If you think that somebody’s shitty offensive comments are bad enough to make them an unsuitable and unwise choice to represent their employer in whatever position it is they now hold, how is that different from wanting them fired?
You may not be publicly advocating their firing, but ISTM at the level of “thoughts” it’s pretty much a distinction without a difference.
Since most people labor under “at-will” employment, they can be fired for ANY reason, or for NO reason, with zero requirement for deliberation or due process. Also combine that fact with the threadbare social safety net we have in the USA, I think it can be quite cruel to strip someone of their livelihood. I’m not a fan of doing that, except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances.
I completely concur that labor and social welfare protections in the US need a hell of a lot of strengthening. But I think that should be separate from the issue of who is allowed to publicly criticize whom for something they said.
That’s a very simplistic way of looking at a complex issue.
Old white men like Alexi McCammond, Gina Carano, or Justine Sacco? I don’t personally see this as a problem limited to old white men. I don’t have any sympathy for Carano, though I’ll miss her presence on the Mandalorian as I liked her character, but I do have some sympathy for McCammond and Sacco. My problem with “cancel culture” is that I don’t always know where to draw the line and that bothers me. Sometimes I think it’s just fine to fire someone for Tweets and other times I don’t think it’s appropriate to take adverse action against someone. I guess I’m still trying to figure it out.
That’s a decision the employer is free to make. If the person doesn’t work for me or represent my financial interests, the decision is not mine to make, nor mine to advocate for under most circumstances.
I disagree. The people screaming for the firing of most individuals had no influence or decision power in hiring those individual. So while they may have very legitimate reasons to be offended, I don’t know how that translates to them feeling entitled to demand someone be fired for non-criminal offenses. It’s an obnoxious demand that has become far too acceptable and employers have enabled it to some degree through their own cowardice and willingness to comply with what amounts to public extortion.
Of course they’re “allowed” to criticize someone that way. I’m merely suggesting that folks reconsider the wisdom and ethics of using the particular tactic of trying to get people fired from their jobs for speech unrelated to that job, and voluntarily refrain from doing so except perhaps under extreme circumstances.
Regarding Gina Carano, IMHO the fundamental issue is that she doubled down on her offensive remarks. When this was pointed out to her after the initial round of tweets back between season 1 and season 2 of The Baby Yoda show, she wasn’t cancelled. But rather than apologizing and taking the opportunity for growth, she doubled down. I wasn’t familiar with the other two names until you posted them. IMHO, again, before they were cancelled, there should be at least one chance to apologize to those that they made bigoted statements against. A genuine apology, not one of those I’m sorry you were offended type of apologies. If someone does that, then no, IMHO the cancellation should not take place.
The problem is that we’ve reached a point where the reason most people make such statements is that they come from a place of being an asshole rather than from being raised in a conservative culture or from genuine ignorance. When an asshole gets called out and subsequently apologizes, it’s usually to avoid the negative consequences of their actions rather than being genuinely repentant.
Wait, is this a reference to a thing that happened? Or meant to be the equivalent of something that happened? Are you saying this is a thing that could happen?
Really just painting a hypothetical.
My position on all of this is that we – each of us – tend to put pins in two lines that represent long continua:
My hypothetical was designed to sound potentially offensive at a glance, but I guessed that it would almost certainly not exceed anybody’s threshold for pissed-off-itude.
It was just my way of trying to calibrate the continuum, maybe somewhat akin to the very old joke:
This is where I’m at. Everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes. If the perpetrator is sufficiently contrite and tries to amend their ways I’m willing to give a pass for lesser (and/or older) offenses. I have no problems with Carano being let go because her offensive marks were pointed out and yet she persisted. I have no sympathy for that.
I suppose we could ask the Black man who was the driving force behind the letter whether the protection of old White men from being cancelled was an overwhelming concern.
I’m in agreement here. Carano made her bed and I don’t really feel sorry that she had to lie in it. It’s clear to me there are times when it’s completely appropriate to take adverse action against an employee because of things they’ve written online. It’s less clear to me in other cases and sometimes I think it’s just downright unfair. I don’t think we’ve quite come to terms with social media as it relates to our past behaviors.