# Cancel Culture and Canceling versus consequences for actions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2025, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancel-culture-and-canceling-versus-consequences-for-actions/1020644 "2025-07-08T22:55:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 602
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancel-culture-and-canceling-versus-consequences-for-actions/1020644/602 "2025-07-17T08:11:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It absolutely is not. Nor is this: Please help clear this up, because I find it somewhat disturbing. You said: > [@Miller](#): > > I’d be profoundly uncomfortable in a safe place for autistic people to socialize without masking, because to me it would seem like everyone is being a jerk to me. Would you, or would you not, perceive all or most unmasked autistic people in a safe space as acting like jerks towards you (even if you conciously know they are likely not doing so)? If yes, is that based on experience, or just speculation? You mentioned a hypothetical guy who’s non-verbal cues are coming across as hostile. It’s easy to understand how you would perceive him as jerkish. But you said ‘everyone’. Do you believe all or most autistic people are like this? And then you said: > [@Miller](#): > > But if I know I’m in a safe place for people with autism, and I start insisting that everyone start masking around me because it makes me uncomfortable, _I’m the one being a jerk._ Now, saying it would be jerkish to demand autistic people mask in a safe place for autistic people does not necessarily mean you think it would not be jerkish to demand they mask outside that space. But you should not be surprised if someone interprets it that way. Why add the condition otherwise? Perhaps you just meant it would be _more_ jerkish to make that demand in a safe space? Or maybe that it would be reasonable to make that demand in a safe space for a different group of people? * * * > [@Kimstu](#): > > Miller didn’t say that a safe space is intended to ban people because of “who they are”. It’s intended to keep out people based on what they do. > > Nobody’s saying, for example, that a transphobic person can’t attend a trans-inclusive Ladies’ Night event or whatever that a local venue is offering. But if the transphobic person can’t resist her inclination to do and say transphobic things at such an event, then her ass is getting banned from it, not because of “who she is”, but because of what she does. I think this is probably a pointless argument over terminology, since you are agreeing with my understanding of what it means. Besides, @crowmanyclouds has helpfully reminded us that there do exist safe spaces where groups of people are banned based on who they are, eg men from a safe space for women. However, I think you are quite wrong that it means behaviour at the event. If your ‘transphobic person’ has always acted unexceptionally at the ladies’ night, but is discovered to have retweeted JK Rowling, then she is getting banned, no? * * * > [@puzzlegal](#): > > So… You think that going to prison and then having trouble finding a job because “felon” is part of your legal identity and can be found on any background check is less bad than being accused of rape or racism and then possibly having trouble finding a job because potential employers might discover that accusation on social media? I don’t see how it’s not worse for someone to be more or less unemployable because of something they may not have done, and in most cases isn’t a crime, than for someone to be more-or-less unemployable because they were actually convicted of a serious crime. How is it not hypocritical to say we should give the latter a chance, but not the former? There are multiple posters here who have said they would not employ someone if they discovered from their social media that the person supported MAGA. Perhaps the same people would also refuse to employ someone convicted of even a minor crime? It’s hard to keep track. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > And I’m going to gently suggest that the sort of person who believes that murderers should have a path to renter society likely feels the same about those who are dangerous in other ways, too. @puzzlegal… you’ve been polite, helpful, and generally friendly towards me. That is decidedly contrary to my experience with most progressives, who tend to assume anyone who disagrees with them must be either ignorant or evil, and display none of their self-proclaimed empathy\* when dealing with ideological opponents. So I’m afraid even if you and your friends are reasonable and consistent about this, it doesn’t do all that much to convince me that that is generally the case. \* In either sense. No sympathy, and no understanding. It’s startling how little either side understands what motivates the other. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cancel-culture-and-canceling-versus-consequences-for-actions/1020644)._