> This is just an awful argument. It's basically "things used to be worse, so you shouldn't say it's still bad".

No, the argument is “things used to be more extreme in this precise area, so the argument that the present situation is a new and unique historical threat is false”.

What? That is an awful strawman. The question is whether cancel culture is a new phenomenon, or just a continuation of human social nature.

I'd suggest you read the entire thread to get context on the point of contention.

People choosing to no longer read content from or associate with a person who expressed a controversial opinion isn't new and it isn't even bad. That's the other side of the coin of free thought: people don't have to agree with you or listen to you and they're allowed to speak out against you if they want to.

Public and professional consequences have always existed and they always should. The idea that people should be able to do anything and never suffer repercussions for their actions would lead to an unhealthy world.