[f38zf5vdt]

What? This event seems to match the collectively assigned definition fine.

"Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled". The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.

The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting or shunning involving an individual (often a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

[justaman]

I don't agree with the guy above, but take a look at what Nick Cannon said and how he is still employed.

[world_peace42]

That definition is neither empirical, nor is it collectively defined. It is selectively assigned and selectively enforced. And here we are, in a thread where the top level post provides an obvious example.

[f38zf5vdt]

Miriam Webster also seems to agree. [1]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture...

[fouric]

Miriam Webster is even further from "collectively defined" than Wikipedia is.

[f38zf5vdt]

I'm more concerned with individuals attempting to rewrite the modern lexicon to their own benefit.

[world_peace42]

Then go have a chat with Jimmy Wales about diversifying the political beliefs of his editors. And good luck.

[world_peace42]

Great, now also link me to a cacophony of Twitter activists who've defined it the same way, I am proven wrong.

But, and of course it's a silly request, can you provide any objective large-scale studies as to who (their demographics) is being canceled, for what categorization, and the net effect of their cancellation? It doesn't matter, granted, because the Wikipedia definition of highly politicized terms is, of course, what counts.