I still disagree; people are using free speech and freedom of association to counter your words. You may not like that they're countering it by telling your employer or employer's business partners that "we treat your continued association with InitialPerson as tacit approval of their words", but that still is a fundamental right.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't cases where it won't be used irresponsibly, and if what you mean by decrying "cancel culture" is simply a question of responsible application, then that's fine. I object more toward the concept that people shouldn't be free to say or band together in a fight against someone's words and anyone associated with those words, especially if that association can be reasonably made to indicate tacit approval.

I'll use a Tucker Carlson example here since it seems to be an appropriate contemporary choice. Tucker Carlson says something that some consider to be exhibit A under "dog whistle racism". People are outraged, but they're just normal people; they have no powerful media entity providing them a soapbox to directly counter his words on an equal playing field. They can counter his words in various social media posts or essays or blog entries or what have you, but regardless of how excellent the content is, it'll never have the same punch as a man with a TV show.

So instead they look at the advertisers; these advertisers buy ad slots during specific programs, trying to get the most eyeballs on their product. They KNOW what they're buying; they don't just say "Hey, Fox, run this ad for me at some point and here's my millions of dollars for it". That's too much money and they want more control than _that_. So they specifically choose a slot.

In the best case, they may not be aware of the things Tucker Carlson may say. In the worst case, they are absolutely aware and choose to stick with him no matter what.

What's the best use of your time if you want to rebut someone's words, in this case? If you can't get a powerful media corporation to give you the same soapbox as Tucker Carlson, no matter how excellently you've rebutted his point, you're in a bind. So the best thing you can do; the biggest bang for your buck, is drag him back down to your level. Without media backing, Tucker Carlson is just a guy. A guy with a blog who says crazy shit. And the only way he is going to lose that backing is if the advertisers wise up to how toxic he is. They choose the slots, remember? It's reasonable to conclude that continuing to support Tucker Carlson's show is tacit approval of the things he says, especially when there is no retraction.

I don't see the downside to this at all. It wouldn't matter if it were Tucker Carlson saying racist things or Rachel Maddow saying white fragility things. You are entitled to your thoughts and your words and you can speak them all you want, but you are NOT entitled to a soap box, nor are you entitled to association or support from others. On a fundamental level, I believe people try to say entirely too many things without having the backbone to own them, and trying to suppress ramifications only gives them more reason to say outrageous things without taking responsibility for them.