If they are a Republican, as opposed to anything else, then they should be forced into an “education camp” . . . or so I’ve read.
Love this. Stealing it.
Cancel culture is the terrorist/freedom fighter debate in less violent societies.
Oh, thanks for posting that, it made me so very happy. Couldn’t have happened to a nice demon. Burchill is the worst, and has been since her NME days. To see her have to publicly eat crow is very gratifying.
Cancel Culture: The New Uppity ?
Use in good health, I likely purloined it myself! 
IMHO the reason the first sort of apology is so rare is because most of the people being called out are not sorry because they hurt others. They’re sorry because they got caught.
You mention the changing times, and I think that contributes to this issue as well. More precisely, it’s that the changing times, at least regarding race, were in large part back in the 60s and 70s. What that means is that Archie Bunker style racism, where an older white man is racist because he was raised that way, is no longer the predominant form or racism. A non-asshole bigot will change their ways as society changes. So what we’re left with are the people who are primarily assholes and secondarily bigots. Those are the people that cancel culture is meant to deal with, because assholes don’t understand anything else except direct personal adverse consequences.
You’re implying there’s a pass for recent immigrants, such as Europeans who still harbor racism against Romani “because” (quote-unquote) they come from somewhere like France where such racism is widespread. That doesn’t seem reasonable for a moment.
predominant
[prəˈdämənənt]
ADJECTIVE
- present as the strongest or main element.
“its predominant color was white”
synonyms:
main · chief · principal · most important · of greatest importance · primary · prime · overriding · uppermost · central · cardinal · leading ·
- having or exerting control or power.
“the predominant political forces”
synonyms:
controlling · in control · dominant · predominating · more/most powerful · more/most important · preeminent · ascendant ·
No pass for anybody, just differences in what the be appropriate response should be. Someone who is a bigot because they genuinely don’t know any better, and is an otherwise nice person, is likely to have some changes with things like education and more exposure to the group(s) they are bigoted against. My favorite example of someone like this is Robert Byrd, the former Democratic senator from West Virginia. When he was young he was a leader in the Klan. He eventually realized his racism was wrong and reformed. When he died in 2010 he was hailed by many Black civil rights leader. The leader of the NAACP said of him “he went from being a member of the KKK to begin a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.” Byrd was simultaneously criticized by many of the white supremacists of the time.
My hypothesis is that back in the day, a larger proportion of the racists were of this type. Decent people who didn’t know better because that’s how they were raised. Today the proportion of people like this among racists is much lower. The methods that led to Robert Byrd and people like him renouncing their racism aren’t going to work on someone like Ron Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, etc. The reason for that is because those people are primarily assholes, and their racism isn’t going anywhere as long as they continue to be assholes.
IIRC there’s an interview with Byrd explaining that in that part of, I assume, West Virginia where he began his political career joining the Klan was like being an ‘Elk’ it was expected and you would not go far if you didn’t.
(While Byrd admits to being a racist his membership in the Klan was in spite of that fact not because of it.)
Oh, yeah, and speaking of never letting someone actually rise above their past.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Hannity say Byrd’s name as anything other than “Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd” with the clear intent to smear Byrd as a recalcitrant racist and secret current member of the Klan.
So, yet again, some ‘’‘cancel culture’‘’ is more cancelly than others.
No one’s speech is “stifled” if they fail to rain down consequences on others.
Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it? The basic anti-cancel-culture argument seems to be:
We mustn’t discourage speech that could have the “consequences” of insulting and offending a lot of people. And therefore we must discourage speech that could have the “consequences” of widespread disparagement or unpopularity for the authors of the insulting and offensive speech.
Who gets to “stifle” whom?
I think that question has already been answered by All In The Family.
likebutton 
and I don’t say that very often
Not in my estimation, no.
If something thinks that their speech is being violated because, for example, their speech failed to get another person fired from their job, then that particular belief is not an “issue” I’m going to debate with them, nor an “issue” that is worthy of even minimal consideration from any reasonable person.
I suppose they could have a “mental issue”, in that they don’t know what speech violations are, but that doesn’t seem to be the sense of the word as you’re using it here.
? AFAICT nobody’s arguing that so-called “cancellers” are automatically entitled to successfully get another person fired from their job. The point is that so-called “cancellers” are entitled to publicly state that they want another person to be fired from their job for something they said.
The Harper’s letter is arguing that the free expression of the insulters-and-offenders is a good thing for society, but the free expression of the “cancellers” denouncing the insulters-and-offenders is a bad thing for society. That seems to me like a rather arbitrary and self-serving argument.
That’s the bit I find to be obnoxious. That they feel entitled to do so. I realize you use the word as an art of phrase but it happens to be particularly accurate in this instance.
I can think of a number of recent statement made by various people that I found offensive, or downright shitty, but I don’t ever recall my thoughts going specifically to wanting them fired for having said them.
I didn’t say anybody was arguing that.
I was providing an example – the difference between speech and the consequences of speech – in order to object to the OP’s statement that the Harper’s letter contained a “contradiction”, which it does not, at least as far as I can see.
They don’t say that the “free expression” of the cancellers is bad for society. “Troubling” is the limit of their comment on that.
They say that the calls for cancellation succeeding are bad for society, at least in the infuriatingly vague contexts they refuse to specify further.
Not the same thing.
The question is why would those calls succeeding be a bad thing? Were they a bad thing when back in the day it was minorities of various sorts who were being cancelled, or is it only now that it’s old white men that are being cancelled that it’s become a bad thing?