Assumptions like this may be the downfall of our civilization.

Far too often, we respond to people based on what we assume their motivations to be, rather than based on what they said specifically. And that is absolutely no way to have a fruitful conversation. If you're not responding to something someone actually said, then you're not actually responding to them - you're responding to a scarecrow of your own creation.

Speaking from my own perspective, I suspect that the real reason why many people are so obsessed with fighting cancel culture is not that they are literally transphobic (or whatever other type of bigot), but rather, just because they haven't seen enough evidence that anyone else understands their legitimate fears of cancel culture. If people responded to them first by saying, "yes I agree that it's important to offer paths to redemption, and I understand that cancel culture can be counterproductive to that goal", then they'd realize that they can move on from that point - on to more productive conversations about other ways to fight bigotry.

But we never let the conversation get to that point, because we refuse to even entertain that some concerns about cancel culture deserve real answers. And we instead gaslight people by claiming for example, that cancel culture doesn't even exist.

I think if anything good comes from this article, it will not be because you've gotten more people to agree with your title, but instead because more Bill Mahers of the world will get to see that even some politically "woke" people like you see the value of redemption, and the potential pitfalls of cancel culture.