
1. Impressive Greta Thunberg Video
2. The Purpose of Cancel Culture
Last week I discussed how cancel culture forces people to choose sides
and join a tribe. To acknowledge nuance or to admit that the other tribe has
some valid points results in cancellation with consequences ranging from
social ostracism to loss of one’s job and professional opportunities. This
effectively silences discourse in the public square. What is the purpose of
cancel culture?
Silencing dissent is always done for the same reason – to hide dangerous
truths. Both the political left and the political right in the United States
have legitimate concerns and powerful arguments for their positions.
However, neither countenances dissent from within their ranks. Such dissent
would expose falsehoods, and these falsehoods are crucial to permitting the
harm, and sometimes outright cruelty, that derive from their positions. I
choose not to articulate the falsehoods of the left or the right, lest I be
cancelled like so many others. Perhaps the reason that I don’t fully speak
my mind reflects a lack of courage, but I insist that it is more my
dedication to help animals. If I were cancelled, a voice for animals would
be cancelled. Perhaps if there were more voices for animals, this would not
concern me so much. In any event, I really don’t think I need to articulate
the falsehoods – I think just about everyone can easily recognize obvious
falsehoods articulated by both the left and the right and knows what I mean.
For those convinced that their “side” speaks only truth, please consider the
following. Historically, people in general largely agreed about the facts
upon which public policies were based, but they often disagreed on questions
of values and priorities. Today, however, people on both sides are convinced
that the opposing side’s positions are based on obviously incorrect factual
claims about the world. Either a lot of people on the left or on the right
are delusional about the facts-on-the-ground, or both sides are wrong about
important factual claims. The former hypothesis seems unreasonable. Both the
left and the right have many thoughtful, intelligent people in their ranks.
Further, people who ideologically endorse liberal values, such as Glenn
Loury, John McWhorter, Bari Weiss, Bret Weinstein, and Heather Heying, have
called out falsehoods frequently articulated by progressives, and
conservative ideologues, such as David Frum, Peter Wehner, and Liz Cheney,
have similarly rejected publicly falsehoods from the right. I strongly
suspect that most people from both the left and the right recognize that
some of their claims are false, but due to either loyalty to their tribe or
fear of being cancelled by their tribe, they assert as truth claims that are
patently false.
I discuss this here in the context of the Christian Vegetarian Association
not because I fear for the future of our democracy (though I do hold such
fears), but rather because a post-truth world in which obvious falsehoods
are widely treated as self-evident truths is bad for vulnerable nonhumans as
well as humans. I will elaborate on this next.
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
3. All-Creatures.org Ministry
Newsletter: We Just published this week’s edition of our all-creatures Newsletter, which we hope you like and share with others to help stop the exploitation and killing of animals.