The judge, the jury, the executioner - all at once!

"Jesus was killed because people did not like what he was saying, so could you call him the first celebrity victim of cancel culture?" Philomena Cunk from Cunk on Earth once said. Although it is a joke taken from a comedy show, the conversation points to the misunderstandings of this modern-day phenomenon.

Cancel culture might not seem as extreme as the crucifixion of Jesus, but it comes with its own intensities through geographical vastness and exposure. While the intention behind taking part in cancel culture is rooted in wanting to make a positive change, the methods and the consequences rarely turn out like a Batman movie. After all, Batman only executes his punishment by hand-picking the criminal offenders after thorough research and background checks.

Unfortunately, the openness of the internet barely cares about the background-checking part. It is more of an instant execution without giving the defender a chance to relay their side of the story or an opportunity to learn from mistakes. The mob is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. After all, the authorities are often slower than the immediacy of the internet.

However, being faster than the authorities is not ideal as well. "Using hate to stop hate does not follow the mathematical law of minus and minus being equal to plus," remarks Jotee Afroz, a teacher at Hurdco International School.

"Even though everyone knows that algorithm is a concept, most participants of this culture do not notice that their social media algorithms have kept them inside an echo chamber. The more I engage in a topic, the more frequently it will keep appearing in front of me. As a result, it would seem like everyone is taking part in the cancellation, so there is nothing wrong with my supported views."

"As a conventional Zoomer netizen, I was born a hater, but I still wouldn't go out of my way to cancel someone," jokingly says an SSC candidate of Viqarunnisa Noon School, Sara Afroz.

"I believe cancelling Zionist brands and artists and cancelling a random celebrity for something foolish they said has a completely different purpose and consequences. We just need to think deeper before cancelling someone and possibly find alternative ways to correct them instead."

Back in 2020, Harper's Magazine published an open letter, 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,' requesting to de-trend the movement. It was signed by more than a hundred and fifty public figures, including Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood, and JK Rowling. The letter points out how authorities of institutions tend to hastily punish the accused "in a spirit of panicked damage control." At times, the defendants face substantial damage even before any explanation of their "clumsy mistake."

Many Twitter (now X) users have responded in disgust, arguing that racism, sexism, and homophobia should not be considered free speech as they are discriminatory to others. They acknowledge that a major difference resides between cancelling one specific person without discourse and cancelling a type of behaviour that is collectively agreed on as problematic. However, in reality, many instances of cancellations do not follow this rule as there is no specific rulebook to abide by.

Not to mention, this culture manifests hypocrisy and moral policing among social media users. "It would have been fine unless everyone starts to think they are free to comment about others," says JannatulFerdous, a graduate student of English at Jahangirnagar University.

"You cancel someone for making an ignorant comment, but if you publicly shame them, you are doing the same thing because you might be unknowingly punishing someone more than they deserved."

Being a part of the generation that witnessed the beginning days of every social media platform, Jannatul reminisces about the days when people used to be respectful and friendly on the internet. But now everyone seems like they are on edge and offended about the smallest things.

"Even common sense is not common, but I see many people expecting others to know things even a scholar doesn't know about and shun others for knowing less."

While holding someone accountable for harmful behaviour or hateful speech is important, everyone should keep in mind that the interpretations of morality and societal norms are subjective.

"Being offensive is certainly uncalled for; however, it cannot be a reason for punishment," she adds. "What one should do is educate the person and give them a chance for reconciliation. Otherwise, the hateful reaction does nothing to improve society as in the long term; this practice only suppresses other marginal opinions."

To stop unwanted harm to others through this culture, it might only take a simple realisation-everyone does not know everything. It is similar to the meme that shows how a cylinder's shadow seems square from the side but a circle from the top. None of the perspectives are wrong, but none of them are the entire picture as well. If one is not humble enough to admit their ignorance, both will end up cancelling each other for being wrong.

Imagine what would happen if the students of Dhaka University did not cancel Muhammad Ali Jinnah on the spot during his Curzon Hall speech. Historical movements, boycotts, and protests have always been a way of eradicating injustices. However, at this point, cancel culture has become a tool for punishment even where communication would have been enough.

Whether such grave social punishments are justifiable for those who offend others, whether problematic behaviour should be corrected personally instead of publicly, and whether they should be met with forgiveness and second chances is a subject of context and one's personal sense of ethics.

But one thing is certain, and that is impulsive mob justice, is how histories such as witch-hunting or the crucifixion of Christ are created. So, we must now not haste in judgment; lest we become casualties of the very culture, we seek to change.

[email protected]