How the free speech debate stops us from stating the bleeding obvious | Zoe Williams

The article criticizes the ongoing debate surrounding "cancellation" and the acceptable limits of racist speech. The author avoids rehashing Sarah Pochin's controversial comments and her political affiliations. They refuse to analyze the nuances of when and where such statements are made, or the political fallout. The author rejects the exercise of scrutinizing the intentions and motivations behind such rhetoric. The core issue is the endless discussion about how racist one can be without facing consequences. The piece argues that "cancellation" rarely effectively silences or punishes those with hateful views. They highlight how publicly labeling someone as racist is now more taboo than the racist actions themselves. The article suggests this focus on acceptable levels of prejudice distracts from the core problem. The author believes that ignoring racism leads to its continuation. The text implies a need to confront racism more directly, instead of debating the boundaries of acceptable hate speech.