I find it funny the article just brushes aside the issue of whether vocal racists could be fired as if it's not the crux of the issue. (Yeah, there's some cases

I find it funny the article just brushes aside the issue of whether vocal racists could be fired as if it's not the crux of the issue. (Yeah, there's some cases being labelled "cancel culture" that clearly weren't this, but those tend to not be the cases where the firing is defended by much of anyone. It's really frustrating how "cancel culture" repeatedly becomes a huge talking point when a vocal bigot gets fired, but everyone arguing against cancel culture goes through gymnastics to avoid talking about specific cases and makes arguments in the abstract, or makes arguments about the fringe cases that no one was really defending anyway, at least not for the same reasons that people defend outright influential bigots being fired. It's almost like if pro-life people constantly brought up regular murder cases in their crusade against abortion, and convinced themselves that the pro-choice crowd was supporting those murderers as part of their support of abortion. It's possible to abstract an issue to the point that the opposing sides are no longer in the same discussion any more.)