? Most cancellations are of moderates.

JK Rowling's view that Women, and Men who transition to women, while they should have 'equal rights' - are not the same thing, that there is a difference and that difference should be respected - got her cancelled. They are out for here in droves.

This is a mainstream view and probably extremely popular.

In fact, outside of hyperbolic politics I'll be basically anyone that even accepts 'trans folks' (because a lot of people wouldn't in the first places) actually feels that way.

The movement to 'erase' any possible difference that people might view Women/Trans Women differently is rooted I think in a really emotional, almost child-like concern/anger/will to 'defend rights!!!' in such a way that anyone who disagrees must be destroyed, without conceding some probable, basic realities.

I actually think that in a more calm, moderate, less hyperbolic situation, nobody would want to cancel her. It's the aggressive voice of less than 0.1% on the fringe who've internalized a lot of their academic views into emotional one's.

They tried to cancel Steven Pinker recently for suggesting, that according to the science, Americans are more generally subject to quite a bit more police aggression overall, and that though Black people to face disproportionate ire, that the problem is more general and widespread whereupon Black people have an acute situation.

Which personally always felt was the case, and absolutely nobody is willing to say it.

Put in other words, he almost said, in an academic kind of way that 'All Lives Matter' i.e. police aggression is more or less a general problem, not just a Black problem.

For this there were signatories, back room pushes etc. to cancel him. Fortunately, he's respected enough that he didn't have to worry but any 'less famous' prof. would have been destroyed.

This is again similar to JK Rowling in that a very basic, factual and what should be 'not even controversial opinion' gets you in a lot of trouble.

Almost ironically, during a CBC interview, Pinker spoke politely at length about the issues and used soft language to refer to the 'more extreme' on the left - but hilariously he used the language 'Social Marxist' which is almost identical to the term 'Cultural Marxist' (a derogatory term coined apparently by some bad person). It's funny because the logic of the terminology, which is to say that while Marx spoke about 'class struggle', the 'Social Marxists' (Pinker's words) use the same language but for race, gender etc.. If Pinker would have been anyone else, on a US outlet and had used slightly different words, he would have been publicly pilloried. It's funny how that works.

The fact that even Steven Pinker has come to the very obvious conclusion that this is very similar ideology but instead of 'class' you have 'race' or 'gender' - but that literally using any terminology to reflect that could get you in hot water, is Orwellian.

Imagine if the Nazis made a rule to suggest that any reference to the existence of Nazism or the power of the government will be met with prison or death. People all running around in that totalitarianism without even the language to point to said totalitarianism. It's probably the most 'Orwellian' of all 'Orwellian' concepts.

There is an interesting historical parallel during the Weimar republic, the German Communist Party (KPD) hated the 'centre left' socialists (i.e. people like Rowling, Pinker) more than anyone.

"The party directed most of its attacks against the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which it regarded as its main adversary and referred to as "social fascists"; the KPD considered all other parties in the Weimar Republic to be 'fascists'."

Literally anyone 'less Communist' than them, was a 'fascist' and subject of most of their ire.

Actually, this is not even 'parallel' - this is the the same social response being played out.

There are surely some 'Real American Nazis' who feel the same way, but I don't think anyone actually supports them, they have no power at all, whereas the 'Social Cancellers' have control over academia, a powerful wing in Congress, and weirdly enough extensive influence in the board room and are now trying to drive corporate social policy with some success which I think is due to the fact there's a lot of mostly good intention there, hard to separate from the more radical stuff.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany