Okay, so if I'm following you properly, you essentially consider "cancelling" as something of an "end run" around the way that disagreements ought to be resolved; as always, if I'm missing something essential, by all means bring me up to speed.BIL wrote:Identify someone with a belief you dislike, and set out not to persuade public opinion against them to the extent they may be forced to rethink their presence in your community (this is perfectly legitimate expression - peacefully picketing a store, say), but by unilaterally ruining them outright, having appointed yourself the arbiter of what may and may not be said or thought.
To attempt to bring this (more or less) back around full circle, your main issue with the effort to oust Rogan from Spotify was with the way some attempted to put their thumb on the scale by focusing not on the Covid misinformation that got him into hot water in the first place, but on his past use of racial slurs, which you've argued were mis-contextualized to paint a less flattering portrait of him (I frankly haven't delved deep into those items, so I'll defer to your judgment on them here).
As such, I'll repeat the question I asked in my previous post: if the race stuff had never been introduced, but enough people had ditched Spotify in direct response to his behavior concerning Covid information to force his firing, would Rogan, in your estimation, have been "cancelled"?