What would that mean, refusing to hire associate professors with a history of calling for institutions to refuse to hire associate professors with histories of calling for things? Sounds paradoxical to me.

It seems impossible that anybody could really have both thoughts at once: That some of the things these victims do are not bad enough to be worthy of the social consequences, and also, the people amplifying those social consequences are bad enough to be victims of those same consequences.

I come from the country that put Galileo's books on the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum".

I don't believe canceling culture is culture, even when the culture being canceled is bad.

It's much better to make them illegal, like we did in Italy with facism and nazism, than to "cancel" them.

They are still available as a subject of study, they haven't been cancelled, they have been found inappropriate and as such only a minority still believes that they've been made illegal in absence of good motivations, because anybody can check what are the reasons why it happened.

But the majority of people that were fascist before the war ended in Italy haven't suffered discrimination for being wrong, after it was obvious they were.

I really like this comment because your calling this exactly what it is...fascism.

Cancel culture should be perhaps be renamed cancer culture, because history has shown that these things never end well.

I think you've misread it, given that he's literally supporting the banning of certain political views by law!

(I happen to agree with the bans on Nazi symbology, but that has actual force of law and far more consequences than merely complaints on twitter)