To risk speaking in blanket terms, which, while suffering a loss of robustness, allows one to approximate the higher-order vantage points. This trade-off is reconcilable to a degree, I believe, but its always there.
Would we consider a cancellation to be a socio-professional execution, or a socio-professional incarceration? That is, in general terms, is there a point of recovery/absolution? Or has cancel culture / accountability culture not endured long enough to determine such?
One cancels something they don't want to continue, for whatever reason. To the extent that MeToo manages to cast down those who have been using their power to levy sexual favors, they can be said to be cancelled, no?
And it makes sense that if your supporter-base consists largely of people that go unaffected by public cancellations, you would be more or less exempt from being canceled, no?
One point that, I think, has been made here, by sufi and others I believe, is that "cancel culture" (I love my distancing marks) is far from being efficient in its indictments and priorities, but it is still a powerful means of bottom-up accounting. The snag is that, arguably, those who are most in need of accounting are those who can survive without the support of whoever is rallying behind such change.
The only way, seemingly, to "reach" these unaccountable people is for the atmosphere of "cancel culture" to become even more excited, which would almost necessarily by-produce a greater, more palpable sensation of public censure and expressive regulation. I don't want to solidify this equation too much, but it seems like, in order to achieve higher-profile true-positives, there will also be more lower-profile false-positives.
