Open Letters- "Cancel Culture"

[Heartofice]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Well, the issue with Quillete is less that the have a bias as much as that they are incredibly unreliable, often sharing misleading information, poorly sourced stories, and occasionally outright fabrication.

What are these forbidden topics?

I don’t think that is true on the whole, though I have seen a couple of occasions where that could be argued ( also notice that the counter letter was signed by an almost entirely homogenous group of journalists working at NY Times, Vox, Slate and Hoff Post, and your could throw the same criticism at any of those outlets and they are especially prone to bias on certain topics)

In terms of topics the major ones: race, sexuality, gender identity, as well as political ones such as Trump, Brexit, capitalism, socialism. Taking a nuanced or differing view than the left wing consensus on any one of those topics will almost certainly have you slapped with a label of extremist of some kind.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don’t think that is true on the whole, though I have seen a couple of occasions where that could be argued ( also notice that the counter letter was signed by an almost entirely homogenous group of journalists working at NY Times, Vox, Slate and Hoff Post, and your could throw the same criticism at any of those outlets and they are especially prone to bias on certain topics)

In terms of topics the major ones: race, sexuality, gender identity, as well as political ones such as Trump, Brexit, capitalism, socialism. Taking a nuanced or differing view than the left wing consensus on any one of those topics will almost certainly have you slapped with a label of extremist of some kind.

Oh, you must have missed the part where I said the issue isn't Quillette's bias, it's their incredibly poor track record on being an accurate source of information.  

What are some forbidden ideas that are going to get you slapped with an extremist label?  You mentioned race and sexuality.  What would be some examples of ideas that aren't "ok" to have in those areas?

[JoannaL]

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

How far does the idea that you can't be fired for what you say go?  Should it be different for different jobs?  

IMO the idea that you cant be fired for what you say should go very far.

It is bad that the left has forgotten that, they should be on the side of the employees and free speech. The problem with a different approach is: who is defining what a bad, "odious " idea is.

Exceptions: when it should be possible to get fired for your opinion:

- if this idea is forbidden by law (e.g. laws about insulting others in your country); if a opinion is officially forbidden by your society (which means it was discussed and the lawmakers (the elected majority) made a law about it; then it is an official "odious view"

- if the employer has to protect someone (example if you have paedophilic views (even in private) you should not be a teacher)

- if you bring your views to the workplace (you try to promote your paedophilic views in your office time)

But if you have paedophilic (or other; insert any "odious" views) views in your free time and your job is not children related, it should not be possible to fire you for it. So the guy you mentioned who is running around in his Nazi outfit -in his free time - it should just not be possible to fire him for it. (again if the outfit is not against the law).

the modern trend of the left to demand streamlined thinking for employment is outragous. No employer should have the right to demand a certain way of thinking of job-unrelated issues of his employee.

 

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oh, you must have missed the part where I said the issue isn't Quillette's bias, it's their incredibly poor track record on being an accurate source of information.  

What are some forbidden ideas that are going to get you slapped with an extremist label?  You mentioned race and sexuality.  What would be some examples of ideas that aren't "ok" to have in those areas?

I didn’t miss it. It’s right there in what I wrote.

Well for instance if someone were to suggest that differences in outcomes amongst groups were not purely or even primarily due to institutional racism then I doubt that would go down very well. Even if they were wrong, bringing up the idea would get you the old racist label.

The trans debate is complex and full of contradictions. Questioning the role of trans atheletes in women’s sports is one example I’ve seen of people being labelled as transphobes but there are many more examples.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

IMO the idea that you cant be fired for what you say should go very far.

It is bad that the left has forgotten that, they should be on the side of the employees and free speech. The problem with a different approach is: who is defining what a bad, "odious " idea is.

Exceptions: when it should be possible to get fired for your opinion:

- if this idea is forbidden by law (e.g. laws about insulting others in your country); if a opinion is officially forbidden by your society (which means it was discussed and the lawmakers (the elected majority) made a law about it; then it is an official "odious view"

- if the employer has to protect someone (example if you have paedophilic views (even in private) you should not be a teacher)

- if you bring your views to the workplace (you try to promote your paedophilic views in your office time)

But if you have paedophilic (or other; insert any "odious" views) views in your free time and your job is not children related, it should not be possible to fire you for it. So the guy you mentioned who is running around in his Nazi outfit -in his free time - it should just not be possible to fire him for it. (again if the outfit is not against the law).

the modern trend of the left to demand streamlined thinking for employment is outragous. No employer should have the right to demand a certain way of thinking of job-unrelated issues of his employee.

 

 

 

 

So you agree there's a point at which you're professionally accountable for what you say.  For you, that point is paedophilia or something illegal.

How about a cop espousing white supremacist ideology publicly?  We're just stick with him?

[DaveSumm]

28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How about a cop espousing white supremacist ideology publicly?  We're just stick with him?

Wouldn’t that come under “your employer has to protect someone” i.e, the general public, which includes black people, so absolutely fire them?

[Heartofice]

There are definitely cases where an employee says or does something that should lead to them losing their job. Expressing hateful or racist opinions openly, especially in public could easily follow back to the company who employs them and so it wouldn't be surprising that they would lose their job or position.

However, I don't think this is what we are talking about. Nobody is suggesting people should be allowed to express sympathy for white supremacy or put a nazi flag up in their office. 

Where there is disagreement is on topics where it really isn't a clear cut case, where the absolute worst interpretation of what people has said or done is taken as the truth, and nuance and further enquiry are neglected for fear of further backlash. 

[JoannaL]

46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So you agree there's a point at which you're professionally accountable for what you say.  For you, that point is paedophilia or something illegal.

How about a cop espousing white supremacist ideology publicly?  We're just stick with him?

Well as I said: No employer should have the right to demand a certain way of thinking of job-unrelated issues of his employee. In this case the laws and the constitiution IS job-related since a police officer represents the law, he is a servant of the state (which is an unusual employer) . As such the cops  opinion of the law is job-related. There is no place for thinking some humans are better than other or other unconstitutional stuff. Certainly he can not keep his job.

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, the issue with Quillete is less that the have a bias as much as that they are incredibly unreliable, often sharing misleading information, poorly sourced stories, and occasionally outright fabrication.

What are these forbidden topics?

I give Quillette credit for dropping Andy Ngo, the "journalist" that @Heartofice tried to valorize, after footage came out of him laughing and joking with a right wing militia as they planned to attack a cider brewery in Portland.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I give Quillette credit for dropping Andy Ngo, the "journalist" that @Heartofice tried to valorize, after footage came out of him laughing and joking with a right wing militia as they planned to attack a cider brewery in Portland.

I don’t think he should have had his head smashed in by an Antifa protester no. You seem to think it’s ok though which says a lot. I honestly have zero interest in Andy Ngo so I’m not sure why this is the 3000th time you’ve attempted to ‘gotcha’ me with this. 

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, JoannaL said:

But if you have paedophilic (or other; insert any "odious" views) views in your free time and your job is not children related, it should not be possible to fire you for it. So the guy you mentioned who is running around in his Nazi outfit -in his free time - it should just not be possible to fire him for it. (again if the outfit is not against the law).

the modern trend of the left to demand streamlined thinking for employment is outragous. No employer should have the right to demand a certain way of thinking of job-unrelated issues of his employee.

Fuck that, I am not working with a pedophile, and if I find out my coworker is a pedophile, or a nazi, or whatever, I am getting them fired. I do not have to put up with a toxic work environment, and finding out a coworker hold those kinds of views would make the work environment toxic, out of some misguided notion of "free speech."

[DanteGabriel]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don’t think he should have had his head smashed in by an Antifa protester no. You seem to think it’s ok though which says a lot. I honestly have zero interest in Andy Ngo so I’m not sure why this is the 3000th time you’ve attempted to ‘gotcha’ me with this. 

I found it contemptible that you tried to valorize a shit-stirring propagandist who turned out to be part of the violence you wring your hands over and refused to even acknowledge that he'd been part of planning the same kind of violent attack you decried.

I'd have a lot less problem with you if you wouldn't reduce yourself to histrionic exaggerations (3000 times is a far cry from "twice") in your quest prove to that racists are the true victims of modern society.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I found it contemptible that you tried to valorize a shit-stirring propagandist who turned out to be part of the violence you wring your hands over and refused to even acknowledge that he'd been part of planning the same kind of violent attack you decried.

I'd have a lot less problem with you if you wouldn't reduce yourself to histrionic exaggerations (3000 times is a far cry from "twice") in your quest prove to that racists are the true victims of modern society.

You actually defended him being physically assaulted, straight faced. 

Do you know for a fact he was part of that violence? A quick google again shows it's really not all that clear, despite what you might have read, because I doubt you ever bothered to even consider that possibility. He denies it. 
https://reason.com/2019/09/03/andy-ngo-video-antifa-patriot-prayer-attack-media/

But anyway, this is totally off topic, and more importantly, it isn't something I care even a little bit about. I do care that you seem to think this is a stick to beat me with it, the amount of times you post about it, as if it is in any way clever.

[JoannaL]

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Fuck that, I am not working with a pedophile, and if I find out my coworker is a pedophile, or a nazi, or whatever, I am getting them fired. I do not have to put up with a toxic work environment, and finding out a coworker hold those kinds of views would make the work environment toxic, out of some misguided notion of "free speech."

So you can only work with people who share your views , even if these views are totally work-unrelated and are never discussed at work (we are talking about views and not criminal actions here)? Sorry for me this feels like the McCarthy thing - you can not be an actor if you are a communist. 

[DanteGabriel]

On the topic of "cancel culture" -- I am ambivalent but mostly sympathize with @larrytheimp's arguments. I do think online Twitter mobs can go too far if death threats etc get involved. But I think that what terrifies wealthy and famous and powerful people, like the signatories of the Harper's letter, is that "cancel culture" reverses power structures. It has always been, and still is, easy for someone with a platform like Jk Rowling or Bari Weiss to ruin someone's life or end their career. That power now can be leveled by non-powerful people due to the power of social media.

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

So you can only work with people who share your views , even if these views are totally work-unrelated and are never discussed at work (we are talking about views and not criminal actions here)? Sorry for me this feels like the McCarthy thing - you can not be an actor if you are a communist. 

"I don't want to work with a pedophile or a Nazi" is a far cry away from "I don't want to work with people who don't share my views." This is a vile and reductive strawman.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

On the topic of "cancel culture" -- I am ambivalent but mostly sympathize with @larrytheimp's arguments. I do think online Twitter mobs can go too far if death threats etc get involved. But I think that what terrifies wealthy and famous and powerful people, like the signatories of the Harper's letter, is that "cancel culture" reverses power structures. It has always been, and still is, easy for someone with a platform like Jk Rowling or Bari Weiss to ruin someone's life or end their career. That power now can be leveled by non-powerful people due to the power of social media.

 

 

What about the non powerful people it affects who lose their jobs? Isn’t it actually the reverse that is true, that JK is actually mostly shielded due to her wealth, if she didn’t then she would probably be keeping quiet.

[Liffguard]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

On the topic of "cancel culture" -- I am ambivalent but mostly sympathize with @larrytheimp's arguments. I do think online Twitter mobs can go too far if death threats etc get involved. But I think that what terrifies wealthy and famous and powerful people, like the signatories of the Harper's letter, is that "cancel culture" reverses power structures. It has always been, and still is, easy for someone with a platform like Jk Rowling or Bari Weiss to ruin someone's life or end their career. That power now can be leveled by non-powerful people due to the power of social media.

 

 

Yes, exactly. If we define "cancel culture" as "the practice of inflicting - or attempting to inflict - material consequences on someone as a response to that person's stated views" then cancel culture has never not existed. It's not new. What's new is that the traditional gatekeepers of this practice are now starting to occasionally find themselves in the crosshairs, and it freaks them the fuck out.

[Liffguard]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What about the non powerful people it affects who lose their jobs? Isn’t it actually the reverse that is true, that JK is actually mostly shielded due to her wealth, if she didn’t then she would probably be keeping quiet.

It's a problem, but as stated above, it's not new. Employers have always wielded vast power to police their employees opinions and statements, and fire them when they didn't like those opinions and statements. I agree this isn't a good thing. The power imbalance between employers and employees is a problem. The solution is to address that power imbalance.

[TrueMetis]

12 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

So you can only work with people who share your views , even if these views are totally work-unrelated and are never discussed at work (we are talking about views and not criminal actions here)? Sorry for me this feels like the McCarthy thing - you can not be an actor if you are a communist. 

"advocates violence against people of colour and children" is not a matter of "my views" and that you think so shows an incredible... I don't even fucking know what. But regardless "I'm okay with working with nazis and pedophiles" says far more about you than it ever could about me.