One progressive branch - many of the most committed feminists - has been doing a "who, me?" and wondering aloud what "cancel culture" could possibly mean and what could possibly be wrong with it. If you have to ask, that's good, and you have some learning lined up. Let's jump right in.

Ostracism is not a wonderful virtue. Many progressives have been acting as if it's both a wonderful virtue and a strict requirement.

I am not made more virtuous by lacking all compassion for a person who has done bad things, or even for a generally bad person. This would be understandable. It may occasionally even be useful. But it is not a wonderful virtue.

Cancel culture is the lie that claims it is.

It also implies that we're despicable if we do not join in hatred (when adequately justified). That's an especially disgusting lie (to me). But I have seen it before in an endless parade of forms. It hasn't suddenly cropped up in recent times.

Ethically, I'm a consequentialist and an existentialist. This puts me in a cultural and spiritual minority, but it certainly does not mean I don't care. To say that 1) freedom is the foundation of human rights (ie, we only restrict some freedoms for net-greater freedom, which could include a longer personal healthspan, more people functioning better, etc), 2) stark self-honesty and taking responsibility are the basis of morality (ie, there is no universal creed we have discovered, no list of commandments that is perfect, but whatever you do, that's what you did, and you'd better fully recognize it), and 3) good/bad actions are only good/bad because they bring good/bad results - does not imply amorality, immorality, moral relativism, or lack of empathy. I would say "quite on the contrary" to every mislabeling, but anyway, that's my belief system here, and something you may need to know to see my perspective.

To put the above another way, I do not believe that single actions define people; nor do I believe any person is evil, but rather some are more susceptible to certain kinds of misunderstanding and mistake; and finally, I do not believe actions (including "speech acts" with words and the "covert actions" called thoughts) are intrinsically evil if no harm is caused. Like many progressives, I believe that harm and health are the measure of morality, not appearances, not divine instructions, not even conscience or disgust, which are both based in primitive instinct. I'm willing to be a "bad feminist" for reasons I see as the right ones, ones that advance feminism and humanity. Like you, I observe and listen and make my best determination, and that's the best I can do. It's the best anyone can do.

It's very understandable, canceling people whose behavior you won't abide. Ostracism is a basic, evolved response, and it may be critical in some situations for self-protection. And it's a right you have. And in critiquing cancel culture, or ostracism-as-wonderful-virtue, I am talking about the views of great friends and even some family, people I love, people who share many of my values, progressive and otherwise. The lie is understandable. Very much so. But it is incorrect.

Understanding wrong action, understanding people who do the wrong things and in association with what factors, understanding how mistakes happen, and the wide variety of ways people can be mistaken, does not make you despicable. True understanding helps to solve the most difficult problems, and so does recognizing everyone's humanity. Cancel culture denies that these are true (where a certain level of anger and disgust has been reached), and it tries to forbid them.

Boycotting contingent on specific, clear, relatable, forward-looking demands is not only a solid idea, it's perhaps the best recipe for change. But boycotting contingent on specific, clear, relatable, forward-looking demands is not the same as pouring scorn and hatred on individuals forevermore, denying their humanity, and calling for everyone else to follow suit. You can do so, and you can call for it, but that is cancel culture, and it is not the same as the best recipe for change.

Deterrents are sometimes necessary. Which deterrents are most effective and humane needs more and better research. The best response to any threat is neutralizing it via the most advanced understanding. It would be a poor substitute for understanding to mount an eyeball-equivalent or gut-equivalent offensive. Counterattacks and deterrents often don't work the way we think they should. They can fail, they can backfire by paradoxically encouraging, they can vaguely or intensely undermine respect for a group or the law or reason or empathy or society at large, or they can simply be inefficient.

So, if you didn't know what could possibly be seen as wrong with cancel culture, now you know.

Pointing out that conservatives also cancel people is whataboutery. Yes, they do, and maybe more people, and even worse, especially where racism and other prejudices are concerned. That doesn't change the equation. (If you made a late credit payment, that doesn't mean I paid mine on time.) Cancel culture is still objectionable on reasonable grounds.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and if you're like me, neither will you.

Being progressive doesn't make us perfect. Trends will not automatically be right, let alone in all ways, even though they make sense, even though a trend and much moving and rearranging along those lines is urgently needed.