How to Solve Cancel Culture (a Modest Proposal)

We have entered a new age of puritanism, one in which the threat of being held accountable for one's words and actions hangs over us all like the sword of Damocles. It seems nowadays that no sooner has a famous person been exposed as a bigot or a sexual predator, than the censorious McCarthyist left has chosen not to listen to the music they have made, or read the books they have written. Never has free speech, and the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want, with no consequences been in such peril.

But fear not, I have a solution.

Cancelling artists, or any public figure is now banned.

I know what you’re thinking… With all the consternation about cancel culture, surely if it were so easy to ban cancelling, we’d have done it already. Well, I have more good news for you; it’s easier than it sounds, it’ll just take a little effort. And us right upstanding folk, who aren’t constantly triggered by every little racial slur and sexual assault, have never been afraid of a little hard work.

To explain my (modest) proposal, I’ll give you an example of how it would work. Say Louis C.K. rolls into town to do a comedy show. Everyone within driving distance of the venue, who doesn’t buy tickets, will be firmly but politely asked why. If they say that they have not heard of him, that’s fine. If however, they say that they are troubled by, or believe the allegations against him, that’s cancelling, and it’s not allowed. They will have to buy tickets then and there.

If they say that they do not find him funny, this will prompt further investigation… If they have never found him funny; if his brand of humour, or the way he delivers it, is not their cup of tea, they will be allowed to go on their merry way. If, however, they would have found him funny, but his actions have cast such a pall over his persona, that they can no longer laugh at his jokes, then they must buy tickets, and grit their teeth through the entire show.

This is not even as difficult as it sounds. Modern technology means that we need only send in human inquisitors for the most obstinate of cases. Most people can be asked these questions via their electronic devices; facial recognition software, and the webcams that are standard on these devices can analyse whether or not people are lying to get out of a state-mandated comedy show by a sexual predator.

And thus, Louis C.K. is no longer cancelled! (some may say he was never cancelled, since he continues to perform shows and release comedy specials. But those people are just triggered).

Say you see a copy of the Space Jam soundtrack in the local charity shop, you pick it up, a happy memory of singing along to I Believe I Can Fly at the age of 11 while jumping on the bed bubbling up in your mind, yet you do not drop a dollar and take the CD home. You too can expect some questions. Are you simply following the trend away from physical media? That’s fine. Are you trying to cruelly silence a multi-millionaire sexual predator, by making a personal choice about your music-listening preferences? Well, you’ll have to go back to the charity shop, and buy that CD, or another copy (I suggest Ebay), if it has already been bought by someone else (probably someone doing their duty to protect our freedoms. #FreedomAintFree).

If an episode childrens’ show teaches the moral that spiders are harmless and friendly, and a TV station in a country with many species of deadly spider elects not to air that episode, this too is not allowed. Australian toddlers must be free to have a cartoon pig tell them that they should play with spiders, or else the terrorists have won.

(The raving left will no doubt tell you that the episode is hardly banned, as it has, in fact, been aired in Australia, with no kind of repercussions or censure for the broadcaster. It’s a sign of their lunacy that they would imagine such details to be relevant).

I could go on listing examples of great art that will be saved from the bonfire by my proposal, but it may be helpful at this point to discuss cases which may seem similar, but are not examples of cancel culture, and are therefore not effected by my proposal.

It’s not uncommon to hear of cancel culture being metaphorically compared to book burning. Well, the state of Tenessee just held an actual book burning. They literally burned books! The event provides an ideal illustration of something that may seem like censorship or cancel culture, but is not, for reasons. The Tennessee book burning was held by evangelicals, burning copies of the Harry Potter and Twilight series, thus its aim was to protect the sensitivities of white Christians, not those of the young racially diverse proponents of cancel culture.

Metaphorically burning Harry Potter books by criticising author J.K. Rowlings’ bigoted unscientific views on Twitter is not allowed. Literally burning Harry Potter books, by throwing them into a fire, because of religious superstitions about demon possession is allowed. I hope this clears things up.

Another parallel that demonstrates the distinction between cancel culture, and good old fashioned common sense conservatism is the outrage over Dr. Seuss’ most beloved and well-known books being banned, due to “racist” illustrations. The left, as usual, ranted and raved that Dr. Seuss books had not, in fact, been banned; rather, the author’s estate had elected to cease publication on a handful of obscure titles. Fortunately, most mainstream media outlets recognised their ravings for what they were, the insane babblings of the perpetually offended left.

Meanwhile, the American Library Association counted 330 books that were challenged as objectionable in the fall of 2021 alone. These books include those that concern antiracism and LGBTQIA+ issues. And currently, every single state legislature that’s controlled by Republicans in the U.S., that’s currently in session, is considering some sort of educational gag order. Again, as this appeals to the sensibilities of conservatives, it is not censorship, and is therefore allowed.

To clarify further, here is a short, and not exhaustive list of what is and is not allowed, going forward (assuming this proposal is put into action, which is just common sense).

If the above list seems confusing, or even contradictory, it will all become clear when the plan is put into place. Trust me, when my proposal is in action, you’ll quickly see a pattern in who is and is not allowed to silence others.