Why does cancel culture not concern itself with murder and violence?
Just a disclaimer here, this is a question about violence. Now, I'm known as what might be considered an established pacifist. I do not exclude violence from the list of things that intrude on peoples' boundaries. That is to say I don't support it, which, in ultra layman's terms, is acknowledged to be because it's a form of escalation and often has no possible form of compensation. And I look at everything I see with what people actually do get away with, and I want to know why.
We live in a society trying to put in more effort to maintain what it sees as a kind of righteous balance. If an artist, writer, singer, etc. says something, the even the art is not exempt. If JK Rowling blasts her mouth off again, her stocks have been known to plummet. If Elon Musk tries to appeal to the wrong people, his own stocks have been known to plummet. The people are speaking, as many say. However, one area of what one might call controversy that I notice the people never speak on is terrorism (and anything related to death, if it's random and not related to a specific group of people). And I was thinking about this while reading Mistborn, where the heroes get away with some nasty stuff and one of the messages amounts to the whole "the ends justify the means" vibe. But if the way they think is par for the course, why even put this thing some people call "cancel culture" on a high altar? Once in a while, it's common to have to answer to some misunderstanding, but I notice violence (if nothing else is attached) is often just an "unconventional view". And that kind of thing is all we see in the news on some days, and nobody feels like it, I don't know, misrepresents anything? Bottom line, why is general violence treated so differently?
