In this imaginary scene, we hear from the cancellers and the cancelled. In this scenario, the cancelled group has expressed a view which was seen in different ways than intended.
Canceller 1: They deserve to be cancelled! What they said was seriously insulting. Why can't they understand that it is offensive!
Cancelled 1: We have not done anything wrong; sharing your own opinion is not offensive. We just shared our perspective, we are innocent!
Canceller 2: You are right! Sharing your view is fine. However, people have clearly found your message ... well, insulting! At least think about how others would feel.
Cancelled 2: I know we are all different but our view was frank and clear. How could it have been interpreted wrongly? We are just, as my friend has said, expressing our points.
Canceller 1: It's not only us who argue that this... what you have said is wrong. We speak for many people when we say this.
Cancelled 2: Wrong?! An opinion is neither right or wrong! What we have said might hurt but it's hurting us more. Our reputations are dust on the floor, our families hate us, we can't even walk into the grocery store without the press chasing us! All this... isn't necessary! It's doing so much damage and we only want to have a voice.
Canceller 2: Well, we have a voice too! The message is offensive and impolite and we aren't the only ones who say this. Can you please apologise?
Cancelled 1 and 2: No! We are who we are!
This is a pretend conversation. I believe the cancelled were in the wrong here. They argued that they have a voice and this is true, though they used it for the worse. What do you think? Who is guilty? The cancellers or the cancelled?