I don't disagree that it is an accurate (and somewhat inflammatory) description of how figures on the right discuss cancel culture. What I'm saying is that it is an ineffective means of changing anyone's mind that they must care about changing.
As participants in the culture war often do, they claim to want peace while also wanting victory.
Why must the tone always be conciliatory? Why must both sides have a point? Why must we write everything to try and change minds on every topic at once?
Maybe for the rational people, the argument you’re talking about is over; at this point maybe we’re just discussing the problem directly. Maybe everyone who would be convinced has been convinced, and the people who remain can be dealt with differently than how we’d deal with genuine difference of opinion.
As participants in the culture war often do, they claim to want peace while also wanting victory.