> "Cancel culture" is the same bullshit as "virtue signaling": made up nonsense intended to poison any discussion and blunt criticism without needing to do or say anything substantive.
That sounds exactly like the same made up language of "sealioning" and "concern trolling" weaponized by the same people accusing the other side of making up "cancel culture" and "virtue signaling". Maybe you don't hold the ethical high ground and never did.
The effects of cancellation primarily fall on people who don't have as much power as the Weinsteins or P-Diddys of the world. If it happened to you or me, we wouldn't take a month break from speaking at awards ceremonies then make four movies.
> I can only speak for me, but it is extraordinarily unlikely to the point of impossibility that I will commit rape.
That's great.
What do you think are the odds that someone will accuse you of rape? I suspect they're higher than "unlikely to the point of impossibility". Cancellations usually happen based on the accusation, not the conviction.
I'm saying that they're so powerful that they can get away with that for decades, but we could face actual consequences if a political group misinterpreted a tweet. You could look in to the death threats and harassment received by scientists studying politically relevant subjects for an example.
You're moving the goalposts. Being cancelled doesn't mean you literally stop existing or can't ever get work again. But it often does mean curtailed career opportunities or losing x years of your life while people forget and lawsuits work their way through the system.
It's like saying jail isn't real because some ex-convicts have successful careers.
If you want a name: an interesting, recent example is Gina Carano because she's actually suing her former employer (Disney) for going along with a cancellation. We'll see what the court thinks her cancellation was worth.
I won't presume you're purposely misunderstanding my argument, so let me be clearer: the language you're using, where you accuse one side (not your side) of making up language is not constructive.
You're choosing not to engage in good faith with those who you disagree with by claiming the very basis of their language is made up and therefore invalid.
Do you really think that's an appropriate vehicle to engage with anyone if the goal is constructive dialog toward resolution?
You can do better than this, as can everyone else on both sides of the aisle who others the opposition to a state of incoherent invectives. You can certainly do much better than engaging with me in the patronizing and insulting way you have.
That sounds exactly like the same made up language of "sealioning" and "concern trolling" weaponized by the same people accusing the other side of making up "cancel culture" and "virtue signaling". Maybe you don't hold the ethical high ground and never did.