> Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. No, Cancel Culture is the deliberate attempt to d

> Cancel culture is merely a large number of people deciding to excersize that freedom to not support things. No, Cancel Culture is the deliberate attempt to destroy people who disagree. "Not supporting" would be an avoidance of the person or business. You don't give them any of your money. That is the middle ground, by the way, and like nearly all the rest of real life it isn't a binary situation. Actively tearing down someone's life is not the same as "not supporting" them. Unless one lives in some sort of philosophical bubble where one's actions must always have the approval of the group or else be prevented, non-support is simply lack of encouragement. What we're really talking about is intolerance. Now we have something to sink our teeth into. Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" is that in a tolerant society, there would necessarily be some intolerance. The primary thing to oppose? We must not tolerate attacking people whose ideas differ from ours. After that, I think we can come to some agreements on what social behaviors cannot be tolerated (violence, racism, theft...). There's one other thing missing from this whole notion of cancelling. No one is ever actually allowed to change their ways and gain forgiveness. It provides no room for mercy or growth. It only hands out condemnation, replacing one set of unreasonable biases with a different set. We can do better than that.