[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.