To what extent can/should people be expected to "live by future judgment?"

Great Debates
101

By someone, it was Brietbart.

I brought that up as an example that demanding that someone be fired for past remarks is not something that is new or in any way unique to the left.

And, I was going to follow up with, as you said, it backfired for anyone who wished to see her harmed by their attempts at “canceling” her, as she ended up getting a better job out of it anyway.

Point is, all this concern about “future proof” and “cancel culture” is just hysteria from the right that they may find themselves having to actually answer for the positions that they have advocated for.

102

Right, but if you were wanting to make your opinion have weight behind it, and you happened to be a high powered CEO, then you would want to put your name on it. He could have written his piece anonymously, but he wanted his position to give it weight. He was using his power and influence to try to make the world into the way he envisioned it.

He can complain, and just like any other complaints, if it is something that is valid and found worthy, then it will be listened to. As it is, he is complaining about being held to account for using his position to influence others being treated poorly.

No, it’s more that the extraordinary privileges that someone in his position enjoys comes with at least some level of accountability. It should, at least.

They did not just hold an opinion. They tried to make their opinion manifest by using their position as a bully pulpit. I’ve looked about, and I don’t see evolution on the position. Can you tell me when he repudiated his earlier comments?

I’m not sure what your question pertains to. I say, better late than never. the fact that it took so long for his anti-woman activism to catch up with him is a problem, I’ll agree, but I don’t think that we are in agreement as to the cardinal direction of that problem.

Less so than after getting rid of this particular misogynist.

103

That’s fine, and that’s your choice. I have no such fear, and my identity is available for anyone who wants to spend about 2 minutes looking.

So blame Boeing if you think it was the wrong move. Why is it wrong for individuals to say “I don’t like that guy because he said xxx” or “I don’t like that company for employing this asshole”? That’s all this is – individuals saying stuff, and companies responding. I don’t know what you or any opponents to “cancel culture” are asking for – this is just individuals speaking out and companies making business decisions based on what they hear. This is part of a free society. People might criticize what you say.

104

As others have said, and as I have maintained, you can’t. Nor should you even try.

The only way to future-proof is toeave no record of your existence. As but one example … It happens I was a contemporary of Golightly doing the same job though he was USN & I was USAF. He wrote a tract that got published. I didn’t. His tract came back to bite him. My non-existent tract could not. Regardless of my actual personal private position then on that issue.

Said another way, the only practical way to future-proof oneself is to leave no record to be judged later. Which rather makes a mockery of our cherished right of free speech. Speeches delivered in the privacy of your shower might feel good, but they don’t affect society.

Free speech has always had consequences. As it undeniably should. What’s different today is that speech stays around a lot longer for a lot more people. Another difference is that when a culture is evolving quickly, there’s a greater chance that views may become “quaint” more rapidly than they would in a more stagnant culture.

There’s more to it than just speech. We have prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Which has the effect of permitting bad acts to go unpunished that are only later recognized to be bad. So why do we have that long-standing prohibition? Something to think about.

Lastly let’s consider something unrelated to changing social mores about hot-button issues like discrimination.

We’ve all heard about would-be or current employers checking people’s TwitFace history. Failing to get that good job at age 30 because you posted lots of pix of you smoking MJ in high school long before it was legalized is not a good outcome for you. Or because in college you posted a lot about epic partying and very little about studying hard.

We as a society are still learning about what happens when anonymity and especially anonymity across time no longer applies to the vast majority of us. Celebrities & high rollers have always left a wide trail, albeit one sanitized by flacks and handlers. Now many (most?) of us leave an even wider and largely uncurated trail.

That’s gonna have consequences. But what consequences should they be?

We collectively are still learning whether denying that good job to that HS stoner or college party animal is a smart thing or a dumb thing. And along the way, a lot of mistakes will be made. Both on what gets posted, and on who reacts to those old posts much later.

Each of us has to decide for ourselves how much future risk we’re willing to take as we write our “Permanent Record” to the public internet. (Including by this very post.) I for one am glad my teen years are not on display; he was an idiot. I can’t be alone in that. Teens now have a worry I never did. And teens being teens, they’re mostly going to do a real bad job of risk assessment.

105

Sure, but the fundamental issue is that people can and do change, but today’s culture seems to think that some stuff can’t be forgiven, even when it took place decades earlier, and someone’s commemorated achievements may be unrelated.

I mean, if I go on to do something great relating to homelessness and someone puts up a bust of me in some public building, and then years later, animal rights becomes a big thing, and they discover that <gasp!> I went hunting and fishing a fair bit in my youth, and call for my bust to be taken down, is that reasonable? It seems a bit absurd to me.

106

If all that is at stake is a physical mark of public commemoration, like a bust, then absolutely it’s reasonable. Every generation gets to decide whom it will honor. One generation might honor you but the next might not. That’s fair and reasonable and exactly what a society should be doing.

107

If you think that likely, and you consider what those in the future think of you to be that important, then maybe you shouldn’t hunt.

It is hard enough to live out a need to make everyone happy who is currently your peer. It seem an unnecessary burden to try to make those who haven’t even been born yet also like you.

I find your scenario to be exceptionally unlikely. Maybe if you were the CEO of a slaughterhouse that willingly and wantonly broke humane animal handling practices, while unabashedly defending your actions in the media, then maybe those in the future may judge you for your negative actions as well as your positive.

108

I do. And that’s why I’ll only purchase my commercial aircraft from Airbus.

A “free society” is not one where people have to be afraid to speak their mind lest their opinions trigger a mob witch hunt decades later. I don’t know the solution to this particular issue. But it seems to me McCarthy-esq levels of trying to root out every hint of bias or discrimination are counterproductive and does nothing to address actual issues of bias and discrimination.

109

A free society is not one in which people are not permitted to speak their minds lest their opinions upset someone who wishes their speech to be without consequence.

It does seem to me that those thinking that this is “McCarthy-esq” levels of anything are engaging in some pretty ridiculous levels of hyperbole.

Every hint of bias or discrimination is not being rooted out. But, if you publicly advocated for a discriminatory position, then yeah, that may be held against you. Especially so if you were using your privileged position of power in order to amplify your voice, to increase the influence of your words.

This really isn’t all that hard. The only reason why it is hard is because there are those who are asking, essentially, “How do I speak my opinion without having to be concerned that people may not like what I have to say?”

110

So if you speak your mind, it’s part of a “free society”, but if other people speak their mind in objection to what you said, it’s now “a mob witch hunt”? Your idea of a “free society” seems to be one where YOU are allowed to do whatever you want, but other people are forbidden to object to you. That’s not an actual free society.

Also comparing “people saying they don’t like something a privileged person said” to “mob action leading to execution or torture against a disenfranchised group” like ‘mob witch hunts’ or ‘lynch mobs’ is absurd and frankly offensive. Having someone use words to object to someone else’s choices is a bit different from grabbing a person and burning, drowning, or hanging them.

111

Yeah. I’m OK with 95% of “cancel culture”. I’m also OK with fighting for social justice (SJWs), doing the right thing (“political correctness”) and being virtuous (“virtue signaling”).

112

The situation at The Boeing Co is extremely unusual. David Calhoun was brought in as new CEO/President in 2020 after firing Dennis Muilenburg, widely seen as a complete fuck-up, to restore industry confidence in Boeing while it was at its lowest point. Restore confidence both outside of the company and within.

Calhoun determined that he would operate under a strict, no-tolerance-for-ineptitude, transparent process in order to turn things around and restore Boeing’s reputation.

Boeing has always had major problems with sexism and racism. Just last month, several people were fired when

A Black manager at Boeing’s Everett jet assembly plant found racist symbols on his desk when he arrived for work Tuesday, prompting Boeing to launch an internal investigation and refer the incident to law enforcement.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stan Deal reacted with a strongly worded message to all 65,000 employees in his division Wednesday afternoon, expressing “my sadness, disappointment and disgust that anyone at Boeing would do this.”

“Racial discrimination, harassment and acts of intimidation will never be tolerated anywhere within Boeing,” Deal wrote. “I am committed to taking every action possible, including termination, for anyone involved in this incident.”

It’s not the first such recent incident, Deal’s message indicated. He wrote that “in the past few days we dismissed several employees after a thorough investigation found they engaged in behavior that is not consistent with our values.”

His message added, without giving details, that Boeing has taken similar action for other cases in different parts of the company.

Because of this, it was evidently decided that the background record of the upper management, particularly the Communications Director, would have to be impeccable, and Niel Golightly’s was not. A Boeing employee is who brought it to their attention. Calhoun is doing everything he can to signal to both the industry and the employees that there will be NO tolerance for bullshit anymore, and he could hardly ignore what was brought before him. Actually, he could have ignored it, as everyone before him would have, and he decided to take the higher road.

I worked for Boeing for almost 2 years in the early '80’s. I left due to pervasive, rampant sex discrimination and harassment. The race discrimination and harassment that the Black people working there had to tolerate was even worse. Both the sex and race harassment were constant and everywhere. I still have family members there, and can tell you that it continued to be tolerated within the company. It was not even an open secret, it was just plain open.

It’s unfortunate that Golightly’s past, even though he’s changed his thinking, caused him to leave his job. He did not go in disgrace. He was just not the person that Calhoun needed for this role at this point in time. Calhoun wants someone with impeccable credentials in order to be able to demonstrate to the rank-and-file that discrimination won’t be tolerated at either the bottom level or the top levels.

I applaud Calhoun for this. He’s not asking more from the floor workers than he’s willing to offer at the top. It’ll be interesting to see how the workers take it.

This is not an example of someone being unfairly judged for past mistakes. Calhoun needed a perfect person for this role.

113

Every action or inaction on your part runs the risk of coming back to haunt you in the future. Living with that risk is an inescapable part of life. Pascal’s wager comes to mind, although that thought experiment is flawed.

It is reasonable to factor that risk into your decisionmaking process, but it is not reasonable to let it dominate you. Future judgement cannot be the only thing on which you base your moral analysis - as I wrote above, to do so woud be to deny that you have moral agency. There is a spectrum between being smart and being paranoid. The further into the future you go, the less reasonable it is to go against your present intuition based on the possibility that societal morals will change. Even if you are only considering the near-future, the less confident you are that morals will change against you, the less reasonable it is to go against your intuition based on that risk.

~Max

114

The way I see it, this sort of future-proofing is different than the one contemplated by the OP. You describe future-proofing your actions today, using the moral standards of today. Don’t present an unprofessional online image today, because employers today don’t like hiring people with that kind of online presence, and the assumption is that employers tomorrow will feel the same way.

Similarily, don’t commit a felony today, because under today’s laws a felon can’t vote tomorrow (well, until recently). Don’t drink too much today because, even with today’s technology, you will still get a hangover tomorrow. This much is common sense.

As far as I can tell, Velocity had in mind future-proofing based on the possibility that societal mores of tomorrow will change against you. Should the Boeing executive of 1987 have kept his mouth shut based on the possibility that his argument would be offensive by twenty-first century standards? Should Barack Obama stick to a vegan diet today based on the possibility that eating animal products would offend people in 2060?

~Max

115

A better real-life example might be whether or not Chinese citizens in the 30’s and 40’s should have come out in open support of the Japanese vs Communists vs Nationalists. There were times where it wasn’t certain who would come out on top, and there was justified fear that those who picked the wrong side would lose everything.

Or in Germany, during the inter-war years, the early 30’s. As far as “future judgement” is concerned, should you proclaim allegience to the NSDAP? Donate to their cause? Criticize them? If they provoke the great powers, Germany might quickly fall and then where does that leave you and your family? But the Nazis are now the dominant political force in the republic, and there’s a good chance that you and yours will be left out of the new Germany if you don’t get with the program.

~Max

116

Rest assured future generations will judge us all because of our meat consumption. It’s inhumane, it’s inefficient, it’s not really healthy, it is not economically sound. And I still eat it.

So if a Hormel statue is torn down 200 years from now that’s fine. They didn’t want to continue to honor a behavior any longer. Monuments are not about remembering, they’re about who a group Of people there currently honor in their past. Who that is changes and is healthy.

117

I agree with all your points as made. I’m not exactly arguing along the OP’s guidelines, so you’re correct my comment doesn’t directly answer the question he asked.

My point was really that the need / desire / possible benefit to future-proofing is entirely a function of the vastly wider record of our past that we now leave behind to be inspected and judged later.

If Golightly had delivered his screed in 1980-whatever at the bar or to an seminar of coworkers with no record kept this wouldn’t be an issue for him in 2020. Or if he’d issued it in a print magazine of any era that has never been put online.

Just as my ordinary teen rowdiness was not an issue for 20-something me but current teens’ TwitFace-posted rowdiness will be an issue for them.

So my point is from the other end of the OP’s telescope so to speak. The I’ll call it “need” to future-proof is really about society having developed the means and the motivation to issue post hoc judgement.

I argue that the technical means are probably a long-term part of the future landscape of at least US society.

Since means are fixed, adaptation will occur along the motivation axis. Whether society will adapt to this by people being motivated to self-censor or by society being motivated to take an “old-news-is-who-cares-now” approach remains to be seen. We are in the throes of that collective adaptation right now.

But some blend of those 2 approaches is what will happen. Employers & activists will become unmotivated to dig up the past, or else foresightful people will create a lot less diggable-uppable past.


Said another way, there are two practical solutions to trying to future-proof yourself. 1) Correctly guess the future and behave that way. 2) Insofar as possible, don’t leave a record of your behavior and attitudes.

As you rightly point out in the post I’m replying to, figuring out who or what to back under times of rapidly changing society is damn hard and most people guess wrong. 1935 NSDAP vs Communists vs Weimar is a Hobson’s choice to be sure; be right or be dead. For less momentous decisions like Golightly’s choice to publish, it’s be right or be (possibly) removed from the successful / “good guy” track of society later.

Said another way, my Door #1 is too hard. So Door #2 is what it will be.

My overarching point back at the OP is “Be careful what you wish for, because my Door #2 is what you’re actually advocating for. Even though you don’t realize it yet.”

118

That’s the whole thing. It was pretty offensive by 1987 standards.

It was, at the very least, defending the status quo at a time when it was well recognized that the status was not quo.

119

Very true. And again, he had one of the few positions where the company had decided upon a zero-tolerance policy toward racism and sexism. They wanted someone with an absolute perfect background to signal to the industry and the workers that absolutely no breaches would be tolerated.

120

As I keep pointing out, the first major party female VP candidate happened three years before his essay. The idea that women were human beings deserving of equal rights was not some weird fringe position that no one could see coming like the ‘complete, aggressive veganism’ idea. And the fact that his essay was specifically about how women should not be treated as equals is core to the objection to him serving as an exec trying to deal with bad treatment of women today.

While it’s possible that writing an essay in favor of meat-eating today might disqualify you from being an executive in charge of animal husbandry in 2060, I think the idea that in 2060 they will have animals as workers is more than a little farfetched. Meanwhile, in 1987 the idea that in 2020 a company might have women as workers was… not exactly farfetched, as it was happening.