The popular conception of cancellation is that cancellation is an unfair imposition of an ideology on people who don't deserve to be judged, and that it is destroying their life.

But on this discussion you've provided a list, and some people have highlighted that there is legitimate ground for their "cancellation" and that their lives are not destroyed. Therefore it does not correspond to this idea that we have a kind of crazy inquisition randomly punishing perfectly innocent people.

Sure, those "cancellation" can be criticized and discussed, but they are not more a big danger than any other decision about rule of society.

My comment here is rather: "I was told that cancel culture was bad, life-destroying and unfair. Then, someone asked for a list. Someone else provided a list. But then, others have noticed that this list does not correspond to what I have been told: it's way milder than bad, life-destroying and unfair."

It is possible that what I have been told is not the "popular conception of cancellation", but it would be surprising: it is still very much how it is depicted in mass media (from "official newpapers" to "twitter feed of politicians").

About Finkelstein: it is not really what I mean. I'm not saying Finkelstein is right-wing or left-wing. I'm saying I'm interested to see example of cancel culture of someone who wanted to do something left-wing and was canceled by people who defend right-wing ideals. Was Finkelstein canceled because he was too left-wing to the taste of people who liked right-wing?

It's a honest question, the answer can be "yes". The situation is just that I first saw "Finkelstein was canceled for being too woke", which seems to be a description that correspond to that. When you said that it was not the case, I thought "oh, ok, maybe it's not the case, then".

As for "wokism is a right-wing ideology", I would be more convinced by argument saying things like "wokism shares aspect with authoritarianism" or things like that. Something "right-wing" is first and foremost "something that is loved and adopted in the right-wing community". At the end of the day, it fails against to reach my argument. My argument is not really that "a good list will have people who are blue and people who are red in it", my argument is rather "a good list will have people who are canceled by the group A and the group B is outraged by the cancellation, and people who are canceled by the group B and the group A is outraged by the cancellation". So, in fact, it does not matter if wokism is theoretically right-wing or left-wing: if the cancellation is done by the left-wing community acting like the right-wing community, and that the right-wing community is upset about the cancelation, it still has the problem I've raised: why are all the cancellation examples always done by the left-wing community?

One possibility is that one includes ideological orientation in the definition. But even so, if cancel culture is bad, it would be because it's unfair or arbitrary, and "being unfair" or "being arbitrary" is possible whatever ideology you have. So it feels strange that "cancel culture" is a danger while something that is as unfair and arbitrary is not considered as a danger.

Finkelstein was cancelled by the right. Most prominently by Alan Deshowitz, lawyer for Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, etc.

As a result, he was denied tenure and was never able to get a job as a professor, other than occasionally working as an adjunct. Really, I'm not sure how much more severe it could be without being something other than cancellation.

He was cancelled long before his work on wokism - that topic was only brought up because someone misread one of my previous comments.

Another example of someone on the left-wing being cancelled by those on the right is Paul Robeson, who was perhaps the most famous American alive at one point, but lost everything due to his left-wing beliefs.

I do think you're confused about the popular conception of cancellation. Stallman lost his position at the FSF and MIT. His speaking engagements were cancelled. Article after article came out about how terrible he supposedly was. Almost all of it was unfair, almost all the claims against him were inaccurate. If these things don't constitute cancellation, nothing does.

Thanks for the info about Finkelstein.

> If these things don't constitute cancellation, nothing does.

I think that is exactly my point: what you describe constitute the usual social interactions that always existed, and for which we don't need to invent a new word. And for which we certainly don't need to pretend it's a new "culture" and a new "danger".

So, yeah, what you describe is real, but it is not "cancellation" because this concept does not correspond to any new phenomena.

This is demonstrated by your example of Robeson, that happens decades ago and nobody never mentioned "cancel culture" to talk about that at the time.

So, yes, nowadays, we have people who claim there is this new phenomena, super dangerous or getting worst than before, and they call it "cancellation". This new phenomena does not correspond to anything real, because there is no new phenomena. There is and there always will be people who will choose to not work with people they don't like and who will share and defend their opinions on this subject.

> Stallman lost his position at the FSF and MIT.

The way I understand it, Stallman lost his positions for demonstrating he did not had the skills required for these positions. For instance, his lost position at the FSF was as a spokesperson, which is a public relationship role. The blunders he has repetitively done demonstrate he is not competent for this role. Same way a driver that keeps have car accident will end up being fired.

> almost all the claims against him were inaccurate

I agree with that, and that is regrettable. But one have to understand that it is not only inevitable, the pro-Stallman were as bad as the anti ones. Almost all the claims in defense of Stallman were also unfair and inaccurate, accusing people of hidden agenda or dishonesty because they were just jumping to conclusion. While we should give the benefice of the doubt and while it is unfair to have article after article coming out about how terrible he supposedly was, it is exactly the same crime to not give the benefice of the doubt to the panel who decided that Stallman should step down and writing, without any more proofs, how innocent he supposedly was. I was disappointed to see no reaction (or really really few) defending Stallman saying "I understand the honest mistake of incorrectly thinking that ...", they were all trying to "cancel the cancellers", applying exactly the same method. For example, as I've just said, it looks to me that Stallman's position as PR was revoked because he acted in a way that shows he is not the best person for this position. Yet, the very very large majority of articles in defense of Stallman choose to lie about this situation, dishonestly presenting it as if his position was totally disconnected to any social skill.

And one needs to understand the following basic bias: if you think Stallman was unfairly treated, for sure you are going to particularly notice all the articles against him, and it will looks like it's a lot. And the article defending him will just sound "normal" to you and therefore as good measure. You will end up thinking the wave was dominated by article against him, ignoring that Stallman was also very well supported. In fact, in the past, there have been situations where Stallman would normally have been asked to step down, but he was spared because the pro-Stallman prevailed (some of the element that the MIT considered were reported at the time they happened and the decision was taken in favor of Stallman). In other words: "we never talk about the trains that arrive on time, and end up thinking there are more late trains than trains on time, even if it is not true".

You're conflating cancellation and cancel-culture