In that light, it’s easy to understand how the debate around “cancel culture” often takes a fierce and deeply personal character: The terms of “cancellation” are simply intuited, whether by social media mobs or skittish institutions, leaving both its unwarranted victims and their bystanders feeling like sinners in the hands of an angry (and unaccountable) God. This is where liberals who deny the existence of “cancel culture” stumble into insight. In an interview with Mother Jones, the writer Roxane Gay redefined it as “consequence culture,” saying that a perceived “cancellation” is merely the reality that “when you make a mistake — and we all do, by the way — there should be consequences.” The definition of a “mistake” is left unexamined; the implication is that it is determined by the cancelers — presumably, by people with political views similar to Gay’s. This is how “cancellation” creates a “culture,” insomuch as those who fear the fallout of being shamed by an online mob are incentivized to avoid such “mistakes.” One can be, in effect, “canceled” from a fandom, or a libertarian listserv, or an indie rock music forum, for cultural or intellectual heterodoxy. But when the parameters for what qualifies as noxious, unacceptable racism or sexism are set by the more-liberal-than-liberal who occupy positions of influence at powerful institutions, the effect inevitably pervades the culture.