He said how "taking away someone's livelihood is equivalent to killing them"
Why do you not agree with that statement?
I don't agree with it because it isn't true. Taking away someone's livelihood is not killing them, because they can go and find some other means of livelihood and still be alive.
But that's not the point, because the people cancelling DaBaby are NOT "taking away his livelihood", they're just making a decision on behalf of themselves or their organisations, not to contribute to that livelihood. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that DaBaby should be banned from making records, or people banned from buying them. But if a festival organiser feels for whatever reason that his values are incompatible with those of the festival they're trying to promote, then they're within their rights (presumeably, the conditions of any pre-agreed contract between them notwithstanding) not to have him perform there.
This is the weird thing about right wing outrage at so-called "cancel culture". All that culture actually consists of is a bunch of consumers exercising their right to make their own judgment whose products and services they want to consume, and communicating with each other about it. But the kind of people who froth at the mouth about every perceived slight to their "freedom of speech" often seem strangely resistant to other people exercising just such freedom in a way they don't like.
My "take" is that this is beyond the pale, and the person who said it deserves to be cancelled from the fucking human race, not just a few social media platforms.
Ok so our base line of social acceptable behaviours is that bad words should result in cancelling from the human race as in death?
No, I didn't mean death (obviously). I meant I want nothing whatsoever to do with the fucker, would not buy his records, attend a festival where he was performing, talk to him at a party or piss on him if he was on fire. And I'll happily and openly communicate that to others.
For a start, if you want to lay a charge of hypocrisy against those condemning DaBaby's homophobia, you'd have to ask them individually why they didn't condemn the killing in Walmart.
Why is there a need to ask them individually when they came out to make public condemnations only after the homophobia?
Actions v words?
Because they may not even have been aware of the killing. Or they may have figured that because it was ruled self defence, it was excusable. Or there may be some other reason - you can't know until you ask them.
But I'd hazard a guess that in a country where such killings take place routinely every day,
What do you mean by "such killings" Black on Black killings, Black Rap culture, something else?
Just "killings" generally. My understanding is that the USA has a high murder rate.
I'm not sure that we're actually having the argument you think we're having here. For avoidance of doubt: I think there's a perfectly sound point to be made about the USA's societal tolerance of murder of black people. I just don't see how this is the way to do it. "Black lives matter" and "gay lives matter" is not a zero sum game.
And anyway, where does the idea come from that people only condemn homophobia and transphobia by bigots like Chappelle and DaBaby because it's attacking white people? You know there are actually gay black (and Asian, and Jewish and everything else) people, too? None of DaBaby's comments said anything about WHITE people with AIDS, giving blowjobs in the parking lot etc. So wtf has race even got to do with it? He was attacking and dehumanising gay people of his own race as much as anyone else.
Chappelle's remarks at the end of the Closer make clear he's happily tolerant of those comments, and that people shouldn't allow them to inform their actions. I disagree with him and think that's a vile position. You don't, because it's apparently only possible to acknowledge the humanity of one minority at a time. We'll just have to agree to differ.