Our fundamental right to shame and shun the New York Times
&gt;<i>&quot;Our failure to have a serious discussion about defining “cancel culture” encourages this. When some people vaguely complain about “cancel culture” in a way that lends itself to promoting this constant partisanship, other people not unreasonably see it as partisan.&quot;</i><p>Popehat seems to be falling into the trap of thinking the precisely defining something will lead to clarity. It rarely, if ever, does. Each one of us has our own conception of a term - wordfeel, if you will - and virtually no one actually knows or holds to the literal dictionary definition. We hear words and apply them if they seem right to us. Even if you managed to precisely define cancel culture, people would easily try to claim that some alleged cancelling event it is <i>actually</i> something else, &quot;accountability&quot;, &quot;showing you the door&quot;, etc.. Never underestimate someone&#x27;s ability to lawyerly redefine what something is or isn&#x27;t.<p>Additionally, I think Popehat is dead wrong here:<p>&gt;<i>&quot;Saying we should “end cancel culture” means we’re saying some people should refrain from some exercises of speech and association to promote other people feeling more free to speak.&quot;</i><p>No rights are actually being infringed by this. It is possible to have cultural mores that are in the spirit of free speech. The opposite stance, not calling on people to end cancel culture, is <i>also</i> accepting a reduction in speech. Even so, by Popehat&#x27;s own worldview, because the government is not restricting cancel culture this shouldn&#x27;t be seen as some infringement of liberty.  I don&#x27;t know what Popehat actually wants here.