Double jeopardy is double jeopardy, whether we’re talking one year or one decade between trials.
You’re starting to piss me off, dude. I’m not even saying that you’re not right- you basically are- but you’re still pissing me off.
You’ve seen what’s going on in this country, you’ve been pretty vocal about it.
But at this moment, you’re looking like the guy that’s watched his next door neighbor batter his wife for a decade, and you’re harping on how she really is a lousy cook so maybe your neighbor isn’t really wrong when he cruelly demeans her cooking to anyone that will listen. You’re still outraged that he beats her, but you’re always compelled to mention that she really can’t cook, so maybe she should work on that.
I’m conceding that she’s a lousy cook. I’m just saying that in this situation, it doesn’t matter.
The conservatives are not making a good faith argument. They hate liberals like McCammond, and they revel in their misfortune. They’re just having a troll field day pretending to be all concerned about her so they can pwn Teen Vogue and yammer on about liberal mobs and cancel culture.
And you’re just playing into their hands and giving them oxygen. I’m half expecting you to start writing about how if we just analyze our own behavior and stop “cancelling” conservatives, they’ll start being bipartisan and stop trying to disenfranchise Democrats and we’ll all live happily ever after.
ETA: I still love you… you’re just frustrating me in the moment.
lol, you give me way too much power.
I’m probably in agreement with most of my critics on this thread 90%+ of the time; I’ve just never been a fan of internet justice, online mobs, whatever you want to call it.
Again, Condé Nast not hiring her to be the public face of Teen Vogue isn’t cancel culture, it’s business. The magazine takes on political issues, and she isn’t who they want in that role.
One question I have is why she was even hired in the first place if they knew about the Tweets.
We’re fine with it so long as adverse action isn’t based on membership in a protected class such as race, gender, religion, color, or national origin. i.e. You can’t refuse to hire someone just because the employer’s customers don’t want to deal with a woman, as happened to Ann_Hedonia on several occasions.
Double jeopardy is an absolutely inapplicable concept here. Racism and bigotry are not crimes that have to be proven and can be discharged through a defined punishment.
She publicly apologized for them, renounced them, and insisted that she wasn’t that person anymore. They figured that issue had been resolved. But they were dug up, people made a big deal out of them, and they (understandably) didn’t want to be involved in that controversy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/18/media/alexi-mccammond-teen-vogue-out/index.html
To quote their reasoning:
Condé Nast, which owns Teen Vogue, The New Yorker, and other popular magazine titles, was aware of McCammond’s tweets prior to her hiring, the company’s Chief People Officer, Stan Duncan, revealed in an email to staff on Thursday announcing the news. He wrote that McCammond was “straightforward and transparent about these posts during our interview process and through public apologies years ago.”
McCammond’s racist tweets, in which she mocked the appearance of Asian people and perpetuated stereotypes about them, had previously surfaced in 2019 when she was working at Axios. She apologized for them at the time.
”Given her previous acknowledgement of these posts and her sincere apologies, in addition to her remarkable work in journalism elevating the voices of marginalized communities, we were looking forward to welcoming her into our community," Duncan’s email reads. “In addition, we were hopeful that Alexi would become part of our team to provide perspective and insight that is underrepresented throughout media.”
More than 20 staffers at Teen Vogue wrote to protest her hire. I wonder if she really did agree that being hired there wasn’t the best path because who wants to work at a place where your employees are going to hate you? She may have somewhat “canceled” herself in this case. That’s what I would have done in her position.
Yup, crowmanyclouds’s linked article explicitly says as much:
IOW, you voluntarily accepted a position as a “top aide” to one of the most notoriously dishonest and sleazy grifters ever to parlay entertainment celebrity into a political career, and now you’re tarred with the dishonest-and-sleazy brush and employers with reputations to worry about don’t want to be associated with you.
There are still plenty of jobs you can get, they’re just not going to be “top aide in Presidential administration” caliber. Not seeing anything unfair about that, tbh.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. No, and she isn’t Hitler, either.
If fuckheads like you keep excusing plain, obvious, right-on-the-page racism as “not really racist” or “not racist enough to matter”, racism is never going to be driven from society. You’re part of the racism problem, just as much as Deeg is part of the misogyny problem.
Oh, fuck off, now.
And fuck off with arguments based on jurisprudence. There is no jurisprudence in the court of public opinion.
Because C-N was too dumb/cocky to think about what its mere peons thought before it was too late.
I just want to add that top aides in any Republican White House, even a “normal” one, leave with no expectation of employment with liberal think tanks or groups lobbying for liberal/progressive causes.
So, if anyone is boycotting these people, it’s conservative think tanks or lobbying groups. I’m hoping it’s because business conservatives are done with Trumpism…insurrection is bad for business, after all.
The issue of whether she made racist comments was already settled – she made racist comments. That was never a subject of debate. Keep up with me, Dibble. We’re debating whether someone who’s already been confronted with her racist comments and responded appropriately should keep being forced to apologize and pay penalties for the same offense.
So how many times should she be forced to apologize? How many future jobs should she lose over this? Should we have an annual apology ritual?
You seem to have adopted the mollusk’s strategy of avoiding any rational, coherent, substantive, and compelling argument against your position.
Instead, you just go into repetition mode and parrot your basic (apparently immutable, incontrovertible) premise.
Odd.
I don’t think I need to go too deeply into specifics*. I’m sure you can find any number of people who took the time to thoughtfully reply to you, and to whom you then chose not to reply – at least to the basic premise of their arguments.
I have a neighbor who’s a great guy, but he’s way to the right of me. We saw each other a few days ago, and he got on a political tear. He told me repeatedly (about LGBTQ rights) that X was “where he draws the line.”
It was a comically textbook case of ‘my mind is made up. Please don’t confuse me with the facts.’
You’re doing that on this one, and even I have seen enough of your posts to say that it seems out of character for you.
Cheers !
*But a couple that jump right to mind are:
- What about the ‘victims ?’ What about Asian-Americans who would report to her ?
- Why does the language you use imply that this is a criminal matter and that people are facing loss of liberty when they’re really only looking at the possible loss of particular, and highly sought-after (read: prominent) jobs where the actions are basically anathema to the customer base ?
- Why do you think the ‘lynch mob’ hasn’t been thoughtful, deliberate, nuanced, and selective in deciding where they draw the lines for ‘offense’ and ‘consequence ?’
- Wasn’t the Civil War really just the Woke Internet Mob of the day forcing its ‘wokeness’ on the rest of the country ?
- Where do you draw the lines – ‘offense’ and ‘consequence ?’ Are any of these “personal accountability culture” examples in accord with your beliefs ? Has the offense/consequence calculus ever struck the right tone for you ?
I’ll respond to this:
I understand that this is a concern, but if we’re concerned about comments she made when she was 17 ten years later, when do we stop using her past against her? I’m not sidestepping the fact that her comments were racist - they clearly were. I am not saying that the comments weren’t bad, and even if they were made 10 years ago, people seeing them for the first time are probably going to be pissed at first glance. But I’d hope that rational minds would prevail and realize that people say, think, and do things at earlier stages in life that they might not later.
I think we understand each other: you understand the point I’m trying to make, and I understand the point you and others have made, and they’re valid ones. I just take the position that, absent of any evidence that she still holds these views or makes these kinds of comments, people should turn the page. I understand that, especially now at a time when Asians have been particularly singled out for violent rhetoric and attacks, there’s particular scrutiny given to her anti-Asian comments. But again, those comments were way, way in her distant past.
My language about “double jeopardy” was figurative and not meant literally. I think that the process of digging up comments that someone has deliberately attempted to delete and atone for is basically ‘trying’ someone for the same ‘crime.’ So as I’ve asked, when does it end? Let’s put aside the racism for a moment and just consider the question of when someone should be forgiven for online cringe, whether it’s bigoted comments or getting photographed while intoxicated?
My concern with that is rather simple:
So many people point to the Civil War and say that you ‘have to view it in the context of the times.’
Bullshit. More than half the country recognized/thought/knew that slavery was wrong at the time.
I might rather hire my ACLU Vice President from the team that had the awareness and decency to know that slavery was wrong than … from the other side.
That’s the problem. I don’t have to give McCammond this job when there are any number of equally qualified candidates who simply do not have any evidence of this kind of relevant baggage.
You know what’s irrational? The fact that wokeness is nothing more than a bludgeon used by political psychopaths for power.
Every post you make gives me less confidence that your interpretation of your childhood is correct. In this thread you’ve sworn at people using vulgar language and called them stupid. I apologized over an apparent misunderstanding and you graciously accepted by…taking a mild swipe at me. You’ve decided that people with different opinions from you don’t deserve respect. And now somehow you’ve concluded that I’m misogynist. If this is how you act as an adult in a fairly calm discussion board I’m thinking twitter would not be good for you as a teen. A couple of rage tweets and you become unemployable for the next ten years.
You may be. I’m here calling you a worthless fuckknuckle for making inane comparisons to Stormfront in a pathetic attempt to paint someone you admit posted racist shit as “the real victim” here.
No, the real victims were her TA, and all the other Asian people she no doubt was biased against in the 8 years between then and her first apology.
Until enough people are convinced she’s sincere, and not just saying whatever it takes to get off the hook? Me, I’ll leave judging that up to the Asians who may have to work under her.
All the ones that have aware Asian staff under her, it looks like.
Only if it involves the I’m Sorry song from Calvin&Hobbes 
I appreciate your eager willingness to always prove my points about you on very short notice.
Thanks.