Genuine concern for justice does mean carefully choosing one's associates, and even sometimes their associates. Objectivism has stressed this for a long time. The Roberts controversy supports its validity. See Onkar Ghate's 2024 talk for more on why:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PfM...

Roberts wants to invoke a content-neutral formal "no cancellation" principle so he can excuse palling around with the increasingly irrational Carlson. The "cancellation" concept was formed to target the "woke" left but is now being used to rationalize the "woke" right.

"Cancel culture" is a poorly formed concept. It packages together irrational crusades to deplatform/fire people for honestly mistaken or even true views, with the rational deplatforming/firing irrational people. There's no content-neutral reason to oppose "cancellation" as such.

First, the discourse around "cancel culture" is empty. If you think Roberts is wrong, it's because you know something's wrong with his wanting not to "cancel" Carlson. For all of the irrationality Carlson platforms, he does deserves to be cast out of civilized circles.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V6c...

More here, including an analysis of the concept of "genocide" and its history:
bsky.app/profile/aynr...

4) Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a group that openly announces its genocidal intent.

And since Hamas intentionally uses its own civilians as human shields, if there's genocide in Gaza -- it's on Hamas.

3) You might think Israel's war is unjust in the way it results in civilian deaths. That doesn't make it genocide.

And anyway, see point 1): a war of self-defense is just, no matter how pathetic you find the aggressors who are losing.

2) "Genocide" isn't defined by a number of deaths but by intent, the intent to destroy a group hated for prejudicial reasons.

If in making Arabs Israeli citizens and giving (undue) deference to Gazan civilians, Israel is committing genocide, it's the lamest genocide ever.