I have no problem with serious discussion of cancel culture.

Can we make sure we spend at least as much time talking about green-light culture -- which is the form of preemptive cancellation many voices must deal with?

I am minorly interested in which people with platforms should not have them.

I am majorly interested in which people without platforms should have them.

And if you care a lot about vigorous and open debate, you should, too.

Like many things in our time, this cancel-culture fight is a proxy war.

It speaks to a much broader issue: too many encrusted, entrenched voices clinging to platforms they don't deserve, and too many brilliant, marginalized voices pushed out of writing for lack of a platform.

These are not the same fights, but they rhyme. So yes: let's have an honest conversation about the climate that nurtures free, open debate.

But until we hear you loudly showing up on the other front, taking an interest in who never even makes it to cancellation, you ring hollow.

Cancellation takes many forms. https://www.insidesources.com/two-of-this-years-pulitzer-prize-winners-now-work-in-pr-what-does-that-say-about-the-future-of-journalism/

Layoffs cancel.

Private-equity media ownership cancels.

Unpaid internships cancel.

Educational disparity cancels.

Publishing's insularity cancels.

Agent gatekeeping cancels.

Lack of connections cancels.

Mysterious hiring processes cancel.

Race and gender privilege cancel.

So let's face the problem you speak of. But I doubt your seriousness if you do not speak of these cancellations, too.