The Problem with Cancel Culture

The youngest generation takes “cancelling” to the next level

Gen Z is drunk on power, and it’s scary.

We as a generation, with a few clicks on our phones, can make or break someone’s career. The landscape of cancel culture has created an abuse of power wielded whenever there is a hint of controversy that bubbles to the surface of mainstream social media platforms.

More than we’d like to admit, most people have been a part of the media frenzy that quickly turns into the downfall or creation of the next best influencer. We laugh at TikToks, like posts, share photos and — whether or not we care to admit it — partake in the mob mentality.

On a more extreme level, there are “stans” — masses of teenagers that bombard comment sections with petty, dramatic and potentially untrue information to reverse the public opinion of a creator. While it can be clever and funny with the intention of protecting creators, it becomes a cause for concern once there is a collective movement aiming to destroy someone.

Our generation is constantly “switching up,” or changing opinion at a moment’s notice. Cancel a creator and we are gratified for being a “better person.” Still support the creator? You're labeled as a part of the problem, perpetuating a plethora of social issues.

Trisha Paytas is the poster child victim of cancel culture. It may be impossible to characterize her because of the eccentricity she brings to TikTok, but the number of offensive and outrageous things she has done have made her cancellable every other day. Some days people love her, other days they hate her, and it's the audience that gets to decide.

Of course, a clear stipulation is that there are instances in which a creator is unredeemable. To continue to support them can be undeniably unethical. But now that “cancelling” happens so often and is not always permanent, the value of exiling a creator is negated: someone who is maybe just not liked as much is put into the same category as someone with serious allegations against them. They are both now just “cancelled” creators.

Consider Axel Webber. He is a creator who recently rose to fame on TikTok for his charismatic personality after posting about his extremely small apartment in New York, street market peanut butter diet and dreams of becoming an actor. But only after a few weeks of the internet’s infatuation with him, users have gotten bored. So, the only solution must be to cancel him for allegedly being rich. Speculation has arisen that he comes from a wealthy family despite his cheap living style. This controversy originates from the views of those with nit-picky critiques who believe their views are undebatable, perpetuating a cycle of cancellations.

Now think about Chris Noth, famously known as Mr. Big on the show Sex and the City. He was cancelled for multiple sexual assault allegations. However, both Webber and Noth are thrown into the same category. It shouldn’t be the case, but this is what happens when cancelling is normalized.

Herein lies the problem with how we strip fame away. A named assaulter cannot be placed into the same category as someone who is cancelled for something that will be forgotten about in a month or two. It is a much more serious issue that has to be respected.

It is also not our responsibility as mere audiences to be a beacon for truth or adjudicators in the comment section of a scandal — there are grown-up jobs for this. Inserting an opinion is commonplace and widely accepted, but it is inappropriate to do anything more. The combination of self-proclaiming that our generation is the most “woke,” and the popularity of social media rising is what is encouraging this behavior. Therefore, instances arise where we shouldn’t be resorting to cancelling as a solution for extremely serious issues.

For example, we as a collective are not the lawyers of famous teenage TikTokers Jack Wright and Sienna Mae Gomez. These adolescent influencers appeared to be connected romantically in the past and were known for creating content together. Now, Gomez has been accused of sexual assault by Wright.Both Wright and Gomez have released public comments, which sparked public debate about the allegations.

We do not hold the responsibility or the moral right to be commenting on what is true and what is false. It is scary that we can go from cancelling Sienna for her actions to “picking sides'' when Jack wants to share his side of the story. This is delicate. And leaving unthoughtful and trivial comments on their videos — while perhaps insignificant — impacts the situation in a negative way.

Yet, our generation seems to hold the power to decide what is right and what is wrong because of social media influence. Users can take over a scandal that is unrelated to them and control the narrative to entice others to agree with them. And more often than not, they are inserting opinions on scandals that are out of context or they don’t have all the necessary information. Thus, opinions are misconstrued and inevitably based on false information.

We crave the entertainment of toxic internet behavior. It’s sad that we are enthralled by the public downfall of someone. Worse is that now cancelling has contributed to how we determine morality by the means of who is cancelled and what they were cancelled for.

Cancelling someone is a trend and should be treated as one: fleeting and temporary. It is not a solution for finding justice, and it is toxic in every sense.