The problem is that pg is not honest about what his problem with cancel culture actually is. Clearly, his problem is that he is privileged and sexist, aware of it and afraid of being cancelled, or rather, of receiving criticism about his statements and beliefs (as he has in the past).
But what he is arguing is something entirely different. He's not searching for words to argue for his position (he has none), he's searching for words that misrepresent and denigrate his opponents. You can see this easily not just by how he abuses the word "privilege", but by how he asserts that any position that is not his is part of an "orthodoxy". This would only make sense if there was a set of positions that a large majority of people could agree on, which would then form that orthodoxy, but as pg himself well knows, that set of positions doesn't exist -- after all, the POTUS himself is anything but "woke"! The only other way the term "orthodoxy" makes sense here, then, is understanding "orthodoxy" to not mean an agreed-upon, but a proscribed set of beliefs, such as in the Orthodox church. Such a set of beliefs, then, would require someone in power who outlines and instates it. That idea -- that there is a cabal of people who decide about which opinions are acceptable or "orthodox" or not -- is a dangerous conspiracy theory. More than that, it is an important element of contemporary alt-right discourses, which also often focus on this idea that there are some vague people in vague power which make it so that you "can't say some things anymore", be those powerholders "Cultural Marxists", (((Jewish))) or otherwise.
So yes, I agree that it is positive when people articulate their objections to an opinion. However, those articulations should actually express an opinion that is being held, rather than form a smoke-and-mirrors defense against having to say out loud what you know will get you pushback. A dogwhistle is not an argument.
But what he is arguing is something entirely different. He's not searching for words to argue for his position (he has none), he's searching for words that misrepresent and denigrate his opponents. You can see this easily not just by how he abuses the word "privilege", but by how he asserts that any position that is not his is part of an "orthodoxy". This would only make sense if there was a set of positions that a large majority of people could agree on, which would then form that orthodoxy, but as pg himself well knows, that set of positions doesn't exist -- after all, the POTUS himself is anything but "woke"! The only other way the term "orthodoxy" makes sense here, then, is understanding "orthodoxy" to not mean an agreed-upon, but a proscribed set of beliefs, such as in the Orthodox church. Such a set of beliefs, then, would require someone in power who outlines and instates it. That idea -- that there is a cabal of people who decide about which opinions are acceptable or "orthodox" or not -- is a dangerous conspiracy theory. More than that, it is an important element of contemporary alt-right discourses, which also often focus on this idea that there are some vague people in vague power which make it so that you "can't say some things anymore", be those powerholders "Cultural Marxists", (((Jewish))) or otherwise.
So yes, I agree that it is positive when people articulate their objections to an opinion. However, those articulations should actually express an opinion that is being held, rather than form a smoke-and-mirrors defense against having to say out loud what you know will get you pushback. A dogwhistle is not an argument.