Process Post #12

The situation that followed could be described as an example of cancel culture. Tahmasb faced much criticism and backlash on social media, with many demanding his dismissal and boycotting him. This incident caused a ripple effect, with many social media users expressing disappointment and anger towards Tahmasb’s actions. Some individuals even went as far as to label his comments as misogynistic and disrespectful towards women. However, many others believed the situation was a misunderstanding and was blown out of proportion. This occurrence sparked a lively debate about the responsibility of comedians to be sensitive to social issues and the role of humour in society.

The problem with cancel culture is that it often leads to a rush to judgment, with little regard for due process or the facts of the case. In the case of Tahmasb, I believe many people jumped to conclusions without actually watching the segment in question. Instead, they reacted to the outrage on different websites and platforms comment sections with a biased mind-set and joined the condemnation bandwagon.

This is not to say that Tahmasb’s allusion was in good taste. It clearly was not. But the rush to judgment and the intensity of online shaming is a worrying trend that is becoming all too common in our digital age. We have to be careful to keep the power of social media from leading us to a place where we lose sight of the value of free speech and the need for open dialogue.

Another frequent critique of online commentary is the potential mismatch between a commenter’s stated views and their actual identity. This reminds me of the “online disinhibition effect,” a phrase coined by John Suler, which I find particularly relatable.

I believe when people are online, they may act differently than they would in person because they can remain anonymous and have no real consequences for their actions. This can sometimes result in them expressing themselves hostilely or disrespectfully. Additionally, factors like group dynamics, their emotional state, and their desire to fit in with others may influence how they behave. 

Konnikova, in the Psychology of Online Comments, suggests that negative behaviour in comment sections is complex and influenced by psychological and social factors while also pointing out that the way comments are displayed or moderated can impact behaviour. To promote respectful interactions, online platforms and individuals have a role.

No matter where you stand on the issue, I think it’s pretty evident that online bullying and harassment are happening more often than ever. Guidelines are set up for commenting to ensure everyone is having kind and respectful discussions online. But let’s face it, and not only some people follow these rules. So it’s up to us to be careful with what we say and do online.

I’m not trying to defend Tahmasb, but it bothers me how trolls and cancel culture have taken over in this digital age. Even if someone has an excellent track record and is highly respected, one mistake can lead to them being cancelled without considering everything they’ve accomplished. It’s essential to address online abuse and harassment; treating others with respect and kindness online is just as crucial as in person. The case study I mentioned highlights that we all have a part to play in creating a positive online community.

Based on the discussion of the dangers of cancel culture and the power of social media in the case of Iraj Tahmasb, online communities need guidelines to ensure that they are safe and inclusive spaces for all. To achieve this, it is essential to develop community guidelines that balance free speech and social justice while promoting open dialogue and constructive criticism.