Well now see you’ve gone and committed yourself to a position that there were no “good societies” prior to 1776. I just cannot be convinced of that, particular if one’s definition of society is scalable.
My mistake - she was visiting family in South Africa.
I guess I’m satire-deficient. I don’t see that as an obvious interpretation.
Especially since her two previous tweets prior to the one that got her in trouble were making ethnic slurs against a German and British people. In context, she looks like someone who is quite comfortable with stereotypes.
The problem is that “our kids” aren’t doing the same thing. You don’t see us acting like criticism is wrong if it actually winds up having a tangible effect. You don’t see us deflecting from bigotry by condemning those who want to hold people accountable for said bigotry.
You act like suppression is itself a bad thing, but it’s not. Suppression of evil is a good thing. If something is evil, you want to stop it from happening. The problem comes in when the means of suppression is more harmful than the actual thing being suppressed.
The issue with so-called “cancel culture” isn’t the people advocating for people being fired or voicing criticisms online. It’s not pushing for boycotts or otherwise trying to provide consequences. The problem arises when people switch from conversation to harassment–who switch to cyberbullying and doxxing and so on.
And if you just use those words I just used, then you don’t run into the same problems you do when you attack “cancel culture.” To the left, “cancel culture” is like “SJW” or other terms where actual legitimately bad things are grouped with good things so that they can get away with condemning the good things, too.
You want to actually change things? Focus on cyberbullying and harassment, regardless of the reason why it happens.
The point here then is that there is little to no denouncing of that cancellation coming from many right-wingers or “moderate republicans” in the US.
One thing to notice here also is that posters also cited many “loony left” items are not that. There is propaganda even in the way the framework of discussion is set, and some moderates end up repeating what is coming from the right. It shows to me that: while there are indeed things that I do to denounce when coming from some on the left, the evidence shows that this is an ant compared to the elephant’s way to cancel frameworks of discussion too, leading then to efforts to cancel speech or education that one side fears.
It is obvious from her interview with Jon Ronson and backed up by the people who know her.
There should be. Loud and long.
And how does a reader of a tweet know that obvious information?
She’s the one who is choosing to put the information out there by tweet. If she thinks that it’s possible to give a detailed sociological analysis of perceptions of AIDS in Africa in 140 words, including comments on her own ethnicity, it’s on her.
In this scenario your “kids” and mine are the same. We are both of the left and I certainly see this side failing to live up to the standards we want from everyone.
It is a bad thing if it is done as a first reaction or preemptive strike rather than (as Popper suggested) something we reserve for when discussion, debate and reason has failed.
Absolutely, I agree 100%. And we must keep our own house in order with regards to that.
By that standard, capitalist societies aren’t good, either.
Not really, no.
I mean, the entire “Loony Left” term is a propaganda framing. You get to label positions as crazy, using arguments of incredulity instead of actual counterarguments. There’s a reason the thread wasn’t “People on the US left, what sort of things do you disagree with or think go too far? And why?”
It’s a common refrain. SJW, cancel culture, PC, white knight–all terms that are about reframing the situation to avoid the actual particulars. This is how the right wing tends to frame its arguments these days, and is why I think it’s important to point this out.
Because, if we don’t point this out, we actually wind up lending legitimacy to the term. That’s what makes this tactic so effective.
They don’t.
but what, reasonably, should be “on her” for such a tiny miscalculation. Summary dismissisal? death threats? horrific abuse, social shunning? trauma and distress?
Is that proportional? Is that what we actually want to promote as a suitable response? Is that what we want to set up as an attainable goal for any twitter mob so malignantly motivated?
I think no. Better to have a clarification from her, perhaps a word in her ear from her employer and we all get on with our lives.
Lovely. But that’s not the world we live in. We live in a world where a bad tweet can start to affect your employer’s business. Where they will be boycotted. Where they will get bad reviews on social media.
As I said in my earlier post to @octopus , what is the rational response for the employer as they see their business going under, because of the bad tweet by an employee? In this world, where Twitter is part of the world?
Twitter is a cesspool. Anyone who uses it for their personal life is stepping into the cesspool.
interestingly, the Sacco case might be something of a diversion but it did prompt me to suggest stronger employment law as a possible partial remedy to the worst of the overreaction effects.
Stonger laws that would mean no “at will” employment and an increased duty of care and obligations for the employer in similar situations.
It occurs to me that those suggestions themselves will be seen as “loony left” by many and certainly by the US political right. Guilty as charged I suppose.
If that was that the case, but how do we know that that talk did not happen in this case and the boss decided that there was not a good explanation coming from her?
BTW, the company that fired her brought her back to work in one division, communications exec for the whole company, was not her best fit 
.
More seriously though, there was a recent example about a coach that originally it was claimed that he had just said the N word once (with conservative posters denouncing the "loony left), unlike that coach, the context showed that the communications director made one mistake, that should not end your career in this case and I agree with her working again. The coach was not lucky when his boss found out that he did not make that mistake with the N word just once.
I’ve already stated what I think the response and responsbility of the employer should be. Post 91 and onwards.
You seem to be more sympathetic to needs of the company, I am too but I think that needs to be balanced with the need to treat workers fairly.
If you think it is going to be impossible to keep that person on? OK. Then fire them but either come to a suitable severance agreement with them or risk getting hammered in the courts for unfair dismissal if you can’t make a gross misconduct claim stick.
There is no perfect outcome here but I think we could get to “better” and “fairer” in a way stops encouraging the twitter mobs in the first place.
But I’d say that’s what happened when they were hired; they don’t need to hash out a severance agreement after the employer decides they don’t want that person showing up for work on Monday, it can just be a matter of saying hey, how does this sound? Is this fair? when offering them a job in the first place.
Of course, one should also be very careful with the ones crying wolf about the latest cancel culture outrage from the “left”. The full history of many examples that they point out is not like they paint it. (in fact, while looking at reports of the issue, most of the “left wing media” sources were critical about what happened to the communications director)
I wasn’t claiming that they were your kids. The word “our” can be inclusive, after all. However, you were responding to @GIGObuster, who linked an example of what right wing “kids” were doing. And you told him that it made more sense to prioritize our own “kids” first.
The problem is, what their “kids” are doing and what our “kids” are doing are not the same thing. One is far worse. It does make sense to prioritize going after the guy who committed armed robbery, and not get just as upset at my kid who stole a grape. It does make more sense to put more effort into stopping armed robberies.
That’s what “cancel culture” is. It’s a term to redirect the focus off of the people actually doing the worst things and instead make it about how we’re not nice in response to them. That’s the point of my last line: if the issue people cared about was cyberbullying or harassment, they would use those terms. Not try to lump in legitimate criticism and these other things under a single umbrella.
But that’s not usually what happens anymore. Like I said, we’ve mostly learned from the earlier cases. What you tend to get now are people trying to have a conversation first. For example, Dave Chappelle had been told many times the problems with his transphobic jokes, even before that one special that was all attacks on trans people. He didn’t listen. And he’s made it clear he won’t stop, even though he originally claimed he would.
That’s the pattern I see. The people who get “cancelled” for what they say double down. They don’t recognize the issue, and instead try to blame the people who got upset. Hell, that’s how the term “cancel culture” was coined.
I’m no expert on employment contract law, I don’t know if such a contract would be valid or how the additional protection I propose would be applied in that case.