There’s a clear difference between holding someone accountable and tearing them apart.
With social media shaping how people respond to harm or offense, many now confuse the two. The callout vs cancel culture debate continues to blur lines. One aims to correct behavior. The other often seeks to remove someone entirely from public or professional life.
We sat down with Dr. Michael Epstein, a licensed psychologist with experience in military mental health, forensic evaluation, and high-stakes risk assessment. He works with everyone from first responders to Fortune 500 brands. His insights into how society handles accountability are both honest and deeply human.
These days, instead of simple conversation, people are turning to comment sections. Emotional well-being takes a backseat. Respectful dialogue gets replaced by online confrontation. The way we hold others accountable has changed, but that change is not always for the better.
Key Takeaways
- Call-out culture and cancel culture are not the same. One calls attention to harm. The other often pushes for full removal. The callout vs cancel culture debate has become louder as social media reshapes how people respond to offense.
- Dr. Epstein says social media encourages “validation over resolution.” The goal becomes likes, not learning.
- Portraying oneself as a victim brings online approval. This can prevent real accountability and personal growth.
- People skip direct conversations. Many now post recordings instead of addressing concerns face-to-face.
- Dr. Epstein reminds us that not everyone’s voice needs to be heard all the time. Timing and intention matter.
- Change happens through conversation. Viral outrage may feel powerful, but real change starts with listening.
Difference Between Call-Out and Cancel Culture
What Is Call-Out Culture?
Call-out culture involves publicly identifying speech or behavior that causes harm or offense. At its best, it aims to educate or bring attention to an issue. A friend posts a reminder about harmful stereotypes. A coworker voices concern over a joke.
Call-outs can push for progress when handled with care. But when driven by social media algorithms, they often escalate.
Nowadays, the urge to gather attention and approval can turn a teachable moment into a public spectacle.
What Is Cancel Culture?
Cancel culture’s meaning has been widely debated, but at its core, it is what happens when a person or group is publicly called out and then pushed out socially, professionally, or both. The idea is that the individual has said or done something offensive or harmful, and as a result, they no longer deserve their platform, position, or public support. What follows can be boycotts, mass unfollows, and long threads dissecting every past action.
Some see cancel culture as a way to hold powerful people accountable. But more often than not, the consequences feel sudden and final. The person being canceled may not have a chance to explain, apologize, or even reflect. Dr. Epstein, who works with individuals navigating some of life’s most difficult moments, has seen firsthand what happens when people are cut off instead of called in.
He pointed out that even a small misstep can spiral into something much larger.
“Unfortunately, because of social media, it’s guilty until proven innocent,” Dr. Epstein said. “There’s no court of law with social media. And you can absolutely destroy someone’s career overnight.
When something takes off on social media, it rarely comes with full context or compassion.
Cancel culture does not always consider whether the person has shown patterns of harm or made a one-time mistake. It tends to operate in extremes, either total support or total rejection. While it may be rooted in justice, the method can become more about public punishment than personal growth.
Why the Distinction Matters
There’s a meaningful difference between calling someone out and canceling them, and Dr. Epstein believes it’s time we pay closer attention to that line. He describes today’s climate as a call-out era, not a cancel era. The distinction matters because the way we respond to mistakes shapes the kind of communities we build.
Call-out culture, when done with care, can open the door to learning. It’s someone saying, “Hey, that thing you said was hurtful, let’s talk about why.” It invites reflection. It leaves room for the person to listen, apologize, and do better.
Cancel culture, on the other hand, tends to slam that door shut. It often sends the message that you are no longer worth engaging with.
Dr. Epstein explained that in a cancel culture, you get positive reinforcement for calling someone out, not for solving the problem.
He says you should ask yourself, “Do I actually want this problem solved, or do I want people to tell me I’m right? What’s more important to you, being right or fixing the problem?”
At the heart of this is the intent. Call-outs aim to educate. Canceling aims to erase. One holds space for accountability. The other removes that space entirely. When we treat every mistake as unforgivable, we lose the chance to help people grow. We also send a message that perfection is the only safe way to exist. That’s neither realistic nor fair.
For Dr. Epstein, who often works with people in high-pressure roles like law enforcement, military personnel, or public-facing jobs, this kind of nuance is essential. You have to meet people where they are, and that starts with trust and dialogue, not dismissal.
Role of Social Media in Reinforcing Behavior
Validation Over Resolution
Social media plays a major role in how cancel culture and call-out culture unfold. Platforms are designed to reward engagement. The more a post gets liked, shared, and commented on, the more people see it. This creates a feedback loop where emotional, dramatic content spreads far and fast, while quiet reflection often gets lost in the noise.
This affects how people respond when they feel harmed. Instead of having a direct conversation, many turn to their followers. It’s quicker, it feels safer, and it often results in a rush of support. Dr. Epstein describes this as validation over resolution. The goal becomes feeling heard and affirmed, rather than working through the issue with the person who caused harm.
And it’s not just about being heard. There’s a kind of emotional payoff that comes with being agreed with publicly.
“It’s like junk food,” Dr. Epstein shares. “You know it’s not good for you, but it feels really good at the moment.”
The problem is that this kind of feedback doesn’t necessarily help someone move forward. It can encourage a sense of victimhood without offering tools for healing. It can also make the other person defensive, ashamed, or silent, even if they were open to making things right.
What gets missed is the chance for mutual understanding. And that’s the part Dr. Epstein emphasizes the most: a genuine conversation. When someone is called out privately or with compassion, there’s a real chance for connection and change. When it happens publicly, especially in front of a large audience, it can feel like an attack, even if that wasn’t the intention.
Performative outrage, like saying or sharing something because it looks good or gains support, often replaces genuine accountability. The more dramatic the post, the more people engage. But engagement does not always equal effectiveness. Sometimes, the real work of change happens in a quiet room, without an audience, when someone chooses to listen instead of react.
Source: Research Gate, Swarthmore Phoenix
Victimhood as Social Currency
Online, being seen as the person who was wronged can lead to a wave of support. Posts that describe hurtful experiences, even when the situation is unclear or unresolved, often gain traction. The more personal, emotional, and painful the story appears, the more people tend to rally around it.
Dr. Epstein pointed out that this kind of public response offers something powerful: attention, sympathy, and affirmation. These reactions feel good, especially when someone is hurting. But they also come with a hidden cost.
When being viewed as the victim becomes rewarding, it can make it harder for people to take an honest look at their own behavior. Instead of asking, “What part did I play?” The easier path is to focus outward. The harder, slower work of self-reflection and growth gets skipped in favor of approval.
This isn’t always intentional. People genuinely feel hurt and want to be heard. The problem is that online spaces often reward the emotional performance more than the deeper effort of healing. And that shift discourages real accountability on both sides.
Lack of Direct, Private Dialogue
Before social media became the norm, many conflicts happened quietly and directly. If a student was upset about something a teacher said, they might stay after class and talk it out. It may not have been easy, but it allowed both people to engage in a real, two-way conversation.
Dr. Epstein remembered this well. “When I was in college… if you had an issue with something a professor said, you might go down to the bottom of the stairs and talk to him,” Dr. Epstein recalled. “And it would get addressed in the moment… Now, what we have is you video the professor and then you post it on social media without ever addressing it with the professor.”
Today, many of those conversations are skipped. Instead, people film, post, and caption. The interaction is no longer about resolution, it’s about visibility. And that changes everything.
Public shaming has replaced private feedback. A conversation that could have stayed personal becomes a post that goes viral. The person on the receiving end might feel confused, attacked, or blindsided, especially if they never had the chance to respond before being judged.
When conflict becomes content, the space for vulnerability disappears. Apologies become performative. Defensiveness increases. And meaningful change gets harder to reach.
When Minor Offenses Lead to Major Consequences
One of the most troubling parts of cancel culture is how quickly small issues can turn into full-blown scandals. A poorly worded comment, an old tweet, or a clumsy joke can resurface and explode across timelines with little room for context or understanding.
The internet moves fast. Once something is labeled offensive, many people skip over the details. The intent behind the action, the full context, and the person’s track record often get left behind. What follows is a flood of reactions, often harsher than the situation calls for.
This is where proportionality matters. Not every misstep deserves public exile. There is a difference between patterns of abuse and isolated moments of ignorance. Treating them the same erodes our ability to respond with fairness and wisdom.
Instead of throwing someone out, we need to ask better questions. Was there an attempt to make it right? Was the harm acknowledged? Is there a willingness to grow? These are the questions that help us move forward, together.
No Space for Nuance or Growth
Social media often acts like a fast-paced court of opinion. Accusations spread quickly, and people respond without waiting for the full story. Once someone is labeled, that label tends to stick. The chance to explain, apologize, or clarify is often lost before it ever appears.
Dr. Epstein has worked with individuals caught in this kind of rush. In his experience, many of them were open to taking responsibility. They simply were never given the opportunity. The post moved on, the comments stacked up, and the conversation ended before it began.
This kind of pressure leaves no space for growth. When accountability becomes about punishment instead of progress, mistakes stay frozen. Instead of helping someone improve, the process often shuts them down entirely.
Power Dynamics and Victimhood
In online spaces, presenting yourself as the person who was harmed can shift how others respond. It creates a power dynamic where the one calling out often gains moral support and sympathy. That support can feel empowering, especially when a person has genuinely been hurt.
However, as Dr. Epstein has seen, this dynamic can get complicated. The moment victimhood becomes a way to avoid accountability, it stops being helpful. It may silence the other person or block the chance for an honest conversation.
When blame is always directed outward, the opportunity for reflection is lost. And when people are not encouraged to grow, both sides carry emotional weight that never really lifts. Real healing needs more than public support. It needs understanding and honesty on both ends.
Source: Scientific American
Trap of Short-Term Gratification
Viral posts and waves of outrage can feel powerful. A sharp message gains traction. Likes and shares pour in. For a while, it feels like something meaningful is happening.
But real, lasting change doesn’t come from outrage alone. It’s easy to amplify a misstep. It’s much harder to stay in the conversation after the spotlight fades. Most change doesn’t come with a dopamine rush. It comes from discomfort, dialogue, and the kind of effort that rarely goes viral.
Lasting change is slow. It’s built in the tension of difficult conversations, in the quiet decision to keep showing up, and in the willingness to sit with nuance rather than demand perfection. It happens when people are allowed space to reflect, to take accountability, and to grow without being pushed offstage the moment they stumble.
Public pressure can spark awareness. It can shake the system. But transformation, the kind that endures, comes from what follows: the listening, the learning, the rebuilding. That work is rarely loud. It doesn’t trend. But it matters more than a thousand reposts of someone else’s downfall.
Calling attention to harm is necessary. But if the goal is healing, then the spotlight must make room for substance. True progress is not reactive. It is relational. It is not punitive. It is persistent.
Lasting change isn’t about proving a point. It is about building something better.
Cultural Shift in Accountability
Before calling someone out, pause for a moment and ask: Do I want to be told I’m right, or do I want to fix the problem?
That question, shared by Dr. Epstein, gets to the heart of a larger cultural shift. Accountability used to mean growth. Now, it often means being right. Social media makes it easy to win approval, but that can feed the ego more than it supports resolution.
It is worth asking ourselves: Am I here to help, or to prove a point? Am I correcting with care, or using someone else’s mistake as a way to feel superior?
When ego leads the conversation, empathy disappears. But when we begin with curiosity and concern, accountability becomes a path toward understanding, not just a punishment.
Need for Dialogue and Human Connection
Real progress rarely happens in public comment sections. It happens in quieter moments, between people willing to listen and be uncomfortable together.
Dr. Epstein believes real change begins with knowing your limits and working as part of a team. “One of my favorite things about the military is working on a team… having people with different strengths and weaknesses and being able to refer out if you’re not going to be what’s best for that client,” he said. That kind of humility creates space for honest connection and collaboration.
In-person or one-on-one conversations allow for nuance, tone, body language, and real curiosity, which are often lost online. But when we show up with openness, growth becomes possible for both sides.
From Public Shame to Personal Reflection
Not every wrong needs to be turned into a public lesson. Sometimes, the most important action starts by looking inward.
The choice to pause, reflect, and speak with kindness takes courage. It also has more power than outrage ever will. Dr. Epstein sees it in his work every day. Change happens when people feel seen and respected, not humiliated.
We can be change-makers by leading with empathy. That does not mean ignoring harm. It means choosing to address it in ways that leave space for learning, not just silence.
Creating a Culture of Constructive Accountability
There’s nothing wrong with calling out harmful behavior, but intent matters. The goal should be education, not erasure.
“We have to start with accountability,” Dr. Epstein said, “and we have to take a step back from the social media aspect of it and say, ‘Do I actually want this problem solved? Or do I want to be told I’m right?’ Because unfortunately, we can’t always have both of those.”
That reflection helps shift the focus away from performance and back toward purpose. True accountability means slowing down, thinking carefully, and offering others a chance to reflect.
A few ways to create space for this:
- Reach out privately when you can.
- Assume people are open to learning unless they prove otherwise.
- Focus on harm caused, not just personal offense.
- Make room for discomfort, not just validation.
This approach doesn’t let people off the hook. It gives them the room to step up.
What Kind of Accountability Do You Want to See in Your Organization?
Dr. Epstein summed it up best: “It’s not really cancel culture. It’s more of a call-out culture.”
And that distinction matters. Call-outs can lead to dialogue. Cancelling often shuts it down.
As we think about how we hold each other accountable, we need to keep asking the right questions.
At The Halliday Center, we believe that emotional well-being depends on honesty, patience, and connection.At The Halliday Center, we believe emotional well-being thrives on honest dialogue—not public shame. We’re here to build spaces where people can grow, reflect, and be heard. We’re not here to shame people into silence. We’re here to help build a space where people can be heard, challenged, and supported.
So next time you’re about to post, pause and ask: Is this leading to growth, or just gratification? Accountability means more when it’s rooted in care. Let’s choose that path.
FAQs
What is cancel culture, and what does it really mean?
The meaning of cancel culture refers to the act of calling out and boycotting individuals or groups, often on social media, after they say or do something offensive. It typically involves a rapid loss of public support, jobs, or opportunities. While it can be a tool for accountability, cancel culture often leads to public shaming without giving the person a chance to reflect or respond. The focus shifts from growth to punishment, which can cause long-term emotional and professional damage.
What is call-out culture, and how is it different from cancel culture?
What is call-out culture? Call-out culture happens when someone publicly highlights harmful or offensive behavior, usually to raise awareness or push for change. Unlike cancel culture, which often ends in total exclusion, call-out culture can leave room for dialogue and improvement.
How does social media contribute to cancel culture and public shaming?
Social media cancel culture escalates far too quickly. A single post can incite a hostile reaction before all sides of the story are presented. The way these platforms are built also encourages emotional responses far more than problem-solving, which makes shaming others far more prevalent than resolving issues.
Rather than speaking to one another, people turn to comments and shares, needing affirmation from strangers. The rush to cancel often does far more damage than aid. Some of the effects are: lost reputation, anxiety, and the loss of honest dialogue.
What are the long-term effects of cancel culture on individuals and communities?
The impact of cancel culture can be both personal and societal. Cancelled individuals endure emotional pain, destroyed reputations, and diminished career prospects. Communities also decline in the social capital as they become more fragmented, creating divisions and less openness to conversation. People may become more paranoid, hesitant to speak truthfully or acknowledge errors. Rather than prompting responsibility and growth, it cultivates a culture of fear and silence.
How is public shaming different from constructive accountability?
Almost always, public shaming is performed on a whim and lacks reason; it is punitive in nature and serves no productive purpose. Unlike public shaming, constructive accountability offers an opportunity for people to fully understand the damage they have caused and take meaningful steps to resolve it.
Dr Epstein emphasizes that the goal should always be resolution, not just validation. While public shaming “shuts” the individual down, accountability draws them in and promotes thought and development.
All articles
