[lhorie]

I think it's interesting phenomenon on its own that Kasparov is taking a fairly centrist stance here through a careful choice of words (cancelling books getting tends to be done by one side and cancelling professors is often done by the other side) and specifically calling out to promote more freedom regardless of what side you're on, but here in the comments people are looking at it from a bipartisan blame-shifting perspective.

The parallel to my immediate life that comes to mind is when my kids are bickering about some inconsequential triviality and I say "I don't care who started it, I only care that you stop fighting". It must surely be an "important" topic for them that they feel the need to argue about it, but in the grander scheme of things, the resolution shouldn't come at a cost of a losing a core principle (i.e. aiming for resolution through vengeful means is not a productive course of action).

[watwut]

> "I don't care who started it, I only care that you stop fighting"

I stopped doing that when I realized this is systematically enabling aggressor. The kid that minds own business is on the defense and effectively forced always do what aggressor wants. Because if it protects or defends itself, adult steps in to tell him he is equally wrong.

[ajuc]

It's less harmful in family (because the assumption is that ultimately kids do love each other and won't do anything really bad). But I've mostly encountered this sentiment at school when somebody is bullied. And there it can be really bad, for a really long time. And that response is basically adults telling the victim "Nobody cares".

[avmich]

That's why in families it's an appropriate action, and in school isn't.

In school there is a better (worse?) chance to meet somebody particularly nasty, who's bullying kids around. That should be answered by "authorities". In families it's less of the case, so GP logic is reasonable.

I keep a high respect to Gary Kasparov. I however have a question regarding what he writes here -

"It is the coordinated, coercive attempt to win a debate by ending debate—to punish, not to educate."

Could it be that those who "cancel" just found a tool which is more effective than those before, something which they were missing in the "old status quo" of inter-class interactions? Could it be that the voices of those who do cancelling today weren't heard enough, so now they use this new opportunity to participate in the societal decisions?

[watwut]

It is not appropriate in families. It just does less harm, because parents are more likely to notice harm and change.

When I wrote "I have seen it" originally I meant siblings in families. At this point, I have seen dynamic three times. Each time one kid ended up being systematic aggressor and other victim. The victim was pushed to submissivity and aggressor honestly believed he/she is entitled to act like that. And that victim is bad for defending own toys or boundaries.

And each time it went on, until parents changed approach.

[lhorie]

Oh to clarify, I know who "started it" (the themes are fairly easily distinguishable, usually falling in one of two buckets: bullying/nagging/disrespect for boundaries or "calvin-ball"-like disagreements; and mostly the latter). If the theme falls in the former category, that kid gets chewed on right from the start. If it's not clear, I ask probing questions first.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> (cancelling books getting tends to be done by one side and cancelling professors is often done by the other side

I can name dozens of books that have been "cancelled", almost entirely by conservatives.

Depending on the definition of "cancel", I can think of very few professors that have been "cancelled" [0] at all, and roughly equal numbers by conservative and progressive perspectives.

[0] "cancelled" in this case seems to typically mean not a lot more than had to listen to some unpleasant feedback on their views and/or behavior.