Paul Westhaver
Cancel culture, where individuals or groups are ostracized for perceived or supposed moral or social transgressions, has surged in the digital age, amplified by social media and smartphone ubiquity. This brief essay argues that cancel culture operates as a "mind virus," a contagious pattern of thought that dehumanizes others, reducing them to objects of gratification or disposal. This behavior, exacerbated by smartphone addiction and social media dynamics, manifests in extreme measures like no-contact orders (NCOs) issued by police, reflecting a broader trend of dehumanization. Drawing on academic sources and Catholic moral teachings on reconciliation, suffering, and forgiveness, this essay critiques cancel culture’s excesses and proposes that smartphone-driven social media practices fuel this demonic behavioral trend.
Cancel culture, defined as the public shaming and boycotting of individuals deemed to have acted unacceptably, thrives in the mass communication age. Ng describes it as "the withdrawal of any kind of support for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective" [1]. This practice, often executed via social media, creates a feedback loop where outrage spreads rapidly, resembling a viral infection. Haidt and Lukianoff argue that "safetyism"—a cultural shift prioritizing emotional over intellectual safety—fuels call-out culture, a precursor to canceling, by fostering intolerance for dissent [2]. This aligns with the mind virus thesis: a collective mindset that prioritizes capricious moral purity over dialogue, spreading through thoughtless engagement on digital platforms or other remote communication vectors.
The dehumanization inherent in cancel culture is evident in its reduction of individuals to their perceived or supposed offenses. Nakamura frames it as a "cultural boycott," noting its potential to empower marginalized voices but also its tendency to strip targets of complexity [3]. Social media’s design—rewarding quick judgments and viral outrage—amplifies this, training users to view others as disposable. Clark highlights how cancel culture shifts power dynamics, but its punitive nature often bypasses empathy, treating people as objects to be discarded rather than subjects capable of growth or love.[4]. This objectification mirrors the thesis that people are treated as "clothing" or "gratification sources," discarded when no longer useful.
Smartphone addiction, characterized by compulsive device use, underpins the spread of this mind virus. A Pew Research study notes that 77% of college graduates are familiar with cancel culture, with younger adults most engaged, reflecting social media’s role in shaping discourse [5]. The constant connectivity of smartphones fosters a culture of instant reaction, where users seek validation through likes and retweets, often at the expense of nuanced interaction. Verywell Mind argues that cancel culture’s psychology encourages bypassing empathy for righteous anger, driven by groupthink facilitated by social media algorithms [6]. Twenge notes that smartphone overuse correlates with increased anxiety and reduced empathy among young adults, amplifying cancel culture’s effects [7].
Social media platforms, designed to maximize engagement, exacerbate dehumanization. The Hindu notes that cancel culture’s lack of forgiveness creates constant aggravation, preventing constructive change [8]. Users, enslaved to their screens, prioritize virtual approval over real-world relationships, reducing others to avatars. This aligns with the thesis that people look to the "little screen" for sustenance, neglecting the "flesh" beyond it. The dopamine-driven feedback loops of social media, as discussed by Newport Institute, reinforce tribalism, where canceling becomes a performative act of group identity [9]. Carr argues that constant digital engagement fragments attention, impairing moral reasoning [10].
The escalation of cancel culture into legal mechanisms like no-contact orders (NCOs) underscores its severity. A New York Times article on "human flesh search" in China parallels Western cancel culture, where online shaming leads to real-world consequences like legal action [11]. In the U.S., The Verge notes cases where offensive posts prompted law enforcement action, including NCOs [12]. The term "no-contact" has gained traction, with Google Trends data from 2020–2025 showing increased searches for "no-contact order" [13]. Legal analyses, such as by the American Bar Association, note rising NCO requests in domestic and social disputes, reflecting cancel culture’s influence [14].
NCOs formalize the disposal of relationships, institutionalizing dehumanization by legally barring contact. This trend supports the thesis that infected individuals use extreme measures to discard "used" friends, bypassing reconciliation. Studies on social exclusion, like those by Williams, show that ostracism causes psychological harm akin to physical pain, amplifying cancel culture’s impact [15].
Anecdotally, it has been suggested by law enforcement professionals in Nova Scotia that as many as 200 NCOs are requested each day and those numbers are on the rise.
Catholic moral teaching counters cancel culture’s excesses, emphasizing reconciliation, suffering, apologies, and forgiveness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses that reconciliation restores communion, requiring repentance and forgiveness [16]. Father Randy Dollins critiques cancel culture’s lack of mercy, contrasting it with Christ’s call to forgive "seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:22) [17]. Suffering for others, as St. Paul writes in Galatians 6:2, challenges cancel culture’s punitive nature [18]. The D.L. Moody Center advocates for compassion and accountability, urging confrontation with love [19].
Sincere apologies and forgiveness are central to Catholic ethics. Verywell Mind notes that genuine apologies can soften public perception, but cancel culture often dismisses them [6]. Catholic teaching views apologies as steps toward reconciliation [16]. The USCCB emphasizes forgiveness as a divine mandate, contrasting with cancel culture’s refusal of redemption [20]. This offers a moral antidote to the mind virus of dehumanization.
The mind virus of cancel culture rejects human dignity, mirroring demonic tactics, as St. Paul describes in Ephesians 6:12 [21]. The refusal to forgive, coupled with NCOs, reflects a cultural descent into division, fueled by social media and smartphone addiction. Turkle argues that digital culture erodes empathy, enabling such behaviors [22].
Cancel culture, as a mind virus, thrives in the digital age, dehumanizing individuals through social media and smartphone addiction. The rise of NCOs reflects a trend toward legalizing relational disposal. Academic sources like Haidt, Ng, and Nakamura highlight its impacts, while Catholic teachings offer a robust rebuttal. The demonic nature of this trend lies in its rejection of human dignity, driven by platforms that prioritize outrage over empathy. Addressing smartphone addiction and reforming social media practices are critical to restoring empathetic relationships.
I decided to commit this concept of a mind virus infecting people to a rigorous examination in the literature because this cancel culture behaviour has directly impacted me. I also see the edges of it seeping into the minds of people whom I know and love. I surmised that it is a subject of intellectual and scholarly consideration. It is a disturbing trend, and there is no end to the cult-like justification of the behaviour. I made a post on June 6th approaching the subject as well. Few people even detect that it is a factor in observed behaviour, let alone are they sufficiently self-aware to catch themselves engaged in it.
Good people who are conscious and wary of things like invasive substances and energy emissions, are equally susceptible. A gentle woman whom I know explained to me that chickens suffer while in cages to the extent that they harm their own beaks on the cage wire due to stress. She said this to me with convincing and sweet concern. Clearly her conscious mind was fundamentally beautiful. I felt sad for the chicken. Later, that same gentle woman's mind seemed oblivious to pernicious invasive intelligence and the malignant suggestion of cancel culture. That is why I believe her compulsion to cancel is a morbidity associated with the effects of a mind virus. It was not done with rational intent.
Certain acquaintances would not fake a cough or a fever from a respiratory virus. If they cough, then they are infected. They would not engage in destructive cancel behaviour deliberately either. I conclude that it must be a mysterious infection. A spiritual infection. An infection that knows how to hide behind a beautiful face in plain sight.
I believe that cancel culture is insidious evil, pure and simple. Evil, from the evil one. It is divisive by definition. The acquiescent acceptance of it reminds me of the robotic obedience of the public to accept the pandemic hype and the subsequent hype of remedies. The contradiction of the self-preservation imperative and the mind virus possession is stark. These cautious people don’t use microwave ovens, they take special nutrients, they avoid toxic additives, but they keep the hive mind close and present. Electronic affirmation of every spurious thought of origins unknown. We are under attack, and I see the casualties piling up. Look at each other as if we are the last vision that you will ever see.