People in conversation often follow a pattern whereby one person says something, and then the other person paraphrases, in order to show their understanding. If the paraphrase isn’t quite right, the first person will offer clarifications, until the second person can satisfactorily paraphrase the first.

I have a friend, who, and many respects is a very good person to talk to. He’s interested in a lot of things, and he can grasp a lot of nuance. Nevertheless, conversations with him can be kind of frustrating, in that he will almost never except another person’s paraphrase. I think the reason is because other people, in their paraphrasing, can never quite capture all the nuance he has in his mind. But because he never accepts your paraphrase, it is hard to conclude a conversation with him with any confidence that you both understand each other.

In my original message, cancel culture means “silencing” or "shutting someone up" - and murder is the most extreme form (which you might call “the pinnacle”) of shutting someone up. That's the most important point I was making, and the Penguin seems to have understood this.

I think my message also suggested, rhetorically, that since his killers were engaged in silencing, that MLK himself must not have been. But the implication that MLK definitely wasn’t silencing anyone does not necessarily follow logically from the fact that his killers were - which is why the overall implication (at least from my one analogy) that MLK abstained from cancel culture remains rhetorical, rather than logical.

Perhaps the Penguin's paraphrase doesn’t capture all of that, but it’s close enough for me to feel confident that they've understood the gist of my message. So I felt comfortable in accepting their paraphrase.