If anything, this is the biggest argument of all against the existence of 'cancel culture', cause so far I can't find even one example of someone who's truly been cancelled, and furthermore, for something completely innocent and meaningless.
If people were actually being sent to gulags for saying something the government or general public simply didn't like, you cancel culture warriors would have a point. But... that's not the case, and that's not where this is going. Believing as much is an extremely tenuous slippery slope argument and just delusional levels of fearmongering.
There is absolutely nothing new going on, except the fact that more people these days are intolerant of bigotry and other vile behavior, and are better able to voice their concerns via the internet.
I know we aren't going to ever agree, but this beyond hyperbolic. To even say that most canceled people's careers have not suffered one bit is just astounding. People get fired over tweets that aren't even that controversial. Mel Gibson got off the hook, whatever. But Average Joe's and Average Jane's also fall victim to 'cancel culture' too.
"Shor tweeted out an academic study by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow that demonstrates how during the 1960s, while honest-to-God riots resulted in a decrease in the vote share for Democratic candidates in the following election, non-violent protests actually increased it. An uproar ensued, with liberal critics alleging that Shor was indifferent or even hostile to today’s racial justice protests. Two weeks later, he was out of his job at Civis Analytics, the left-aligned data science firm where he worked as an analyst" (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/06/05/cancel-cul...)
This person was fired, for tweeting out a study, and nothing they did was egregious.
I don't think we're going to have a mature and productive discussion about this. But you can be worried about online outrage and it's impact on society regardless of political affiliation.
>"by saying both sides are equally bad and misguided..."
I never actually said that. I said that people can be concerned "regardless of political affiliation."
>"someone who fearmongers"
Yep. You got me. I'm concerned about something and I think other people should be too.
All I can say is that you should be less combative and you shouldn't snap to assuming hostile intent. Quite frankly it's off-putting and anti-persuasive. You would not enjoy someone arguing with you in the same way you argue with them. But I suppose if you enjoy interacting with others in this way there's no stopping you.
He holds the majority, safe, and riskless opinion.
Which will make it even better when we hijack all the censorship infrastructure and apply it to him :)
That's the thing, a lot of people have 'faced consequences' for things that aren't particularly egregious. And, what is euphemistically called 'consequences' often destroys people's lives and there's virtually no recourse for them. It's 100% punishment and 0% rehabilitation.