I wish journalists would stop asking about "cancel culture." To my mind, the term is used to encompass a bunch of disparate phenomena of which one piece is a strong response to bigotry. If that's what you're getting at, ask people how they feel about societal censure of bigotry https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1346404753278971905

In this sense, "cancel culture" is just a euphemism that allows someone to argue against a strong societal response to bigotry while sounding loftily concerned w/ intellectual debate. It also tacitly entails that bigoted ideas are worthy of intellectual consideration.

So if someone says that "cancel culture" instills fear in them, don't just leave it there. Ask them to explain what they mean. And follow it up w/ asking how they think society should respond to, say, people who use the n-word. If not w/ more speech (censure), then what? Silence?

And I've said it before but if you are concerned about free speech, you should be concerned about unfettered hate speech. Bigotry w/out response doesn't occur in a vacuum. It doesn't just harm individuals. It has consequences for their *own* free speech

(I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about speech in the more general sense that is invoked in conversations about "cancel culture)

As an aside, I do not want to speak for marginalized groups of which I am not a member, but, in my experience, if I misstep in some way, POC & LGBTQ people have never "canceled" me if I explore the misstep, apologize, etc. (and, no, I don't feel bullied into doing so).

In this sense, "cancel culture" is further misleading as a term b/c it conveys a sense that people who speak out about their oppression create no space for dialogue/growth. That has not been my experience in 99.9% of cases in which I've erred. The aim is not actually vengeance.

And I don't want to argue that people *should* be forgiving, I'm just pointing out that they often are. The actual "canceling" of an individual typically happens after doubling down on bigotry. Not b/c they merely erred and/or were challenged.

I can't speak for trans women & men, but I can say in a merely descriptive sense that the general response to JK rowling would have been v. different if she'd said, "You know what? I'm listening & learning. I want to help vulnerable people. Not harm them"

She didn't do that, tho

&, for the record, I *do* think there are harmful dynamics on social media. I also think it's important to be clear about which dynamics we're talking about. I don't think forceful responses to bigotry are harmful &, if others think they are, they shouldn't hide behind euphemisms