"Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income"
???
Vindictive campaigns, which you've tacitly admit exist - are clear evidence of cancel culture - that said campaigns don't always work, is not evidence that they don't exist.
These hate campaigns have a chilling effect on institutions. They tried to 'cancel' Stephen Pinker, hardcore Harvard secular humanist [1] - who will survive the ordeal but much erstwhile reasonable science won't get published.
"The definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. "
... this is obviously false given the examples above.
It's an easy lie: "Some people use the n-word, so cancel culture is acceptable in all cases" is the logic implied.
But this:
"Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech. "
... is the crux of the lie.
It's fine that people disagree. That's probably a good thing actually. 'Cancel culture' is not about disagreement, it's about sanctioning people for having opinions.
Nobody is 'up in arms' that people are 'disagreeing with JK Rowling - they are concerned because of attempts to stop her books from being published, to stop her films from being made, to stop her public opinions from being published. [2] And if she were any less powerful, the campaign would be more successful, in 2020 you need to be a billionaire to have an opinion.
Couching the aggressive dismissal and deplatforming of people's who's opinions are different from yours merely as 'disagreement' is really a devious and wilful ignorance of the rhetorical goalposts.
???
Vindictive campaigns, which you've tacitly admit exist - are clear evidence of cancel culture - that said campaigns don't always work, is not evidence that they don't exist.
These hate campaigns have a chilling effect on institutions. They tried to 'cancel' Stephen Pinker, hardcore Harvard secular humanist [1] - who will survive the ordeal but much erstwhile reasonable science won't get published.
"The definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. "
... this is obviously false given the examples above.
It's an easy lie: "Some people use the n-word, so cancel culture is acceptable in all cases" is the logic implied.
But this:
"Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech. "
... is the crux of the lie.
It's fine that people disagree. That's probably a good thing actually. 'Cancel culture' is not about disagreement, it's about sanctioning people for having opinions.
Nobody is 'up in arms' that people are 'disagreeing with JK Rowling - they are concerned because of attempts to stop her books from being published, to stop her films from being made, to stop her public opinions from being published. [2] And if she were any less powerful, the campaign would be more successful, in 2020 you need to be a billionaire to have an opinion.
Couching the aggressive dismissal and deplatforming of people's who's opinions are different from yours merely as 'disagreement' is really a devious and wilful ignorance of the rhetorical goalposts.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pin...
[2] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/b...