One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
I see the line of your thinking.
The way I see it, the core concept in the "cancellation" is what used to be called
shunning.
Online, that requires some kind of banning. Even at Twitter, when a specific person blocks you from following them, it is not called "cancelling", it's just blocking.
I can understand how this all might be considered a continuous spectrum of actions, though. I personally believe there is a clear line when it includes
demanding others to ignore the target too. I find boycotting or ignoring the target yourself, and mentioning you do so without telling others to follow suit, acceptable. Saying "I ignore them, because they're always wrong. If you intend to interact with me, you will be ignoring them too." is going over the line to unacceptable, and saying "If you are a good human, you will ignore them" is blatantly
evil. Spectrum, yes, but with a very specific line that should not be crossed.
Others disagree, of course, and that is absolutely fine. What matters is the reason behind the opinion, because we can evaluate those reasons, and see if they matter to ourselves.
In my case, the reason for placing that line right there is history and psychology. As a political tool, it has never worked. As a social tool, it compels specific behaviour. I do not see either having any positive effects, but plenty of negative effects, in current peace-time Western societies.
I do not believe in ignoring someone just because of a silly/bad opinion, either. I only ignore people when I feel I cannot interact with them in a mutually beneficial manner. In social and psychological terms, ignoring someone is quite a negative act by itself; definitely not a neutral one that should be done on a whim. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Dave even made a video about this, and how ignoring people willy-nilly is counterproductive.
But more importantly, Lineker is back.
Who? Oh. Not my cuppa tea.
Well, my opinion is that if his political views doesn't show up in his sports commentary, why should his politics affect his career?
Exactly like why should the political views of a cartoonist affect the publication of that cartoon, if those views do not show up in the cartoon.
One thing here that I absolutely love, is that I can argue about one thing in a given thread with some member or members, and in an unrelated thread interact with them positively without that other argument affecting it.
It is important to me. It is useful, because even with the disagreement, we can still interact in a mutually positive manner. And I do believe that if more people were capable of that, also in real life, it would help make the world a better place.
Of course, this is
completely opposite to the current cancel culture in social media.