> This flavor of "cancel culture" transcends my definition in a lot of ways (often involving physical violence, unjust law enforcement incarceration, employment discrimination and more).
Employment discrimination aside (you'll find that with the tolerated kind of canceling, too, even though the employers may not do it voluntarily, but catering to mob pressure, but then again, aren't they often in racist settings as well?), what if they don't include physical violence or state action? Would you find it okay if some group pressures vendors, customers, social clubs etc to cancel someone because of the color of their skin?
I'm not looking for a "gotcha" or something, and I included religion and political persuasion in that list intentionally. You can't change your skin color or sexual orientation, and we're kind of saying that you can't change your religion (though we agree that you totally can, apostasy is both normal and accepted and not a crime), but we kind of say that you can with your politics (otherwise it would be protected and you couldn't discriminate against someone based on it).
The problem I see with tolerating the common cancel culture is that it's often as arbitrary as those motivated by racism etc because it depends on exactly what the article was arguing: whether some speech is violent, and then additionally how violent it is (e.g. bad enough to warrant aggressive action).
Racists actually believe that their targets are unworthy and bad and deserving of their hatred and persecution. Some fringe groups believe that JK Rowling is leading a genocide campaign against trans youth in the UK and would love to cancel her because of it (I don't think there's a chance of success, but that's besides the point for whether we'd tolerate the attempt). I find both beliefs absurd, yet I understood you'd find cancelling because of the latter one reasonable, so I wonder whether you feel the same about the former or why you'd see that differently. And if that's too extreme, consider cancellation because of politics.