This most clearly exemplifies the patently illiberal outlook that you are advocating for here.

I oppose things like Adams being targeted by threatening personal messages at home even after he retired (triggered by offensive tweets not about his students). You characterize opposing this as "viewing the students' concerns as unreasonable"?

The degree of doublespeak you are endorsing here is astounding. Demanding that someone be fired is "speech", but going out of your way to read someone's offensive tweets that don't even mention you is you being "repeatedly punched".

The double standard to which you hold yourself vs others is also astounding. After calling it "hurtful and insulting" that I ascribe some negative motives to you, and I point out that I believe it be well-justified by evidence but accept the correction when you explicitly state different motives, you then go on to contradict what I have repeatedly said my motives are and tell me they're different no less than six times (along with ascribing to me things that other people have said and which I have not endorsed at least three times, and expressing an extremely uncharitable interpretation another dozen times or so). You could have instead talked about the effects and why certain outlooks do not achieve my stated goals, but nope! (Note: you also repeatedly ascribed motives to me prior to that, whether or not I'd made explicit what I believed my motives to be.)

I strongly support the actual physical safety of students. I also strongly support the idea that universities are a place to be challenged but not harassed, and if there are cases where the latter is being passed off as the former, that it is appropriate to speak out vociferously, and for corrective and/or protective action to be taken as needed and as appropriate. For instance--and you conveniently fail to mention this despite the length of your reply--I believe Adams should have been fired in 2016. However, having (imprudently, I would argue) given him another chance, the question is always: what corrective or protective action is appropriate now, keeping in mind recent behavior?

Your post consists basically of a very long narrative of how Adams is evil incarnate, and focusing on only the most measured aspect of the responses to him (even there, confusing academic freedom with commercial expediency) while ignoring the less measured ones. You then say that I object to measured responses to evil incarnate.

Well, guess what? I'm not fooled. I don't know whether you've fooled yourself, or whether you realize that you're engaging in a rhetorical trick, but it's not working on me. Honestly, I don't think anyone else is likely to read this (if so--hi!--I admire your diligence!), but if they do I trust them to pay attention to what I wrote before (or if not--why would they now?--either way, the situation is clear enough).

The problem with cancel culture is that it is a disproportionate response and not always triggered by reality (in this case, the disproportionality was the problem). If you refuse to focus on the disproportionate aspects of the response, and you demonize the target yourself so that any response is justified, well of course there won't be any problem in evidence, will there?

Anyway, I don't think there's much point in my trying to engage more on this topic.

One aside because it's so egregious I can't leave it unchallenged. I don't know what you meant by these words but the plain outlook is horrifying. "What are fools? “silly, stupid, or ignorant persons, idiots.” People we do not need to respect or consider. People we are free to harm." ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! We are not free to harm fools! Even if this is not your belief but a belief you are imputing without evidence to Adams in order to assassinate his character, it's really bad to just flat-out state it like that. (Also bad to assassinate character without evidence.)

I will just leave you with Lukianoff's words once more about a key feature of cancellation, one that is strongly in evidence in your previous post: "once you transgress, you can be unpersoned into a caricature of societal evil, an object of scorn — no longer a real person, but an evil abstraction".

One of your caricatures: "Mike Adams let his students know that he held them in complete contempt, disdain and unworthy of even living"