Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Avoiding the retirement poverty trap - National Seniors Australia

Avoiding the retirement poverty trap - National Seniors Australia

Avoiding the retirement poverty trap
A report finds that 22% of retirees live in poverty and calls for drastic action.

Support our campaign
24 January 2025
Latest News
Read Time: 8 mins




Share:





Check your eligibility for concessions


National Seniors Australia (NSA) is encouraging older Australians to make a, slightly belated, New Year’s resolution to check their eligibility for government concessions.

NSA CEO, Chris Grice, said the income limits to be eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) were indexed in September 2024, with an increase from $95,400 to $99,025 for singles and from $152,640 to $158,440 for couples.

“This means thousands of self-funded retirees could be eligible for a range of state or territory-based concessions, bulk-billed doctor visits (at the doctor’s discretion) and cheaper medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), saving potentially hundreds of dollars a year,” Mr Grice said.

“If you are a self-funded retiree above pension age, check eligibility and apply because the CSHC is not automatically issued.”

To help older Australians see their entitlements, NSA has developed an online Concessions Calculator, which can be accessed here.

“Thresholds for the CSHC are usually indexed every 12 months, so it pays to check eligibility regularly,” Mr Grice said.


More than one fifth of Australian retirees live in poverty, according to a recent report by the left-leaning think-tank, The Australia Institute.

The Reducing poverty in retirement report compares the poverty rate of people aged 65 and over between Australia, Sweden, and Norway, which are nations with comparable GDPs.

It concludes that the public pension systems in Sweden and Norway ensure retirement security while Australia’s system does not.

The rate of poverty in retirement in Australia is 22.6% – more than one in five. In Sweden it is 11.1% and in Norway it is 3.8%. The poverty rate is measured from country to country as a percentage of the median equivalised household income. To live in poverty means to earn less than 50% of this amount.

The report found that, at the time the study was conducted:

The maximum amount that a single pensioner could get from the Australian Age Pension was $1,144.40 per fortnight ($572.20 per week), which was below the poverty line of $612.47 per week for a single person.


Australia’s high pension poverty rate is due to our relatively low spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP. Australia spends just 5.29% on the Age Pension, compared to an average for OECD countries of 7.43%. It is above 9% in both Sweden and Norway.

The authors emphasise two other factors. Firstly, that the Australian Government supports retirement income by forgoing revenue through generous superannuation tax concessions (worth $36.77 billion in 2019-2020), but that this support goes to wealthier Australians – those with the ability to top up super – as opposed to those on low or no incomes.

They also note that guaranteed Swedish and Norwegian pension systems allow recipients to work as much as they wish, unlike the Australian system which has low-income allowances before pension entitlements are reduced.

For years NSA has been advocating for a universal age pension along the lines of the Scandinavian models and that of New Zealand.

A universal pension does away with means testing and would enable pensioners to engage in as much paid work as they want, without being penalised for earning more than the income test limits.

It’s part of our Fairness in Retirement Income campaign covering policy initiatives such as:

Fair and consistent deeming rates


Let pensioners work


Increased age pension gifting limits.




How a universal pension works



A universal pension would give everyone a basic amount of money. It would eliminate means testing, doing away with deeming and taper rates, which complicate the retirement planning of millions of retirees.

Under a universal pension, retirees would earn as much as they like from their investments or from work but still get a pension. They would simply pay tax to fund their entitlement, making the system sustainable.

They would only pay back the pension when they earned sufficient income in a given year, giving all retirees access to a year-on-year safety net.

As a first step, we are calling on the Federal Government to commission a full cost benefit analysis of adopting a universal pension.

Support our campaign for universal pension by signing up to the campaign or by sharing this page with your friends and family.

Other key recommendations



Support our campaign


Your support can help make a difference.

Become a member or donate to support our Fairness in Retirement campaign.


The Australian Institute report describes our pension and super system as “broken”, which combined with housing unaffordability condemns more people to “the brutal double whammy of going through their entire working life unable to afford a home and ending up in poverty when they retire”.

The institute’s solution is to reduce or remove the concessions to those retiring with millions of dollars and use that money to increase to the Age Pension.

The report also supports our proposal to allow older Australians to earn income to supplement the Age Pension.

The report found that Australia spends almost as much giving tax breaks to wealthy retirees as it does providing a safety net – the Age Pension – to those with little or no retirement savings.

“Rather than ensure people are able to retire with dignity, Australia’s superannuation system is geared towards reducing tax for the wealthiest in society. Sweden and Norway show that there are better ways of doing things,” the report asserts.

“A large number of Australian retirees still rely on the pension as their main source of income, yet we spend less on public pensions than countries like Sweden and Norway.

“At the same time, our super system offers massive tax concessions that mostly benefit the wealthy. These concessions cost us nearly as much as spending on the Age Pension. We should be supporting retirees who are truly struggling.”

The full report can be found here.

Related reading: AI, Retirement Essentials, NSA



John Austin

Policy and Communications Officer, National Seniors Australia
Posted by at No comments:

Why Australia’s old-age poverty rates are far lower than you might think - Grattan Institute

Why Australia’s old-age poverty rates are far lower than you might think - Grattan Institute



Why Australia’s old-age poverty rates are far lower than you might think

by Brendan Coates, Tony Chen
10.04.2019Blog
Share



The conventional wisdom is that Australia has an especially high rate of poverty among the elderly. Advocates of increasing the Age Pension point to OECD research which shows that in 2014, 26 per cent of Australians aged 65 and over suffered income poverty, compared to 13 per cent across all OECD countries.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. Traditional estimates of old-age poverty are deeply flawed. We need a better way to measure poverty among older Australians.

In this post, we show why the OECD’s approach to poverty rates for older Australians misses the mark, and present our alternative that accounts for high-rates of home ownership among the elderly.
The OECD’s measure is deeply flawed

As the OECD explains, its definition of poverty is relative – the proportion of households with disposable incomes (meaning after income tax is paid and income support payments are received) that are less than half of the median disposable income of all Australians.

But there are a number of issues with the OECD measure. Small changes in reality produce apparently very different outcomes, calculation of the benchmark rests on arbitrary definitions of equivalisation, it does not take into account drawdowns on savings outside superannuation, and it does not adequately account for housing costs.

The OECD poverty rate measure for older Australians is volatile from year to year, even with very small changes, because the full Age Pension is close to the OECD benchmark, and so a large number of Australian retirees cluster close to the benchmark. For example, a recent report by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) found that old-age poverty in Australia apparently fell sharply from 22 per cent in 2011 to 13 per cent in 2016. But the big apparent shift merely reflected the maximum rate of the Age Pension (including related supplements) oscillating around the benchmark of 50 per cent of median incomes.

This clustering close to the benchmark also means that outcomes on the measure depend a lot on somewhat arbitrary definitions. For example, the poverty rate among over-65s varies from 12 per cent to 23 per cent depending on how households with different family sizes are compared. According to the ABS-preferred definition of equivalisation, previously used by the OECD, households are ‘equivalent’ if they expend 0.5 times more for every extra adult and 0.3 times more for every child under 15 than a single household. According to the new OECD definition, households are ‘equivalent’ if a household of n members expends the square root of n times as much as a single household. The choice of benchmark relative to median incomes is also arbitrary, but the most commonly used benchmark is 50 per cent of equivalised median disposable income.
Traditional old-age poverty metrics ignore housing costs

Most importantly, a relative poverty measure based on disposable incomes tends to overstate poverty in old age because it ignores the differences in housing costs due to high levels of home ownership among older Australians. Four in five Australian households over the age of 65 own their own homes. Even among the lowest income quintile of seniors, home-ownership rates are above 70 per cent.

Home ownership provides them with big benefits: they have somewhere to live without paying rent, and they are insulated from rising housing costs. The benefits that a house provides to its owner-occupier – which economists call imputed rents – are worth more than $23,000 a year to the average household aged 65 or over, roughly the same value as the maximum-rate Age Pension.
Grattan Institute’s new estimates

Our latest estimates of poverty rates confirm that fewer retirees are in poverty than previously thought. After taking account of the benefits of homeownership, by treating imputed rents as disposable income, the percentage of Australians over 65 in poverty under the OECD’s square root scale more than halves – from around 20 per cent to 9 per cent.

Under this new metric, Australian retiree poverty rates are more in line with the other comparable OECD countries, albeit still on the higher end.

And even though changing the definition of poverty has a material impact on old-age poverty, adjusting for housing costs still has the same effect under different definitions. Using the ABS poverty definition, adjusting for housing costs also significantly reduces Australian old-age poverty – from around 13 per cent to 8 per cent.



Poverty among over-65s in Australia is still higher than in many other OECD countries after accounting for housing costs, but only marginally so. The 8 per cent of older Australians in poverty after housing are likely to be maximum-rate pensioners in the private rental market.
Other evidence suggests most pensioners aren’t struggling unless they rent

Our results accord with other evidence that most Australian retirees are keeping their heads above water. Retirees today are more likely than working-age households to say they feel financially comfortable. Across the income distribution, people typically have enough money to sustain the same, or a higher, living standard in retirement as when working. Many retirees are net savers, and current retirees often leave a legacy almost as large as their nest egg on the day they retired.

Of course, there are older Australians living in poverty. The evidence suggests pensioners who are really struggling predominately don’t own their own homes.

About 14 per cent of pensioners who don’t own their home say they have suffered financial hardship – they skipped meals, did not heat their home, failed to pay utility bills on time, or failed to pay their car registration on time. The comparable figure for home-owning pensioners is only 4 per cent.

Rental stress among pensioners in the private rental market has worsened for a number of reasons.

First, Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which provides financial support to low-income renters, is indexed to CPI. But rents have been growing faster than CPI for a long time. Between June 2003 and June 2016, CPI increased by about 38 per cent, while average rents increased by about 62 per cent.

Second, rents paid by low-income earners grew faster than average rents and low-income households are spending more of their incomes on rent.

Third, the stock of lower-rent social housing has not kept pace with population growth. In the past, more than half of retirees who rented did so from housing authorities. In recent years that proportion has fallen to less than 40 per cent. Public housing provides a much greater average level of assistance than Rent Assistance.
Many working-age Australians are struggling more

Pensioners are not the only group likely to face hardship in Australia today. In fact, they are on the whole less likely to suffer financial stress than working-age Australians.

About 8 per cent of working-age homeowners with no welfare payments report experiencing financial stress, a rate about two times higher than pensioners who own their own homes. And 20 per cent of working-age renters with no welfare say they suffer financial stress, higher than the rate reported by renting pensioners.

Neither of these groups is struggling, however, compared to the levels of financial stress reported by the most disadvantaged people in Australia today – working-age households surviving on income support payments such as Newstart. More than 40 per cent of working-age Australians who receive income support payments and don’t own their own home – and 15 per cent of homeowners receiving income support – report experiencing financial stress.



It is not surprising to find higher rates of financial stress among working-age Australians than among pensioners. Pension payments are indexed to grow with full-time wages, whereas allowance payments only grow with CPI. Over the past two decades the maximum rate of the Age Pension has consistently risen faster than both minimum and average wages, and much faster than income support payments to working-age Australians, such as Newstart. For singles the maximum rate of Newstart has fallen from 89 per cent of the base Age Pension in 2000 to just 66 per cent today.

Any moves to alleviate poverty in Australia must start by boosting payments to working-age income-support recipients, not pensioners.

The policy priority for retirees should be to boost the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 40 per cent, or roughly $1,400 a year for singles or $1300 for couples. Such an increase would cost $1.2 billion a year, but it would do much more to reduce financial hardship in old age than lifting the Age Pension.

And the next Australian Government should take a close look at lifting Newstart too.

===



===
두 그라프를 보고 이상하다고 생각하는 한국인을 위하여 한글로 호주의 노인 빈곤이 한국과 어떻게 다른가 설명해주세요.



두 그래프를 보고 놀란 한국인을 위한 설명
안녕하세요. 올리신 두 그래프를 보고 한국의 노인 빈곤율이 압도적으로 높은데, 호주도 노인 빈곤율이 생각보다 높아서 의아해하실 수 있습니다. 이 현상을 제대로 이해하려면 '빈곤'을 측정하는 기준과 각 나라의 사회 구조적 차이를 알아야 합니다.

결론부터 말씀드리면, 호주 노인과 한국 노인의 '빈곤'은 그 의미와 실질적인 삶의 질에서 큰 차이가 있습니다.

1. '상대적 빈곤'의 함정
빈곤율은 일반적으로 '상대적 빈곤율'로 측정합니다. 이것은 전체 인구의 중위 소득(딱 중간에 있는 사람의 소득)의 50% 미만을 버는 사람의 비율을 말합니다.

호주는 전체 국민의 소득 수준 자체가 매우 높습니다. 예를 들어, 호주 중위 소득이 100만 원이라면 빈곤선은 50만 원이 됩니다.

한국은 전체 국민의 소득 수준이 호주보다 낮습니다. 한국 중위 소득이 60만 원이라면 빈곤선은 30만 원이 됩니다.

따라서 호주에서 '가난하다'고 분류되는 노인의 소득이 한국에서 '가난하다'고 분류되는 노인의 소득보다 훨씬 높을 수 있습니다. 호주 빈곤선 아래의 노인이 한국으로 오면 중산층으로 분류될 수도 있다는 뜻입니다. 호주에서는 주택 임대료 등 생활비가 높기 때문에 '상대적 빈곤'에 시달리지만, 최소한의 의식주가 해결되지 않는 '절대적 빈곤'과는 거리가 멉니다.

2. 호주의 노인 빈곤: 주택 소유와 연금 시스템의 문제
호주 노인 빈곤율이 높은 이유는 다음과 같은 구조적 문제 때문입니다.

부족한 개인 연금 (슈퍼애뉴에이션): 호주는 한국의 국민연금과 비슷한 '고령 연금(Age Pension)'과 개인이 은퇴 자금을 쌓는 '슈퍼애뉴에이션(Superannuation)'이라는 두 가지 축으로 노후를 보장합니다. 하지만 현재 노인 세대는 슈퍼애뉴에이션 제도가 완전하게 정착되기 이전에 은퇴했거나, 충분한 기간 동안 납입하지 못했습니다. 따라서 고령 연금만으로는 생활이 팍팍한 노인이 많습니다.

높은 주거비: 호주 노인 복지 시스템은 '내 집을 소유하고 있다'는 전제하에 설계되었습니다. 하지만 최근 높은 주택 가격 때문에 집을 소유하지 못한 채 은퇴 후에도 월세를 내야 하는 노인이 늘어났고, 이들이 '빈곤층'으로 분류되는 경우가 많습니다.

즉, 호주 노인 빈곤은 '고령 연금만으로는 부족한데, 개인 연금도 충분치 않고, 무엇보다 주택이 없는 경우'에 집중되어 있습니다.

3. 한국의 노인 빈곤: 사회보장 제도의 미성숙
한국의 노인 빈곤율은 OECD 국가 중 압도적으로 1위이며, 이는 다른 선진국들과는 다른, 매우 심각한 사회적 문제입니다.

늦게 시작된 공적 연금: 한국은 선진국들에 비해 국민연금 제도가 매우 늦게 도입되었습니다. 지금의 노인 세대는 경제 발전의 주역이었지만, 정작 본인의 노후를 위한 공적 연금에 가입할 기회나 기간이 부족했습니다.

가족 부양 의식의 붕괴: 전통적으로 자녀가 부모를 부양하는 문화였으나, 핵가족화가 빠르게 진행되면서 노후 소득이 없는 노인들이 '빈곤'에 그대로 노출되었습니다.

저소득 일자리와 연금 수령액 부족: 현재 노인들이 일자리를 갖더라도 대부분 저임금의 불안정한 일자리입니다. 여기에 낮은 국민연금 수령액과 기초연금만으로는 빈곤에서 벗어나기 어려운 경우가 많습니다.

결론적으로, 호주의 노인 빈곤율은 '상대적으로 소득이 낮다'는 의미가 크지만, 한국의 노인 빈곤은 '절대적으로 생활이 어렵다'는 의미가 더 강합니다. 그래프의 숫자가 비슷해 보여도 그 숫자 뒤에 숨겨진 실질적인 삶의 어려움은 전혀 다릅니다.
Posted by at No comments:

22% of retirees in poverty: How to avoid the poverty trap

22% of retirees in poverty: How to avoid the poverty trap

22% of retirees in poverty: How to avoid the poverty trap

by Kaye Fallick | Dec 2, 2024 | Planning for Retirement | 9 comments


More than one fifth of Australian retirees currently live in poverty, according to a recent report by The Australia Institute.

Given that we are one of the richest nations in the world this is both disturbing and difficult to believe. Today we review these findings and consider if there is cause for concern and, if so, what retirees can do.
What the report says

The Reducing poverty in retirement report compares the poverty rate of people aged 65 and over between Australia, Sweden and Norway. It concludes that the public pension systems in

Sweden and Norway ensure retirement security while Australia’s system doesn’t.

The rate of poverty in retirement in Australia is 22.6% – more than one in five. In Sweden it is 11.1% and in Norway it is 3.8%. This is a stark contrast. The poverty rate is measured from country to country as a percentage of the median equivalised household income – to live in poverty means to earn less than 50% of this amount. The report states:


the maximum amount that a single pensioner can get from the Age Pension is $1,144.40 per fortnight ($572.20 per week), which is below the poverty line of $612.47 per week for a single person.

Authors of the report believe that our high pension poverty is due to our relatively low spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP. Among all OECD nations, Australia spends just 5.29% on the Age Pension, compared to an OECD average of 7.43%, and above 9% in both Sweden and Norway.

The authors emphasise two other factors. Firstly, that the Australian government supports retirement income by forgoing revenue through generous superannuation tax concessions (worth $36.77 billion in 2019-2020), but that this support goes to wealthier Australians – those with the ability to top up super – as opposed to those on low or no incomes.

They also note that guaranteed Swedish and Norwegian pension systems allow recipients to work as much as they wish, unlike the Australian system which has low income allowances before pension entitlements are reduced.


Current policies have the effect of restricting the Age Pension to those on low incomes. As the amount of Age Pension is determined by income and assets held in retirement, any income earned over a threshold in retirement reduces the amount of Age Pension received. For example, at the time of publication, the amount of pension a single person received is reduced by 50 cents for each dollar they earn over $212, on a fortnightly basis. This reduces the incentive to work and, as the Age Pension is currently low, this can lead to lower standards of living.
Is the fear of running out real?

This report would seem to reinforce the notion that it is very easy to run out of funds and slip below the official poverty line. Is this realistic for most retirees, based upon the data above?
How to measure your own income security

Let’s take a step back and consider the main assertions.

Firstly, it is unclear if the Pension Concession Card, which is automatically provided to all Age Pensioners, is included in the calculation of poverty levels. It looks as though it wasn’t, even though this card is worth about $3000 per annum for those who hold it. If we add this amount to a single Age Pension entitlement of $29,754.40 it equals $32,754.40 compared to the median income measure quoted above of $612.47 per week or $31,848 per annum. So it shows the Age Pension base amount, plus Pension Concession Card, to be above the poverty line, assuming $3000 in benefits are actually received.

The Australian Age Pension is a basic safety net for those who have no other means. It is also a solid foundation for those with lower savings. Compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 as a mandatory form of savings to top up this pension entitlement. Many pre-retirees tend to think of their retirement income as needing to either be covered totally, or to a high degree, by their super savings. It’s important to have a very clear understanding of the role that an Age Pension will play in your retirement income mix. Here is a step-by-step guide to gaining a clearer understanding of what your retirement income will be – how it will be made up – and, most importantly, how you will stay above the poverty line.
1. Pre-retirement

Regardless of how long it is before you may qualify for an Age Pension, you can use the free Age Pension Entitlement Calculator to see the amount of pension you are likely to receive. This information is critical to your financial peace of mind. Once you know this ballpark figure, you can then consider how much of a role your super might play.
2. How long will your money last?

This is where the Retirement Essentials Retirement forecaster tool is invaluable. In this adviser-guided consultation you can model different scenarios which incorporate your spending over the likely duration of your retirement journey. The tool can literally calculate the mix of Age Pension and super drawdowns, as well as other income streams or work earnings, and how these combine.
3. Maximising your income

By using the above two steps you will now have the information you need to maximise your possible income. This is because you will have a far clearer idea of the extent to which you will depend upon an Age Pension benefit and the amount of scope you have to activate your super, using the rules that matter most, depending upon your savings, your household situation and home ownership status.
4. Using rules that matter to take control

At this stage you may wish to delve further into rules that affect your particular age and stage in retirement, be it pre-retirement, early years or a later age. Such entitlement rules could relate to gifting, younger spouse strategies, home equity access or mortgage management. Knowing more about specific aspects of your super is key to taking control. By knowing the concessions and allowances attached to super you can ensure you are taking advantage of every rule that can help to increase your income.
Is poverty a threat in your life?

To return to the research, it seems that the addition of the Pension Concession Card to the income quoted in this report would suggest that full Age Pensioners are just above the Australian poverty level. However those who rent may be paying a disproportionately high amount of their income on accommodation. And thus find that they have too little left to lead a truly comfortable existence. There is no easy answer to this challenge. But in the belief that knowledge is power, it is important to check all your current (or future) entitlements, regardless of your situation, to ensure that you are using each and every rule to your best advantage.
Do reports of Age Pension poverty concern you?

Or do you feel that your savings will make the distance?

Related articles:Centrelink reporting and payment dates: Easter and Anzac Day 2025
Sensible actions for retirees in volatile times
If inflation is so low, how come you’re feeling worse off?


9 Comments

Mercedes Benjamin on December 3, 2024 at 9:31 am


I am about to retire but worried about having enough to live. I own my house and have about &350000 in super.
Is it wise to retire. I am 73 years old.Reply

James on December 3, 2024 at 9:50 am


No, you should definitely keep working. Retirement is death!Reply

Kaye Fallick on December 3, 2024 at 4:36 pm


Retirement is a totally different journey for different individuals and couples. Some people want to leave the workforce as soon as they can, others to gradually transition, still others to work as long as possible. There is no one size fits all. So it makes sense to think about your own personal goals, what brings fulfilment, how you wish to spend your time – and how much you think you will need in income to support this type of life. It helps to share this with others – be they family or qualified advisers – to test your thinking and make the best decisions for your own particular situation.


Samantha on December 10, 2024 at 8:03 am


if you retire do you have a plan on what are you going to do with your time?
if the answer is no, then continue working full-time.

or you could start thinking about going part time and supplement your income with transition payments.

work out what your day life is containing before you make the leap full-time.

if you are fit, you can join hiking clubs, fishing, volunteering. There is so much out there to do, you just need to investigate first.

good luck.


Lynn on December 3, 2024 at 2:44 pm


Firstly, do a Budget and calculate your expenses. Get some good financial advice. Sometimes free through your Super. You should also qualify for the Age Pension. Once you understand your financial position and the income you can receive in retirement your decision should be easy. Think about things you want to do and factor that into your budget. At 73 if you are in good health, then time to enjoy yourself unless you absolutely love your job. I love being retiredReply


Jacoba Maguire on December 3, 2024 at 2:51 pm


I’m struggling on the aged pension. My housing costs $300 per week.
I’m not sure how best to use my super of $110,000.
I’m 69. What is the best way to use my super funds?Reply


patrice Harald on December 11, 2024 at 7:53 pm


check to see how much interest you are receiving. If you want top up of your pension also look at transitioning to retirement. It goes into a separate account. Also check with utility services to see if you can get a discount. To date I have electricity, gas, water rates, land rates and now I check my home and contents insurance as I think my contents were priced to high, however I am not sure. Check to see if you apply for any casual work or be involved in research for your opinion. They will send you a gift voucher eg $50 to $100, it comes in handy for groceries. Government also still has the bonus money of $11,000 you are eligible for if you work where volunteer or desk or computer not physical work. Im with Health Consumer Qld (HCQ) who are always looking for people to be on research committee for comments. you are a consumer so your experience is valuable to them.Reply


Lorikeet on December 24, 2024 at 5:45 pm


I think the rate of Age Pension in Australia is a disgrace, along with Income and Assets Tests. I also consider it very discriminatory to give people who work beyond the retirement age a break on the Income Test, while those who have investments get no break at all. This also sets the younger retirees against the older people. The last I heard, a seniors’ organisation was pushing for NO INCOME TEST for people who are still able to work. I think this is likely to encourage government to lift the Retirement Age or abolish it altogether. This also gives people the idea they must work to increase their pension, instead of Age Pension rates being lifted. People doing voluntary work do not get paid and their volunteering also costs them money. There are lots of very angry older people around.Reply


Lisa on May 7, 2025 at 1:12 am


I agree with you. most I talk to are angry that they have worked 50 or more years, saved their money and not squandered it, paid 17% interest in most cases to only be told you have to much money to get a decent pension WHILST the govt. feels free to pay jobseeker, refugee pensions. first home owners to those from overseas who already have home, give cheap housing to new migrants, pay a man with 5 wives and the list goes on and none of these are checked for assets or income overseas or even if they go back and live there. THIS IS WHY WE ARE ANGRY and we need someone to help or guide us to rallies etc to protest.

Posted by at No comments:

The documentary God & Country: Christian nationalism

Google Gemini

The documentary God & Country, directed by Dan Partland and produced by Rob Reiner, offers a critical examination of the rise and implications of Christian nationalism in the United States. 

Drawing on interviews with a diverse array of constitutional scholars, religious historians, pastors, and Christian commentators, the film argues that this political movement poses a significant threat 
  • not only to the American democratic republic 
  • but also to the integrity of Christianity itself. 

The film opens and closes with footage from the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, framing the insurrection as a stark manifestation of the ideology it seeks to deconstruct.

The documentary traces the historical roots of Christian nationalism, dispelling what it portrays as a persistent myth: that the United States was founded as an explicitly "Christian nation." 

Through historical context, the film illustrates how the Founding Fathers, wary of the religious conflicts that plagued Europe, intentionally created a government separate from any single religion. 

It highlights the principle that a government free from religion is essential for the freedom of religion to flourish. 

God & Country suggests that the modern Christian nationalist movement began to coalesce in the mid-20th century, spurred by a backlash against desegregation and the fight for tax-exempt status for segregated Christian schools. 

The film challenges the common narrative that the anti-abortion movement was the primary catalyst for the rise of the religious right, presenting evidence that it was a strategic issue used to mobilize a political base.

A central theme of the documentary is the distinction between traditional Christian conservatism and the more extreme ideology of Christian nationalism. 

The film features interviews with prominent Christian figures who are critical of the movement, including figures like Rev. William J. Barber II and Simone Campbell. 

These voices argue that Christian nationalism co-opts the faith for political power, distorting core Christian values of compassion, justice, and care for the vulnerable. 

They contend that the movement's focus on political power, wealth, and a militant, "warrior" Jesus figure is a perversion of the biblical message.

 The documentary asserts that Christian nationalism is often "loud about what God says little about, and so quiet about what God says so much about," pointing to a focus on issues like gun rights and a neglect of poverty and social justice.

The film explores how the movement seeks to achieve its goals, which, according to the documentary, include establishing a permanent minority rule. This is pursued through political strategies such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the appointment of sympathetic judges. The film suggests that the movement's followers are often motivated by fear and a sense of cultural grievance, a sentiment that has been cultivated through decades of political rhetoric and media.

God & Country also addresses the theological and cultural implications of Christian nationalism, arguing that it represents a form of idolatry where national identity and political loyalty are placed above religious faith. 

The documentary suggests that this intermingling of faith and politics ultimately harms both. It warns that by aligning itself with a specific political faction and its agenda, Christianity risks alienating a broad swath of the population and losing its moral authority. 

The film positions the rise of this movement as an urgent issue for all Americans, not just Christians, and a critical threat to the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.

Read more »
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, September 23, 2025

캔슬 컬처 - 위키백과, Cancel culture

캔슬 컬처 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

캔슬 컬처

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

캔슬 컬처(영어: cancel culture) 또는 취소 문화(取消 文化)는 주로 저명인을 대상으로 과거의 잘못되었다고 생각하는 행동이나 발언을 고발하고 거기에 비판이 쇄도함으로써 직업이나 사회적 지위를 잃게 만드는 현상이나 운동이다. 이 배척의 대상은 "취소되었다"고 한다.[1][2] "캔슬 컬처"라는 표현은 대부분 부정적인 의미를 내포하고 있으며 언론의 자유와 검열에 대한 논쟁에서 사용된다.

같이 보기

===

Cancel culture


Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cancel culture, also called call-out culture, is a cultural phenomenon in which people criticize an individual thought to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner, and call (typically over social media) for the target to be ostracized, boycotted, shunned or fired.[1][2][3][4] This shunning may extend to social or professional circles—whether on social media or in person—with most high-profile incidents involving celebrities.[5] Those subject are said to have been "canceled".[6][7][a] While the careers of some public figures have been impacted by boycotts—widely described as "cancellation"—others who complained of cancellation successfully continued their careers.[8][9]

The term "cancel culture" came into circulation in 2018 and has mostly negative connotations.[7] Some critics argue that cancel culture has a chilling effect on public discourse, that it is unproductive, that it does not bring real social change, that it causes intolerance, or that it amounts to cyberbullying.[10][11] Others argue that the term is used to attack efforts to promote accountability or give disenfranchised people a voice, and to attack language that is itself free speech. Still others question whether cancel culture is an actual phenomenon,[12] arguing that boycotting has existed long before the origin of the term "cancel culture".[11][13][14]

Origins

The 1981 Chic album Take It Off includes the song "Your Love Is Cancelled", which compares a breakup to the cancellation of TV shows. The song was written by Nile Rodgers following a bad date Rodgers had with a woman who expected him to misuse his celebrity status on her behalf. "Your Love Is Cancelled" inspired screenwriter Barry Michael Cooper to include a reference to a woman being canceled in the 1991 film New Jack City.[15] This usage introduced the term to African-American Vernacular English, where it became more common.[16]

By 2015, the concept of canceling had become widespread on Black Twitter to refer to a personal decision, sometimes seriously and sometimes in jest, to stop supporting a person or work.[15][17][18] According to Jonah Engel Bromwich of The New York Times, this usage of the word "cancellation" indicates "total disinvestment in something (anything)".[3][19] After numerous cases of online shaming gained wide notoriety, the use of the term "cancellation" increased to describe a widespread, outraged, online response to a single provocative statement, against a single target.[20] Over time, as isolated instances of cancellation became more frequent and the mob mentality more apparent, commentators began seeing a "culture" of outrage and cancellation.[21]

In October 2017, sexual assault allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein led to the cancellation of his projects, his expulsion from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and legal consequences, including a conviction on charges of rape and sexual assault. These events contributed to the rise of the #MeToo movement, where individuals shared their own allegations of sexual assault, leading to the cancellation of the careers of those accused.[22] In November 2017, comedian Louis C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct allegations and, as a result, his shows were canceled, distribution deals were terminated, and he was dropped by his agency and management. After a period away from show business, Louis C.K. returned to work in 2018 and won a Grammy award in 2022. However, many people in the entertainment industry said that it was inappropriate to support his career or award him a Grammy due to his past misconduct.[23][24]

Conversations about "cancel culture" increased in late 2019.[25][26] In the 2020s, the phrase became a shorthand nom de guerre employed by spectators to refer to what they perceived to be disproportionate reactions to politically incorrect speech.[27] In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote in The New York Times: "The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. ... Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of canceling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong or redress a larger imbalance of power."[28][29] "Call-out culture" has been in use as part of the #MeToo movement.[30] The #MeToo movement encouraged women and men to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals.[11]

An article written by Pippa Norris, a professor at Harvard University, states that the controversies surrounding cancel culture are between those who argue it gives a voice to those in marginalized communities and those who argue that cancel culture is dangerous because it prevents free speech and/or the opportunity for open debate. Norris emphasizes the role of social media in contributing to the rise of cancel culture.[31] Additionally, online communications studies have demonstrated the intensification of cultural wars through activists that are connected through digital and social networking sites.[32] Norris also mentions that the spiral of silence theory may contribute to why people are hesitant to voice their minority views on social media sites and fear that their views and opinions, specifically political opinions, will be chastised because their views violate the majority group's norms and understanding.[33]

In the book The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that call-out culture arises on college campuses from what they term "safetyism"—a moral culture in which people are unwilling to make tradeoffs demanded by the practical or moral concerns of others.[34][35][36] Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, contends that the practice contributes to political polarization in the United States but does not lead to changes in opinion.[37] Cancel culture has been described by media studies scholar Eve Ng as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure".[38] Cultural studies scholar Frances E. Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions.[39][40] According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".[3][41][42]

Some academics have proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Clinical counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, says that "learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism" helps call-out culture work productively.[43] Professor Joshua Knobe, of the Philosophy Department at Yale, contends that public denunciation is not effective, and that society is too quick to pass judgement against those they view as public offenders or personae non gratae. Knobe says that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals, and that it is best to bring attention to the positive actions in which most of society participates.[44] Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia wrote in a 2021 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article that cancel culture is a form of free speech, and is therefore protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to Scalia, cancel culture can interfere with the right to counsel, since some lawyers would not be willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on controversial topics.[45] In 2023, American conservatives and anti-trans activists engaged in a boycott of Bud Light over its hiring of transgender TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney.[46] The incident is seen an example of cancel culture and consumer backlash. The Harvard Business Review cited the incident as an example of an attempt to "resonate with younger, more socially-conscious audiences", but that it "generated downstream adjustments from retailers and distributors" that negatively hurt the product's performance. It highlighted the incident as making consumer brand marketing departments fearful of taking a stand on social issues.[47][48]

Ng defines cancel culture as "the withdrawal of any kind of support (viewership, social media follows, purchases of products endorsed by the person, etc.) for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective especially alert to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, racism, bullying, and related issues."[49] There are different perspectives on the morality of cancellations. On the one hand, there is the view that cancel culture imposes punishments that are not proportional to the offenses or alleged offenses.[50] This is closely related to John Stuart Mill's criticism of public shaming; he argued in On Liberty that society "practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."[51] Martha Nussbaum similarly says that cancel culture represents the "justice of the mob", but this alleged justice is not "deliberative, impartial or neutral."[52] On the other hand, there are those who defend the value of shaming as constructive, if done right; people who defend this view maintain that cancel culture often shames people counter-productively but that it can be tweaked or altered in order to be a valuable tool for people's improvement.[53] For instance, holding people accountable for things that they have done wrong can be a powerful way of correcting bad behavior, but it has to be paired with a belief in the possibility of redemption.[54] People who take this approach often agree with Plato that shame is an important feeling that can lead to moral improvements.[55] Everyone in this debate agrees that it is important to avoid what Nussbaum calls a "spoiled identity": to have a spoiled identity is to have the public image of someone who is irredeemable and unwelcome in a community.[56]

Reactions

The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is used in debates on free speech and censorship.[27][57]

Criticism

In July 2020, former U.S. President Barack Obama criticized cancel culture and "woke" mentality on social media, saying that "people who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and, you know, share certain things with you."[58] U.S. President Donald Trump criticized cancel culture in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and saying that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission. He was subsequently criticized as being hypocritical for having attempted to cancel a number of people and companies in the past himself.[59] Trump made similar claims during the 2020 Republican National Convention when he stated that the goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society.[33]

Pope Francis said that cancel culture is "a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression", saying that it "ends up cancelling all sense of identity".[60][61][62] Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, states that social activism does not just involve going online or going to a protest to call someone out, but is work entailing strategy sessions, meetings, and getting petitions signed.[11] British prime minister Rishi Sunak included cancel culture, where one group "are trying to impose their views on the rest of us", among the contemporary dangers of the modern world.[63]

Philosopher Slavoj Žižek states that "cancel culture, with its implicit paranoia, is a desperate and obviously self-defeating attempt to compensate for the very real violence and intolerance that sexual minorities have long suffered. But it is a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo-'safe space' whose discursive fanaticism merely strengthens the majority's resistance to it."[64] Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, describes cancel culture as "a cultural boycott" and says it provides a culture of accountability.[3] Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, states that cancel culture gives power to disenfranchised voices.[11] Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer for The New Republic, states that people are threatened by cancel culture because it is a new group of young progressives, minorities, and women who have "obtained a seat at the table" and are debating matters of justice and etiquette.[65]

Open letter

Main article: A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Dalvin Brown, writing in USA Today, has described an open letter signed by 153 public figures and published in Harper's Magazine as marking a "high point" in the debate on the topic.[27] The letter set out arguments against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty".[66][67][68] A response letter, "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate", was signed by over 160 people in academia and media. It criticized the Harper's letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms who wanted to exclude others who have been "canceled for generations". The writers ultimately stated that the Harper's letter was intended to further silence already marginalized people. They wrote: "It reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry—one that's starting to challenge diversifying norms that have protected bigotry."[69][70]

Criticism of "cancel culture" as a concept

A number of professors, politicians, journalists,[71][72][73] and activists have questioned the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon.[9] Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled".[8] Danielle Kurtzleben, a political reporter for NPR, wrote in 2021 that overuse of the phrase "cancel culture" in American politics, particularly by Republicans, has made it "arguably background noise". Per Kurtzleben and others, the term has undergone semantic bleaching to lose its original meaning.[74]

Historian C. J. Coventry argues that the term is incorrectly applied, and that the label has been used to avoid accountability for historical instances of injustice.[75][b] Another historian, David Olusoga, made a similar argument, and argued that the phenomenon of cancellation is not limited to the left.[14][c] Indigenous governance professor and activist Pamela Palmater writes in Maclean's magazine that "cancel culture is the dog whistle term used by those in power who don't want to be held accountable for their words and actions—often related to racism, misogyny, homophobia or the abuse and exploitation of others."[13]

Sarah Manavis wrote for the New Statesman magazine that while free speech advocates are more likely to make accusations of cancel culture, criticism is part of free speech and rarely results in consequences for those in power who are criticized. She argues that social media is an extension and reincarnation of a longer tradition of expression in a liberal society, "a new space for historical power structures to be solidified" and that online criticism by people who do not hold actual power in society tends not to affect existing power structures. She adds that most prominent people who criticized public opinion as canceling still have highly profitable businesses.[12]

Consequence culture

Some media commentators including LeVar Burton and Sunny Hostin have stated that "cancel culture" should be renamed "consequence culture".[76] The terms have different connotations: "cancel culture" focusing on the effect whereby discussion is limited by a desire to maintain one certain viewpoint, whereas "consequence culture" focuses on the idea that those who write or publish opinions or make statements should bear some responsibility for the effects of these on people.[77]

American public opinion

A survey conducted in September 2020 on 10,000 Americans by Pew Research Center asked a series of different questions in regard to cancel culture, specifically on who has heard of the term cancel culture and how Americans define cancel culture.[78] At that time, 44% of Americans said that they have at least heard a fair amount about the new phrase, while 22% have heard a great deal and 32% said they have heard nothing at all.[78] 43% Americans aged 18–29 have heard a great deal about cancel culture, compared to only 12% of Americans over the age of 65 who say they have heard a great deal.[78] Additionally, within that same study, the 44% of Americans who had heard a great deal about cancel culture, were then asked how they defined cancel culture. 49% of those Americans state that it describes actions people take to hold others accountable, 14% describe cancel culture as censorship of speech or history, and 12% define it as mean-spirited actions taken to cause others harm.[78] It was found that men were more likely to have heard or know of cancel culture, and that those who identify with the Democratic Party (46%) are no more likely to know the term than those in the Republican Party (44%).[78]

A poll of American registered voters conducted by Morning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive", was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, with 8% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on.[79] Attitude towards the practice was mixed, with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. Additionally, 53% believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, such as those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.[80]

A March 2021 poll by Harvard University's Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll found that 64% of respondents viewed "a growing cancel culture" as a threat to their freedom, while the other 36% did not. 36% of respondents said that cancel culture is a big problem, 32% called it a moderate problem, 20% called it a small problem, and 13% said it is not a problem. 54% said they were concerned that if they expressed their opinions online, they would be banned or fired, while the other 46% said they were not concerned.[81] A November 2021 Hill/HarrisX poll found that 71% of registered voters strongly or somewhat felt that cancel culture went too far, with similar numbers of Republicans (76%), Democrats (70%), and independents (68%) saying so.[82] The same poll found that 69% of registered voters felt that cancel culture unfairly punishes people for their past actions or statements, compared to 31% who said it did not. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement (79%), compared to Democrats (65%) and independents (64%).[83]

In a January 2022 Knight-Ipsos study involving 4,000 participants, most Americans surveyed said that some speech should be prohibited. Specifically, they stated that "a variety of private and public institutions should prohibit racist speech". However, most also noted that these same institutions should not ban political views that are offensive.[84] A March 2022 New York Times/Siena College survey of 1,000 Americans found that 84 percent of adults said it is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism. The survey also found that 46 percent of respondents said they felt less free to talk about politics compared to a decade ago, and that only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely.[85][86][87][88][89]

Inconsistency and usage by the political right

See also: Disciplinary actions for commentary on the assassination of Charlie Kirk

In the United States, criticism of perceived cancel culture has often come from right-wing activists directed at the left, although it has been noted that the same right-wing activists often engage in similar tactics themselves, crusading against wokeism, Cultural Marxism, and Islamism. For example, during the Gaza war, Republicans held Congress hearings in which they accused university leaders of not doing enough to silence what they perceived as antisemitic speech on campus.[90] Cancel culture directed at pro-Palestine activists, also known as the Palestine exception to free speech, is engaged in by some activists who present themselves as defenders of free speech.[91] Other critics of cancel culture have also supported book bans or censorship of school curriculums.[92]

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some conservatives who had previously criticized cancel culture were pushing for the firing of people who criticized Kirk after his death.[93][94][95] Vice President JD Vance called on Americans to report those allegedly celebrating Kirk's killing to their employers and promised to use the federal government to investigate and punish liberal organizations and donors. Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the shift as a form of right-wing cancel culture, noting that people were being targeted for simply quoting Kirk or failing to mourn his passing adequately. Goldstein said that "government involvement in this does inch this closer to looking like McCarthyism".[96] The New York Times described the campaign as morphing into "a conservative version of the cancel culture that only a few years ago was wielded by the American left",[97] and evidence of the rise of a "woke right".[98] Some conservative voices also objected to the Trump administration's efforts to police speech surrounding Kirk's death, with The Wall Street Journal running an editorial saying: "The squeeze on Disney looks to be a case of cancel culture on the right."[95][99]

See also

Notes

  1.  Merriam-Webster notes that to "cancel", in this context, means "to stop giving support to that person".[6] Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."[7]
  2.  "While I agree that the line between debate and suppression is one that occasionally gets crossed by the so-called left wing, it is almost invariably true that the real cancel culture is perpetrated by those who have embraced the term. If you look through Australian history, as well as European and American history, you will find countless examples of people speaking out against injustice and being persecuted in return. I can think of a number of people in our own time who are being persecuted by supposedly democratic governments for revealing uncomfortable information."[75]
  3.  "Unlike some on the left, I have never doubted that 'cancel culture' exists ... The great myth about cancel culture, however, is that it exists only on the left. For the past 40 years, rightwing newspapers have ceaselessly fought to delegitimize and ultimately cancel our national broadcaster [the BBC], motivated by financial as well as political ambitions."[14]

References

  1.  Munro, Ealasaid (August 23, 2013). "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?". Political Insight. 4 (2): 22–25. doi:10.1111/2041-9066.12021. S2CID 142990260. Archived from the original on December 10, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2020.
  2.  Sills, Sophie; Pickens, Chelsea; Beach, Karishma; Jones, Lloyd; Calder-Dawe, Octavia; Benton-Greig, Paulette; Gavey, Nicola (March 23, 2016). "Rape culture and social media: young critics and a feminist counterpublic". Feminist Media Studies. 16 (6): 935–951. doi:10.1080/14680777.2015.1137962. hdl:2292/30994. S2CID 147023782.
  3.  Bromwich, Jonah Engel (June 28, 2018). "Everyone Is Canceled". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 13, 2019. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  4.  Yar, Sanam; Bromwich, Jonah Engel (October 31, 2019). "Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on June 1, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  5.  McDermott, John (November 2, 2019). "Those People We Tried to Cancel? They're All Hanging Out Together". The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
  6.  "What It Means to Get 'Canceled'". Merriam-Webster. July 12, 2019. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  7.  "What Does Cancel Culture Mean?". Dictionary.com. July 31, 2020. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
  8.  Garel, Connor (July 9, 2018). "Logan Paul Is Proof That Problematic People Are Never Truly Cancelled". Vice. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
  9.  Hagi, Sarah (November 21, 2019). "Cancel Culture Is Not Real—At Least Not in the Way People Think". Time. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  10.  McWhorter, John (September 2020). "Academics Are Really, Really Worried About Their Freedom". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 30, 2021.
  11.  "Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons". ProCon.org. September 27, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2022.
  12.  Manavis, Sarah (July 16, 2020). "'Cancel culture' does not exist". New Statesman. Archived from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  13.  "The entitlement of Canadian politicians – Macleans.ca". Maclean's. Retrieved January 6, 2021.
  14.  Olusoga, David (January 3, 2021). "'Cancel culture' is not the preserve of the left. Just ask our historians". The Guardian. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  15.  McGrady, Clyde (April 2, 2021). "The strange journey of 'cancel,' from a Black-culture punchline to a White-grievance watchword". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  16.  Webster, Elizabeth N. (December 24, 2021). "Cancel Culture Will Not Be Canceled". AfroSapiophile. Retrieved March 3, 2022.
  17.  Mishan, Ligaya (December 3, 2020). "The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  18.  Romano, Aja (August 25, 2020). "Why we can't stop fighting about cancel culture". Vox. Retrieved April 10, 2021.
  19.  D. Clark, Meredith (2020). "Drag Them: A brief etymology of so-called "cancel culture"". Communication and the Public. 5 (3–4): 88–92. doi:10.1177/2057047320961562.
  20.  McDermott, John (November 2, 2019). "Those People We Tried to Cancel? They're All Hanging Out Together". The New York Times. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  21.  Douthat, Ross (July 14, 2020). "10 Theses About Cancel Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  22.  Francescani, Chris; Margolin, Josh; Katersky, Aaron (April 26, 2024). "Timeline: Harvey Weinstein's path to his NYC sex crimes conviction and reversal". ABC News. Retrieved February 15, 2025.
  23.  "Louis C.K. Responds to Accusations: 'These Stories Are True'". The New York Times. November 10, 2017. Retrieved February 15, 2025.
  24.  Ryzik, Melena (April 5, 2022). "Louis C.K.'s Grammy, After 'Global Amounts of Trouble,' Draws Backlash". The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2025.
  25.  Romano, Aja (May 5, 2021). "The second wave of "cancel culture"". Vox. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  26.  Reddy, Vasu; Andrews, Donna (2021). "Cancel Culture: Shrinking or Remaking Narratives? (2022)". Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 106 (1): 130–132. doi:10.1353/trn.2021.0026. ISSN 1726-1368. S2CID 239855465.
  27.  Brown, Dalvin (July 17, 2020). "Twitter's cancel culture: A force for good or a digital witchhunt? The answer is complicated". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  28.  Mishan, Ligaya (December 3, 2020). "The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture". T. Archived from the original on December 4, 2020.
  29.  "Cancel culture: Have any two words become more weaponised?". BBC News. February 18, 2021. Retrieved March 22, 2021.
  30.  Mendes, Kaitlynn; Ringrose, Jessica; Keller, Jessalynn (May 1, 2018). "#MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism". European Journal of Women's Studies. 25 (2): 236–246. doi:10.1177/1350506818765318. hdl:2381/41541. ISSN 1350-5068. S2CID 149646504.
  31.  Ng, Eve (July 26, 2020). "No Grand Pronouncements Here...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation". Television & New Media. 21 (6): 621–627. doi:10.1177/1527476420918828. ISSN 1527-4764. S2CID 220853829.
  32.  Bouvier, Gwen; Machin, David (April 15, 2021). "What gets lost in Twitter 'cancel culture' hashtags? Calling out racists reveals some limitations of social justice campaigns". Discourse & Society. 32 (3): 307–327. doi:10.1177/0957926520977215. ISSN 0957-9265. S2CID 233279610.
  33.  Norris, Pippa (August 11, 2021). "Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality?". Political Studies. 71 (1): 145–174. doi:10.1177/00323217211037023. ISSN 0032-3217. S2CID 238647612.
  34.  Haidt, Jonathan; Lukianoff, Greg (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. New York City: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0-7352-2489-6. OCLC 1007552624. For safetyism, see Lukianoff, Greg; Haidt, Jonathan (September 4, 2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press. pp. 30, 158, 235, 268, 329. ISBN 978-0-7352-2490-2.
  35.  Campbell, Bradley; Paresky, Pamela (June 1, 2020). "Safetyism Isn't the Problem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  36.  "Safetyism Isn't the Problem". Association for Psychological Science. June 15, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  37.  Agence France Presse (July 22, 2020). "La "cancel culture", nouvelle arme des anonymes et facteur de polarisation". Le Journal de Montréal (in French). Archived from the original on July 27, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  38.  Ng, Eve (July 26, 2020). "No Grand Pronouncements Here ...: Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation". Television and New Media. 21 (16): 621–627. doi:10.1177/1527476420918828. S2CID 220853829. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  39.  Lee, Frances E. (September 17, 2017). "'Excommunicate me from the church of social justice': an activist's plea for change". The Sunday Magazine. CBC Radio.
  40.  "Why I've Started to Fear My Fellow Social Justice Activists". Yes!. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  41.  Velasco, Joseph (October 2020). "You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging". Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. 12 (5). Conference: 1st Rupkatha International Open Conference on Recent Advances in Interdisciplinary Humanities. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s21n2. S2CID 230647906.
  42.  Wei, M. L.; Bunjun, Benita (October 21, 2020). "'We are not the shoes of white supremacists': a critical race perspective of consumer responses to brand attempts at countering racist associations". Journal of Marketing Management. 36 (13–14): 1252–1279. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2020.1806907. ISSN 0267-257X. S2CID 226315082.
  43.  Matei, Adrienne (November 1, 2019). "Call-out culture: how to get it right (and wrong)". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved August 31, 2020.
  44.  Stein, J. (August 13, 2015). "I'm making the case for public shaming-unless you publicly shame me for doing so". Time. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  45.  Scalia, Eugene (2021). "John Adams, Legal Representation, and the 'Cancel Culture'" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 44 (1): 333–338.
  46.  Ulea, Anca (April 10, 2023). "Why are conservatives lashing out at Nike and Bud Light?". Euronews. Archived from the original on April 16, 2023. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
  47.  Chee-Read, Audrey; Schanne, Alex (April 2024). "One Year Since Bud Light's Marketing Blunder: What Did We Learn?". Retrieved September 3, 2024.
  48.  Liaukonyte, Jura; Tuchman, Anna; Zhu, Xinrong (March 20, 2024). "Marketing: Lessons from the Bud Light Boycott, One Year Later". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved September 3, 2024.
  49.  Ng 2020: 623. Ng, E. 2020. "No Grand Pronouncements Here... Reflections on Cancel Culture and Digital Media Participation." Television & New Media. 21(6): 621-627.
  50.  Norlock, Kathryn J. 2017. "Online Shaming." Social Philosophy Today 33: 187-197.[1] See also Thomason, Krista. 2021. "The Moral Risks of Online Shaming," in Carissa Véliz, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145-162. [2]
  51.  Mill 1991: 9. Mill, J.S. 1991. On Liberty and Other Essays. Edited by Gray, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  52.  Nussbaum 2004: 234. Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  53.  Campbell 2023. Campbell, Douglas R. (2023). "Cancel Culture, Then and Now: A Platonic Approach to the Shaming of People and the Exclusion of Ideas", Journal of Cyberspace Studies 7 (2):147-166.
  54.  Campbell 2023.
  55.  Plato's Gorgias is a key text in this case. See Tarnopolsky, C (2010). Prudes, Perverts, and Tyrants: Plato's Gorgias and the Politics of Shame. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  56.  Nussbaum 2004: 230, 239.
  57.  "Where Did Cancel Culture Come From?". Dictionary.com. July 21, 2020. Archived from the original on June 30, 2020.
  58.  Bostock, Bill (October 30, 2019). "Obama laid into young people being 'politically woke' and 'as judgmental as possible' in a speech about call-out culture". Business Insider. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  59.  Daniel Dale (July 7, 2020). "A list of people and things Donald Trump tried to get canceled before he railed against 'cancel culture'". CNN. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
  60.  Pope Francis (January 10, 2022). Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See (Speech). Vatican.va. Retrieved September 18, 2025.
  61.  Kington, Tom (January 11, 2022). "Cancel culture is rewriting the past, warns Pope Francis". The Times. Archived from the original on January 11, 2022. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  62.  Rocca, Francis X. (January 10, 2022). "Pope Francis Denounces 'Cancel Culture' and Antivaccine 'Ideology'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 18, 2025.
  63.  Sunak, Rishi (May 13, 2024). "PM speech on security: 13 May 2024". GOV.uk. Retrieved May 26, 2024.
  64.  "Ethics on the Rocks". Project Syndicate. November 22, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2024.
  65.  Nwanevu, Osita (September 23, 2019). "The 'Cancel Culture' Con". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved March 4, 2022.
  66.  "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate". Harper's Magazine. July 7, 2020. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020.
  67.  "JK Rowling joins 150 public figures warning over free speech". BBC. July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  68.  Chiu, Allyson (July 8, 2020). "Letter signed by J.K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky warning of stifled free speech draws mixed reviews". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  69.  Schuessler, Jennifer (July 10, 2020). "An Open Letter on Free Expression Draws a Counterblast". The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
  70.  Roberts, Mikenzie (July 13, 2020). "Harper's letter and response signed by Northwestern academics". The Daily Northwestern. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  71.  "Letters to the Editor: It's not 'cancel culture.' It's finally holding privileged people accountable". Los Angeles Times. July 15, 2020.
  72.  Mishra, Pankaj (July 15, 2020). "No, cancel culture isn't a threat to civilization". ThePrint. India.
  73.  Fine, Duncan (March 4, 2021). "Dr Seuss not cancelled. Old stereotypes are being made redundant". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  74.  Kurtzleben, Danielle (February 10, 2021). "When Republicans Attack 'Cancel Culture,' What Does It Mean?". NPR. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
  75.  Coventry, C. J. (November 21, 2020). "A New Birth of Freedom: South Australia, slavery and exceptionalism". Humanities Commons. Modern Language Association. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  76.  Fung, Katherine (April 26, 2021). "LeVar Burton defends cancel culture, says it should be called 'consequence culture'". Newsweek. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  77.  Schwartz, Molly (March 5, 2021). "Roxane Gay says cancel culture does not exist". Mother Jones. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  78.  Vogels, Emily A.; Monica; Erson; Porteus, Margaret; Baronavski, Chris; Atske, Sara; McClain, Colleen; Auxier, Brooke; Perrin, Andrew (May 19, 2021). "Americans and 'Cancel Culture': Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment". Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  79.  Lizza, Ryan (July 22, 2020). "Americans tune in to 'cancel culture' — and don't like what they see". Politico. Archived from the original on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  80.  Morning Consult; Politico (July 2020). "National tracking poll, July 17–19, 2020". Politico. Archived from the original on July 22, 2020. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
  81.  Manchester, Julia (March 29, 2021). "64 percent view 'cancel culture' as threat to freedom: poll". The Hill. Retrieved April 27, 2021.
  82.  Schulte, Gabriela (November 8, 2021). "Poll: Overwhelming majority say cancel culture has gone too far". The Hill. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  83.  Schulte, Gabriela (November 9, 2021). "Poll: 69 percent say cancel culture unfairly punishes people for past actions, statements". The Hill. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  84.  "Free Expression in America Post-2020". Knight Foundation. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
  85.  "What's Really Behind America's 'Free Speech Problem'". NPR. April 4, 2022.
  86.  Howell, Jordan (March 18, 2022). "New York Times survey shows bipartisan agreement on host of free speech issues". Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  87.  "84% Say Americans being Afraid to ExerciseFreedom of Speech is a Serious Problem – Siena College Research Institute". scri.siena.edu. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  88.  The Learning Network (April 21, 2022). "What's Going On in This Graph? | Free Speech". The New York Times. Retrieved December 6, 2023.
  89.  "New Siena College poll finds respondents worried about "cancel culture" backlash to free speech". WAMC. March 21, 2022. Retrieved December 7, 2023.
  90.  Samuels, Robert (2024). "Antisemitism, Free Speech, and the Political Unconscious". Culture Wars, Universities, and the Political Unconscious. Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 137–151. ISBN 978-3-031-61227-5.
  91.  Salaita, Steven (July 2, 2024). "The Free Speech Exception to Palestine". Middle East Critique. 33 (3): 361–375. doi:10.1080/19436149.2024.2342667.
  92.  Samuels, Robert (2024). "Cancel Culture, Free Speech, and the Center-Right". Culture Wars, Universities, and the Political Unconscious. Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 59–76. ISBN 978-3-031-61227-5.
  93.  "After Kirk's killing a growing chorus of conservatives wants his critics ostracized or fired". AP News. September 14, 2025. Retrieved September 15, 2025.
  94.  "Trump and Republicans find themselves on the other side of the cancel culture wars". NBC News. September 19, 2025. Retrieved September 20, 2025.
  95.  Collins, Michael. "Charlie Kirk, cancel culture and conservative concerns over Jimmy Kimmel and a brash FCC". USA TODAY. Retrieved September 20, 2025.
  96.  Riccardi, Nicholas; Konstantin, Toropin (September 15, 2025). "Trump administration joins Republicans' campaign to police speech in reaction to Kirk's murder". The Associated Press. Retrieved September 15, 2025.
  97.  Fausset, Richard (September 20, 2025). "He Wrote a Biting Post About Charlie Kirk. The Fury Came Fast". The New York Times. Retrieved September 20, 2025.
  98.  Peters, Jeremy W. (September 19, 2025). "With Calls for Retribution Over Kirk, Some See Rise of a 'Woke Right'". The New York Times. Retrieved September 20, 2025.
  99.  "The FCC, Disney and Jimmy Kimmel". The Wall Street Journal. September 18, 2025. Retrieved September 20, 2025.
  100.  Mathews, Liam (October 11, 2018). "South Park Just Trolled The Simpsons Really Hard, but Why?". TV Guide. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  101.  Andrews, Travis M. (October 17, 2018). "How 'South Park' became the ultimate #bothsides show". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  102.  Edwards, Chris (November 20, 2018). "Post-outrage TV: how South Park is surviving the era of controversy". The Guardian. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  103.  Joho, Jess (October 12, 2018). "Why the latest season of 'South Park' feels like a total game-changer". Mashable. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  104.  Parker, Ryan (October 10, 2018). "'South Park' Goes After Roseanne Barr, 'Simpsons' Apu Character". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 11, 2018.
  105.  Barsanti, Sam (October 9, 2018). "South Park will somehow tackle both Brett Kavanaugh and The Problem With Apu simultaneously". The A.V. Club. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  106.  "Concerning Consent, Chappelle, and Canceling Cancel Culture". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
  107.  Eubanks, Alex (February 25, 2022). "Netflix's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is laughably bad... but that's why it's good". The Miami Hurricane.
  108.  Graham, Adam (February 18, 2022). "'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' review: You cannot cancel Leatherface". The Detroit News.
  109.  O'Neal, Sean (February 18, 2022). "The New 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre': They Came, They Sawed, They Didn't Cut It". Texas Monthly.
  110.  Goldberg, Michelle (October 21, 2022). "Finally, a Great Movie About Cancel Culture". The New York Times.
  111.  Chang, Justin (January 25, 2023). "All the 2023 best picture Oscar nominees ranked, from worst to best". Los Angeles Times.
  112.  Graham, Jennifer (December 8, 2023). "Perspective: Is Hollywood courting or mocking the right in 'Dream Scenario'?". Deseret News.

Further reading

===

===

===
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)