Bigot is a fascinating word for me, because it is defined as:
"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
With that language you easily describe a vast majority of US population ( including people who attack that author ) and I am not joking. And that is before we get to the part about whether what he said was 'worthy' of cancellation ( I read his comments and their portrayal in the media seemed, at best, biased ) and why it is so hard for people to separate the artist from their art ( same story with wossname from Harry Potter and ruckus surrounding that game ).
You sure this is the right way going about it? I am asking specifically because the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.
He’s not cancelled. He’s rich as heck. He’s never going to be homeless or starving. He’s not a victim. Rowling is a billionaire and a bigot too. She’s still doing whatever she wants. Even has fans like you at her beckon ready to ruin any one on Twitter. Yet somehow these people are the victims of cancel culture. Lack of self awareness is a bit much. blinding.
