I never said it was universal to feel more sympathy for criminals, nor am I trying to apologize and/or gain sympathy for racists. How did what I wrote imply that?

The TED talk, now 5 years old, encapsulated what has now grown into "cancel culture" in a poignant anecdote. There's nothing generative or useful about this concept of prosecution (or persecution?) for making a misstep online.

I am fully in favor of implementing the Portugal drug model, implementing prison reform, and offering prisoners chances at rehabilitation. But to equivocate a racist tweet with a crime is ridiculous and, in my opinion, dangerous. This line of reasoning is barely different from the concept that speech can be violence, which is absurd. The foundation of every liberal democracy is the separation of free speech from criminality.

That principle assumes that a person's ideas can be reformed, which is what we should all hope is possible. Half of the time, alienating people for their views will only further radicalize and polarize them.

Now, to argue that a rehabilitated ex-convict is a better hire than someone actively tweeting racist things is a fine argument, but in an entirely different scope than the aforementioned comment, unless I misinterpreted it.

You said it was common. I said "it was not universal or common".

Social media is often used to amplify a message, do not act shocked when it amplifies the response as well.

I am not sure what the Portugal drug model has to do with this topic or why you're pivoting away from murderers and to drug users. You specifically noted murderers(effectively the most heinous of crimes), as gaining more sympathy than racist tweeters. This "sympathy" being provided to these murderers is them rotting in a prison for the rest of their lives or being executed. Social media and "cancel culture" is not on the same level as being stuffed in a prison for the rest of your life or getting a lethal injection. That was my point, not that racist speech on twitter is an automatic crime(though keep in mind that free speech laws do not actually cover all forms of speech).

How do you rehabilitate a racist tweeter in a thoughtful and caring manner that doesn't alienate their sensibilities? For all the talk of toxic "cancel culture", ingrained racism is also extremely toxic, and should not simply be ignored.

The Portugal drug model (or similar scale legalization and decriminalization) has a lot to do with it. A lot of the people who end up committing murder or are nailed for egregious drug offences are only in the position they're in because of bad policy. This is something that can be directly acted upon and changed.

I am very, very sceptical of the idea of a "conviction" for a non-crime. Racism, though deplorable, is not a crime, and it shouldn't be. Thought and speech are necessarily divorced from action in the "world of atoms". These classes of offence are very, very different.

My argument isn't that racism should be ignored, either. Rather, I don't think that any of the "cancel culture" that seems so prevalent actually does anything positive. It doesn't change views, it further polarizes and solidifies what you refer to as "ingrained racism".

There is a strain of thought that some murder is justified in the name of political liberation (take Assata Shakur for example). Many of these same people will try to persecute people for perceived racism. This is the world-view I'm referring to. If you'd like more tangible examples, I could dredge them up, but I don't think it would be worth either of our time(s).

Edit: For that matter, how do you rehabilitate someone like Dick Costolo, who today tweeted "Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll happily provide video commentary." in response to Brian Armstrong of Coinbase choosing an apolitical company approach?

Edit 2: Can't reply to the child comment. I don't have the solutions, but I would propose:

1) Reworking or regulating social media to be less polarizing (see The Social Dilemma, a film that just came out on this).

2) Criminal justice reform and drug decriminalization, so violent crimes and murder become less commonplace, especially such crimes that could be easily prevented by better policy. Also, clear the criminal records of those convicted for non-violent offences.

3) Establish "free speech zones" or something similar on university campuses, to allow space to refute heinous ideas in open discussion (ala Chomsky).

Portugal drug model does not excuse murder. Again, no clue why you keep bringing this up.

Racist speech and thought is often followed through with racist action, and this can be overt, but much of it is subversive throughout a society/culture, especially one that openly tolerates racist expression.

Ignoring racism also doesn't do anything positive, and in some cases encourages it. There's also a view point that people speaking up about racism is "cancel culture", and there are people who want to cancel that "cancel culture". Sorry, but at some point there has to be some nuance and middle ground of tolerable/intolerable and this is always going to be fuzzy, especially in a dynamic environment of social media.

It doesn't really sound like you have a solution, other than "ignore it" or continuing the status quo, which includes "cancel culture". You cannot prevent someone from saying racist crap on twitter, but then you also can't ban the blow back that person gets. If nothing should be done, then you accept that social media has its positives and negatives, and allow the adults to be responsible for what they say and be willing to accept the blow back for any heinous crap spouted out on it, just like Dick Costolo will have to face, which you bringing it up seems to kinda be an attempt at cancel culture.