Reviews
Canceling Comedians While the World Burns: A Critique of the Contemporary Left by Ben Burgis
k0rnbr34d's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
This book functions as an expansion of Mark Fisher’s 2010s classic essay "Exiting the Vampire’s Castle". Burgis’s mission is simple: provide a critique of “cancel culture” from the left. While this book is nothing mind blowing, it was comforting to me to have someone lay out examples and explain how unpractical and annoying it is for leftists of all labels to choose moralizing and shaming over working together. I think his strongest critique, and the one he believes in the most as well, is that this ultra-sensitive infighting that is so controlling and hostile makes being around leftists seem totally insufferable to any onlookers.
At this point, I think of the brilliant analysis of the disappearance of American working class movements in Thomas Frank’s seminal What’s the Matter With Kansas? Here, the question at the heart of Frank’s work is that while socialist policies would benefit the American working class, they end up voting and supporting politicians who have the demonstrably worst policies for their well-being and the survival of their livelihoods. Why do they vote this way? His answer is nuanced and has to do with highjacking the concerns of the working poor with religious or cultural issues, erasing class from the equation (e.g., Christians will support an anti-abortion politician without considering that the same person will be helping the unspeakably rich secure more wealth from the taxes the poor pay, bringing nothing to their communities or helping the women who otherwise would have abortions). There is more to his analysis, but I recommend just reading the book.
Burgis’s point about the unpalatable and self-destructive nature of current leftist discourse seems to compliment this—despite socialist policies being more helpful for the working poor, they don’t consider supporting candidates who would help them because they see the club of leftism being gatekept by snowflake SJWs who believe everyone who disagrees with them is a nazi. The difference here is that in Frank’s work, it was the conservatives hijacking the working class’s support. These days, leftists are sending the Joe Blows of America straight to Trump or whoever else comes next (Tucker Carlson? Tom Cotton? God help us).
Burgis makes what I think is a sensible and timely call for better consideration of our actions and what the mission to help the underprivileged requires of us. I must say, he comes off as a bit of a cringy dork (he is like a caricature of a Bernie Bro), but I appreciate his work here very much, and he is genuinely trying to help. (I am aware this is an ad hominem; I don't think he would mind, since I know this is a fallacy). I may be out of the loop, but I think we need more work addressing online discourse. Some of his arguments go on a bit too long, and some don't add too much to the book. But it's short, so I'll forgive that. I did struggle to understand why the "bonus essay" at the end was included. It seemed to hardly relate.
To close out, I'll include an excerpt that I thought powerfully summarized his points:
At this point, I think of the brilliant analysis of the disappearance of American working class movements in Thomas Frank’s seminal What’s the Matter With Kansas? Here, the question at the heart of Frank’s work is that while socialist policies would benefit the American working class, they end up voting and supporting politicians who have the demonstrably worst policies for their well-being and the survival of their livelihoods. Why do they vote this way? His answer is nuanced and has to do with highjacking the concerns of the working poor with religious or cultural issues, erasing class from the equation (e.g., Christians will support an anti-abortion politician without considering that the same person will be helping the unspeakably rich secure more wealth from the taxes the poor pay, bringing nothing to their communities or helping the women who otherwise would have abortions). There is more to his analysis, but I recommend just reading the book.
Burgis’s point about the unpalatable and self-destructive nature of current leftist discourse seems to compliment this—despite socialist policies being more helpful for the working poor, they don’t consider supporting candidates who would help them because they see the club of leftism being gatekept by snowflake SJWs who believe everyone who disagrees with them is a nazi. The difference here is that in Frank’s work, it was the conservatives hijacking the working class’s support. These days, leftists are sending the Joe Blows of America straight to Trump or whoever else comes next (Tucker Carlson? Tom Cotton? God help us).
Burgis makes what I think is a sensible and timely call for better consideration of our actions and what the mission to help the underprivileged requires of us. I must say, he comes off as a bit of a cringy dork (he is like a caricature of a Bernie Bro), but I appreciate his work here very much, and he is genuinely trying to help. (I am aware this is an ad hominem; I don't think he would mind, since I know this is a fallacy). I may be out of the loop, but I think we need more work addressing online discourse. Some of his arguments go on a bit too long, and some don't add too much to the book. But it's short, so I'll forgive that. I did struggle to understand why the "bonus essay" at the end was included. It seemed to hardly relate.
To close out, I'll include an excerpt that I thought powerfully summarized his points:
Think not just about the positive utility of whatever you hope to accomplish but of the high probability of outcomes with extreme disutility to left-wing goals. If we denounce "problematic" comedians, and thus make ourselves look like some secular version of evangelical preachers ranting about the blasphemous undercurrents they take themselves to have detected in popular TV shows, and we demonstrate that all our huffing and puffing doesn't even blow these comedians' stupid little careers down, then we've succeeded in making ourselves look both spectacularly unappealing and completely powerless. Both halves of that are a problem if we're interested in presenting a vision of the world that a great mass of ordinary people can get excited about and giving them confidence that it can be achieved.
When the Committee on Public Safety in the French Revolution got so paranoid it started executing good revolutionaries like Danton, or when Stalin started filling his gulags with Old Bolsheviks, it was fair to describe what had happened as "the revolution eating its children." . . . The Very Online Left isn't eating its children. It's just sort of gnawing on them in a sad, toothless way that makes most onlookers look away with disgust.
lucien_david's review
challenging
reflective
fast-paced
2.0
Burgis makes some good points about what the contemporary “left” should be focused on in order to prevent alienating otherwise reasonable, moderate people. However, a few key missteps significantly undermine his lines of argument.
Firstly, he attempts to make the point that Louis CK was “canceled” for asking women to take part in sexual acts with him to which they said no. In reality there are numerous reports of him coercing, physically restraining, and assaulting female comedians who did not consent.
Burgis is also forced to admit towards the end of the book that almost no one who is “canceled” actually deals with any real material consequences (several of his key examples have been welcomed back into the discourse by this point).
Burgis seems ultimately to make a mountain of the molehill of the “puritanical left”, but ultimately exposes the real lack of consequences to any of this debate and just left me feeling like I wasted my time.
Firstly, he attempts to make the point that Louis CK was “canceled” for asking women to take part in sexual acts with him to which they said no. In reality there are numerous reports of him coercing, physically restraining, and assaulting female comedians who did not consent.
Burgis is also forced to admit towards the end of the book that almost no one who is “canceled” actually deals with any real material consequences (several of his key examples have been welcomed back into the discourse by this point).
Burgis seems ultimately to make a mountain of the molehill of the “puritanical left”, but ultimately exposes the real lack of consequences to any of this debate and just left me feeling like I wasted my time.
richthegreat's review
fast-paced
2.5
Ok so for me the book raises some points, but overall I don't really agree or really feel his arguments are accurate.
I don't know much about Ben Burgis but from reading the book he seems like he's towards the debator-bro of the Online left community.
I have heard this sort of argument before, and I get it, he isn't totally wrong sometimes we tear each other down and that is really sad, and wasteful, but for me the book reads a bit as though he hasn't really experienced oppression.
I don't know much about Ben Burgis but from reading the book he seems like he's towards the debator-bro of the Online left community.
I have heard this sort of argument before, and I get it, he isn't totally wrong sometimes we tear each other down and that is really sad, and wasteful, but for me the book reads a bit as though he hasn't really experienced oppression.
crow_enjoyer's review
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.5
Unfortunately, I think the people who would benefit most from reading this book are not the people who will be reading it. Likewise, if you start off already agreeing with Burgis about the left's problem with cancel culture, then there probably isn't a whole lot here that you haven't seen before.
Having said that, I still found some of the insights useful. Particularly the last chapter, touching on Nietzschean morality in comparison to the left of today was quite interesting.
I would recommend this book to anyone on the left concerned with the counterproductive attitudes you often see.
Having said that, I still found some of the insights useful. Particularly the last chapter, touching on Nietzschean morality in comparison to the left of today was quite interesting.
I would recommend this book to anyone on the left concerned with the counterproductive attitudes you often see.
More...