Weirdly complaining about "cancel culture" is it's own strange behavior, but taking action on security issues does not have anything to do with the separate concept of "cancel culture."
Your article fallaciously elides this difference, and fails to analyze and define either action.
Instead it substitutes very poor speculation and taking things at face value that are absolutely not trustworthy at face value (the idea that Saphy's protests mean there was no reason for a ban), and completely neglects to figure out what the cancel culture complaint was about.
It fails to make it's case and is an example of bad blogging that will leave readers less informed that before. Should have left this one in drafts.
Con security is not "cancel culture."
Weirdly complaining about "cancel culture" is it's own strange behavior, but taking action on security issues does not have anything to do with the separate concept of "cancel culture."
Your article fallaciously elides this difference, and fails to analyze and define either action.
Instead it substitutes very poor speculation and taking things at face value that are absolutely not trustworthy at face value (the idea that Saphy's protests mean there was no reason for a ban), and completely neglects to figure out what the cancel culture complaint was about.
It fails to make it's case and is an example of bad blogging that will leave readers less informed that before. Should have left this one in drafts.