Posting the video alone might have not been enough input..
Greenwald touches on aspects like
- nothing about this is new, but the term is new, making it seem like a more timely discussion (piece)
- that mostly is being held currently by figures of daily life that are so 'high prominence' they are under no risk of being demoted and removed from the public eye
- in return making this an artificial discussion in the sense, that the people that would be affected by it most - arent in on the loop of 'defining' what it means in a current cultural context
- all while recognizing, that some form of it always was there and would be wanted from a societal perspective -
ending up at the question, so are we talking about an 'excessive use' / abuse issue here?
Also - most interestingly in my own opinion is the corporate angle, where promoters of cancel culture theory are invited into companies, to establish new corporate cultures - that basically forbid any aspect of critical thinking, and have "mandatory religious" connotations on more than one level.
Again - a corporation (HR
) usually does this to divert social unrest potential of 'people being unhappy' into venues where it is easier controllable (just tell them its something caused by white guilt, and you are born with it, and you have to rethink every social interaction based on a guilt based principle - of you being privileged) and cognitive dissonance is sufficiently increased to the point, where people won't protest publicly because of wage distributions f.e. (or any aspect that transcends race, really) ...
Currently they are rectifying it with 'lowering risk of being sued' on grounds of discrimination, as part of their public argument.