Again, what does "cancel culture" mean? Can you define it in a way which isn't politically biased against left-leaning viewpoints from the get-go? Obama's caut

Again, what does "cancel culture" mean? Can you define it in a way which isn't politically biased against left-leaning viewpoints from the get-go? Obama's caution about a "‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues" seems little different than "Life of Brian's" caution about doctrinaire differences in opposing the Romans - certainly not some caution about a new sort of cancel culture! And how much might come from Obama wanting to deflect criticism about his support for using US military power - just how many drone strikes did he order? - or handling of the Central American refugee crisis at the southern border? Do you think Chomsky is correct about everything? I don't agree with him about the creator of 'email' either. I certainly disagree with many of his co-signers. Changing "blacklist" or "master" is not worthwhile to debate. The effort is simple, the benefits small (but non-zero), so do it ... and realize that it's a weak-sauce paper-thin covering over much harder and more intractable problems. It's a "recycle your paper cups while companies kill rivers" sort of issue. Concerning 'Philosophy professors', if someone makes a philosophical argument that there are only males and females, and nothing else - clearly contrary to scientific evidence and cultural experience - then why don't they deserve censure the same way they would for making the philosophical argument that the Earth is flat? Is philosophy really about making shit up and never facing consequences? I was completely confused by the Twitter link you posted. What's the "cancelling" there? "for not giving students time off" is a mischaracterization of your #4. It was for using what was described as 'backhandedly racist ... sarcastic rhetoric' in responding to that request. What does it mean for Stallman to be "cancelled"? He has multiple platforms, including https://stallman.org/ https://stallman.org/ where you see he's giving a (remote) talk this Thursday. You can't really mean that any sort of loss of position as a result of negative criticism == "cancelled", do you? If you do then surely the effects on Yiannopoulos and Cheney are also parts of cancel culture, right? But they aren't called that, because "cancelled" is only really used when there was left-leaning pressure. If someone is fired for talking about unionizing, that's illegal of course. But why isn't that also part of cancel culture? If a grad student faces pressure from the advisor to not talk about ongoing sexual harassment in the department, is that part of cancel culture? If an employee is socially snubbed for being an atheist, is that part of cancel culture? Wasn't the entire Red Scare an expression of "cancel culture" against people expressing Communist or socialist views? Going back to Stallman, should someone's fame and life's work be used to justify ignoring valid negative criticisms from others, in situations where those less famous would certainly have lost their position? That seems to be part of the argument for why Stallman should have kept his position at MIT, but yet that sounds very much like support for cancel culture, by cancelling the voice of those making the complaints. The "infamous donglegate" was heavy-handed incompetence on the conference organizers' part, combined with a full CYA followup. See https://zedshaw.com/blog/2020-10-07-authoritarianism-of-code https://zedshaw.com/blog/2020-10-07-authoritarianism-of-code for a much harsher view of the PSF. My own experience, when pointing out how certain issue was not handled in a "open, considerate, and respectful", was to be told that my framing this as a CoC issue was triggering one of the PSF members - yes, a famous PSF member was using the language of the oppressed to prevent discussion of how he wasn't being respectful of others. My reading of the CoC effort at the PSF is that the PSF doesn't accept that they themselves might be the oppressors, which is why the CoC doesn't have anti-retaliation clauses which limit the PSF's power in ways that experience from other areas (like the EEOC) have shown are essential. This is nothing new. As the Phil Ochs quote implies, people might abstractly say they are progressive, but that doesn't mean they are. As another, recent, example, white progressives say the want to send their children to integrated schools, but "when families are given control over which schools to send their children to, they make choices that perpetuate school segregation." - https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/01/white-parents-segregation-now-segregation-tomorrow-segregation-forever https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/01/white-parents-s... . Indeed, my views here are also certainly nothing new. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture#Criticism : > While I agree that the line between debate and suppression is one that occasionally gets crossed by the so-called left wing, it is almost invariably true that the real cancel culture is perpetrated by those who have embraced the term. If you look through Australian history, as well as European and American history, you will find countless examples of people speaking out against injustice and being persecuted in return. Rather than give me a cherry-picked list of things you consider to be cancel culture, why don't you give me a definition? Because my readings so far suggest it's much more a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.