The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved: Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech

Episode Date: March 10, 2021

Musician Ariel Pink is dropped by his label for attending a Trump rally. A top executive at Boeing loses his job because of an article he wrote decades ago opposing allowing women to serve as fighter pilots. JK Rowling is widely condemned for tweets her critics deem transphobic. All of the above were subject to social media ‘cancellation' campaigns they experienced as attacks on their free speech rights and personal reputations. For cancel culture's critics, shouting down a speaker in a lecture hall or labelling someone a racist for opposing affirmative action has nothing to do with social justice; it is about the intoxicating feeling of being part of a cultural mob motivated by grievance. To many progressives, so-called ‘defenders of free speech' are crying foul to protect their positions of power in society. It is high time, they argue, that people are held accountable for harmful words and actions including online. Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech, but a champion of it; it gives a voice to those who have been excluded for too long from important public conversations that challenge the power structures benefiting the privileged at the expense of everyone else.  Arguing for the motion is Malaika Jabali, public policy attorney, activist, and Guardian columnist. Arguing against the motion is Jesse Singal, contributing writer at New York Magazine and author of The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills. Sources: CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox News The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ The Munk Debates podcast is produced by Antica, Canada's largest private audio production company - https://www.anticaproductions.com/   Executive Producer: Stuart Coxe, CEO Antica Productions Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch Associate Producer: Abhi RahejaBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are options, and that's why we need to take this opportunity seriously. There's no way you can prevent global warming unless China is part of the solution. This is not normal male behavior. This is predatory behavior. We don't know how bad this bug is. We don't know what this bug does. All of that was thrown away in those eight minutes and 46 seconds, and that's the moment that I became an abolitionist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hi, welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day.

Free of spin, focused on the facts, and animated by smart conversation to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be a resolved. Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech. There's other breaking news we're following right now, the opinion editor of the New York Times. has just resigned amid an uproar over an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Finally, J.K. Rowling is trending on Twitter tonight, and it's not because she's putting out another Harry Potter book. The author sparked some pretty fierce backlash after posting a message of support for a woman who was fired for saying people can't change their biological sex.

Mandalorian star Gina Carrano has been fired. The news follows a social media post where Carrano had implied that being a Republican today is comparable to being Jewish and Nazi Germany. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. Cancel Culture, it's a term that has become part of our collective vocabulary over the past few years as public figures face online shaming and in many cases personal and professional consequences for words or actions deemed problematic and out of touch with progressive sensibilities. For Cancel Culture's critics, shouting down a speaker in a lecture hall or labeling someone a racist for opposing affirmative action

has nothing to do with social justice. It's about the intoxicating feeling of being part of a cultural mob motivated by grievance. To many progressives, these so-called defenders of free speech aren't being canceled at all. Rather, they're being held accountable

for their actions. If anything, what many people call cancel culture is actually a move towards freer, more inclusive speech, as new voices are being added to important public conversations. On this installment of the monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, cancel culture is not a threat to free speech.

Speaking for the motion is Malika Jabali, public policy attorney, activist, and guardian columnist. Arguing against the motion is Jesse Singall, contributing writer at New York Magazine and author of The Quick Fix Why Fat Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ill. Malika, Jesse, welcome to the Monk Debates. Hi, Roger. Hey, thanks for having us. Well, thank you both for coming on the program.

You know, this debate has been many weeks in the making on behalf of our production team. And, you know, it's a difficult issue. It's an issue that goes to strongly held personal views. It goes to a fairly urgent cultural debate that we're having at this moment. So the fact that both of you are here to engage with each other, to give us the opportunity to listen and learn is a privilege indeed. So thank you so much on behalf

the Monk Debates community for doing this. We've got a simple, concise motion to the point. It's be it resolved. Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech. Malika, you're arguing in favor of the motion. Let's turn the program over to you and have your opening statement. I'll start off by saying that I think those of us on this call can acknowledge that in a literal legal sense, cancel culture doesn't threaten free speech rights because those involve government actors. And what we tend to see when we're talking about cancel culture, these kinds of groups of people online. And they're criticizing someone for doing something offensive. And then a private sector company meets out some sort of punishment. You know,

that's just kind of a broad way that it's been applied. And there aren't First Amendment protections to keep your private sector job if a boss thinks that you harm their brand. That doesn't exist. But even if we think of it more broadly as kind of a value system, just something to uphold, I would answer the same way. I do think what we have done is kind of discouraged people from wanting to publicly examine race or other thorny issues. I think people feel discouraged to present challenging conversations. I think that definitely exists. And there's a fear of retribution if you are going to challenge a sort of accepted norm. But at the same time, I think we're also getting arguments from people who frequently have been locked out of these

conversations altogether. So on balance, what it does, in my view, is create a freer exchange of ideas. You're getting more people into the fold, more people's voices who are getting democratized than had been prior. Can people be overzealous and misguided and annoying? Yes. But being annoying online isn't a free speech threat. Even kind of threatening somebody's job isn't a free speech threat. It's bad, probably, but it's not necessarily a threat to free speech. Now, I do want to be clear, too, that I come from a black radical tradition and I focus on systems and institutions and not individuals. And over the years that we've had this debate, Rachel, and we've had hundreds of activists who've been jailed and assaulted, put on FBI watchless for expressing their freedom of

expression. And if we care about indiscriminate firings, for instance, right now workers in Bessemer, Alabama at a Amazon warehouse are trying to unionize. So if we care this much about firings and freedoms of expression, then we should do more to divert substantially more attention to those restrictions on our freedoms. Hey, thanks, Malika, for that opening statement. Jesse, we're going to put a couple minutes on the clock for you. You're arguing against our motion today, be it resolved cancel culture is not a threat to free speech. Take us away. Yeah, I mean, you know, I actually agree with a lot of what Malika said. Strictly speaking, if an issue doesn't involve the First Amendment, we can choose to consider it to not be a free speech issue. I disagree with that and we'll circle back to that in a minute. I will say the other risk of this conversation is I think a lot of bad faith conservatives up to an including Donald Trump himself have tried to sort of jump on the bandwagon of being anti-cancel culture. And often these are people who really have no problem punishing others for their political beliefs.

Donald Trump, of course, doesn't. You know, you talk about the Dixie Chicks, a band that was sort of semi-blacklisted for opposing the Iraq War in 2003, 2004. But at the end of the day, I think if you look around the rise of social media and sort of instant outrage really has changed things. I don't really think free speech can survive if you can get fired for expressing a lot of opinion. And that seems to be the direction we're headed. I've reported on, you know, one example of a college student who was driven from her home for death threats because she made a tasteless joke about a dead cop. But it was satire. I reported on another kid who made a comment about Zionist on a list serve.

And a student who was a supporter of Israel said she was traumatized by it. He got dragged into the administrator's office at the City University of New York, a public institution. And if Palestine legal hadn't picked up the case, who knows what it was. would have happened to him. I think there's a deep-seated human drive to punish people, and it's easier than ever to find excuses to punish people, and I think we should make a principled stance against that, which will include defending people who have uttered speech we dislike. Hey, thanks, Jesse. Now an opportunity for you to both react to each other's opening statements. So, Malika, passed the proverbial microphone back to you, a couple minutes on the clock, just to

have your response to what you've just heard from Jesse. Sure. I completely agree with Jesse that what's happened is that you have conservatives who have sort of taken over this mantle and are completely hypocritical when they talk about it. So as he mentioned, Donald Trump has talked about cancel culture. Meanwhile, he's sending federal troops into cities and snatching people up into vans. I've been able to see people assemble and police officers direct their ire at Black Lives Matter protesters and let other people go. by. And so we're seeing protesters and workers really be harmed by certain systems. And so what I wanted to distill a little bit is this idea that all form of, you know, online protest is this massive infringement of free speech from the fact that we do have these systems at play. And again, as I mentioned, I'm a leftist. I would like us to have less punishment. I would like us to be more gracious with each other. I believe in transformative justice, and I believe that people have a right to change. They should be given grace to do so. But Jesse's argument, I think, is on one end

of it. And I agree with a lot of what he says. But when you look at the broader conversation of cancel culture, it's not that nuanced. It tends to really direct ire at a group of marginalized people who have not had their voices heard in many settings throughout history. Thanks, Malika. Jesse, same opportunity for you. Two minutes to react to what you've heard so far from Malika in this debate. I guess I would question the concept of marginalization here. I think we often treat marginalization as this sort of on-off binary. Part of the reason for the existence of this debate is the Harper's letter, which I signed. And part of the reason I signed it is like, I'm not worried about my own employability in most contacts or getting punished for saying what I want to say. I think a lot of the like cancellations or whatever you want to call them or unjust firings hit people who are themselves marginalized or vulnerable. And I think the bigger issue is just the chilling effect of certain types of online behavior on everyone's ability to express themselves.

You know, I obviously agree with Malika on some of this. I might be stereotyping her, but my sense from her camp is that a lot of them will rush to defend, you know, leftists who get in trouble for speech, who get fired. for saying something that's seen as anti-cop or whatever. I just want those standards to apply to everybody. Obviously, if you have a Nazi in your workplace, that is damaging to the brand. I'm okay with Nazis getting fired. I don't think that's a free speech emergency, but it seems like the window of acceptable opinion seems to be shrinking a little bit.

And in some cases, even in journalism, genuine public policy debates are just getting a little bit weird and constricted and cartoonish, in part because I think editors know if you say the wrong thing online, you'll get, you know, a giant pile on. Now, that is not a world historical example of speech suppression, especially given what happened in the 20th century, but, you know, as a journalist, I worry about it. Hey, thanks, Jesse. Well, now we get to move into the moderated middle of this debate where I join you with the idea of trying to channel some of the thinking and questions of our monk debates audience. And I think often with debates like this, It's important to define what we're talking about.

So maybe, Malika, could I ask you to define cancel culture for us? What is it? I want that sense here at the beginning of the debate of how you and Jesse actually see this term and what it means. Frankly, I think it's difficult because the people who willed it apply to so many broad situations. So I'm coming into this conversation, looking forward to hearing how we're defining it. Because if you even look at the onset of where this idea,

idea came about. It came from largely black people on Twitter, sort of using it in a facetious way to say, oh, this celebrity is canceled, R. Kelly is canceled. This person is muted. And so it was used amongst black Twitter precisely because they couldn't control the levers of power to truly cancel anybody. So it was kind of used in a tongue-in-cheek way. And then that evolved somehow into an indictment of people, sort of making personal choices to boycott somebody. I think it's become misused to say that there is an entire mob of online people who are now coming after folks, coming after their jobs or social transgressions for being racist or sexist or transphobic or anything, you know, any of the terms that we use of the day. So that is how I've understood

people to use it, but it's been applied to so many different examples. And so Jesse, for instance, mentioned the Harper's letter. And so while it can affect people who are marginalized and who are victimized by the Harper's letter didn't talk about that at all. It talked about an author who wrote American Dirt, who still had a book deal, and who said some things that to some people was plagiarized. That was also offensive to Latinas. What did she plagiarized? That's a really big accusation. Oh, if you read a number of the articles about it, that was a blog post. Sorry, I read all the articles about it and wrote an article about it. That's a false claim that she plagiarized. She did not plagiarize anybody? Well, the point is that the claim is that it was out of plagiarism. It wasn't out of

outrage that she couldn't speak freely. It was out of outrage that she was coming up with phrases and attitudes that were offensive to Latina. So it wasn't, this is a useful, my frustration in a lot of this debate, including in the counter letter you signed, is there's this complete slipperiness with regard to the charges. You just accused a professional writer of plagiarism. I looked into that. It was nothing close to plagiarism. Shouldn't, I don't know if this is cancel culture per se, Janine Cummins will be fine. Either of us would switch places with her career-wise.

But like, shouldn't that matter that you just accused someone of plagiarism who didn't commit plagiarism? Well, if I did, you know, and again, kind of in the nature of free speech, you know, I didn't intend to. You know, I think we're talking about having civility in how we talk about things. And so if I said that, then that was an accident. What I meant to say is that there were charged. people who wrote about it said that she plagiarized. I don't know exactly all the details of it,

but the people who were responding, the people who are now being called a part of this online mob didn't do so because they just wanted to fire somebody. They did it because they felt that somebody was being racist towards them and that there were these other instances that came up with their professionalism. And so whether plagiarism did or did not happen, it wasn't just about being politically correct or being politically incorrect. If you look at somebody like Tom Cotton who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times. So I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. It had a very simple message, very simple, very common-sense message, grounded in American history and law supported by a majority of Americans,

arguing very simply, if the police cannot, or especially if they are not allowed to store order, then it is time to send in the troops. There are a lot of New York Times staffers who were offended by that, but their ultimate goal wasn't to say, oh, we can no longer have controversial opinions in our newspapers. It was, hey, I think we need a better process of accountability. I think we need to consider exactly what we publish and how it affects people. And so to call them an online mob that is threatening free speech that is getting people fired, there's a gap there. Just protesting something doesn't necessarily lead to, hey, they caused a firing.

The New York Times, for instance, they held on to the piece. They didn't do anything about it for a while. If you even look at the recent case with the gentleman, the writer who was on the coronavirus beat, this happened like two years ago. As we reported last week, the paper confirmed its lead COVID reporter, Donald McNeil Jr., had used a racial slur, the N-word, on a company-sponsored student trip. Editor Dean Bakay said then he concluded McNeil's intent was not hateful. But after staffers expressed outrage and a letter to management, McNeil resigned. And so because he had a union and because the New York Times backed him, they let him stay on the paper for years. But then we're directing our ire at these groups of people who are protesting and raising questions and saying, well, they're the online mob that's firing people.

And I have a question with that. I have questions about the fact that we are focusing on them and not thinking about corporate culture. We're not thinking about other factors. We're not thinking about the internal HR decisions that go into whether people feel like they need to resign or push their book deal back or whatever it may be. Thanks, Malika. So, Jesse, same question for you. because, again, this is very helpful to us to kind of try to get some definitions here to wrap around our resolution today, be it resolved. Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech. So,

do you share a similar definition as Malika as to what cancel culture is? Is there a spin that you want to put on it? I'm really curious. You know, I think it's not a great term. I'm sure I've used it as shorthand a few times, but like people, Malika is right, that people use it for so many different things. And to me, if there was a useful definition, it would be something like online overreaction and exaggeration trying to destroy someone who did or said something offensive. And of course, even that definition would be fraught because, like, who determines what's an overreaction, who determines what's offensive? The reason I brought up the false plagiarism charge is like, I'm looking at the letter Malika sign now, the counter letter. And my experience of engaging in

discourse with the people who think my position on this is ridiculous, is like they sort of make stuff up and distort stuff. The letter, which again, Malikas sign, so I'm not bringing up out of nowhere. It misrepresented the nature of the James Bennett firing and the Tom cotton op-ed. It leveled a false charge against a writer named Emily Yoffie. So I guess I would loop that in, if we have to use cancel culture as a term, there's like this sort of attempt to napalm people's reputations sometimes by distorting the truth. And that's been my experience, again, at the risk of overgeneralizing with Malika's camp. And like, I wouldn't sign my name to a letter if there was false stuff in it. I would make sure everything in there was

true. And I relish the chance to actually talk to somebody who signed the letter because it was, I just think there's this attempt to like paint people as evil that sometimes includes twisting the truth, to be honest. Hi there, Rudyard Griffiths, the moderator of the monk debates. Look, this we know. Our society is becoming dangerously polarized. We don't. We don't listen to each other, we don't search out opposing views. Instead, too many of us live in tribes, convinced that we are right and they are wrong. It's time to put a stop to polarization before it wrecks our democracy.

This is what the monk debates charity is all about, ending polarization, searching for common ground. We do this by producing the world's only weekly debate radio program through our monk dialogue series and through mainstage debates on the big topics of the day. Support civil and substantive public debate by becoming a monk member. As a member, you get access to our 10 plus year online library of great debates in streaming high-definition video, a free monk debate book of your choice, ticketing privileges, and so much more. 30% off when you use the promotional code, monk 2021, at our website, monkdebates.com. Again, that promotional code, monk, M-U-N-K-21221 at monkdebates.com.

Join now and help fight the polarization of our democracy. Now back to our program. So, Malika, a big part of this debate is about, as you said in your opening remarks, about the kind of conversations that we have as a society. And do you acknowledge that the cancel culture movement, as you've defined it, which is this very at times angry, at times vibrant? You know, I'm going to not mischaracterize or characterize it too much. but it is an online movement.

Would you concede that it has features that are just simply not conductive for better public conversations about the big issues and ideas that matter, that it is undermining our collective ability to have conversations with each other, or do you reject that assumption? I think any movement can have counterproductive elements to it. What I have a problem with is this disproportionate attention given to it. And so for talking about the Harper's letter and talking about, you know, misinformation, the things that the Harper's letter said is that this was widespread, that this is basically damaging America and putting it on the same terms as, you know, a fascist Nazi regime. And I question that kind of alarmism and that kind of hype.

But this is the same thing of just like making stuff up. That kind of is. Well, I let you, I let you speak, Jesse. Yes. But if you actually look at the letter, it was there. the words are that this is widespread. Some of the comments that you've said yourself is that this is happening amongst a niche group of people.

Barri Weiss has said that this is happening amongst people who are out of touch with the rest of the country and they're in another universe. So speaking of contradictions, how can you on one hand say that this is widespread and damaging America and then say that people are actually in a far out galaxy and they're overrepresented and they don't really represent the majority of people?

At the end of the day, I'm worried about workers who are in warehouses. I'm worried about working class people. My focus is on folks who are being hauled into vans, who are being incarcerated, who are being jailed and assaulted. I think that is what is harming America. The fact that we are now saying that these largely black people, Latino people, young progressives are what is really damaging America. I think we have to question that. I'm just going to keep circling back to this because like the facts matter.

And I don't want us to fall into this sort of almost not true. Trumpy, but sort of Trumpy, like taking people seriously but not literally. If I had signed a letter saying that cancel culture was akin to fascism or Nazism, that would be grotesque. And that's what you just accused me of. And I'm Jewish. And of course, I don't think cancel culture is like, shouldn't it matter that you can't accurately tell me what was in the letter I signed? Why should that not piss me off a little bit? I think you can be pissed off. And so I think we're also talking about different types of things. The original question is, is this a threat to free speech? If you look at the letter, it says the forces of liberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful

ally in Donald Trump. And so what the letter then says is that we have to speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides. So if you are comparing Donald Trump, who has been compared to a sort of fascist regime, to then people who are not providing a free exchange and saying that this is an all-sides debate, then I think it is fair to say that we're giving undue attention to the left if we are now drawing parallels between them and Donald Trump, who the Harper's letter says represents a real threat to democracy. Sure, but I'm just reading directly, resistance, meaning resistance to Donald Trump, must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma coercion, which right-wing

demagogues are already exploiting. So I signed the letter because it basically was saying Trump poses this world historic threat. We can't let our response to him hardened into something that starts to look a little like him. The only aspects of it I'm concerned about are where, like, real people get in actual trouble. And I hear from people who, like, feel like they can't disagree with the training their university is doing. I'm writing a story about a woman who was investigated. Her school spent maybe a quarter million dollars because she didn't like. like a Robin DeAngelo training. And I think those stories are more common than people think

they're not the end of the world. But I feel like if you mention them or criticize them, you're somehow seen as not down with the cause. And I don't like that because I think we should be able to look at ourselves. I just think we should be able to critique our own side. And I'm seeing a resistance to doing that. Yeah, I think there is some, there's definitely some resistance. If you work in organizing spaces, we argue all the time and try to challenge each other on our ideas because we ultimately we have certain goals in mind to advance society as a whole. And I do think that there are problems with people, like I said, feeling like they can't say anything online at the risk of getting fired. I also think that we need to put this in certain contexts and the proper scope

at which these things are happening. Thanks, Malik. Let's just refocus a little bit on our resolution, which is be it resolved. Cancel culture is not a threat to free speech. So, Jesse, I'd like to hear a little bit more from you on why you think it's a threat to free speech. You brought it up in your last interjection in this debate about how you, I don't want to mischaracterize your view here, but what I'm sensing is you have a feeling that it's kind of suppressing the range of speech in kind of negative ways within institutions. Is that your particular kind of concern as to cancel culture's effects on, quote, free speech writ large? Yeah, I mean, setting aside my qualms with the term cancel culture itself. That is more or less what I'm seeing. And I agree with Malika that.

If I had two levers in front of me and one was to fix that, the other was to fix the over-incarceration of poor people and people of color. Of course, I would choose the second lever. And that's not what I'm talking about here. And of course, if a conservative says cancel culture is a bigger threat than the American system of criminal justice, I would disagree. The fact is that because I became like, quote unquote problematic in an online way or quote unquote controversial, I do hear from people inside newsrooms who feel like they can't push back on fairly basic important debates like defunding or abolishing the police or, you know, some of the gender stuff I've gotten in trouble, not being anti-trans, but having questions about puberty blockers or when kids should transition.

And I just think like if media is going to differentiate itself from activism, and that's really our only added value is if we can prove we're different from activism, we need to. open debate on some subjects that make some people uncomfortable. And to the extent I have like a cancel culture critique, that's it, that people are so worried about a Twitter pylon. I do think it's sort of affecting newsrooms a little bit and affecting, I probably hear the most from academics, but I'm more familiar with what it's doing to journalism. So that's my main great. Thanks. So, Malika, this is a great point to come back to you and just get a counterview on an argument that maybe many listeners feel is justified that there is an implied kind of mob threat out there

on the part of a progressive left who is seeking out people who are making these perceived mistakes. Can I just jump in to make sure I'm not accidentally misrepresenting? I don't think there's a giant mob. I think the problem is that if even 50 people get mad at an institution online, the institution will turtle a little bit and view that as like, view those 50 people as representing the public. So I'm not sure it's always a huge mob. Sorry about that. Yeah. No, no, no, fair enough. I mean, I think it depends on, yeah, the situation in the experience,

but that's a, that's a good point to make. But what I want to try to have a reaction to you here from Malika is just, are you concerned as someone who is all about, you know, a dynamic, vibrant, you know, democracy that is inclusive? Are you concerned about the kind of the quietism that, let's face it, has creeped into a lot of our conversations. We can't deny that. Or is that quietism a good thing? Is that quietism maybe in other people's experience white privilege checking itself at the door for a change? I think both of those can be true. I do think that there is a concern about people feeling like they can't express themselves freely as I opened up my remarks with. If we're going back to the prompt, though, I don't think that

that's necessarily free speech, being concerned about having somebody react to you. If you write a piece, that is offensive. I don't think that threatens free speech. You still have the ability to publish anywhere you can publish on medium. You can do whatever you want to do. And in a lot of these cases, there are, these are confidential personnel decisions. So we don't know what led to people being fired or being forced to resign or whatever it may be. But I do think that we should be concerned about the fact that folks don't feel like they can express varying opinions. Again, as a leftist who promotes a lot of opinions that most people don't agree with, I would behoove me if I wouldn't be able to express those things because I felt like I was going to be jailed, just to answer your,

the second prompt is, yes, people are challenging white supremacy more, and I think that's important. And I do want to acknowledge that a lot of people are entering the space for the first time. If we were to contextualize this a bit, a lot of this is coming out through the Black Lives Matter movement. And so you had people respond by buying, you know, white fragility on Amazon, and making all these black books, you know, the number one seller and municipalities scrambling to have like a Juneteenth celebration. And so people are trying to figure out in the kind of limited liberal capacity that they can. What does it mean to not do that? What does it mean to not perpetuate racist systems and oppressive systems? And what does it mean to not to not perpetuate

transphobia? So I think people are still kind of grappling with that and trying to figure out what it looks like, and it doesn't come out always in the most productive ways. It's messy. I don't necessarily think that that's a threat to free speech. Thanks, Malika. So as we move towards closing statements, I'd be interested in me to start with you, Jesse, if we look back, let's say 10, 20 years in the future at this cultural moment that we're in, where there's a lot of conversation, debate, let's say anxiety around cancel culture. What will it look like to our future ourselves. Will we see this as the beginning of some larger movement? Will we see it as a kind of turning point? Or will it, in the broader sweep of things, be kind of insignificant to the trajectory

of our civil society, our democracy? Oh, my God. If I could accurately answer a question like that, I'd be so much more successful. What I think the right read on it is like there's these two movements that aren't exactly connected. One is like the legitimate fight against police brutality and racism in general. And there is a movement to reform systems like the criminal justice system and to try to figure out why they're unfair and why they're racist. I do think like there's also a little bit of a moral panic, especially among white liberals who are vulnerable to charges that were not down with the cause enough, that we're racist.

And I think some of the overreach, some of the sort of Robin DeAngelo sermonizing, is a little bit of a moral panic. And it's like wealthier liberals who aren't about to give anything up or like change the zoning laws in their neighborhood or change the school system and property tactics, but just really want to performatively demonstrate that they're so anti-racist. So I would like people to separate out those two movements a little bit, like the more legitimate materially focused when Malika mentioned. And then just like a lot of culture war, moral panic bullshit, if I'm allowed to use that term. So I think that's what this error will go down on, but I really don't know. So, Jesse, just to refine that a bit, so you think the bullshit just is bullshit and it really is, it doesn't carry itself forward into a larger crisis around free speech. Am I hearing you right?

I think the bullshit is the part most responsible for perpetuating, I wouldn't call it a crisis, but some of the issues with free speech, like, because I think privileged white liberals, it's so important. important right now to be on the white side or white side, Freudian slip. And I think that manifests itself as an attempt to shut down others and punish others. And I'm not saying it's only white liberals participating in what we might call cancel culture, but I do think there's an element of moral panic that exacerbates everything. And I don't think it's like genuine activists on the ground trying to like fight police unions who are spending time online trying to cancel people for the most part. And Malika, same question to you. What are we supposed to take away from this in terms of understanding where this movement goes from here.

Is council culture now a kind of feature of our civic reality? Does it morph into something else? I mean, you're deep into these movements. So where do you sense that it's going? I think it is kind of a both-and situation. I think we have seen people respond hastily through this sort of moral panic in previous areas. I think you've also seen counter-protests. to people being awakened on race.

I think some people are ignorant and don't really know what to do about systemic racism. That's a big thing. So it's easier to create a hashtag. I don't think that all of it is based on this sort of anger to take somebody down. I think it's like, well, I don't know what else to do, but this seems like a good idea and other people are doing it. So let me do it. I think that this has risen through the context of what we're in right now, through people

who have legitimate. grievances about power dynamics, who have legit grievances about capitalism, who have legit grievances about the police state and having their freedoms of expression restricted. I think those all come from legitimate places in terms of those movements. And I think there are some people who aren't going to be in the streets who don't really know what to do. So online is an outlet to do that. And whether that continues, you know, far into the future, no one really knows. But this sort of outsized attention to say that this is widespread. and then on the one and then say it's also niche, I think there's a contradiction there.

I just want to say I agree completely that like not everyone in the moral panic side is like in it to hurt people. I think a lot of them are confused and feel cut off from the struggle and it manifests itself in unhealthy ways. But I completely agree with that. Jesse, let's move to closing statements. I'm going to put a couple minutes on the clock, your opportunity to kind of wrap up the key arguments that you want to leave our audience with today. Yeah, I mean, I appreciate the chance to talk to Malika about this. I do think there's a fair amount we agree on. I mean, I do just want to circle back. Like, my, I entered this conversation a little bit defensive because, like, the letter and some of the other stuff, people in her camp,

again, I'm overgeneralizing, have said just like isn't true. There's a little bit of a slipperiness with their arguments. And I just wish they'd be more rigorous. It would help their side. If I couldn't point to stuff they'd said and was like, that's not true, including the plagiarism charge. It doesn't sound like we disagree on this either. But I think for the left, however you frame that to succeed. There has to be a healthy culture of self-criticism. And there have been a lot of times in the past when messages that seemed woke or whatever you want to call it, righteous, at the time, history swept them away because it turned out they were not right. And I think the only way you need like an evolutionary process of what messages work, what ideas work. And I'm worried a little bit of

things have gotten a little sclerotic, especially now that the left is sort of cleaved into the anti-cancel culture camp and the anti-antle culture camp. I'm worried any idea that seems to come from one side will be knocked down by the other. And that's not healthy. So, yeah, I wish there could be a little bit more unity, if only to get to like our substantive policy disagreements. Hey, great ideas, Jesse. Maliko, we're going to give you the last word on this debate. So two minutes in the clock for you to sum up. I think what's interesting about this conversation is that we tend to focus on cancel culture, but we ignore a myriad other factors in our culture that can lead to people feeling like they can't speak up online or they can't express their ideas.

I think a lot of what's happening is also corporations who are overcorrecting, corporations who don't actually want to meet the material needs of people. You have a publishing industry, for instance, that is still majority white. You have a media industry that is still vast majority white and male, a film industry that is majority white and male. Most people don't have the power to affect the publishing industry for the most part. A lot of the so-called cancellees of who are being harmed and victimized by cancel culture, if you want to talk about specifics and facts, many of them move on to have very successful careers. If you look at one of the young adult fiction authors that he talked about

who couldn't publish her book at the time, she eventually was able to publish it. She has a three book deal, a six-figure deal. in fact. And this happens to a lot of people who are quote, unquote, canceled. So if we're going to use words, I think we should be aware of what they actually mean. So what does canceling mean? I don't really know. And I do think it's a problem with the fact that we have people who are impertinent and impatient online. Do I think that's a threat to free speech? No. But I do think we should be cautious about not focusing on real material harms to people, not focusing on real restrictions. of freedom of expression and trying to sort of meet out punishment to people who have individual transgressions.

Thanks, Malika. And thank you, Jesse. You know, this is a controversial, tough subject to discuss. It wasn't easy for our producers to find two people of opposing views willing to come on and have a civil and substantive conversation. So the fact that you two volunteer to do this, you've engaged with each other, you've listen to each other's arguments. We've decided not to agree on cancel culture. That's good. That's what this debate was all about. But I think we have achieved something. It's kind of important, kind of nice, a civil and substantive debate.

So on behalf of the monk debates community, Malika, Jesse, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you both. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Jesse Singal, and Malika Jabali. They certainly gave us a lot to think about. And, hey, if you have any feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, please send us an email at podcast at Monk Debates.

We'd love to hear your debate ideas as well as opinions on this debate or any of the debates on our podcast feed. Again, that email podcast at Monk, Debateswithan S.com. The Monk Debates is that place for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. To listen to more debates on everything from climate change to religion, to geopolitics, politics to the future of human progress, visit our website, www.w.w.munkdebates.com. And thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debate, one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are produced by Antica Productions and supported by the Monk Foundation.

Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gurwitz are the producers. Api Rahaja is the associate producer. The Monk Debate podcast is mixed by Kieran Lynch. The president of Antica Productions is Stuart Cox. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.