the endless, circular stupidity of the free speech and cancel culture debates is really something: there's a times op-ed, it gets discussed publicly, in critical and even harsh terms, and then people complain that this is somehow unseemly or unfair or wrong

i mean wouldn't the maximalist free speech position be to say well even if you say mean things about the author that's in the spirit of a lively public discussion right?

claiming the author has a special perspective and intrinsic vulnerability that somehow entitles them to being excepted from public scrutiny or ridicule is exactly the same position that these anti-woke people claim to be against

The thing about cancellations, mobs, etc. is that they are the products of free speech. They involve association around some publicly declared proposition. All of it is a *result* of free speech, which is not always very fun to be on the business end of

"Cancel culture" and conformity is not some new phenomenon, it's a hazard of living in a democratic society, where people can woo public sentiments and direct them, and the hazard is ameliorated by the same right of association and speech BUT those associations and acts of speech

may be publicly reviled and abused by the same right of free speech, and that will often be experienced as quite repressive by the minority

have any of these people read Democracy in America???

Democracies have some really repressive and frightening elements, but you can also form associations with whomever likeminded people who can find and attempt to woo public opinion. And its possible to prevail!

Abolitionists had to struggle with years of not only public ridicule and state censorship but real tangible violence. They lived in a much less 'liberal' climate than prevails anywhere in western democracies today, but still were able to organize and advocate for their views

Just argue the substance of your position, not the meta debate about whether the substance of your position is considered beyond the pale

its politics: everyone tries to hit their opponents over the head with public opinion. when liberals do it, its about "rectifying historical unfairness" and when conservatives do it its about "imposing basic moral norms" or whatever

the climate of public opinion unfortunately is pretty wild and fickle, but as long as there's a real public sphere of debate, you can start a publication etc, and people do not get thrown in jail for free speech, like say in RUSSIA FOR INSTANCE, it's still relatively contested