These really sounds like the same thing. It’s like the open rejection of objectivity.
Discussion
Pretending there is no difference would be an open rejection of reality.
Only ones own, hence objectivity.
If I am free then I cannot be forced to continue employing someone who celebrates the death of a decent person.
If I am free then I cannot be coerced to fire someone who points out that men are men & women are women & that synthetic hormones & genital mutilation cannot change reality.
An ideological moron (if free) also cannot be forced to continue employing the person in the second example, but cancel culture is an effort to coerce & threaten people into firing people even when they would prefer not to.
It is possible that there are also some ideological morons being forced to fire people for the celebration of Charlie's death, even though they would rather not.
But science & objectivity very much align with supporting the murder of innocent people being evil & pointing out biologocial realities being a perfectly sane thing to do.
Objectivity is often mistaken for a posture of balancing or devaluing opposing conclusions, but its essence lies in the discipline of observing without the weight of bias. One may hold convictions as an individual, yet still be objective through stepping beyond the confines of the self; recognizing that one’s stance is still a lens. Neither virtuous nor flawed, it’s just a perspective, one among the many that constitute our shared reality.