None of these discussion points focus on the larger reality of collective human behavior: negotiation of power at a collective level. End of era behavior necessarily dictates that the group which holds the most power will feel as if their power is slipping and will do everything they can to defend it, inclusive of claiming that they are being 'canceled.' Everything looks like too little if you're the one used to getting 100%--that is, your stuff plus everybody else's. Everybody else, however, will eventually ask for their stuff back.
Classic liberalism, which John MacArthur has defended under all circumstances, is anchored in the same processes that established white supremacy. That is, the dictates of classic liberalism allowed the freedom for ALL--liberty and justice for all--to confer to WHITE MEN ONLY. This tradition is still deeply mired in our society as a feature of classic liberalism as established by Kant et al and which is still taught in schools as if it is perfectly normal to declare 90% of the human race subhuman and proceed to behave that way. Those are the terms of ‘classical liberalism.’
Push-back against this is end of the era power negotiation; it's a form of homeostasis that happens at a collective level. Those with 100% 'free voice'--those who have that ability to speak freely at all times--will have the power to hear only their own voices; by definition of oppression, other voices will be silenced. This is (possibly) implicit: that is, may operate even without the conscious knowledge of the oppressor--in particular in a society where the oppression has been so long-standing, like the US, that it feels 'normal' to to oppress others, now for almost half an era.
Cancel culture is a poor term. It is simply progress to say that other voices NOW have some power, and it should be expected that, after generations of oppression, there will be some push back to this traditionalism as we see now. This isn't 'cancellation,' it's a reassertion that other people actually matter--after a very long time of not mattering.
Cancel culture isn't canceling others first and foremost; it is re-calibrating 500 years of oppression by pulling power in the opposite direction. This is necessary in the context of classic liberalism as we discuss it because it is embedded in white supremacy. This can be clearly seen in Arendt's writing: she is clearly liberal and also clearly, virulently racist, both in the classic sense. I bring up Arendt because she is a favorite of classic liberals who think of themselves as 'liberal,' especially of the Bard crowd which still hark back to theories from the 1940's to justify current behaviors.
People are shocked that brown and black people, as well as other marginalized peoples, are signing on to this letter. Why? A subgroup of marginalized people throughout history has implicitly chosen power (ie, whiteness, and however close they can cleave to it) at the expense of justice or equality for the larger group. That's what ‘atomized’ humans do, regardless of race or other identities: they see only individuals as important and shirk collective responsibility. This is true regardless of marginalization; that is, some individuals' desires for individual power that they MAY acquire is more valuable to them than making a social contribution. It should be expected that a subgroup of nonwhite and other marginalized people--those most interested in power--will sign this type of letter. People who are primarily interested in maintaining current power structures by definition care about power, first and foremost.
Individuals who prize individual power over group/collective equality come in all colors and all margins. In general, they express this as ‘maybe one day, I’ll be the one with all that power.’
Which part of this ‘classic liberalism — get more for me’ behavior contains anything of admirable value in it??