There are at least two responses that someone who is hurt by another's work / statement might make: (1) EXPLAINING why one was hurt, and (2) CALLING FOR others to avoid / boycott / shun that work.. I also prefer the first route. As you point out, however, the first strategy won't necessarily work "in the increasingly disunited States."

Which leads to my point: there is an anti-cancel-culture culture which is itself opposed to free speech. When someone complains that a particular statement or action is hurtful (without calling for censorship), the anti-cancel-culture folks complain that the objector is being overly sensitive (terms like "snowflake," "liberal," "radical," "wokeist" are often brandished). The same thing happened several years ago over the charge of "political correctness." Someone who objected to a hurtful racist or sexist term, for example, was branded as being politically correct and calling for censorship. But the foes of "political correctness" were imposing an equally restrictive philosophy on their opponents.

Fortunately, most people don't have long enough attention spans for this discussion to devolve into infinite regress.