Cancel culture is when your employer fires you because they're afraid of what a mob thinks.
Healthy culture is when your employer fires you because they see you publicly supporting something they find abhorrent and thus want nothing to do with you.
Discussion
#yestr
Either way, you're fired!
$NAKA
what do we call this? where one should "always" oppose firings over a tweet (when it affects "their team") vs. later saying people should be fired over tweets (when it affects the "other team")
is this called hypocrisy or selfishness or something else?
People often conflate freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
Freedom of speech ONLY means that the government can't punish you for what you say. Other people and entities with whom you have relationships are free to ostracize you as a result of your speech.
i agree with you that people often do conflate those two.
however, that is not at all what my post was about nor what Matt Walsh talked about.
He said that you should ALWAYS oppose anyone getting fired over a controversial tweet (when it happened to team red). Now that it happened to team blue, he is for it.
The difference is they are endorsing actual murder.
At the time he probably did not think such thing would ever happen.
Got it. So the word 'always' actually had some contingencies built into it.
Also, saying that one thought someone was a monster after their death is not endorsing their murder. I hope you and I can agree on this?
I try to imagine if someone that I really dislike were to die (say someone like Craig Wright) and in response I post, good riddance the world is better off without him, that is not my endorsing his death (whether he was murdered or died of natural causes).
In this hypothetical that would mean I just don't feel bad that he died and think the world is a better place without him. But that doesn't mean I believe he should be murdered.
Matt was wrong. We are allowed to change our minds.
You live, watch other people celebrate the brutal assassination of an innocent man, and you learn.
For sure, there are some crazy ppl out there who celebrate bad things. On a positive note, I don't think there was a single prominent figure (anywhere on the political spectrum) who did anything but immediately condone the murder.
Lot of crazy incels sitting in their parents basements along with plenty of russian/chinese bot farms that make you want to believe people are broadly celebrating this murder.
I don't know about you, but I personally don't know a single person in real life who celebrated the murder or who even thought it was net positive regardless of their political leanings.
To that point, I know Zuck and Elon love promoting the super crazies on their platforms. It is literally their money printer for facebook and twitter. The more they push the crazy narrative, the more normal people get upset and reply saying its crazy, etc...
Just the way Jan 6 was a massive payday for them, so is Charlie Kirk's murder and so will be the next tragic event.
This is largely a social media problem imo. Most people in the world are pretty darn normal and we all tend to get along. If it weren't the case, and if what you saw on social media reflected real life, there would be nothing but mass chaos on the streets every day.
Yeah... about that whole "government can't punish you for what you say" thing you were talking about...
Attorney General Pam Bondi: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1967754151389020160/vid/avc1/1280x720/l1kluxT1rgny5aam.mp4
In the first one he said "controversial tweet" - which could be almost anything - and in the second I think he's talking about folks celebrating an assassination.
Freedom culture is when you work for yourself and say whatever the fuck you want.
Social ostricism is really effective.
Who you are matters.
These really sounds like the same thing. It’s like the open rejection of objectivity.
Pretending there is no difference would be an open rejection of reality.
Only ones own, hence objectivity.
If I am free then I cannot be forced to continue employing someone who celebrates the death of a decent person.
If I am free then I cannot be coerced to fire someone who points out that men are men & women are women & that synthetic hormones & genital mutilation cannot change reality.
An ideological moron (if free) also cannot be forced to continue employing the person in the second example, but cancel culture is an effort to coerce & threaten people into firing people even when they would prefer not to.
It is possible that there are also some ideological morons being forced to fire people for the celebration of Charlie's death, even though they would rather not.
But science & objectivity very much align with supporting the murder of innocent people being evil & pointing out biologocial realities being a perfectly sane thing to do.
Objectivity is often mistaken for a posture of balancing or devaluing opposing conclusions, but its essence lies in the discipline of observing without the weight of bias. One may hold convictions as an individual, yet still be objective through stepping beyond the confines of the self; recognizing that one’s stance is still a lens. Neither virtuous nor flawed, it’s just a perspective, one among the many that constitute our shared reality.
This is how society/culture works. Seriously bad actions will/should be disapproved of by others. It's how you regulate things.
(There does need to be a way to navigate the information and false claims (court, etc) because the majority don't always have all of the details and we don't want ideological mobs to make off the cuff choices to kill people).
In the case of Charlie's death, we as a society have chosen, based on logical thinking and experience. that murder isn't a good idea. So we don't need to prove it was bad, it is.
Back in the day, if you did something bad to your group/village they ostracised you and you were on your own. This is fairly normal stuff.
Have you been fired?
Very insightful
Common sense is using an anon handle during times of extreme political division.
Cancel culture is against free speech and I think nobody must be fired independently that the shit you think. Thinking like an idiot doesn't necessarily mean you can't be a great professional...
If someone is a communist or a socialist and works for my business, I cannot trust them to protect our business in any capacity. I have every right to fire them and not hire any communists. I also have a right to choose not cooperate with or finance agents and agendas counter to my beliefs.
Freedom give you the right to choose but not guarantees you the right election. I don't care which party my hairdresser votes for or the baker's ideas. I value a good haircut and a bread that's to my liking. I believe this is fundamental to living in a society based on respect.
I think people building searchable databases of others who said things they disagree with in order to mass-report them to their employees is not particularly healthy. I think it's actually rather bad and pretty certainly suppressive of free speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private entities. Just work for a business that shares your viewpoints instead.
Nope, having an opinion doesn't magically make your society healthy
95% of all employers are NPCs and don't have opinions on anything. What they find abhorrent is == what the mob thinks.
Earn up to 2,000 daily with robotic high signals through a license trader experience, Text on t.me/Involiosupportassist their verified telegram
They are two the same . Right and left .
If there is something we can owned forever free is our own thoughts that probably will never been spoken.
Boom. Precisely. 🔥
The mob defines what is abhorrent.