Anyone who is on social media in the slightest will know about the practice, or to some a "tradition," of cancel culture.

Cancel culture is the practice of scrutinizing an individual or item for any wrongdoing in the past and calling for a financial, digital and moral boycott of said target. It's common among fandoms of different musical artists such as Ariana Grande and Lady Gaga, and perhaps the most notable "canceled" person (and rightfully so) as of late is R. Kelly.

Right now, the cancel culture has a new target now: the late and great musical artist Michael Jackson, who is the subject of a new documentary that just premiered on HBO. "Leaving Neverland" tells the stories of sexual assault allegations by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who claim Jackson molested them as children.

The film's circumstances are bizarre in their own right, but ultimately the discourse surrounding the film shows why the current deviation of cancel culture is in itself problematic, and what happens when things go amok and we prioritize the wrong forms of action.

Before I go on, I should note that I pray that Robson and Safechuck get the closure and justice that may heal their pain - this article is not to invalidate their voices. With that being said, it should then be said that this whole idea of canceling Michael Jackson is an absurd idea that will not do anything positive.

Several radio stations have decided to stop airing Jackson's music and "The Simpsons" have pledged to no longer air an episode revolving around Jackson. It seems as if MJ's works are being silenced in the same way that R. Kelly has.

And that right there is the problem with cancel culture: while cancel culture should exist for people who won't hold themselves accountable (like R. Kelly), the practice isn't meant for those who have apologized for what they've done. Michael Jackson's abuse allegations have been settled and he has been acquitted. Moreover, with Jackson being such an influential artist on those that succeed him, then would that mean canceling that music as well?

Or take that same radical logic with someone whom I stan, Lady Gaga. In the past, she has worked with R. Kelly on her album "Artpop" and even made a now-scrapped music video with him that shows him groping her (not to mention that it was shot by embattled photographer Terry Richardson). She's since come out and apologized for working with him and has pulled the song "Do What U Want" featuring Kelly and now promotes the remix with Christina Aguilera.

Do I condone her working with Kelly? Absolutely not. But will I stop stanning her, disregard her work for sexual assault victims, stop listening to her music and stop watching "A Star is Born"? Again, no.

So as you can see, cancel culture claims to hold problematic practices accountable but at the same time is problematic in itself. We are all human, and though it's hard to admit, we all make mistakes. But to orchestrate a witch hunt-like movement that thinks they're doing FBI-level work, and targeting people who have shown that they have grown, is not only counterproductive but also just downright annoying.

Cancel culture should only be a thing for monsters like R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, and Woody Allen. What it shouldn't be used for is to bring back things from the past that have already been reconciled and moved on from.

We're in a pivotal moment in time where so many of the silenced are regaining their voices. But if we continue to lack the critical thinking skills to see who should actually be canceled, then we are doing a major disservice to these new voices.

If people are unable to discern fact from hyperbole, then I think it's time that we should cancel cancel culture.