I specifically chose the phrase "anyone who says a word in defense of the person who is being sanctioned" for a reason. My key point is not about secondary san

I specifically chose the phrase "anyone who says a word in defense of the person who is being sanctioned" for a reason. My key point is not about secondary sanctions in general. It's about freedom of speech, and our ability as a society to grapple with moral questions. Suppose, hypothetically, that any lawyer who's found guilty of "defending a criminal" receives the same sentence as that criminal. So if you're a public defender, and you defend someone accused of murder, and that person is found guilty and serves a life sentence -- then you yourself are also required to serve a life sentence. In this hypothetical, the justice system breaks down very rapidly. No one wants to defend the accused anymore -- even if you're fairly sure they're innocent. The risk of being forced to serve the same sentence is just way too high. This has second-order effects. Accusations are now much more likely to be successful, since the accused lack representation. If you're having a beef with someone, you'll want to be sure to accuse them before they accuse you. Etc. Society collapses into chaos. This isn't just a hypothetical, note. A dean at Harvard was dismissed for representing Harvey Weinstein. Even the ACLU can explain why that was wrong: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/harvard-was-wrong-dismiss-its-dean-representing-harvey-weinstein https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/harvard-was-wrong-dism... Reputational punishments are serious punishments. There's an urban legend that public speaking is a more common fear than death. Obviously, public shaming is even scarier than public speaking -- public shaming is basically the worst-case scenario for public speaking. If I choose to defend someone whose reputation is under attack, and my reputation gets attacked in response, that's isomorphic to the situation where a public defender gets sentenced for defending a criminal. This helps explain the chaotic, dysfunctional nature of modern cancel culture. >you are trying to make a distinction between sanctions imposed by people you agree with and people you don't. This is a distinction without a difference. Consider: "You are trying to make a distinction between punishment administered by the state, and punishment administered by private individuals." There's a huge difference between a judge sentencing a prisoner to 10 lashes with a whip, and a private individual randomly lashing another private individual because they're having a bad day. There's nothing inconsistent about me trusting PG as an authority in enforcing SV good behavior norms, and me not trusting random vigilantes on social media to correctly diagnose racism/sexism/etc. If you want to argue that I shouldn't trust PG, the best way to do that would be to mention an example of miscarriage of justice that he's responsible for. If your complaint is just: "but he's acting as an authority!" -- well, it would appear that he's doing a good job, since the Valley seems to be thriving.