For the record, I’m not saying she should have been harassed. I’m not even arguing she should have lost work or had her book distributor who didn’t have a contract with her say they didn’t want to distribute her book. I find the outcome fitting given the circumstances, but I’m not rallying for that outcome. What I am arguing is that framing her as a victim of cancel ignores a much bigger part of the story and as dguaragalia says, dismissing the facts and eschewing the nuance for optimum outrage is extremely unhelpful.
The entire point of the situation is that the nuances are not hugely relevant in the big picture.
Moreover, the nuances are never catered to in cancel culture anyhow.
Nothing remotely significant happened in this situation that should have involved anything other than maybe some stern retorts on the medium she started on i.e. Twitter.
The commenter thinking that 'this was a good outcome' gives us a great example of the vindictive pettiness and overreaction of cancel culture.
You don't lose your job and livelihood for a possibly distasteful public remark, probably taken out of context.
It's actually a pretty great example of the stupidity of cancel culture.
Somehow you miss the other side of this: her interaction on her train ride didn't deserve to be more significant than the average unpleasant experienced 10 times a week by anyone living in a city. She actively tried to make it bigger, then it got blown out of proportion by people like her, who blow shit out of proportion.
Maybe we should all start taking responsibility for our actions, instead of screaming 'cancel culture' whenever they catch up to us.
Flippant dismissal of facts isn't going to help things get better either.