My book is expansive and includes many descriptions for behavior past "classical debate" and "cancellation". She doesn't appear to be suggesting they should be boycott or deplatformed in any way. Even taking the most negative view, which i think would be something like she was trying to get her 'woke army' to harass these guys, that's not what cancellation is/cancel culture is. That wouldn't mean trying to send your followers to attack folk isn't gross behavior.

>if you want to have a real debate

It's easy to make a list of things that you take away from how earnestly you can take people, especially online. I'm not sure why someone would balk at "fanatic" but think "woke army" is a particularly earnest discussion stimulating term. Of the two, I've heard woke used disparagingly, with political motivations, far more often than the other in recent times. Similarly, calling people you disagree with your opponents, or suggesting that when they talk to you about a topic, it's re-education while when you do it, it's debate.

> referring to them as "fanatics"

You put that word in quotes implying it was a literal quote.

It isn't and the distinction here is actually important. She said "get them away from fanaticism" - there's a big difference in tone and it hits an important issue.

Calling someone a "fanatic" in many ways carries an implication that they have some unchangeable inner nature. They are to be dismissed, ignored. They are beyond reason. She is saying the opposite - that they should be engaged with - that there's a chance that they can be reasoned with. Arguably she is being disingenuous but that's a different discussion.

Why did you choose to alter the wording in such a way?