The other cancellations that have been prominent lately are of pro-Palestine protestors, which is AFAIK centre-left cancelling far-left, the opposite direction to usual. Since the right opposes these protesters too, they are joining in rather than making a fuss about it (Well, FIRE org was defending them, but most of the right is not interested.)
Theoretically that could’ve happened, but in reality it didn’t.
So yeah, when you intentionally put yourself in the public eye representing a strong political message, the public is going to see it, and you have no control over how they interpret or respond to it. It’s an inherent risk to that sort of thing. Maybe his parents should’ve thought that through, since obviously a 14-year-old boy can’t.
But the fact is, he wasn’t “cancelled” by leftists. Specifically because of this episode, he’s thriving and has a bigger plaform, bigger reach, and bigger opportunities than he ordinarily would’ve. You want to know what a real cancellation looks like? When a right-wing nutjob shot Melissa and Mark Hortman to death, in their own private home, simply for the crime of existing as Democrats. There’s no coming back from being dead. If we want to wave bloody shirts here, I can come up with at least as many examples as you can.
I’m not asking DemonTree to find a comparable example of someone who was actually murdered, I’m just suggesting that if she wants to be taken seriously, she should come up with one of these multitudes of examples of… whatever. Anything that makes it concrete, just so that we can understand whether she thinks that the merits of the situation are important, or rather that nobody should ever face any kind of social consequences for saying things.
Because as you’ve just demonstrated, many of these “irreparable consequences” prove upon deeper inspection to be false, hypothetical, or imaginary.
Yes, very vague sweeping assertions do require a lot of specific evidence to back them up credibly.
Yes, it’s a lot of work to support very vague sweeping assertions credibly, and trying to half-ass such support by offering up just a few random anecdotes instead is likely to be rejected as insufficient.
That’s not a problem with the people wanting credible evidentiary support for very vague sweeping assertions. That’s a problem with the people making the very vague sweeping assertions in the first place.
Fair point, thanks, I apologize and withdraw my remark about “paychological snapshot”.
Okay, that’s fine. But it’d be good to get a clearer idea of what sort of evidence you’re looking for.
This seems like a poor example since the person who is at the forefront of the Pro-Palestinian cancelling movement is the President.
Yes it seems another case of using the term overextensively.
Not every instance of “if that’s what you think I don’t want you in my club” is “cancel culture”.
The burden should be on the person who claims there are binders full of evidence out there, but it’s just too darned much trouble to look them up, and there’s no point because she’ll just be vindicated anyhow.
Of course, the evidence also depends on the claims that one’s making, and this also needs to be nailed down. There are a number of different claims in play here, and waving the bloody shirt about Nick Sandmann or the Dixie Chicks or whoever doesn’t universally speak to the idea of people having their futures destroyed, being censored, or losing their jobs, which are loosely related but very much not the same.
I feel like there’s an attempt here to mobilize the emotional valence of one kind of situation to lend factual support to a dissimilar situation, but that probably won’t be confirmed since the examples probably aren’t forthcoming.
I disagree. It’s up to the people who dispute the claim to tell us what sort evidence would convince them the claim was true. The claim’s proponents aren’t necessarily going to know.
Did something really “happen to that boy”, and was it in fact “unconscionable”? He went to a very high-profile protest in a highly public place to put a contentious political message in the public eye.
That didn’t “happen to him”. He went to great lengths to make that happen. He inserted himself into the public conversation, exposing himself to the general public, which (like it or not) carries certain risks. He got some blowback but he wasn’t assaulted. The incident led to greater notoriety and opportunity than he would’ve had before.
There’s no excuse for mob misbehavior, and anyone who got caught issuing death threats should be in jail for it. But it’s something that’s existed since the beginning of mass media over a century ago. It’s not a new, shocking, or unconscionable thing that just “happened to him”. He courted it, and it worked out quite well for him.
That just doesn’t matter to me. If I punch you in the stomach because I don’t like your hat, but then it turns out that, unbeknownst to me, you were choking on a piece of beefsteak at the time and by assaulting you I happened to dislodge it, that doesn’t magically make my assault not an assault. I should still be judged every bit as harshly. Similarly, the fact that Sandmann outsmarted the mob and found a way to turn their international cyberbullying campaign to his advantage doesn’t lessen the immorality of that campaign one iota.
Just out of interest, if MAGA tried to tear some random Democrat’s life apart because they wore a Harris T-shirt, would you say the same? Whether or not something is a “strong political message” is largely dependent on the perspective of the observer, after all. There are plenty of Americans who think wearing a Harris T-shirt is as reprehensible as you think wearing a MAGA hat is. So would you say the same? Or would you say, as I would of Sandmann, that merely stepping outside wearing the common emblem of an incumbent President doesn’t constitute a “Strong political message”?
Furthermore, if, somehow, the victim benefited from the harassment, would that in any way exculpate the harassers?
I think we’re looking at this in fundamentally different ways. It seems to me that you have in mind a template of what the Platonic Cancellation looks like; fired, bankrupt, unemployable, homeless, social pariah forever etc… and if a real-world example roughly corresponds to the ideal, then it’s a ‘proper’ cancellation. If it doesn’t, then it’s not.
I look at it differently. To me, the consequences matter, but the intention of the mob matters more. In the case of Sandmann, the mob’s intention was clearly to destroy his life. That he got the better of them doesn’t change that, and it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to shrug off the mob’s bad behaviour as no big deal. It just so happened that Sandmann was from a wealthy family who could support him. If that one detail had been different, the mob could easily have succeeded in destroying him. Why should we shrug our shoulders and say “No harm no foul”?
“Inserted himself into the public conversation”? 
He was a kid on a school trip with limited agency. All the kids were wearing MAGA hats, which shouldn’t be a big deal because about half the country had recently voted for Trump. How is that “inserting oneself into the public conversation”?
We have to know what cancellation means if we’re going to talk about whether it’s happening, to what extent it’s happening, whether it’s a new thing, whether it’s predominating on one side of the spectrum, and whether the cancellee ever can be said to have any accountability or responsibility for their own part in what happens to them.
I completely agree, but it seems like the only difference between us is that you think a cancellation is when someone is fired, bankrupted, and ostracised by a mob, while I think a cancellation is when a mob tries to get someone fired, bankrupted, and ostracised. Whether they succeed matters far less to me than what they tried to do.
He purposely went to an extremely public protest in an extremely public place where multiple factions were contending political points, and media coverage was expected. That’s a very public conversation. He wasn’t bopping down the street in a MAGA hat minding his own business. He inserted himself into this.
We could argue that he’s a mere boy and had no agency, but doesn’t diminish the truth of what I wrote above, it simply assigns the agency to his guardians who chose to insert him into this situation. In a way that’s worse, using a child as a political pawn like this. But you and I both know he wasn’t an innocent pawn, he was enthusiastically on board with it.
Let’s cut to the chase. Yes or no: Are you saying that what happened to him was just “Actions, meet consequences”?
Actually this was done, it was shown that you failed to make your case.
In the example of the MAGA kid, your example was presented as just about an old guy confronting him, but to make it look like an “innocent” and not “deserved” “cancelling” result, it was also omitted that they all were in an anti-abortion rally… Where the antiabortion guys showed that they hated each other for a very good reason.
When Trump was mentioned by the apparel of the jr MAGAS, the very anti-abortion black religious group pointed out with insults that the MAGAS were following a guy that besides being a rapist, likely told other girls to get abortions. Then the MAGA student group began to insult back the conservative religious group; but then, the Native American group (that I will conclude that it was also there to support the anti-abortion rally), started chants and dances, the MAGA students then moved from insulting the Black group and mocked the Indian group chants and dances by mocking the chants and even then insulting tomahawk chop.
Then, the now famous recording of the confrontation took place, the MAGA kid claimed later that he was also defusing the situation, but looking at his companions and the smirking face, that looks really doubtful.
And it is less likely that he was trying to defuse anything, when one looks at what he is still supporting now, an administration that is really, really silencing the media and minorities that hurt his feelings.
Native American radio stations risk going off-air amid cuts to public broadcast funding
Well, those cuts to really silence others did take place just 2 days ago, and that was not done by the liberals… 
And it is really likely that he is enthusiastic now about the real cancelling of others nowadays too.
It has to be noted that the Catholic School that send the kids to the rally, did apologize to the Native American group.
I am saying that ever since the invention of mass media, putting oneself in the public eye and making strong statements has always carried a risk of disproportionate pushback, sometimes in the form of unhinged threats to one’s safety and possibly livelihood.
That’s not in any way to excuse those threats or the behavior of the mob. But this has been happening for more than a century now, and it doesn’t in any way inform a conversation about “omg left-wing cancel culture is out of control.” It also doesn’t sustain a narrative of “there he was, minding his own business, and they just canceled his whole life.” He got the pushback that one could expect from that situation, arguably pushback that his guardians were probably hoping for. And he benefitted quite neatly from it, as conservatives typically do in such situations.
I think it’s important to get the perspective and context right. Because failing to do so leads to exactly what we’re doing here… you’re not talking about Mark and Melissa Hortman being murdered on their doorstep by a right-wing extremist. That’s not a cancellation that matters to you. You’re not talking about how Stephen Colbert got sacked this week for criticizing his employer’s capitulation to Donald Trump’s threats. That’s not a cancellation that matters to you. You’re fixated on an event from 7 years ago where a kid purposefully went to a public shit-stirring and got his shit publicly stirred.
That is why we don’t throw these all into a miscellaneous box labeled “cancellation” and agree that left-wing cancellation is out of control. Because context matters. Proportionality matters. You can’t just reduce it to “was this bad, yes or no.”