[naasking]

> He later rescinded those comments and apologized and did his best, it seems, to make up for it in his later life.

I'm not sure why apologies would be needed for merely having an idea or belief that was incorrect. It's a core part of "cancel culture", but it turns thinking and honest discussion into an activity fraught with danger, and inhibits building a common understanding.

I think it's ultimately based on the fundamentally wrong assertion that incorrect thoughts or speech cause equivalent harm to actions.

> But we're talking about people in the here-and-now in positions of power with terrible opinions saying horrible things about other people and they downplay it by acting like the people holding them accountable are the overly-sensitive ones.

You're cherry picking. Powerless individuals have also been targeted by such mobs. The responses to transgressions have also been disproportionate or preferential, ie. a transgression by "enemies" is treated far more harshly than transgressions by "friendlies".

This is not any reasonable form of justice I recognize. Even if it has had positive impacts in some ways, it has also had negative effects, and this is what deserves legitimate criticism as "cancel culture".