'Cancel culture' is a thing - it's been the subject of academic scrutiny, even by left-leaning professors and academics on how it affects movements within the left. And you're right, it isn't a uniquely 'leftist' thing. But purity politics (whether the predecessor or the underlying philosophy of how 'cancel culture' operates - regardless of whether it's a 'thing' or not) and moral grandstanding are serious topics of concern and interest to political and moral philosophers, and sociologists too. There is balanced academic analysis both in condemnation and in praise of so-called 'cancel culture'. I think, however, this comes down to a measure of practicality among activists and what they want to accomplish. There are several good ways of being true to your ideals and unwavering, without 'callouts' and 'cancelling'.
Whether or not you support Stallman, whether or not you find the accusations of 'cancel culture' in some places misguided and unfocused, to say that activism hasn't taken a turn to moral purity and the impossibility of forgiveness betrays either an ignorance of modern activism (which I consider myself a part of), or non-involvement in how these processes form. Arguably, 'cancel culture' also forms part of the carceral turn of various activist projects.
When the worst thing you can do is admit a mistake and apologize, there's a problem. When most of the population, according to polls, says it is reluctant to make its true political views known (right or left) - there's a problem.
You are largely thinking about the US, which just seems to be more and more politically polarised. The 'cancel' part is not a feature of (left) activism though, it's a general feature of this polarisation - see e.g. the whole 'take a knee' controversy.
No, you don't, you need a modest dose of pattern recognition ability to recognize the fundamental pattern behind cancel culture. It's the same thing, different day, and always worth standing in opposition of no matter where you are on the political spectrum, or where the victim stands in relation to you.
I see cancel culture as used by the political party who likely does not recognize banning abortion clinics by law through an entire state as cancellation. The stakes aren’t a matter of Twitter hates you. Your boss firing you doesn’t mean your doctor is banned from giving you an abortion.
Or when TX sought to enforce a ban on gay sex in 2003, I really doubt the GOP sees that as cancellation. It’s a kind of failure to see the forest, even while pretending to have such moral clarity. The stakes aren’t a matter of Reddit hates you.
When a Christian refuses to bake a cake, sign a marriage certificate, or when they fight for the right to fire gay people, etc., the activity is not cancellation but spiritual observation.
And does one not remember that during the Bush presidential candidacy a major get out to vote issue for Christian conservatives was a US constitutional ban on gay marriage? Of course this is not cancellation. It was a Constitutional exercise.
These are points of pride for the GOP. This is what it means to energize the base.
The very fact that the GOP is also guilty of the cancellations you exposed doesn't preclude anyone, including the GOP, to complain about other forms of cancellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
According to the GOP, these aren't cancellations, but matters of spiritual and moral clarity.
Before one rushes to the aid of those who are powerful, one might first observe those who live underfoot. It is reasonable to say that in the lifetime of your children, it will still be a Constitutional right for Christian businesses and employees to deny gay employees or customers.
Isn't, according to cancelers, cancellation about moral clarity or in other terms "politically correct" stuff?
By definition those who are powerful don't need my aid, and I'm only here to learn.
Denying an employee (and even a customer, if one really wants so) for any real reason is already possible and done, by invoking any other reason. Such a Constitutional Right doesn't change anything.
Trying to coerce people into interacting with persons they don't like is either moot or, if apparently efficient for a while because "those who are powerful" enforce it, leads to a major clash as soon as this power vanishes.
