Readit NewsIf you're getting news from strongly opinionated talking-heads, then that might explain the disconnect.
I think that whether this is or true or not depends a lot on how you define your terms. If cancel culture only means "I expressed an unpopular opinion about gay rights on TV and then lost my job", then yes, the window is narrower now than in 1985. But if it also includes "I expressed an unpopular opinion about gay rights in a bar and then got beaten up," it is not.
just sayin'. maybe 1985 sucked a lot for a lot of people that weren't paul graham.
There was a bro-y norm to engineering culture that you didn’t defy very easily.
I'm a bit surprised how easily people forget these things.
The issue under debate is what kind of speech merits what kind of consequence. The idea that there should be no consequences for speech oils only remotely believable when you are a member of the white, cis, wealthy class who’s lived without consequence for speech for their whole lives.
If I can respectfully say something here: you're making sweeping statements about people based on their race etc. It's going to be difficult to make persuasive arguments if that is your debating starting point.