---
title: Clout, Cancel, Collapse
summary: An in-depth psychological analysis of how cancel culture works
date: 2025-06-24
---

Anyone with an online presence knows what cancellation is. Someone says or does
something others find offensive, upsetting, or socially unacceptable. In
response, people often rally to remove them from every space they belong to -
not just to "protect" the community, but sometimes to signal their own virtue
or boost their social standing. At some point, we have to ask: when does this
stop being about accountability? When does it cross the line from justice to
punishment, from safety to harm?

## Accountability vs Cancellation

The safety of communities and the users within them is very important. This is
why roles like moderators, administrators, and similar exist. Moderators aren't
just there to enforce rules - they're there to keep the community safe from
harm. So if someone does something that is unacceptable, removing them from the
community is to be expected. They're doing their job, after all, by removing
the problematic user. This post isn't about letting people get away with things
they should be held accountable for; it's about what happens after they've been
held accountable.

However, some people go further than just accountability. They will continue to
target, harass, or even stalk users that have been "called out" for their
actions. This is very reminiscent of a psychological state known as a "Savior
Complex," as described on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_complex)
for Savior Complex:

> In psychology, a savior complex is an attitude and demeanor in which a person
> believes they are responsible for assisting other people. A person with a
> savior complex will often experience empathic episodes and commit to impulsive
> decisions such as volunteering, donating, or advocating for a cause. A person
> with the complex will usually make an attempt to assist or continue to assist
> even if they are not helpful or are detrimental to the situation, others, or
> themselves.

The key takeaway here is: "A person with the complex will usually make an
attempt to assist or continue to assist even if they are not helpful or are
detrimental to the situation, others, or themselves." In other words, even
after the people or community who were harmed or disturbed by the user have
moved on, they will continue to attack the user - even going as far as stalking
them across platforms, chasing them across communities, just to make their life
as hard as possible.

At this point, it is no longer about holding the user accountable - it is about
making their life a living hell. When the line between justice and harm is
crossed, it is not accountability, it is cancellation. When the problematic
user continues to be harassed, targeted, stalked, and chased, it is no longer
accountability - it is harm. When groups of users attack someone en masse, it
is not accountability - it is an attack. Accountability should be silent,
swift, and handled with care, not reckless abandon.

**This is not accountability, this is uncontrolled intent to harm.**

## Conformity as a Survival Tactic

When cancellation happens, it usually happens with more than just one person
acting on it; it's usually waves or groups of people. While the need to ensure
the safety of your community is important, people don't look into it more, and
this is a three-fold problem:

1. Evidence is a second thought, and usually not even vouched for by those who
   were hurt.
2. Pushing someone out of a community can push them towards more harmful
   groups.
3. People are afraid to speak against the movement, in fear of being targeted
   themselves.

Let's start by talking about the first point. When accountability turns into
cancellation, it is not about holding the user accountable - it is about
removing them from as many places as possible, as swiftly as possible. Things
are not handled in private; they are publicized intentionally. Evidence is
usually lacking or heavily biased on the side of the attackers and often
completely disregards or ignores the side of the victim of the cancellation.
When it comes to cancellation, the victim does not matter.

About the second point: while the goal of a cancellation is to remove the user
and ensure the safety of the communities involved, this does damage in itself.
This can push the user to more problematic communities. It forces them into
isolation, and in the end, is not a restorative action - it is punitive. This
is worth mentioning, as a lot of people who act on these cancellations can
praise restorative justice, and yet do things like this. When it comes to
things involving themselves, they do not care about restoration. The only thing
they care about in the end is ensuring the problematic user "gets what they
deserve" - and nothing else. This is how it always seems to be - harm, not
heal.

Lastly, and most crucially, let's talk about the last point: conformism. Let's
start off by reading the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity)
on conformity to get a better understanding of what exactly conformism is:

> Conformity or conformism is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and
> behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit,
> specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their
> interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather
> than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the
> path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity
> is sometimes a product of group communication. This tendency to conform occurs
> in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle
> unconscious influences (predisposed state of mind), or from direct and overt
> social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an
> individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when
> eating or when watching television, even if alone.

What we are going to focus on here is one specific sentence: "This tendency to
conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from
subtle unconscious influences (predisposed state of mind), or from **direct and
overt social pressure.**" Did you catch that? When cancellation happens, people
are often afraid to speak out against the movement in fear of retaliation or
being cancelled themselves. They are being **pressured**, even if not
explicitly, to stay quiet and follow the crowd - and the more people who
follow, the worse the conformity becomes.

When you realize this, you begin to question what happens when you tear down
the walls of the opposition that are cancelling and gutting these people from
society, and you start to think about what their true intentions are. If they
really wanted to help people, wouldn't they focus on helping the victims
recover rather than trying to do harm to the perpetrator? The person the
attacking group is focusing on is a massive red flag to those who are aware of
these tactics. This was never about recovery or rehabilitation - it was about
retribution.

## Fighting A Rigged War

A common method abusers use is known as DARVO, which is an acronym for "Deny,
Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender." It is a textbook method of abuse that is
used to reverse the blame of the offender onto the victim. This is
unfortunately very common in cancellation scenarios, as if the victim of the
cancellation tries to speak out against the actions of the group, they will
have their own side, opinions, and accusations turned against them. If we take
the time to read the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) for
DARVO, we can also read the following in the first section, which tells us all
we need:

> These tactics are similar to other techniques used by perpetrators to avoid
> accountability by manipulating observers' perceptions of events. Researchers
> have noted similarities to outrage management, where a perpetrator tries to
> make observers think better of themself and their actions so they can avoid
> consequences. This strategy often involves denying the victim's version of
> events and trying to make observers doubt the victim's credibility, which are
> both key aspects of DARVO.

Something we want to pay attention to here is the first sentence: "used by
perpetrators to avoid accountability by manipulating observers' perceptions of
events." This is when things start to be malformed and cause bias toward the
opposition. No matter what the victim of a cancellation says, no matter what
their evidence, no matter what their side - the opposition will always warp the
perception of observers to ensure the outcome they are trying to achieve.

On top of the opposition using DARVO to warp the perception of viewers, a lot
end up using things somewhat like cult tactics to achieve maximum potency. We
can take a look at the BITE model and spot a few things that often show up in
cancellation scenarios that are used by accusers.

![BITE Model](https://i.imgur.com/4alCu9Q.png)

Let's take a look at this chart and list things that we often see when a
cancellation occurs:

- **Behavior:** Dependence and Obedience - Going against the group results in
  severe retaliation.  
- **Information:** Deception, Limited Access - People are often given evidence
  with no context.  
- **Thought:** Dogmatism, Thought Stopping - Things run on a very "us vs them"
  mindset.  
- **Emotional:** Guilt Manipulation, Phobia - Fear of retaliation,
  guilt-tripping, and more.

We can see by observing cancellation events from the outside that they take
advantage of multiple cult-like techniques to reduce opposition and enforce
thought patterns. Someone thinking differently is seen as an outsider, and is
shunned - or even worse, cancelled themselves. There are no two sides to this
war. There is only one, and you're either inside, or you're a target - no in
between.

## Mental Problems

A large nuance that should be kept in mind is mental disorders as well as
things like certain types of coping mechanisms. I have BPD, CPTSD, and a few
other disorders that make some situations particularly nasty, and I've been in
therapy for over a year now. Fawning is a very common coping mechanism and
should be handled with care. Something that can happen is known as Uncle Tom
Syndrome, which is a coping mechanism where people have the tendency to start
to fawn when confronted with a threat, as described by the
[Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom_syndrome) discussing it:

> Uncle Tom syndrome is a theory in multicultural psychology referring to a
> coping skill in which individuals use passivity and submissiveness when
> confronted with a threat, leading to subservient behaviour and appeasement,
> while concealing their true thoughts and feelings.

This is particularly nasty when it comes to abusive scenarios. Take for example
an abusive relationship: one partner is afraid of the other, and is afraid of
retaliation. In return, they fawn for the other and do things to appease them,
hiding the fact they are afraid. This would result in the abused partner
staying with the other despite being harmed. They continue to appease and
submit to their partner despite the imminent danger that the other partner is
proven to show.

When handling situations, the nuances of mental disorders should always be kept
in mind - not as an excuse, but as a reason. Mental disorders affect how we
think, how we process things, and most importantly, how we act. If we can't
trust our own brain, then how can we trust ourselves at all? Cancellation never
keeps the effects of disorders in mind - if anything, they are very often
discarded and ignored. This is not how things should be handled. It is unsound.

## Clout for Payment

Another thing that often happens on social media is people will sometimes get
involved in the cancellation of another user for "clout." By joining the "cause"
and involving themselves in the group and act, they are seen as a saint,
helping by removing a problematic user. This will help them gain popularity,
and more importantly, a backing. With their own following they can then defend
themselves against accusations against their own self more easily, using their
following as an army, and using the pressure of their followers as leverage. It’s
an absolute display of power.

It's hard to defend yourself when everyone you trusted is taken from you and
siding with the enemy. That's how these groups work. They take the ones who
trusted you, they reverse the blame onto you, and they use that leverage to
remove you. There is no justice involved; it's purely an exchange of power. It's
a power dynamic, and you have no power left to utilize.

Clout is the currency of the internet; the more clout or popularity someone
has, the more power and platform they will have as well. It's not impossible
to fight against someone with a platform, but it is made to be near impossible,
not just by the people themselves, but by the platforms we use. The best way to
fight it is to use their own attacks against them, gather evidence, and use
that to your advantage. Eventually you will win, but don't do what they do and
continue the cycle.

## Societal Standards

A lot of retaliation comes from straying from retaliation, and I don't just mean
when it comes to "taboo" topics. For example, a lot of kinks come from trauma. An
extreme example is beating; in a normal context it is considered abusive, in a
kink context it is considered euphoric or cathartic. Context, niche, and
nuances are critical for properly judging and understanding situations, people,
and information. Leaving out or lacking these nuances and context is a common
tactic used to point towards things happening out of context to make them
appear worse than they ever were.

When we think about it, a lot of standards are also decades or even millennia
years old. They are based on old standards, similar to the Bible, which do not
apply to modern society. A great example of this is when gays had to fight for
rights, and I say this as a lesbian. They fought for same-sex marriage when
society believed in standards from decades ago that disallowed it. When you
think of it this way, you start to realize that other things are similar, and
while the world may hate you for it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the
"wrong" choice. Standards are exactly that: standards. They are guidelines.
Laws and standards are not the same thing; you should obey laws, but question
standards. Standards and laws can change, but don't break the law to change a
standard.

Question everything. Do not believe what someone says offhand. Do your own
research, study, and look more into things that happen. When a cancellation
happens, context is often reduced. Ask both parties their side, look into the
evidence yourself, and keep in mind that the opposition is against you until
they deem you safe. You are an enemy and will stay one until proven otherwise.

## Examining The Fallout

I have many friends who are victims of a cancellation, and each one is very
heartbreaking. I will not give names for the sake of privacy and safety, but I
have heard stories about partners turning against partners, friends turning
words into weapons, and so much more. The only thing that results from these
attacks is more attacks, some even resulting in the loss of lives. This is not
how things should be. This is an online battleground, not a display of justice,
but that is just the thing, isn't it?

It was never about justice or rehabilitation or recovery; it was about
retaliation, retribution. Vengeance for the ones that were hurt by people who
aren't the ones who were hurt or even involved, because that's what it is in
the end: savior complexes, cult tactics, blissful ignorance, and targeted
attacks. They don't want you to recover, or change, or improve as a person.
They want you to fail; they want you gone, whether you changed as a person or
not. That's always how it's been.

Stay safe out there and keep your guard up; you never know who will turn. Keep
your loved ones close and your enemies closer. Most importantly, remember that
even at the worst, you will have people who care. Do not give up and do not let
them win. It's rigged, but not unwinnable.
