The answers for that are going to be different for everyone. For me, personally: if you can come to work and be nice to Joe and his husband Steve, and don't talk about their air-quotes "marriage", and you're not a raging asshole about it online, fine. If you're not sure about trans identity but still call your coworker Jane by name as Jane, and refer to her as a woman, and aren't a raging asshole about it online, then fair enough. And by the online behavior part, I mean I'm personally not going to hate you for discussing the topics civilly and in good faith. If you're nice to Joe at work but on Facebook talk about "the gross gay guy at work", and it got back to me, I'd definitely have issues with it.

Some people will have a much lower tolerance for such opinions, just like I know for a fact there are people in the midwest who wouldn't hire me because I'm an "out of touch coastal liberal" or such. Like, I could name names. Similarly, there are people who wouldn't think a thing of it.

Also, I truly don't believe there's such a thing as "cancelling". In every case I've seen of it, the root cause was someone who had been making an ass of themself and the people around them had enough.

I think kstrauser's comment makes the proper distinction between what someone does and what they think.

Cancelling is a vague term I agree. I meant it here in the sense of going out of your way to discourage anybody from hiring the person in question, which is different from having your own hiring preferences.

Do you think JK Rowling was not a real example? Or that she deserved it?

Oh, Rowling was "cancelled," you say? What does that mean? Did she lose her publisher? No: her last book came out in September 2020. Her movie contracts? Nope, still has those, too. Can she still find places to publish whatever she wants? Yes. Can you still read the essay that she was supposedly "cancelled" over? Absolutely -- it was nominated for a prestigious award. Is she still a literal billionaire? Why, yes, from all appearances, she is.

Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter? Yes, I suppose they did at that. Perhaps she can console herself by rolling around in her giant bin of money.

> Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter?

Generally, yes that is what I and much of society means. An organized bullying campaign that tries to destroy someone to enforce their version of politically correct behavior.

And the fact remains that the behavior she was attacked over, whether or not you want to regard her as a human capable of being victimized or suffering nagatively from such things, was not related to any neo-nazi or otherwise objectively "evil" behavior we can wave away as deserving. Or was it? That was actually my question.

JK Rowling's billions of dollars taken away? Were her books removed from sale? Was she fired from writing the screenplay for the upcoming 11th major Hollywood movie featuring her work?

She lost a lot of fans and faced a lot of criticism due to her extremist views. That's a consequence of saying things most people don't like.

So she's an extremist? If she wasn't cancelled does she deserve to be? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways here.

We were talking about what it takes to get someone cancelled. I'd say the uproar that ensued qualifies. And what's with all the snark and cross-examination I'm getting in return for even asking the question? Why are you guys emotionally invested in this argument about JK Rowling?

Who are "you guys"?

What evidence do you have that "we are emotionally invested"?

What is "the uproar", some posts on Twitter?

All of the above is weasel words to try to get around the fact that "cancel culture" really just translates to "people facing the consequence of saying unpopular things".

Rowling, who, again, was not "cancelled", faced criticism for her TERF views. TERFs are considered extremists, one that will get you kicked off of platforms for hate speech. This is because at its core they *very unpopular* in all kinds of polls.

Having unpopular views will get you backlash. That is on you.

"You guys" means you plus the other poster who responded to me.

Cross-examination such as this is precisely my evidence regarding being emotionally invested. And despite the fact that you agree with my point ultimately. I have no idea why you care so much to disagree with all the people (certainly you know it isn't just me) that think Rowling was "cancelled", but clearly you care.

The thread is about the dangers to ordinary people in being doxxed by hackers, and none of these angles you come at me with are making the case against it. Of course you're not here for "curious conversation" about that, are you?

If "being canceled" means that people say mean things about you but you face no material consequences, maybe it isn't the awful thing it's made out to be.

> What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity?

The problem is usually with what backs that opinion up, e.g.: not believing in gay marriage because at its core they don't find the relationship legitimate in the first place. Even discussions on immigration don't have to be bad at their core, it's the "why" that's usually the problem.

Trans identity is a different matter because it's essentially: "what difference does it make to (figurative) you?". (i.e.: one's identity shouldn't matter to someone else)