Streetwise Professor

Though he’s not really worth the pixels, the hue and cry over the suspension (not firing–yet, anyways) of the beyond execrable Jimmy Kimmel compels me to respond. A reply is warranted primarily because of the alleged hypocrisy of those who criticized (and criticize) cancel culture yet called for and applauded his current hiatus (again, apparently temporary). This implicates issues far more important than the fate of a single media twat. It is essentially an attempt to beat back a social revolution that threatens those who occupy the commanding heights in media, academia, and government.

First, the criticism is a pitch perfect example of the “no punchbacks,” “no fair mommy, he hit me back!” mentality of the left. Deferring to this mentality out of fear of being called hypocritical is a recipe for submission to abuse into the infinite future. In a repeated prisoners’ dilemma, which accurately characterizes politics generally and current American politics specifically, tit-for-tat (i.e., punchbacks, and bigtime) is an evolutionarily successful strategy. Always cooperating in the face of defection (i.e., bending over when your adversary screws you) is a strategy that ensures extinction.

This mentality–strategy really–of the left can be devastatingly effective if one’s opponent falls for it. And alas, too many on the right are doing so. Hence the left is currently turning it up to 11. Smart by them, dumb by those who fall for it.

Instead, the appropriate reaction is the late, lamented Andrew Breitbart’s:

Say it loud. Say it proud.

Second, the most egregious aspects elements of High Cancel Culture involved the employment of government coercion to silence dissenting voices on social media. (Cf., The Twitter Files). For this reason, it was beyond wrong–and beyond stupid–for FCC Chair Brendan Carr and Trump to threaten revocation of ABC’s license if it did not do something about Kimmel, and indeed to threaten generally the revocation of licenses of broadcast outlets (that unlike cable, social media, etc.) that subject to “public interest” licensing conditions if they air things the administration doesn’t like.

Meaning that these were unforced errors that made Kimmel et al martyrs. Further, do not unsheathe a weapon that is likely to be in your enemies’ hands someday. Especially when that enemy has no compunctions whatsoever about punchbacks.

The public outcry over Kimmel’s false, slanderous, and disgusting remarks was likely sufficient result in sufficient market pressure on Disney to cause it to get rid of him. By opening their mouths, Carr and Trump (whom I know can’t help it) created countervailing pressure. Moreover, they have distracted attention from the odious content of what Kimmel said, and what far too many others on the left had said.

In other words: Never interrupt your enemy while he is in the middle of making a mistake. Carr and Trump have done exactly that.

Relatedly: Pam Bondi needs to STFU about “hate speech.” That insidious concept has been the primary means by which free speech has been undermined, and by which non-leftists have been silenced on media, social media, and especially college campuses. This, combined with the “Epstein files” fiasco, suggests that Bondi is hell-bent on validating blonde jokes.

Third, Disney/ABC provided Kimmel a platform to express his views and paid him to do it. He has no right to that platform and pay that allows him to say anything he wants. If those views–lies, in this instance–displease his employers, they are perfectly justified in terminating him, thereby denying him that platform. He can go out and find another platform. (Hello, Substack!). Meaning that absent the Carr/Trump own goal discussed above, there would be no question about infringing Kimmel’s rights.

Fourth, this gets at an issue that pervades the entire cancel culture debate: Rights vs. right. First Amendment rights protect the people against the government. Put crudely, the government cannot censor or punish speech (with exceptions like making threats of imminent harm). But with the exception of things like the Biden administration suborning Twitter, Facebook, MSM, etc., most of cancel culture does not violate Constitutional rights. (Censorship by public primary and secondary schools and public universities arguably would. Censorship by most private schools arguably would as well, under Grove City). It is an exercise of social coercion, not government coercion.

It is therefore an issue of whether it is right to object to, and in some cases sanction or even suppress, speech. And here the difficulty is that like almost everything in life, categoricals are counterproductive. There are trade-offs. Judgments must be made.

That is, the costs of some kind of speech exceed the benefits. The question is deciding when that occurs–and crucially, who decides. And that is the real issue.

The reality is that as the result of its successful march through the institutions, the left has achieved a near monopoly on deciding. And it has decided that speech that deviates from (today’s!) leftist orthodoxy is unacceptably costly, and that virtually any action (not just spoken or written words) that conforms to that orthodoxy is sacrosanct. “Your speech is violence! My violence is speech!” With “your” being conservative/right, and “my” being progressive/radical/left. And it enforces this decision with myriad coercive means. Social ostracism. Intense harassment. Deletion from social media. Expulsion from school. Loss of job and income.

The counterrevolution against cancel culture is driven by a deep conviction among a large number of people that this monopoly of social force and the means it employs are wrong and must be overthrown. They are wrong because they enforce an Animal Farm all-animals-are-equal-but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others hierarchy that violates the equality of citizens, and the equality of human beings. It is wrong because it is fundamentally coercive, and applies this coercion to behavior that those who are not ideological leftists strongly believe is not only not harmful to others, but is in fact in many cases is quite beneficial both to individuals and society. (Religious devotion and speech are examples of the latter).

In brief, the beef is “who died and made you God?” At root, it is an argument about social equality–of which equality before the law is only a part.

Thus, in the end it comes down to what is beyond the pale, and who decides what is beyond the pale. Vast swathes of people who have not been privileged to be deciders, and who have been persecuted by those who are so privileged, have taken it upon themselves to decide that what Jimmy Kimmel said about Kirk’s murder and responsibility for it is far, far beyond the pale. And that what all too many doctors, “educators” (gag), government employees have said is far, far beyond the pale. And that they should pay a price for these transgressions.

The hypocrisy charge thus comes down to a category error. That error being that “if you objected to the pale before, you cannot insist on a pale now.”

No. The argument has always been about where the pale lies, who establishes it, and who enforces it. And the “Fuck you Jimmy Kimmel–War!” response is a revolt against where it was drawn, who drew it, and who enforced it.

It is, in short, a social revolution. A challenge to the social order, rather than to government per se.

The irony is that leftists usually fetishize revolution–except when they are in power. And since they are in power in virtually all institutions–academia, government, media of all types–this revolution horrifies them. And that reaction is precisely what shows that this revolution is a righteous one.

There is no symmetry between the evil lord in a castle exercising the power of coercion, and the peasants with pitchforks and torches storming the gates to overthrow him. Our evil lords are trying to get us to disperse by appealing to a sense of fairness based on an assertion of just such a (false) symmetry.

Don’t get fooled again.