Left baffled and bemused by the line in this review of Music about whether it "deserves to be cancelled"... https://www.salon.com/2021/02/10/music-sia-review-autism-maddie-ziegler/

"I do not get the sense that Sia made this movie with hate in her heart, and therefore I do not see Sia, her collaborators or the movie itself as deserving of the ultimate form of cultural sanction."

What?

No, seriously, what?

What is this ultimate sanction?

The author notes that some "activists" have "called for" the movie to be cancelled but he disagrees, and... how do you notice that's happening and not also notice that is what happens in *every* "case" of "cancellation"?

It's possible for a TV show or movie or other artistic endeavor to *literally* be cancelled, of course, but it's readily apparent that's not happening to this one, nor do I think it's what the author is talking about.

So outside of that... why do so many people pretend that there's a thing called "cancellation" that can objectively happen to someone, an actual ultimate penalty that society has and can and will apply at the behest of "activists"?

This phantasm of cancellation is so obviously phony a specter that you can't talk about it without sounding ridiculous.

"...and therefore I do not see Sia, her collaborators or the movie itself as deserving of the ultimate form of cultural sanction."

Normally when people speak out against "cancel culture" I would agree that's what they mean, but I don't think this reviewer is *against* "cancel culture" so much as has opinions about when it should be deployed. https://twitter.com/bootstheory/status/1360043946433368075

And in particular I don't think the author is saying we should give Sia money for this movie. There's some kind of "ultimate sanction" he envisions that lays beyond merely not consuming a piece of art.