You went from, "People who try to improve themselves are safe" to, "We can't have sympathy for rich people." But it doesn't just happen to rich people. And when you're presented with an example of that, you'll find another excuse.
The honest thing to do is to go back to your original statement and say, "I was wrong." To demonstrate in yourself the very open mindedness and willingness to rethink your beliefs that you think should be protection against shifts in political culture. (But which aren't.)
Are you going to be honest? Or will you continue moving goalposts to justify your wrong claim?
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said "People who try to improve themselves are safe;" the world is full of too much nuance and complexity for me to make a sweeping statement like that. Nor did I say "We can't have sympathy for rich people;" my main concern in the specific case mentioned would be power dynamics at play moreso than wealth dynamics (although there is an undeniable link).
I suggest you re-read my original post; I was trying to suggest in a broad way that pg was wrong about why some people aren't afraid of being cancelled in a way that has nothing to do with so-called "orthodox privilege."
Some people are able to honestly assess their past positions and statements, understand why things could be construed as problematic, and make efforts to better themselves. That, and a sense of what conversations are appropriate for public forums versus informal conversation over drinks, act as pretty great cancellation buffers.
And yet one of the top examples is someone who had that "great cancellation buffer" and it didn't help him one bit.
In another famous example, Emmanuel Cafferty, all the guy did was drive with his hand out the window with absolutely no idea that it resembled a signal used by white power groups. That "great cancellation buffer" didn't help him, either.
People feel safe because they don't think it will happen to them. I firmly believe that this shows ignorance of how political purges (which this is) work. Eventually the purge takes on a life of its own and people who started it are often shocked to later find themselves among the victims.
You went from, "People who try to improve themselves are safe" to, "We can't have sympathy for rich people." But it doesn't just happen to rich people. And when you're presented with an example of that, you'll find another excuse.
The honest thing to do is to go back to your original statement and say, "I was wrong." To demonstrate in yourself the very open mindedness and willingness to rethink your beliefs that you think should be protection against shifts in political culture. (But which aren't.)
Are you going to be honest? Or will you continue moving goalposts to justify your wrong claim?