What you quote is of course the essence of the problem, but I don't think it's cancel culture (and also parent commenter doesn't think it is that either). Beca

What you quote is of course the essence of the problem, but I don't think it's cancel culture (and also parent commenter doesn't think it is that either). Because cancel culture seems to be when someone does something (discussing eugenetics, speaking Mandarin that sounds like a racial slur ... or blurts racists shit on live TV, sexually harasses others, and so on) and a mob attacks them and their host institution. Some of that is really justified some doesn't seem so. In this case Scott wasn't attacked by any mob. He simply wanted to keep his relationship with his patients that, a strictly exclusively doctor-patient relationship, no need for a third channel (eg the NYT, and his blog linked by the NYT).