That’s not a distinction I hear a lot of people make. Andrew Cuomo used “cancel culture” to describe calls for his resignation in the wake of sexual assault allegations. The owner of a horse also used it to describe his suspension after the horse failed a drug test. People said it was “cancel culture” when the estate of Dr. Seuss decided to stop publishing some of his books.
But even if there is a line, it’s really blurry. A lot of people said it was “cancel culture” when Blake Bailey’s publisher decided to pull his biography of Philip Roth. The sexual assault allegations are ostensibly unrelated to his contract. But they gave him that contract with the expectation that publishing him would be profitable; is it “canceling” to renege when that’s no longer the case?
Sure. Once words have the kind of buzz that cancel culture does, they get used tactically and the meaning blurs... or evolves. "Fake news" was used very differently circa 2015-2016.
I don't think we're quite there yet though. The horse guy was also widely ridiculed for calling it cancel culture. In any case, I don't think the expanded usage is what pg had in mind, and that's what's relevant here.
Kicking out paul might be too severe, but it's not "cancel culture," in the reevant sense of the term.
But even if there is a line, it’s really blurry. A lot of people said it was “cancel culture” when Blake Bailey’s publisher decided to pull his biography of Philip Roth. The sexual assault allegations are ostensibly unrelated to his contract. But they gave him that contract with the expectation that publishing him would be profitable; is it “canceling” to renege when that’s no longer the case?