**TL;DR Cancel culture shuts down conversations that could otherwise lead to personal growth** “Cancel culture” is a term created to refer to the practice of throwing people out of social circles for opinions that are deemed harmful, wrong, or offensive. It is no secret that cancel culture has been heavily criticized in the past. Having been labelled as a form of modern day censorship to some people, its opposers claim its main function lies in silencing opinions that, though unpopular, may still prove to be true. However, these arguments miss cancel culture's biggest flaw yet: it provides no opportunity for growth or redemption. Those who are canceled are rightfully called out for their mistakes, but are discouraged from learning from them afterwards. In other words, cancel culture provides absolutely no room for growth. Instead, we call people out, kick them out of our conversations, and then lament over why their behaviors don’t change. Instead, we should still be inviting people into these difficult conversations, even when we _know_ they’re wrong. When someone has an opinion that is indisputably ignorant or immoral, the person should be invited to express their thoughts without hesitation or restraint. This is not because we condone or agree with them, but because the truth can only be revealed to them through open discussion. By having someone reiterate and reflect on their reasoning by means of open dialogue, they become more open to spotting inconsistencies and flaws within their own arguments. They may even begin to rationalize the opposing sides' claims as well. In other words, the goal of these conversations should be less about shaming and more about educating the person in question. Some argue that the people we cancel aren't deserving of the time it would take to educate them or of a chance of redemption. However, whether they deserve it or not is beyond the point entirely. If our goal isn’t to rid people of their ignorance and harmful behaviors, then there will never be a long term societal benefit to bringing their actions to light in the first place. After all, after being shamed, people don’t abandon their opinions, they simply become more discreet about them. This is why conversation is necessary to have people find the faults within their own lines of reasoning. While it is a step in the right direction to stop sweeping others' actions under the rug, we cannot leave the root issues behind them unaddressed.

**TL;DR: People have the right to not listen to other people** People have a right not to engage in conversations that they find offensive. While it is entirely reasonable for someone to want to engage in debate and attempt to change someone’s opinion. it is also suitable to accept that someone has a differing point of view and let them live their life that way. If people can learn to live with each other's differences it would make the world a lot less confrontational and a more agreeable place to live.

**TL;DR: Cancel Culture doesn’t actually work** The term ‘Cancel Culture’ implies a finality, and the arguments here labelling it counterproductive take this as a foundational principle. They critique that once a public figure is ‘cancelled’, the general public revoke their right to rehabilitation, explanation, or forgiveness, which seems harsh and potentially unethical. However, I would argue that Cancel Culture is _not_ final, and therefore doesn’t really work as a manner of punishing or removing public figures from the spotlight for immoral statements or actions. Those who get cancelled rarely remain so. For example, over the past few years, JK Rowling has repeatedly been cancelled for her [transphobic tweets]( https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/8/22/21362516/cancel-culture-forgiveness-j-k-rowling-carson-king-apology-moral). The fact that this cancellation has been repeated by Twitter uses and the media on [several occasions](https://inmagazine.ca/2020/06/j-k-rowlings-history-of-transphobia/) (in different years) suggests that ‘being cancelled’ is not a finite state. Despite being cancelled, JK Rowling continues to make money and her work is continually supported by fans of her books, even by [those who have cancelled her](https://www.femiemag.com/post/j-k-rowling-no-longer-deserves-our-support-but-you-don-t-have-to-cancel-harry-potter). She is too rich, famous, and her works too popular, for her to _stay_ cancelled. Our Cancel Culture is a Cancel Cycle: internet users surface the problematic opinions or past actions of celebrities; Twitter and the press spend a few weeks circulating this information and claiming that celebrity is ‘cancelled’; the celebrity either addresses this in a public statement or keeps their head down; and in a matter of months they have a new book deal, or are cast in another blockbuster movie, and can go back to revelling in their success. The cycle repeats. Time and time again, the same public figures are called out for the same antics, but remain in the limelight and with minimal long-term repercussions, making Cancel Culture not only counterproductive, but ineffectual.

Just reminding everyone who disagrees with cancel culture. I share your opinion, but there is a 100% chance that you canceled someone, either because they were problematic, or because you disagree with them.