Twitter has since become a raging public discourse with outrage. One tweet can ignite a firestorm, rally those to something, or bring curses to an individual or organization. This has led to the dawn of “cancel culture”, where online mobs try to “cancel” and deplatform public figures for controversial statements or behavior and are judged as bad in the public court of opinion via likes, retweets, and comments.

But what of redemption? When canceled, is there a way back for the offender, or are they permanently stained? In particular, if someone likes an offensive tweet, but later unlikes it, is that person redeemable in the eyes of the online public? Much of modern outrage culture is based on this complex issue.

The Outsized Influence of Twitter

Twitter has thus become the main hub for outrage, which is quick to spread with its short format: a perfect format for hot takes and moral grandstanding. Despite its small user base compared to other platforms, it has mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, and influencers, which makes it an enormous influence on public discourse.

This furor feeds off of the number of likes, retweets, and comments. They are legitimizing and giving the event momentum. The more viral a condemnation is, the more real it becomes. A single offensive tweet can escalate to a person being permanently canceled and ruined forever. Society rejects the collective and the metrics prove it.

The Nuances Around Twitter Likes

However, Twitter metrics have nuances. The difference between liking and retweeting is important. A retweet explicitly endorses and spreads inflammatory content to one's followers. A like, however, can often be accidental or negligent rather than intentional.

People scroll fast on social media. It's easy to like content you don't fully agree with or may have misinterpreted. Public figures can like tweets to bookmark them for later thought or clarification. The initial outrage may also influence likes — it's compelling content, sparking engagement before deeper reflection.

Moreover, there's the issue of old likes. Views can change over time as context and culture shift. What was acceptable years ago may no longer be today. Judging people for mistakes in their past, even recent past often lacks nuance. In light of this, some users have opted to delete Twitter likes, clearing old endorsements that no longer align with their current beliefs or understanding of issues.

The Power Of The Unlike

For these reasons, unliking controversial tweets has a redemptive quality. It's an admission of "I shouldn't have liked this" - communicating that sharing or endorsing such views was an error.

An unlike say the person now rejects an offensive viewpoint upon further reflection. It signifies growth - recognizing concerns raised by others and course correcting. This builds good faith and demonstrates a willingness to listen rather than doubling down.

The act of undoing a like also contributes to slowing outrage - it subtracts from the viral momentum and legitimacy of extreme views. Each chip away at the perception that society at large endorses or tolerates harmful behaviors. If enough people unlike a controversial tweet, it can even flip narratives around cancel culture.

Case Studies in The Court of Public Opinion

Several case studies highlight society's complexity around outrage and redemption:

Kevin Hart

When comedian Kevin Hart was announced as host of the 2019 Oscars, some of his old homophobic tweets resurfaced. Hart initially doubled down and refused to apologize. But as outrage grew, he ultimately did apologize and step down.

While Hart's apology came years too late, he did demonstrate good faith by going back and deleting the tweets. This act of "unliking" his tweets signaled growth - he understood the tweets were offensive and no longer stood by them. Rather than feed cancel culture, his unlike offered him some redemption.

JK Rowling

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has increasingly faced outrage over her views on transgender people. Yet she has continued liking tweets from controversial figures - feeding perceptions she is transphobic.

Unlike Hart, Rowling has doubled down rather than unliked or apologized for her views. She continues liking inflammatory tweets - preserving her reputation among some fans but cementing her cancellation among critics. Her refusal to "unlike" signals endorsement, fanning outrage rather than redemption.

The Complexity of Modern Judgment

These examples highlight society's complexity around outrage, forgiveness, and redemption. The trajectory hinges greatly on how people respond after a perceived offense - whether they demonstrate good faith, reflect on harm, and make amends.

In an era of hyper-judgment, granting others room for growth fosters social cohesion. Rather than seek endless punishment over inevitable mistakes, people willing to learn from errors signal hope. The act of "unliking" offers a small but symbolically powerful way to deescalate outrage - communicating openness to progress while subtracting momentum from extreme views.

Incentivizing Positive Change

Unliking also incentivizes positive change. If society allows no path to redemption for offenders, what motivation remains to reflect on harmful behaviors and improve? Why bother apologizing or growing if cancellation is permanent, the scarlet letter indefinite?

This risks encouraging people to double down on extreme positions once condemned - they have no incentive to learn or engage differently. Alternatively, underscoring the power of the unlike motivates reflection - it represents the possibility of partial redemption and reintegration.

The Marketplace of Ideas

Modern outrage culture often lacks nuance - but the opposite extreme of relativism where "all ideas deserve equal footing" is also problematic. Certain views inherently violate human dignity.

Yet in a pluralistic society with complex policy issues, preserving the marketplace of ideas is vital. People must feel they can make mistakes without facing disproportionate consequences or risking permanent cancellation.

Underscoring the power of unlikes promotes free expression - signaling people can redeem themselves if they self-correct errors. This fosters dialogue vital for social progress.

Preserving Nuance

Despite the risks of weaponization, the possibility of authentic redemption remains vital. If society rejects growth, it slips into a rigid cancel-everyone mindset lacking nuance and forgiveness - more concerned with punishing than progress.

This risks fostering a culture of fear where people self-censor at the first sign of controversy rather than voice dissenting views that drive social change. And in an era struggling with political polarization and extremism, preserving space for complexity and nuance is essential.

The Power of Admitting Error

In the end, the act of unliking offers more than just crisis management. True self-correction holds power. Admitting the initial like was wrong reflects moral courage - a willingness to break from in-groups and dominant views.

Acknowledging harm signals maturity and character rather than just self-interest. In a fragmented world, such gestures build social cohesion. The unlike represents a small but symbolically potent act - signaling openness to progress and redemption.

Conclusion

Modern cancel culture lives in absolutes - good versus evil, purity versus corruption. Yet reality holds more nuance. Society must strike a balance between accountability for harm and room for growth.

In an era where a single like can spark outrage and end careers, the act of unliking holds power. It offers a path to redemption - signaling reflection and progress rather than rigid cancellation. There remain risks of weaponization and inauthenticity. However, preserving space for forgiveness fosters social cohesion and a marketplace of ideas vital for pluralism.