This is probably the most articulate part of what is, yet again, a tribute to BS. However, I am happy to use this as an opportunity to restate old ideas.
This isn't a difficult circle to square. The people arguing against 'cancel culture' being a distinct thing or a cohesive problem to be addressed as a set aren't the ones using cancellation in and of itself as the framework to determine if the actions described as cancellation are justified or not.
The charge is that there is no principled framework. Instead of trying to muddy matters with vague references to these people and those people, we have individuals in this thread who supported specific firings. In the case of your circle-jerk buddy, claimed FIRE does not "fear monger," but Lukianoff and co-author raise the same cases that are discussed endlessly in this thread and pooh-poohed as usual background noise. The characterizations of d4am10n vs. FIRE are discrepant.
Where to draw the line between justified actions and unjustified relies on the merits of the case. This happens to be true for the overwhelming majority proponents and opponents of 'cancel culture' being a thing or a distinct phenomenon. The people most vocal about the threats of cancel culture just don't see the cancellations they agree with counting. The people who don't think it's a thing don't think any count and those who think it's a thing but not the same kind of problem as the first group are more mixed.
So the moral foundation just isn't including 'cancel culture' as factor for or against a 'cancellation'. The moral foundation used would likely depend entirely on the factors pertinent to the case.
Everybody decides matters on the "merits" of a case the way they support "reasonable" gun laws, or killing scores of people when "necessary." In other words, meaningless statements. We articulate a principle first -- what is or is not justified -- and then see if the case meets those criteria.
I'll illustrate by giving you an example. Not long ago, there was a magazine article titled something to the effect, "Cancelled at 17." A young man was ostracized by peers because he showed a nude photo of his girlfriend to several other boys at a party. Johnny supported this cancellation, eventually saying that what the young man did was a
crime! Well, that can serve as a kind of moral foundation, but if it's not consistently applied, then it's not a moral foundation at all. Let's take it for granted that the level of ostracization reasonably follows from the crime. Students who befriended the boy were also ostracized. Whether or not people ought to be cancelled for non-criminal acts, no reason was given.
When anyone digs far enough, they don't just find tortoise shells. It's worse. These arguments eventually go back to notions of self-justifying power, often represented by the free market. People have 1) freedom of association and 2) freedom of speech. If I don't like an actor or singer or laborer, then I can choose not support financially support that person. I can also tell other consumers not to support that person. These are my basic freedoms. Right-wingers were happy with this state of affairs back their ideas had more cultural resonance, but it's always been amoral under the surface.
But hey, you can rest assured that the History and Sociology professors won't blame the anti-cancel culture alliance when they get cancelled for teaching that racism is in fact correct or that women being subservient to men is beneficial or any number of utterly unsupported, outright disproven ideas. After all, free speech and anti-cancellation as the moral foundations wouldn't allow you to use your free speech to advocate for their removal from teaching.
I'll say again, you have no idea how to argue. What a mess.
None of that contradicts what I posted.
