the whole "cancelling someone for being racist is blacklisting conservatives" once again forces us to confront, if we are being serious, this fundamental question: what rhetoric and discourse should be considered out of bounds for mainstream society?

the issue here is NOT, as some "anti-cancel culture" warriors want to pretend, that nothing is beyond the pale. the debate is about WHAT constitutes beyond the pale. that's the debate; everything else is a distraction.

is advocacy of pedophilia beyond the pale? i think it is, clearly. most agree. is defense of nazi genocide beyond the pale? yes. again, the issue is not whether or not certain rhetoric ought to disqualify someone from participation in mainstream public life.

the question is what is the line, where is the boundary between speech that can be safely considered disagreeable or debatable and speech that warrants the speaker being excluded from mainstream life.

instead of hand waving about cancel culture, let's engage on the merits of these cases. for example, if the republican party is becoming more and more nakedly racist—which seems obviously true—in my view we should NOT shift the overton window to accommodate this drift.

some people will disagree. but let's have that disagreement, instead of this stupid and fake and bullshit argument over whether or not some speech disqualifies people from mainstream life, because it is so obviously the case that it does.

and to me, it is so obviously the case that IT SHOULD! if you go around talking about how adults should rape children, you should not be on television!