It wasn’t “cancel culture” when women and people of color got used up, silenced, and dismissed before their careers even began. It only became “cancel culture” when powerful abusers started having established careers momentarily inconvenienced by revelations of what they’d done

To reiterate, the effect of social opprobrium on careers isn't new, but only started getting scrutiny once it stopped helping established powerful abusive people and started hurting them.

This confluence of timing is *the* salient point, and exposes the scrutiny for what it is.

This fact taints every case brought, every point made, every bit of sophistry employed:

It wasn't "cancel culture" when it was used to abuse people without power. It now is, exactly at the time that it is used to check the people doing the abuse.

No getting around it.

The question comes: "but where do we draw the line?"

It's a question that doesn't want an answer—by which I mean, it's being asked to pretend the answer hasn't already been given, and is up for debate.

We draw the line at "don't be a predatory abusive asshole."

Next question.

"But where does it all end?"

Hopefully it ends with a society where predatory abuse isn't a perk of power.

That seems like it would be good.