Everything is going well, and social media is as peaceful as ever. Until — it happens.

Someone posts a rash comment they did not think through as well as they should have, and all of social media explodes. The offender is shunned and cast to the very fringes of society, not only by their “friends”, but by thousands of strangers as well.

There is little the victim can do to slow this onslaught — this torrential wave of criticism that drowns out their every cry, their every plea.

The idea of “canceling” people has been around for years. This concept centers around calling people out for wrong, offensive, or damaging behavior/comments, particularly on social media, and “holding them accountable” for whatever they said.

The idea sounds great in theory — why should someone be allowed to hurt other people with the things they say? However, when implemented, canceling people is a terrible practice.

A person can be canceled for one of several reasons. Sometimes, a person is speaking or writing quickly and says something offensive they did not mean to say. Other times, a person has an unpopular view, says or writes something about it, and is attacked to no end for those beliefs.

To begin with — all humans make mistakes. However, one fault should never determine a person’s worth. If we all make mistakes and would not want to be tormented by them forever, then how hypocritical and merciless is it for us to antagonize anyone else the instant they reveal a single flaw?

Moreover, it is very easy to jump to conclusions too quickly. Text on its own can only occasionally portray the attitude the writer had while writing it, so it is often unclear if something was intended as a joke/sarcasm or not. The worst part of this is that people often jump to the worst interpretation without real evidence.

     Instead, can we not attempt to see things from the offender’s perspective? Would a small slice of sympathy truly hurt so much? Can we not muster a modicum of mercy for a person who spoke or acted hastily, as we ourselves so often do?

For a moment, imagine what this canceled person would be feeling by this point. They are hurt and rather stunned by the pressure pounding in from everyone they thought they knew. This victim has no chance to explain – no chance to say that they did not mean to say that and are sorry because no one is willing to hear anything they have to say anymore. They are hopelessly alone in the online world. Their friends have turned against them.

Now, let me pose a thought: how different is this, really, from cyberbullying? Does it not have the same characteristics? Are people across the internet not teaming up to attack a single target? Shaming and verbally hurting a person on account of what they have said? Is cancel culture not “sending or posting harmful or mean content about someone else”?

Some may claim that the offender has already done this and that the canceling is being done in response to this other person’s “bullying.” However, it is critically important that one’s own actions are assessed — are you even giving the victim a chance to speak for themself?

On the other hand, there is another reason for canceling — one that should be handled differently. Sometimes, a person truly has an unpopular opinion on something and is canceled for those views. But pushing such a person away and beating them down is not the answer.

Does shunning someone for their beliefs ever actually fix the issue? Beliefs are very rarely changed by yelling and belittling. In many cases, this person (and other would-be targets) either sticks with their opinions or puts on a facade of agreement — they might act as if they are in agreement with the popular opinion just to avoid being punished for their true beliefs.

     But this does not change what they actually believe; they are just too afraid to say so. Instead, people like this are living a lie, going along with something they object to because they are too afraid to voice that objection.

When it comes down to it, canceling in this sort of situation is wrong because we cannot always be around only people who agree with us, even about sensitive topics. It seems that rather than calling someone else close-minded, we should call ourselves close-minded if we refuse to consider the offensive point of view.

There is also a key difference between calling someone out by pointing fingers and asking someone why they said what they said, explaining why you disagree, and beginning a debate or asking for a defense.

A notable example of cancel culture and these themes has recently emerged: JK Rowling. Over the past few years, she has been the target of an internet-wide swarm of cancellations on account of her views on transgenderism. This should not be the response.

She has been canceled for simply stating her opinions. But a person should not be canceled for this reason. We cannot get through life by only interacting with people who agree with us. We can only progress as a society by listening to different thoughts and considering them.

However, this might make it sound as if I am saying that people ought to support other people’s opinions, even ones they disagree with. But I am not saying this at all. There is a critical difference between supporting and tolerating. And not saying anything is not supporting. It is tolerating.

I also believe that a product or creation should be judged for its own value, not its creator’s beliefs. For example, if fans have no objection to Harry Potter, they should not cancel it on account of JK Rowling’s beliefs.

If all products were judged solely by the characters of those who made them, then hardly anything could be confidently trusted: what if by buying a textbook, you were thought to be in support of the notion that the Earth is flat simply because the person who sold cow feed to a farmer whose cow produced the milk that a mom bought and gave to her kids, one of whom grew up to be a consultant for a research paper that is referenced one time on the 56th line on page 619 of the very textbook you purchased believed Earth is flat? You couldn’t have that!! It is a very slippery slope that is all too easy to slide down.

Of course, we would all think that this is a drastic exaggeration of anything we would ever do, but where is the line drawn? How far is too far? A product should be judged for itself, not for those in its history, as long as the action will not directly support an idea you disagree with.

In the end, all people are people and ought to be treated as such. A person should not be rejected from society because they do not agree with your beliefs. Instead of pushing away, pull a person closer to explain why you think they are wrong. Unfriend them if you have to. Just do not cancel them.