You found a great example of social pressure and consequences (“cancel culture”) being used for evil. So what? It’s a tool. It’s good when this tool is used for good purposes and bad when it’s used for bad purposes. Just like money, or a car, or a baseball bat, or other tools.
So I shouldn’t be allowed to criticize Joe Rogan?
CR protestors shouldn’t have been allowed to boycott the Montgomery bus service?
An employer shouldn’t be able to fire someone who is outed as a KKK member? Even if this could sink their business?
Or what?
So were the people boycotting the bus system also the same people getting that Black factory worker fired?
So it should be illegal for me to say that Spotify should drop Rogan? What if Spotify had David Duke - would it be wrong, or should it be illegal, for me to say that they should drop Duke?
Well, you’re correct, the constitution has not been violated. However, you and the rest of the mob have broken several laws - arson, for example - and should (and, likely, will) all be rounded up and put in prison.
So, that’s not a great example to make your point.
Yeah, no shit. That’s argument number one against whining about “cancel culture.” The outcry over cancel culture isn’t because this is a new and unprecedented social phenomenon, it happened because the traditional arbiters of appropriate social behavior no long wield enough political power to maintain that position, and that both angers and terrifies them. So, we get ridiculous distinctions like, “Joe Rogan is a victim of cancel culture, but the Dixie Chicks were targets of a legitimate boycott.”
Defend him morally? No, of course not. Morally, firing that worker was absolutely unjustified, and the factory owner is a piece of shit for doing it. But legally, he was almost certainly not breaking any laws.
Which invites the obvious question, should there be a law preventing someone from being fired for their political opinions? Personally, I don’t think so. Because the problem with making it illegal to fire a worker for going to an MLK rally is, it also makes it illegal to fire a worker for going to a KKK rally. And the latter is a privilege I would like to retain.
Is all comes back to people demanding the restoration of their privilege to avoid any consequences for their actions.
So what exactly are you advocating for?
So any white person who joined the boycott was in the wrong? I guess that’s makes sense for a conversative mindset where no right thinking white person would help a cause outside of their race (virtue signalling).
Terrible analogy. It would be like telling your kids to stay away from his house.
Which one of those is like burning down someone’s house?
How, precisely, are you going to accomplish that? You’re going to tell everyone that they must shop at places where they don’t want to shop, and that they can’t discuss why they don’t want to shop there with other people?
That strikes me as a very strange way to enforce free speech rights.
Freedom of speech allows Hitler to write Mein Kampf.
Freedom of the press allows someone to publish it.
Should those tools be taken away, because someone exercises them in a way you don’t like?
You keep equating speech with violence. Not sure why you choose to do that.
If people say that they will no longer do business with someone because they employee someone that was at an MLK speech, that’s their business. I strongly disagree with that stance, but it’s their right.
But, no one is bringing out pitchforks or committing arson, that’s just fearmongering.
You are equating Joe Rogan to “the poor black factory worker”? It is to laugh.
So, you want a society where freedom of speech is freedom from consequences of speech?
How are you planning on punishing those who speak out against speech they find odious. Whose factory are you planning on burning down, whose kneecaps are you looking to take a baseball bat to?
So, you don’t want freedom of speech then?
You can say what you want, but I can’t object to it? That’s censorship, and that is exactly what you are advocating for.
If you’re saying that it should be illegal to advocate that Spotify drop Rogan, then you’re advocating censorship.
But not free to advocate that someone be fired? That’s censorship, if that is what you’re saying.
No, when you advocate not censoring Joe Rogan, you’re just disagreeing with me.
The part where you start censoring me is when you say:
Because the “tool” in question is my freedom of speech, and my freedom of association.
Advocate all you want. But do you want to make it illegal? I don’t want to make Rogan illegal, or Spotify illegal, but I think they should drop Rogan.
I think burning houses down is the modern version of burning down a house.
What civil rights laws am I breaking if I speak out against Joe Rogan?
Or are you wanting to create laws that censor me from speaking out against Joe Rogan that you can then prosecute me for?