". They are most likely people who already had some previous political thoughts, they are aware of systematic racism and that agree with BLM. It would be very hard to catch a conservative at one of those, simply because of the difference in thought. And even if you do find them, they are liberal sympathizers, they have something left-wing about them that makes them go against their conservative origins, or else why would they attend a BLM protest, unless they want to shout at them and be violent against them trying to stop them (like police do). In short, I don't think seeing a protest or some other kind of mob action will make you join them for the sake of joining unless you as the individual have a problem, and you were just trying to find a way to commit acts of violence for the sake of committing acts of violence without ulterior motive. The people who do that are few and far between, they are always a minority. Even in BLM protests which many news outlets claimed are so violent and omg look they robbed a store, we should cancel BLM because a small percent of them committed acts of violence. And sometimes, violence is the only option, both for the police who want to silence and stop the protests by force (a form of controlled, justified violence), and the protesters (the minority of them) that do get violent because they're fed up with people being violent against them. It is self-defense at this point.

[@johnbuckner2828]

People with whom I identify are engaging in something, it seems virtuous and I want to be part of something big. No other thought needs to exist to get caught up in the madness of crowds; there might be rational reasons for the initial gathering, but once collective emotions override individual thought, the entity becomes it's own animal.

[@sub-harmonik]

@@truther249 I do think there is more of a potential for people to be encouraged or emboldened to violent acts if there's the perception that the group or community they are in will support or encourage those acts. Humans are often biologically motivated to do things based on securing social capital since that will reflect the willingness of the group to help an individual attain or retain material capital or materials necessary for survival. (a "safety net" or "support net") So while there is some factor of why the individual is there, or some initial motivation, I do think peer pressure and the social dynamics and encouragement of the group does come into play at some point. Even to the point of committing violent or destructive acts that an individual might not have been prompted to do otherwise. (not to mention that there is some safety in numbers). Just look at Jonestown or something. Or the charles manson family.

[@truther249]

@@sub-harmonik As I said, I think this could be the case in the most extreme examples, where the incentive to do violence and violent tendencies are already inside the individual. The instances where people in groups do things they wouldn't otherwise do like violence are rare UNLESS the group has a violent objective. If the group itself is like that, then by all means, it will happen, no doubt. It would be foolish to think the Proud Boys parades and all that nazi stuff will not have a tendency for violence, according to what they believe and their objectives

[@sub-harmonik]

@@truther249 the manson family didn't have a "violent objective" at first, and I would say that the french revolution grew violent past the point of just revolutionary violence (or their original goal). So the goal of a mob can change while people are in it. You could also say antifa groups gather for the purpose of violence, whether justified or not. (in the same manner the proud boys gather for violence)

[@harku123]

the acting at 9 minutes ish, that was good, gonna sub. I've watched a couple of your vids and they are fantastic, looking forward to watch more videos

[@radioactivedetective6876]

One might say that the Chorus is Sophocles' tragedies represented the mob, devoid of negative connotations

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Yeah, I think you're right that the "mob" as portrayed by the chorus is often portrayed as having much more insight than the central figures in Greek tragedy.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

If you can somehow easily reach a large audience and rant about being "cancelled" - it is contradictory evidence towards your claim....

[@nescius2]

does it matter? by doing that you can reach even larger audience as professional victim.

[@kopiboy7675]

I’m a Singaporean. Your videos are always so insightful, thought. Gr8 video! Keep it up!

[@EPICxXxDOG]

Damn, you could basically teach university level tutorials on these videos - that's the standard of quality and detail you provide. Excellent work Tom! I'm a final year student and I would have thoroughly enjoyed such a tutorial discussion.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, perhaps I'll have to start doing some seminar livestreams after each video goes out!

[@Firesites]

Page 1 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, comedy gold right there.

[@abdulmasaiev9024]

>the big dongles guys I completely forgot about them. Yeah, they're an example showing that the online dogpiling can in fact be an overreaction and outright just wrong. Yet, when you hear the loudest voices yelling "CANCEL CULTURE!" the supposed "cancellations" usually brought up and bemoaned are nothing like them. I wish we had some sort of a brake on online frenzies (there's some other examples that come to mind, like that time reddit went after an innocent guy while accusing him of being the Boston bomber), but the phenomenon of crying "cancel culture" isn't it and it only ensures no such thing will appear in the forseeable future.

[@sub-harmonik]

aren't there a bunch of studies that show that crowds are indeed more prone to being "mad"? It makes some sense bc members of the crowd are afraid of social and material consequences for defying it, even if the mob is unreasonable. It's kind of like a runaway social feedback whereby the perception of a crowd's opinion propagates the growth of the numbers of people who are socially and materially coerced into sharing that opinion by the mob, which in turn contributes to the perceived social strength of that opinion. seems pretty obvious. Echoing he prevailing opinion of the mob is motivated by a basic social instinct to be protected against the mob's criticism, and in order to gain social capital from the people in mob. This in turn is motivated by a basic human desire for survival, it prompts people to take actions based on securing material capital for survival, and to take actions that won't endanger procuring social and material capital. Going with the mob and not against it is based on that instinct due to the perception that the crowd can control the degree to which you will have access to material or social capital in a certain social context, or within a certain community.

[@Cibershadow2]

Yeah, the interesting thing is that studies mostly find the opposite is the case. Crowds act on sets of established principles, and those who deviate from those principles are punished. A peaceful protest will shout down and shun any individual (in or outside the mob) who begins attacking without provocation, for example. They do not lose all reason and become "mad", they still act very much within a framework. Social Identity Theory of crowds is really interesting

[@Cibershadow2]

It's also worth noting that crowds that become violent do not do so indiscriminately either, they become violent towards those that they perceive as being deserving of violence. Most riots attacking the police start not because the crowd is simply gathered, but rather because there is a perceived attack from the police on the crowd. Interestingly, kettling and many outdated "crowd control" mechanisms used by the US make these slights more likely and cause crowds to be more violent

[@Cibershadow2]

When crowd members are treated as rational human beings rather than animals in need of being controlled you get surprisingly peaceful resolutions to problems.

[@OneSpikeyGuy]

@@Cibershadow2 and what about polices force perceiving the crowd as violent?

[@caldie4338]

@@Cibershadow2 I think you missed the point entirely

[@matthewmcneany]

Interesting to contrast Le Bon's thesis with Milgram's experiment. My suspicion would be that an individual in a Mob is, if anything, actually less prone to violence than an individual placed in an authoritative structure such as that used by Milgram.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Current psychologists often use what's called the "social model" of crowds which is really interesting but probably slightly too complex to explain in a KZbin comment even if I could!

[@martinbond5166]

An interesting history and analysis of the mob, but in doing this the video seemed to get away the essence of cancel culture, the title of the piece. I have no problem with people piling in to criticise what I say, and I am quite happy to support my view or change my mind. It has happened frequently in the past. The problem with cancel culture is the attempt to prevent people speaking at all. Your video seems to slide between these aspects without clear boundaries, which I find confusing and suspicious. As an addition, my view is that trying to prevent people having a voice is wrong, but those instances of it happening on the left is miniscule compared to the wholesale silencing of voices undertaken by our mass media.

[@smugmode]

I think that's a whole other topic for a whole other essay. Nobody is ever truly silenced online, just shunned to the point they have to get creative and seek back channels or go about anonymously. I don't agree with it, but the majority of people affected by it support the rights of private corporations to do as the they see fit, so... **stares at the foot they shot themselves in** Government censorship is bad, we can all agree on that. Unless you're authoritarian, which so many on the left and right seem to support. He should make a video on censorship (specifically online) but with historical context included like with this essay. I would watch that

[@ryanwilliams3857]

Thats censorship thats different

[@consentclub8431]

"Cancel culture" and censorship are two very different things.

[@oliw9993]

Thank you for this video. It made me realize, that I should be more open to criticism and dialogue. That being said, I have a few criticisms of your video: 1. When scrolling through this comment section, the top comments were basically all just agreeing with your points. I didn't bother scrolling too far, but I guess there were some right wing trolls at some point. But nontheless, I didn't see a lot of constructive conflict, but instead a lot of homogenuity (idk if that's a word, english is not my native language, but I hope you know what I mean). So I would disagree on your point, that those online groups you mentioned in the end are heterogenous (same again). In my experience on german leftist Twitter, people just make political takes for their own bubble, and if someone disagrees, people are very quickly blocked. Sometimes I've seen people begging to be unblocked by prominent right wing or libertarian (the pro capitalist kind) figures, just to make a contest out of who gets blocked the fastest again. For revolutionary street cred, I guess. My point is, that a lot of leftist people are living their lives in the internet (or big cities), building up comfortable bubbles, where they can imagine, that they're extremely relevant, while fascists are gathering weapons, infiltrating the military, the secret service and the police and they've tried to storm the parliament in 2020, even before it was cool in the US. I think the internet has a lot of power, to pacify potential mobs, by giving them this illusion, before they even start, by giving them the feeling, that they already are part of a group doing relevant political activism. 2. Part of the beforementioned problem is, that I think leftists have a lot of problems with self criticism, and then changing their tactics (because obviously online activism does not work, at least not for 'us'). I'm saying this because you've mentioned that mobs are in general neither good nor bad. And I totally agree, but when you gave examples for bad or good mobs, you only took ones, that fit into a leftist narrative. So I want to bring up some examples of mobs, that would fit into a leftist narrative, but had (or could have had) undeniably bad consequences: -when britain decided to abolish the slave trade, british dock workers, who were depending on this, went on strike. Economically somehow understandable, morally highly questinable. -The french revolution failed. It first lead to the great terror, in which 2% of the french population were executed. And I think, this violence was counter revolutionary, because it could give the people some individual satisfaction, while autocrats slowly grabbed more power. And in the end, this indirectly enabled Napoleon to basically build up a military dictatorship. -Stalins 'cleansing' in the ussr also was a direct consequence of a mob starting a revolution, for legitimate causes of course, but still. I guess what am trying to say, is: With great mob, comes great responsibility, and just because a mob has legitimate concerns, does not automatically legitimize all following political actions. We have to be careful, and willing to criticize each other, to grow and become stronger, and better. We're not automatically the 'good ones', just because we say so. If anyone read this until here: Thank you, I appreciate it. Feel free to disagree.

[@OLucasZanella]

You gotta appreciate how, in scrolling, a lot of the comments above and below yours are hearted. Not this one, though.

[@johnwalker1058]

@@OLucasZanella Which, funny enough, helps to strengthen the point that leftists can sometimes struggle more with self-criticism as well as being able to receive and weigh criticism in critical self-reflection or introspection.

[@arturomacor3615]

You make great points in your criticisms. There is a lot of agreement in the top comments (and in the hearted ones as well), but it’s good to see someone put so eloquently what I felt was the main issue of the video. Also your English is pretty good, I’m no native but I’ve been speaking long enough to more than defend myself in the language.

[@nope8083]

@@OLucasZanella man agrees with the comments that agree with him internet is shocked, more at 7

[@Winasaurus]

Excellent points. I feel many political people have created their own echochambers of yes men, where they can put out a political opinion, and only be met with raucous applause. Because they're so eager to block the opposition, it doesn't become a game of debate, one side vs another, trying to debunk and correct and reach an understanding, it becomes 2 teams on opposite sides of a wall shit-talking the other team. It was meant to be basketball, but it turns out both teams are on different courts, dunking meaningless, easy points on the opposition goal. This is where extremism stems from. Because once you're surrounded by yes men, it's easy to mischaracter your opponents, little by little, till over time they're nothing like they started. Because all your yes men will agree with demonizing the other side anyway you go about it. So of course you get far-right extremists, supposing that terrorism is innate to foreigners. Because they suggest it to the far-right yes men, who have no problem agreeing with that. And of course you get far-left extremists, supposing that all police and federal agents must be tyrannical, their yes men said so. This also makes it really easy that when someone does slip through the cracks into sight of both teams, they are likely to get met with the absolute worst retaliation, as they've been stewing in hate for the other side for so long. You're not just a left-winger, you MUST be a commie, trying to turn children into trannies or the gays. You're not just a right-winger, you MUST be a nazi, seeking to exterminate all people unlike yourself, either overly or covertly. This results in people who think they've got a lot more importance than they actually do. Just look at how many people online claim they are fighting for "justice" or "truth" of some kind, from either side. It's almost comical. (Somewhat related, this happens in similar tight-knit communities. I worked in crypo for a while and those people are just as bad. Claiming things like "but just look how bad ethereum is doing against this altcoin! and that viral tweet about venezuela maybe adopting bitcoin! it should be shooting up!" without realizing that the global market as a whole doesn't really care for news that an individual finds important, or viral tweets.) And yes, one of the main issues with cancel culture is how it cripples self-criticism and learning from mistakes. It affects the modern left really badly due to a frequent notion that non-politically correct behavior is worthy of extreme punishment, regardless of context. Many many people have said dumb things when they are younger. And many of them nowadays don't think that way anymore, and they've grown as a person. The issue is that the mob isn't sated by "I'm sorry about those old tweets, I don't think that way anymore", because they are a mob, whipping themselves up into a frenzy. Apology? You need to be punished. We'll harass your employers to fire you. Just losing your job? We'll harass your family about the event. Just harassment? We'll doxx your address and send threats. Which is incredibly out of line for tasteless jokes 15 years ago. To be clear, this happens from both sides, but the initial spark is typically "You've said something you shouldn't have", which is more commonly encountered by the modern political left, in part due to wanting to police some language out of hate speech worry, and partly out of wanting to make sure the people making claims aren't hypocrites. If someone says something wrong in the past on the right, it seems more likely for people to just forget about it since it's not relevant anymore. The dream is that people stop just blocking people they disagree with and actually have a conversation. I disagree on most topics with most people. But I still am subscribed to plenty left and right wing people. What use is an opinion that's never been tested against another? Quickest way to learn something is to be corrected, and the only way that's going to happen is to meet and discuss with people from all different viewpoints to see who says what and why they do. I can generally tell I'm in a good place when the far-left call me a nazi and the far-right call me a commie in the same thread. Generally means I'm nicely in the middle.

[@macguffinmuffin1156]

What i'll take away from this video: "JKR is (part of) the actual mob!"

[@bbqseitan7106]

Joanne...

[@roberthogan6901]

I've always perceived cancel culture from the perspective of the criticized person. To me, cancel culture means that a criticized person, company or institution is AFRAID of reacting to a backlash in an appropriate way, by explaining their decision process or standing their ground against the accusations, because they fear a decline in public opinion and/or revenue. To me, it's not about the "mob" demanding that some statement or person is taken down/thrown out, it's about the criticized entity complying to that demand out of fear. And this is definitely a behavior that can be witnessed more and more, even in universities, where controversy should actually be celebrated instead of feared. When I use the word "cancel culture" it is to criticize the institution or company for giving the shit storm what they demand, without even trying to defend themselves. 2 examples I recall very well from the past 2 years: 1. In 2020, when the German Research Foundation celebrated their 100th anniversary, they published a short message formulated by a German in form of a video. In the context of the video, he used the wording "those who follow science, haven't understood science". The rest of the video provides the according of the context, from which it is clear that he meant "those who follow blindly", however, ripped out of its context, it can be easily understood as "don't listen to scientists", which happened and generated a big shit storm in social media, based on which, the video was removed again. Ironically, this lead to a second shit storm by people who had understood the message correctly, were now complaining about the cancel culture, which in reverse lead to the video being re-published after a few days. Perfect example of fear-of-the-social-mob, leading to cancellation (of a previously well curated piece of media) and to the cancellation of that cancellation. 2. I think it was last year, Robert Martin, one of the most prominent and most experienced software-developers in the world, you could say, got his invitation for speaking at a developer conference removed, after a social media shit storm was launched about his critique of Israel's settlement politics. As I'm not sure how critique of a country's politics influences your competence in speaking at a software-developer conference, I'd call that example also fear of the social media mob. These are just 2 examples that came right from the top of my mind from recent years. So, yes, maybe cancel culture is not as big as some may think (yet), but it's a starting trend that I can clearly see rising

[@consentclub8431]

Damn these comments just keep getting dumber and dumber

[@molotovmafia2406]

gotta show this to my mom who is into crowd psychology :)))

[@Tom_Nicholas]

There is some really interesting more recent stuff around the "social model" of crowds. Worth checking out!

[@aienbalosaienbalos4186]

How did she react?

[@andrewgreen5574]

@@Tom_Nicholas do you have any sources?

[@radioactivedetective6876]

Popular movements and street protests are always delegitimised as violent, irrational, destructive, purposeless, frenzied - everything that is "other" to Enlightened European civilizational order (essentially patriarchal and racist of course). And this has been built upon and perpetuated through mainstream culture and media. When I kept seeing the "Violence, Looting" headlines in relation to the BLM protests, and the constant representation of protesters as agents of pure violence and destruction of order, I remembered the portrayal of the "mob" in the climax of the 2019 film Joker, coz that is the false image of on-ground mass movements that we see repreatedly being portrayed or narrated to us

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I wanted to talk a little more about zombie films and how they draw upon (and reinforce) at least very, very similar ideas but, alas, it was a bit too much of a detour!

[@radioactivedetective6876]

@@Tom_Nicholas Ahhh, what an intetesting idea. Hadn't ever thought of zombie movies from that angle. That is a very fresh and interesting take. Will have that in mind while thinking about both "mob" representations and zombie films. Thanks. Love ur work.

[@dirtyfilthee]

Exactly. I'm sure none of the people who invaded the capitol building were caught up in the moment and they all had entirely rational, non-QAnon related reasons for doing so.

[@katherinemorelle7115]

Gotta worry about that “violence comma looting”!

[@katherinemorelle7115]

@@dirtyfilthee that’s... not the e point of this video. The point is to take “mobs” based on the individual circumstances and nuances of the situation. Some mobs are good, pushing for social justice and less inequality, some are... not so good. The capitol rioters were one of Tom’s examples to show that some mobs aren’t good. Did you not watch all the way through before commenting? Cancelled!

[@bizikimiz6003]

I was hoping you also get to the topic of online bullying and how it gets more organized lately. That is also a thing. Taking out the trash is important, but in my experience, there is way more here than what you have touched on. Also, there are mobs and lynch mobs, and if you mention history probably both need to be mentioned.

[@MagicToadSlime]

He did (kinda)

[@arlwiss5110]

he did

[@the8thsquare]

The most ambitious crossover in KZbin doesn't exis--

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, I was so grateful that everyone was up for it!

[@gaddyiii]

The authors you criticize equate "the mob" with twitter criticism and managerial class public relations. You seem to completely accept this premise as the foundation of your whole argument about mobs. You are right about mass politics, but twitter and public relations are fundamentally *not* mass politics. That is the problem with cancel culture: broader social problems are identified as individual failures to be shamed away rather than collective problems with collective solutions.

[@glitchygear9453]

This comment. Definitely. The reason cancel culture is stupid is because it's targeting things which typically aren't a big deal. There's a distinction even the least honest actors make between cancel culture and serious political issues.

[@chinggiskhan6678]

The point Tom is making here is that most of the time what is called cancel culture is really just companies whining that they received criticism for what they said.

[@hedgehog3180]

1. The point Tom is making is that the notion of Cancel Culture is being used to broadly de-ligitimize any kind of movement that uses the power or mass organization which you should be concerned about if you care about democracy. 2. If you have such a different idea of what cancel culture is than the one being described in this video then have you considered that he might not actually be talking about your idea? Your definition is so far away from what he was talking about that it's basically a completely different issue and it requires a completely different discussion.

[@OLucasZanella]

​@@hedgehog3180 Tom's definition that is completely out of the park. His examples are all about people creating a mob around the criticism of an idea and societal norms, challenging the government and people in direct power. When someone is cancelled, it's because the person is cancelled, not the idea. Using a topic from nowadays, BLM isn't cancel culture, it's precisely the will of a large group of people to change an idea, similar to his examples. When you cancel JK Rowling for transphobic tweets, you're cancelling JK Rowling, not transphobia. You may think JK Rowling is powerful, and sure, she is rich, but she's not able to change laws or remake society. I've only ever seen the term "cancel culture" applied when actions are done upon an individual, and often times the individual is nowhere near JK Rowling levels of power, they're just... people. Justine Sacco and all.

[@luckybear101]

The saga of you being “cancelled” is is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. The apology was pure gold. 😂

[@firetarrasque4667]

I think that we do not have enough scientists investigating the implications that Twitch Plays Pokemon has on crowd psychology.

[@firetarrasque4667]

There is no more pure an expression of a mob than TPP.

[@TrevKen]

Great video Tom. I'm a bit disappointed you never mentioned the counter-argument from books like The Wisdom of the Crowds.

[@limidlaa]

I've just finished this book today!

[@mpldr_]

I feel that this is a rather inaccurate representation of the "Anti-Cancel-Culture movement" (if we want to call it that). At least most I have seen so far, were rather aiming at the missing limiting factor. For a better worded example I can't recommend cosmic skeptics debate with the Oxford Student Union highly enough. I don't want to defend any cancelled individual specifically, but rather the method used being rather uncontrolled. I also don't say that shitstorms are necessarily a bad thing but should not exclude people - even those with vastly outdated mindsets - should not be ostracized by society, but rather calmly educated and shown why one might think they are wrong. Your portrayal of Bad-Tom was in so far accurate that being cancelled (in my experience) leads to further solidification of the idea they were cancelled over in the first place.

[@TumblrOzymandias]

I think anti-cancel-culture concerns that focus on the efficacy and ethics of public shaming are the minority. Although I've seen plenty of thoughtful critique, the vast majority of the times I've heard people complaining about cancel culture, they complain about liberal snowflakes, censorship of comedians, and threats to free speech. I do wish Tom had touched a little on those more valid concerns, particularly how little evidence there is that public shaming is a successful tool for justice. But the video is already 45 minutes long, and not everything can be covered lol.

[@consentclub8431]

Mate it sounds like you're mad at capitalism and social media algorithms. Thats how "outrage" is manufactured to begin with

[@laborkyle]

Very startling “wait that’s me!” moment while watching this. Nice work as always Tom.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, your bit about the Roman Mob in TheLitCritGuy's video was really useful in providing some historical context so thank you so much for that!

[@MegaBanne]

The thing with groups is that people feel more comfortable and can do things they otherwise would not dare. This is the point of a group, to empower the members. In a unified crowd you are able to stand up against the ones in power. In a unified crowd the people can hold a conversation at the same level of those in power. If the ones in power speak with violence the unified crowd will speak with the same language.

« France is not even real » 😭 so I’m robot,am I ? 😂

[@ariafiresong]

Sorry you had to find out this way.

@@ariafiresong 😂

[@aprofondir]

You nailed the masturbatory non-apologies KZbinrs love doing. It's so narcissistic and terrifying.

[@ShadaOfAllThings]

"Jess Antoinette" I am dead

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I'm so glad someone spotted this!

[@SpectralBoulevardier]

Does it matter whether a mob is rational or irrational? Rationality does not automatically make one right...and being right does not necessarily mean you should impose your will on others. The physchology of online mobs is relevant but does not negate the illiberal and anti-democratic way cancel culture works. And that is why it matters to me.