When did cancel culture become 'consequence culture'?

Some conservatives in the US are trying to rebrand a practice they once maligned

- Joseph Bernstein

Instead of cancel culture, call it consequence culture.

At least, that is what some Republican leaders and prominent conservatives are doing in the week since the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk. Dozens of people have lost their jobs for making remarks about Mr Kirk that are perceived as insensitive.

On Sept 17, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show over comments the late-night host made accusing “the Maga gang” of trying to portray as a leftist the man who has been charged with Mr Kirk’s murder.

The pressure campaign being carried out by Mr Kirk’s allies and led by the White House, where Vice-President J.D. Vance has encouraged Americans to report to employers anyone “celebrating” Mr Kirk’s death was known as “cancel culture” not long ago.

In the past several years, some conservatives weaponised that term to attack those on the political left for trying to professionally harm or socially ostracise those who made statements or took actions deemed unacceptable.

Now, some Kimmel supporters and others are accusing the right of embracing the same “cancel culture” it once maligned. In response, some Trump supporters are reframing it as “consequence culture”.

“When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it, that is not cancel culture. That is consequences for your actions,” Mr Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool Sports, wrote on social platform X on Sept 17.

In an email, Mr Portnoy declined to elaborate on his comments.