A professor-activist like Anima making a public shame list of students, referring to them as "fanatics", and requesting the help of her woke army to reeducate them is normal debating in your book?

Debate is 1-on-1, not army-on-one. And you don't call your opponents fanatics, if you want to have a real debate. In reality the list is intended to intimidate them.

My book is expansive and includes many descriptions for behavior past "classical debate" and "cancellation". She doesn't appear to be suggesting they should be boycott or deplatformed in any way. Even taking the most negative view, which i think would be something like she was trying to get her 'woke army' to harass these guys, that's not what cancellation is/cancel culture is. That wouldn't mean trying to send your followers to attack folk isn't gross behavior.

>if you want to have a real debate

It's easy to make a list of things that you take away from how earnestly you can take people, especially online. I'm not sure why someone would balk at "fanatic" but think "woke army" is a particularly earnest discussion stimulating term. Of the two, I've heard woke used disparagingly, with political motivations, far more often than the other in recent times. Similarly, calling people you disagree with your opponents, or suggesting that when they talk to you about a topic, it's re-education while when you do it, it's debate.

Well, they don't debate, they accuse. When they are asked to debate, they refuse.

https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1275191515380215808

Look at the person this message is aimed at. He is one of the "fathers of ML".

> referring to them as "fanatics"

You put that word in quotes implying it was a literal quote.

It isn't and the distinction here is actually important. She said "get them away from fanaticism" - there's a big difference in tone and it hits an important issue.

Calling someone a "fanatic" in many ways carries an implication that they have some unchangeable inner nature. They are to be dismissed, ignored. They are beyond reason. She is saying the opposite - that they should be engaged with - that there's a chance that they can be reasoned with.

Why did you choose to alter the wording in such a way?

The logical leap you’re making to draw a distinction between “a fanatic” and “one close to fanaticism” is far greater than the one they’re making to use them interchangeably.

I'm not making any logical statements. I'm commenting on the way language and psychology overlap.

Oh come on.

Technically, yes, that is 'encouraging people to engage with others', but it is clearly inflammatory and I wouldn't be surprised if several people on that list have been blindly harassed by her fans/supporters/followers.

That tweet was stupid, and anyone on that list who is harassed may well have a good chance in a defamation case if they chose to pursue it.

How is any of what you just described cancellation? I'm not suggesting her motive was or wasn't malicious, just that what she did isn't cancel culture.