Great article, I agree that defining Cancel Culture is important, that it's definition relates to the proportionality of response, and that some on the right mi

Great article, I agree that defining Cancel Culture is important, that it's definition relates to the proportionality of response, and that some on the right misuse the term. I have a better definition, and I also believe that the left owns cancellation. A definition I like is: action taken to remove privileges from a person based on some qualities of that person, where those qualities do not predict harmful use of those privileges. Yes, there is room for partisan disagreement in what "predicts harmful use", but it is still a step closer to a definition that can produce more frequent agreement both population wide and in sub-populations. 1. This definition naturally encapsulates the common free speech angle of Cancel Culture- most often, expressions of political theory have no predictive power over how a person behaves in some job, role, etc. 2. This definition allows for people's privileges to be removed without it being considered Cancel Culture- ex: Weinstein, Orange Man, CRT Teachers, etc. 3. This definition allows for collectives to boycott a business without it necessarily being Cancel Culture- reasonable for gays to boycott Chick-Fil-A since they fund whatever-it-was anti-gay thing, unreasonable for gays to boycott a business who's CEO ate Chick-Fil-A that one time. 4. This definition allows for extrajudicial and mob justice in general, without it necessarily being Cancel Culture. On the left owning cancel culture- see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25977399