Well, we're actually talking about multiple different things that have been lumped into one under the label of "cancel culture"; Warner Bros. deciding not to show a couple of shorts they own when they literally have 100s of others right there that don't make a large portion of their audience uncomfortable and are otherwise just as good, if not better is not the same the same thing as you banning a guy for his unhinged, violent political ranting.
Warner Bros. is "curating" their slightly dated product to try and appeal to a modern audience; you actually "censored" the guy. (Obviously, for the record, I don't really care; guy sounds like a douchebag and also you didn't do it lightly or on a whim.)
While I'm here and on a roll, pointing out Pepe le Pew is problematic is also not the same thing as calling for Pepe le Pew to be censored which is also not censorship. Now, the first can be used as evidence for the arguments of the second, which can also force the people who actually have the ability to censor something to actually pull the trigger and do it. So, a consequence of pointing out Pepe le Pew is problematic, yes, via slippery slope, can be his "cancellation", it isn't necessarily the goal. But, as our local expert on censorship, freedom of speech, and cancel culture, Rakuen Growlithe, likes to point out, we shouldn't worry about the consequences of speech, so who cares?
Well, we're actually talking about multiple different things that have been lumped into one under the label of "cancel culture"; Warner Bros. deciding not to show a couple of shorts they own when they literally have 100s of others right there that don't make a large portion of their audience uncomfortable and are otherwise just as good, if not better is not the same the same thing as you banning a guy for his unhinged, violent political ranting.
Warner Bros. is "curating" their slightly dated product to try and appeal to a modern audience; you actually "censored" the guy. (Obviously, for the record, I don't really care; guy sounds like a douchebag and also you didn't do it lightly or on a whim.)
While I'm here and on a roll, pointing out Pepe le Pew is problematic is also not the same thing as calling for Pepe le Pew to be censored which is also not censorship. Now, the first can be used as evidence for the arguments of the second, which can also force the people who actually have the ability to censor something to actually pull the trigger and do it. So, a consequence of pointing out Pepe le Pew is problematic, yes, via slippery slope, can be his "cancellation", it isn't necessarily the goal. But, as our local expert on censorship, freedom of speech, and cancel culture, Rakuen Growlithe, likes to point out, we shouldn't worry about the consequences of speech, so who cares?