[bpodgursky]

If you are a fan of cancel culture, you're free to express that opinion.

But what you seem to be saying is "cancel culture exists, but is not a problem IMO", given that you quoted several instances of it existing, and literally said "People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs" (and thus, in their own words, cancel people).

I'm not sure what you are imagining as the strawman of "cancel culture" which you are asserting doesn't exist?

[banana_maker]

I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.

I do not think what people recently have been referring to as "cancel culture" exists. They are prescribing their own view onto what humans have been doing for hundreds of years. The primary difference is that people are now holding others accountable more than they did before. So maybe one could refer to this as a new "accountability culture".

But walking out of a room because you did not like the content is not a new phenomenon. Giving someone the cold shoulder because you don't like them or they did something to you, is not a new phenomenon. Choosing to not listen to artists because of their controversial life is not a new phenomenon.

To reiterate. For that second example, she decided that she didn't want to engage with him because he used racial slurs. This is not "canceling" someone- it is calling them out for unacceptable behavior. Nobody was forced into agreeing with her. So to call this as "canceling someone" is patently ridiculous. She's free to point out he uses racial slurs, and others are free to continue to engage or disengage. This is not "cancel culture"!

I did not quote several instances of "cancel culture". That article had several examples of people putting their foot down about their beliefs. Nothing new here.

[loveistheanswer]

>I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.

How can you be a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even when you disagree with them, while also being a fan of punishing people for being vocal about beliefs which you disagree with? (Assuming you're not a sadist)

[pm90]

> while also being a fan of punishing people for being vocal about beliefs which you disagree with? (Assuming you're not a sadist)

Is the difference between supporting someone's right to free speech while not being in agreement with everything they say, not clear to you?

[bpodgursky]

Nobody here is talking about legal "rights".

But he's actively endorsing a viewpoint which attempts to silence (through social coercion) dissenting views. This is at odds with his professed support for... dissenting views.

[pm90]

“People are calling out injustice rather than letting it slide” is the viewpoint he’s endorsing, which is an “attempt to silence dissenting views”? Silencing dissenting views has a very concrete meaning, which has apparently been hijacked by some people to fit their narrative of a non existent cancel culture.

[loveistheanswer]

Disagreeing and punishing are two different things.

One is fundamental to freedom of expression, the other is antithetical.

[pm90]

Choosing to not engage with people whose viewpoints you disagree with, or confronting them about what they said, is disagreement, not punishment.

[loveistheanswer]

Agreed!

Censoring/banning/deplatforming and getting someone fired from their job is punishment.