"Cancel culture"- Conservaspeak for tearing down people Conservatives hate

Why do impotent incels feel empowered to tear down powerful and accomplished women who don't need men to climb the ladder?

Over the years, like many Americans, I’ve grown sick to death of the term “Cancel culture.” Too often a catch-all for what could more reasonably be called “accountability culture,” it’s been used by those who’ve been guilty of poor behavior or word choices in public. It’s also been used by those seeking to exact a pound of flesh from public figures they, for whatever reason(s), carry a grudge against.

So, whenever I hear someone cry “Cancel culture,” my first reaction is derision. Yeah, right; someone got caught being publicly stupid or disrespectful, and now they have to face the consequences of their words and/or actions.

Pobrecito…put on your big boy pants, Buttercup, and deal with your fuck-up.

But it turns out that Conservatives have not only developed but come close to perfecting a method for turning “Cancel culture” to their advantage.

Quelle surprise, eh? Conservatives have learned how to weaponize the forces and methods behind “Cancel culture.”

Public Information’s

Judd Legum

explains that not only have Conservatives learned how to weaponize “Cancel culture,” they’ve discovered how to monetize it as well. And it turns out that whining about the perceived Liberal bent of public figures can be pretty lucrative if done properly.

In 2020, Bari Weiss quit her job as an editor and writer at the New York Times editorial page in a huff. In her public resignation letter, Weiss argued that she was forced out because the paper had become "illiberal" and her more conservative beliefs made her "the subject of constant bullying by colleagues." 

In January 2021, Weiss launched a newsletter, Common Sense, with her partner, Nellie Bowles. Weiss billed Common Sense as the antidote to "cancel culture," which she argued was the practice by progressives of seeking to punish and ostracize anyone who diverged from their ideological orthodoxy. "The fact that cancellation tales have become an everyday feature of American life should do nothing to diminish how shocking they are, and how damaging they are to a free society," Weiss wrote in October 2021. "Everyone… of conscience needs to start saying no to the mob."

Whether or not Weiss' core critique is true, it is lucrative. In 2022, Common Sense rebranded itself as The Free Press to reflect its growing ambitions. It now reportedly employs about 30 people and generates millions in revenue annually. The rebranded publication continues to rail against "cancel culture." Bowles recently published an excerpt from her new book in The Free Press in which she describes the "pleasure" she used to get from helping "cancel people" — before she saw the light and embraced intellectual freedom.

You see, canceling people isn’t so bad if you’re not on the receiving end. If you’re the one doing the canceling and you have a media platform available to you, it’s possible to monetize the process. And the "pleasure" [Weiss] used to get from helping "cancel people" becomes not even the best part of the reward.

Ironically, as Weiss cashes in on her critique of "cancel culture," The Free Press has become a central part of a sophisticated right-wing ecosystem that seeks to tear down anything and anyone who diverges too far from their ideology. 

The latest effort began on April 9, 2024, when NPR editor Uri Berliner wrote in The Free Press that his employer had "lost America's trust." Using a formula that is typical for The Free Press, Berliner describes himself as fitting the liberal mold — admitting that he was "raised by a lesbian peace activist mother" and "eagerly voted against Trump twice." But Berliner says that NPR has gone too far. NPR, according to Berliner, has abandoned its "open-minded spirit" and is too focused on catering to the left. 

Berliner, by Legum’s analysis, engaged in a rather lazy critique of his own network’s journalistic integrity. Berliner’s critique in and of itself is indeed rather lazy and somewhat skewed, writing in the Free Press that NPR had “lost America’s trust.” How that statement is quantifiable is difficult to know, but he evidently felt confident enough in his judgment to offer it.

In Berliner’s esteemed opinion, if NPR does not course-correct, NPR could face “de-funding.” Of course, what he’s basing this perceived threat on is unknown, but he’s confident enough in his assessment to proffer it as if it’s real and imminent.

His essay concludes by inviting Katherine Maher, who became NPR's CEO in January 2024, to embrace his critique and change the direction of NPR. 

That is not what Maher decided to do. Instead, she released a statement on April 12 that called Berliner's public criticism, particularly on NPR's approach to diversity, "disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning." Maher asserted that NPR could fulfill its "mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve." She also defended NPR's journalism, noting that it has been "consistently recognized and rewarded for its quality, depth, and nuance."

Nice of Berliner to “mansplain” what needs to be done to “save” NPR, yeah? Thankfully, Maher isn’t one to cave to pressure from a know-it-all Penis-American. And her assessment of the quality of NPR’s journalism is spot on. The network’s journalism is only “skewed” or “Liberal” insofar as Conservatives are pissed that it doesn’t lean to the Right. The fact that NPR trends pretty much down the middle is proof to Conservatives that the network is, in fact, a “Liberal bastion.”

Yeah, if you’re not with us, you’re against us, right?

NPR suspended Uri Berliner on April 16 for publicly demeaning his employer and colleagues. The Free Press, meanwhile, was having none of it, and immediately cast him as a martyr.

Yeah, well, what did you expect? How many of us would last long in our jobs if we were publicly trashing our employer and coworkers? I’d wager that most of us would be out on our asses—and deservedly so—in the time it took us to pack our desks and be escorted out the front door sans security access card.

Then along came

Christopher F. Rufo

, a Right-wing activist and operative who’s about as enjoyable as a case of chronic jock itch. He took it upon himself to investigate Katherine Maher’s history of tweets—some 29,400 (someone has way too much time on his hands)—looking for “proof” of Liberal bias.

That is when the effort to punish NPR and Maher intensified. Chris Rufo, a right-wing operative, has been featured in The Free Press as a contributor and a podcast guest. Rufo began examining Maher's 29,400 tweets and highlighting examples that "exposed" her as liberal. (He later summarized his findings in a piece published by City Journal.) Rufo objects to tweets in which Maher discusses "structural privilege," "non-binary people," and "toxic masculinity." He also highlights that Maher's daily routine included "yoga, iced coffee, back-to-back meetings, and Zoom-based psychotherapy." In another tweet, Maher calls Trump — who rose to political prominence by falsely claiming that the nation's first Black president was illegitimate because he was born in Africa — a "deranged racist psychopath." For Rufo, Maher is but one example of a growing problem: a "rising cohort of affluent, left-wing, female managers."

For Rufo, expressing liberal views at any point in your life is a fireable offense. “If NPR wants to truly be National Public Radio, it can’t pander to the furthest-left elements in the United States,” Rufo told the New York Times. “To do so, NPR should part ways with Katherine Maher.”

To Rufo, and most of the Far-Right, ANY evidence of pandering to the Left is proof of bias. Mind you, proof of pandering to the Right is not a problem, and no one should even think of checking for that, because that’s what any good, God-fearing White Conservative Christian Cisgender Heterosexual Patriot would and should do.

But even one Left-leaning tweet out of 29,400 proves to Rufo that Katherine is a radical Leftie and—GASP!!—maybe even a SOCIALIST!!! That being the case, she must, therefore, do the right and patriotic thing by metaphorically falling on her sword and resign as CEO at NPR.

I have been engaged in a campaign to expose NPR’s new CEO, Katherine Maher, and her anti-speech, anti-truth philosophy. As part of my research, I scoured her social media history, which provided ample evidence of ideological capture.

But rather than simply recapitulating the material, I experimented with another method: satire. The ridicule went viral, driving millions of social media impressions and earning coverage in the New York Times, Politico, Fox News, and elsewhere.

Christopher Rufo can kiss my pasty white ass.

Like far too many self-important Conservatives, Rufo hates and is probably intimidated and terrified by competent, powerful females who don’t defer to impotent Penis-Americans like him.

I’d hazard a guess that Katherine Maher would wipe the floor with an intellectual and moral nonentity like Rufo, who’d probably break into a cold sweat if he had to confront Maher.

A few days after he was suspended by NPR, Uri Berliner resigned, and then Rufo’s attacks on Maher escalated from the merely ridiculous to the sublime:

[I]nstead of capitulating to The Free Press and Rufo's pressure campaign, NPR defended its CEO and its journalism and moved on. 

That's when Rufo escalated his attacks on Maher. In an April 24 article published in City Journal, Rufo suggested that Maher was a clandestine CIA operative. Rufo's "evidence" for this claim is Maher's work for the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a non-profit that observes elections and provides other support for democratic processes and institutions worldwide, and other NGOs. Rufo described Maher as "a regime-change agent, both foreign and domestic."

To "prove" his allegations, Rufo's report cites a random tweet alleging Maher is "probably a CIA operative" because she visited Tunisia. 

Never mind that people travel to Tunisia for any number of reasons, few of which have anything at all to do with being a CIA agent.

Of course, Rufo could find no evidence to support such an absurd and specious claim, so eventually he had to move on to her personal life because what else are you going to do when you have nothing else on a woman?

Later in the lengthy piece, Rufo admits there "is no way to discern whether Maher was an agent, asset, or otherwise connected with the CIA." But Rufo claims this is irrelevant because Maher "was undoubtedly advancing the agenda of the national security apparatus." 

Having acknowledged that his core claim about Maher's connections to U.S. intelligence is pure speculation, Rufo then turns his attention to unsubstantiated gossip about Maher's personal life. In her 30s, Rufo writes, Maher "had her sights on powerful men in the tech sector." But Maher "considered finding someone lesser as she approached 40." This, according to Rufo, somehow helps prove that Maher is "a vessel for power, with few original thoughts."

Oh, but it gets better:

Rufo objects to tweets in which Maher discusses "structural privilege," "non-binary people," and "toxic masculinity." He also highlights that Maher's daily routine included "yoga, iced coffee, back-to-back meetings, and Zoom-based psychotherapy." In another tweet, Maher calls Trump — who rose to political prominence by falsely claiming that the nation's first Black president was illegitimate because he was born in Africa — a "deranged racist psychopath." For Rufo, Maher is but one example of a growing problem: a "rising cohort of affluent, left-wing, female managers."

Oh, the humanity….

So, when your “strongest” evidence against a powerful female is that her daily routine features "yoga, iced coffee, back-to-back meetings, and Zoom-based psychotherapy," it says one thing about you: You’re pathetic. You hate powerful, accomplished women who aren’t reliant upon men for their success in life…and yes, that IS deeply, indescribably, and stupidly pathetic.

I have only two questions for Christopher Rufo:

1. What is it that allows you to feel superior to Katherine Maher? You certainly haven’t accomplished anything nearly as impressive as she has, yet you believe it’s your right to look for ways to tear her down.

2. Does trying to somehow defeat Maher give you a woody? Does it make you feel better about your pathetic existence? Not that you’ve accomplished anything meaningful with it—unless you consider trying to tear others down to be meaningful and important work.

This was not a case of Katherine Maher doing or saying something stupid, inappropriate, or mean-spirited and then being deservedly ostracized. No, this was an orchestrated attempt by Conservatives to force her to resign from her position as CEO of NPR.

It’s another example of how Conservatives have cynically used cultural issues to their advantage, particularly when they can monetize them. “Cancel culture” is merely the latest example of this trend. Bari Weiss and Christopher Rufo have attempted to “cancel” Katherine Maher for no other reason than she’s a convenient target.

There was a time when Conservatives might have had something positive to contribute to our public discourse, but that’s no longer the case. All they seek to do today is to destroy those in positions of power for sport and profit—because they have nothing of value to offer America.

That’s a pretty sad and pathetic commentary on the state of American Conservatism. And it’s an even worse commentary on a reprobate like Christopher Rufo.

All of my posts are public at this time. Any reader financial support will be greatly appreciated. There’s no paywall blocking access to my work (except for a few newsletters). I’ll trust my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their financial support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.