Cancel-Culture and the Joe Rogan Controversy

In order to discuss the controversy surrounding Joe Rogan, and the subtleties of cancel-culture, we first need to understand what cancel-culture is. Columnist Ross Douthat, in the New York Times, said, “cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.” There are two balancing components we should highlight in this definition, the first being an opinion or action is allegedly distasteful. Often, this is deemed offensive, and what is offensive will primarily be subjective, except when relating to common human causes which underpin our collective cognition. Importantly, the ‘offensive’ action, which spurs the cancellation, may be viewed as a cause. Secondly, canceling someone contains an economic component. Generally, “deplatforming” (removal from a host, institutional or digital, from which one presents), or firing a person (or pressuring a business to fire a person), is an attempt to undo someone’s influence, and hurt their livelihood. The consequences of cancel-culture are often, though not exclusively, monetary, and that consequence can be viewed as an effect following the causal offense. Ultimately, the disproportionate interplay between cause and effect, as well as the removal of context in favor of abstractions, will preclude justice in cancel-culture.

From the outside, where ideological underpinnings remain obscured, much of cancel-culture appears to be simple boycotting, a long validated means of pressuring a company or institution into rejecting unethical practices. Some see cancel-culture, hear its critics, and immediately conjure images of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the civil rights movement in America, generally. And as a result, their trepidation in condemning cancel-culture is the result of their support for civil rights broadly. Individuals make decisions, companies make choices, and there are consequences to their choices on the market. If a business is making an unethical choice, and a group chooses to boycott them, what is wrong with that? Nothing. In fact, the decision of a private company to remove one of its employees is within reason; barring discrimination based on characteristics that do not inherently impede the objective of the business, such as one’s skin color, sexual orientation, etc. 

“A boycott targets a representative policy, a cancellation targets a representative individual.”

What is the difference between a boycott and a cancellation? A boycott targets a representative policy, a cancellation targets a representative individual. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott put pressure on the government to change its segregation policies. This was in service of dismantling prejudice, but recognized that ultimately prejudice is in the heart, and cannot be dealt with by way of policy. However, cancellation conflates abstractions with individuals. It is as if prejudice, as an abstract concept floating above the minds of individuals, could be undone by coercion. Cancel-culture thinks in abstracts, in ideas, and views individuals only as representatives of ideas. If there is an ultimate badness, then insofar as an individual says or acts out something that resonates with ‘the bad,’ intentionally or otherwise, then they are treated as badness itself, evil incarnate, and responded to in that way. While this is the result, in part, of the underlying “reified postmodernism,” as Pluckrose and Lindsay call it in their book Cynical Theories, we can recognize that this is a tragically human tendency. It is a confusion between our idea of the bad, and an individual who, for a moment, dips their toes into it. It is the Christian who believes a sinner is possessed by the devil. It is an ideologue who only sees ‘capitalists,’ the ‘bourgeoisie,’ or the ‘proletariat,’ but never a single person. The denizen of cancel-culture does not see a person, they see a representative of their model of badness, insofar as the individual triggers the badness concept in their minds. 

The Montgomery Bus Boycott did not seek to destroy the bus system that many individuals relied on, nor have removed a specific bus driver who enforced the rules he himself was subjected to, it sought to pressure institutions into correcting a policy. And it worked. On December 20th, 1956 the U.S. The Supreme Court ordered Montgomery to integrate its bus system. One day later, in direct response to the decision, the boycott ended. Once the boycott fixed the problem, the boycott could end. The purpose of boycotting, historically, is a concrete one, dealing with real policies and procedures, and not abstract concepts. For this reason, the protestors ended the boycott when the policy changed. But who amongst us believes that the cancellation will end after an individual target has been canceled? 

Conversely, Cancel-culture seeks to sacrifice an individual on the altar of an abstraction. Cancel-culture attempts to abolish its conception of evil, by eliminating evil’s host: humanity. While pressuring a company like Spotify suggests a collective target, Spotify is being used only as a means of canceling Joe Rogan. The swell of internet voices never mention a specific platform’s policy. Instead, desperate for examples they can hardly substantiate, default to a vapid spirit they hope to destroy. Context is necessarily removed, as abstractions are, by definition, abstracted. Whether one has dipped their toe into evil, or been dunked by their heel, the outcome is the same: a response proportionate to a devil. Furthermore, because the line between good and evil passes through every human heart, to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, in time, everyone will be treated like a demon.Cancel-culture does not care that a single person slipped up and, perhaps sincerely, did wrong a single time. The question of whether or not that slip up constitutes a trend, or is representative of the whole of that person’s life is not permitted to arise, as it would suggest a failure in framing. Thus, businesses should never expect to be free from the flickering eye of the mob, which constantly seeks a horrid spirit without sympathetic regard for one’s oeuvre. 

Whether a boycott or a cancellation, ultimately the discussion is about justice. One frequent response to the controversy surrounding cancel-culture is this: “there are consequences to everyone’s actions, and the backlash against one’s opinion, is reasonable, even to expected.” This is reasonable and true.  The actions we take, and words we say ripple out into the world affecting others. If someone responds to a comment with criticism, they are exercising their free speech to the same degree as whoever first spoke. Where is the harm? However, the question is not about harm, it is about justice. 

What determines a just response? Proportion. It is a proportional response, which one would expect to ‘balance out’ the wrong; “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” In short, it is an ‘effect,’ or reaction, that is equal to the ‘cause,’ or action, such that we would expect the action or behavior not to happen again, with any intention. The offensive action or comment is, in this frame of justice, canceled out or made neutral, like two billiard balls colliding at the same speed, stopping in an instant.

When a USC lecturer loses his position because he said a Chinese word that was misunderstood as a slur, is that a proportional  response? Is one’s entire career equivalent to a word that others misunderstood? Should two educators lose their jobs because they did not do the “Wakanda salute?” Should a UVA student who criticized microaggressions be kicked off campus? Should Lindsay Shepard, a former teacher’s assistant, be hauled before a tribunal for playing a debate from public television? Should an Idaho cop lose his job for mocking LeBron James when even the mayor admitted that, “It had everything to do with when he was saying what he said, not what he was saying [emphases added]”? Is it fair that the creator of the game Five Nights At Freddy’s was pressured out of the business he made because he donated his own money to Republican campaigns? Should a Mexican-American man be fired because a social media mob confused his hand gesture for a white-supremecist sign? Clearly not.

Rudy Patoja, a Seattle resident, was accused of sexual harassment while attending a City Council meeting, where he spoke in support of a new police precinct, in part, because he credited the police with helping his daughter receive treatment for heroin addiction. The justification for the accusation, by protestor Zarna Joshi, was that, when asked his name, he responded with the gag “Hugh Mungus.” The activation of the “police-supporting person” abstraction, appeared to justify the harassment of an individual who, on the surface, did nothing more than say a joke, and, in context, defended those he believed helped save his daughter. This may be considered a case study in cancel-culture.

Unfortunately, the problem is much worse than this. In fact, cancel-culture will almost always fail to be just. If it manages justice, it is accidental. Why? Because determining the equivalent force necessary to correct a specific behavior, requires context. We need intention and expectation. The life story, the personality and character of an individual, helps us understand whether or not a person intended to do the ‘bad’ behavior, in which case, presumably, more force would be necessary, or if it was unintended, in which case less force would be necessary. And worse, the blunt wielding of power offers no path to forgiveness, which would be justified by the obvious contrition and growth of the individual who made the mistake. For example, if an individual slipped on ice and bumped into you, forgiveness is easy. It was clearly unintended. If someone intentionally bumps into you, perhaps because of some underlying disagreement, then forgiveness will require more. And intention signals what you would expect. If something was an accident, you would not expect it to happen again. Therefore, the force necessary to correct the action is minimal. However, if one removes this context by treating a whole individual as a flattened idea, they remove the context necessary to determine the necessary corrective force. When we understand the whole case, the whole individual, and not just the 280-character version of the story, we lay the groundwork for understanding, forgiveness, and justice. 

Too many times in response to this, I have heard, “they’ll be fine.” “Oh,” thinks the critic, “who cares if a rich person goes from being really rich, to less rich? It is not a big deal.” This a callous disregard for the financial, reputational, and emotional turmoil those canceled must go through. Not to mention that many of those canceled are average-Joes, not rich celebrities with beach houses. However, even if one’s beach house remains intact after a cancellation, this does not mean that the cancellation was just. The reduction of a person, with a whole life behind them, and another ahead of them, to a single mistake and then punishing them as if their entire character was composed of snakes, is still an injustice despite the fact that they will land on their feet (if they land on their feet). If one did not deserve it, then they did not deserve it. Period. This is doubly true when one considers that the purported justification for the cancellation is more often than not, false. There is no justification. Thus, there can be no justifiable punishment.

For example, actress Gina Carano was fired from The Mandalorian, ostensibly, for anti-semitism. This was blatantly untrue. While it is true that she made a comparison of contemporary American political divisions to Nazism in occupied Ukraine, wherein neighbors persecuted neighbors, this is not equivalent to the accusation. By reintroducing intent, we see that, though clumsy it may have been, Carano was attempting to highlight the terrifying nature of our political polarization; neighbors hating neighbors. Is openly observing the obvious worth the loss of one’s employment and employability? And just because she quickly received a job from the Daily Wire, does not mean the cause was equivalent to the effect; again, the justification for her termination was disingenuous. Say nothing of the fact that being censured from Disney, the loss of her job, and the likely loss of future potential employment in Hollywood, is nowhere near equivalent to a new job at a niche conservative media company. Many who are canceled, even if they find new employment, did not deserve to be raked through the coals for their transgression. 

This brings us to Joe Rogan. No one can disappear Joe Rogan. The Joe Rogan Experience, or JRE, receives about 11 million views per episode. YouTube, Spotify, or Rumble, wherever he ends up when the dust settles he will certainly be surrounded by viewers. However, as we just discussed, this will not mean that his actions were worthy of the consequences, and therefore, just. 

So, what did he do? There are two phases to this controversy. The first revolves around the accusation of proliferating ‘misinformation’ around COVID-19, largely because of his guests Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough. However, there are several difficult issues with this. The first is that those two guests, whose views diverge from the general consensus, are not the only individuals Rogan has had on to discuss COVID-19, Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN, for example. Despite this, Rogan promised to be more balanced in the future. 

The second, more serious issue in this phase of the controversy, is one about ‘misinformation.’ Who defines it? If misinformation is simply the deviation from the mainstream opinion, then geniuses and visionaries across history, who pushed forward culture and technology, were guilty of spreading misinformation. In fact, deviation from the standard paradigm is necessary for progressive leaps, as they necessitate transcending the old view. Implicit in the term ‘misinformation,’ is the assumption that one’s views are reflective of the state of nature, of the truth. A staggering certainty remains contained in this definition. Should we annihilate misinformation, we should expect a swift turn into stagnation, wherein great discoveries are precluded in favor of uniform, petrifying consensus. This should be all the more concerning when we recognize that the Department of Homeland Security, on February 7th, said that “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” is a terrorist threat. This is a horrifying admission that (1) the government believes itself equipped to dictate the truth, and (2) that deviations from their truth are tantamount, in their minds, to terrorism. While I am not a legal scholar, one cannot help but wonder what could be justified under the Patriot Act, following the knighting of “misinformation” as “terrorism.” For these reasons, the broad range of topics and guests on JRE seems all the more important. 

The second phase of the controversy involves a video compilation of Rogan using the n-word, to which he responded on January 4th. Firstly, as journalists Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball, formerly from The Hill, have noted, there are political and corporate interests involved in the controversy. For example, the Democratic superPAC MeidasTouch appears to be behind the YouTube channel that disseminated the video. However, given that the focus of this article is primarily on cancel-culture, we will leave backroom politicking and media manipulation aside, and presume that our discussion about the nature of “misinformation” to be a sufficient warning of the dangers behind these tactics. 

Carrying on, there are multiple ways of organizing the debates that emerged from this controversy. The first section involves the n-word itself: Is it okay for anyone to use the n-word? Is it okay for the use of the n-word to be confined to those with certain racial or biological characteristics? If so, why? We will leave this debate aside, not because it is unimportant, or there are no solutions, but because the details of this matter less than the following section. It may be that it is inappropriate for anyone, or a single racial group, to use the n-word in any context. If that behavior ought to be corrected, then a proportionate, graceful response should be employed to minimize this behavior. Of course, Rogan, years ago, decided to stop using this word altogether. This leaves one asking, what more is there to do when the behavior has already been corrected? 

Moving on, we must return to context as an antidote to internet hysteria. It is important to note that Rogan did not use the n-word as a slur. Meaning, he did not direct the word at any individual or group of individuals with the intent to disparage. Often, the word was used in a quote, or in a discussion of the word itself. However, the video clips, which rapidly cut between scenes, removed much of the context. On the first pass, one could be forgiven for believing a directed insult was said, given that the intent behind it was obfuscated by the editing. This was addressed by Rogan himself in his apology video. In the time since the video was released, and in an effort to highlight the necessity of context, even when using a word as inflammatory as the n-word, a video of President Biden saying the n-word emerged. This does not mean that the President did anything wrong - he was quoting someone else’s statement. That video is no more sufficient proof of racism than the video of Rogan is. Meaning matters, and meaning is contextually substantiated. 

The accusations that ostensibly justify the removal of Rogan’s content from Spotify center around him being a racist. The logic goes: Rogan is a racist, per the video evidence, and racism is outside of the Overton Window. Therefore, Rogan should be removed from Spotify. And perhaps, if Rogan was a racist we may consider his removal from Spotify a just instance of cancellation. However, like the case of the hand gesture, we are operating on a false premise. Rogan is not a racist, and the evidence which suggests it, his use of the n-word, fails to stand up to scrutiny. By reintroducing the context in which he said it, it becomes clear that the evidence is not indicative of racism. In fact, those that had the most access to context with Rogan, his long time friends and guests, like UFC fighter Terrance McKiney, former Navy Seal and author David Goggins, and philosopher Sam Harris, have now all offered defenses of Rogan - among others. To cancel Rogan, is to punish him based on a falsity, and therefore, unjust. Pulling situations out of context, especially in order to contort a situation to fit a justification for indignation, removes the means by which we can assess a proportionate response to alleged wrongdoing. 

Finally, we must address that the Rogan controversy is representative of a deeper underlying issue in our culture. Joe Rogan has hosted hundreds of guests from across the political spectrum. This means that, inevitably, disagreements between those guests, discordance between their views, will emerge. Rarely, if ever, do two people share the exact same beliefs. Perfect consensus is impossible, and amounts to nothing more than totalitarian uniformity, with every individual a part of a collective marching in lock-step. Variation from each other’s opinions is a sign of individuality and authenticity, even if it can result in tension between individuals and groups. Do we want to live in a world where variations in opinions, upon which progress is predicated, is annihilated for the sake of illusory tranquility? Or the bottom line? Or ideological purity? The question extends beyond, “is it just to cancel Joe Rogan?” to, “do we want to live in a world where platforms do not allow the open discussion that Rogan facilitates?” 

There is an old parable about blind men and an elephant. Multiple blind men are touching an elephant and each one concludes something different. One says, “this is a snake,” while feeling the trunk. Another says, “this is a palm tree,” while feeling the ear. Until a sighted man arrives and proclaims, “that is an elephant,” the blind men are unaware of the reality of the situation, the model varying between them. This is the nature of truth; it is outside of our direct perception, and thus, necessarily excavated. Unfortunately, there is no sighted man coming to save us; a perspective from outside of reality who can convey to us its intricacies. Instead, we must discuss our models, see where they vary, and discover how they may be reconciled. No one grasps truth, they approximate it. This requires free and open discussion. Without speech, without the opportunity to publicly discuss our ideas about the world, we can never expect to see the world clearly. Reality will indefinitely be obscured. The JRE podcast has been a fantastic means by which millions of people can hear thousands of opinions about a wide range of topics. Some opinions are insane, some are brilliant - by hearing these discussions and discussing them ourselves, we can uncover which is which.

Each of us has a vote. If you pressure Spotify to cancel Rogan, which is your right, then you are inviting a world where dissenting, variant and perhaps brilliant opinions will be silenced. A precedent will be set, one that has been pushed for some time now, that only certain voices, often those with power, ought to be heard. The cost will be your access to open information, uncurated by those with the money and means of doing so, often with an agenda. And, furthermore, one means by which we approximate the truth, or one representative of the process by which we approximate the truth, will be repressed. This is not to say that we will lose the ability to speak truth to power, or approximate truth altogether, but that we will have moved one inch closer to a more closed society. If instead you choose to support Rogan by tweeting with the hashtag #ThanksJoeRogan, or threatening to cancel your Spotify subscription should they abandon JRE, you signal a future where the public refuses to stand for injustices predicated on falsity and disingenuous misinterpretation. For years, cancel-culture has continued largely unobstructed. Celebrities, the rich, and perhaps more importantly, every-day individuals have been stifled for the sake of ‘justice,’ and even ‘compassion.’ However, the lack of account for the life and struggles of its victims, excludes any potential for genuine compassion, whose heart remains open to forgiveness and understanding. Cancel-culture has gone on long enough. Perhaps, it is time to try something else.