Cancel Culture - A Tale As Old As Time....

[Clare73]

People throughout time have expressed opinions. And other people throughout time disagreed with them.

I don't see anything new here at all. But if you do, feel free to provide specific examples, if you wish to discuss them.

We've passed that point. . .

 

[A2SG]

We've passed that point. . .

So you don't wish to discuss the issue?

Fine, no problem. Have a good day!

-- A2SG, feelin' groovy.....

 

[Petros2015]

What we currently call "Cancel Culture" is nothing more than the current version of something that's happened before

I Corinthians (Paul)
11 But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a verbal abuser, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Matthew (Christ)
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Personally I think the term "Cancel Culture" as it is (over)used today is a bogeyman to stir up fear in the Church against "the liberals that are coming to get you" when Christ, in sharp contrast, said of such things

26 So do not be afraid of them. For there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known.
27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.g

i.e fear God not a particular culture or political party or government

But if it [Cancel Culture] is being used against the church to prevent them from performing what they were instructed to do, then I can see the conflict.
If it's being used against the church to prevent them from performing what they were not instructed to do, then I have no problem with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Comic companies decided to form a regulatory body themselves, called the Comics Code Authority, and regulated themselves for a little while. Eventually, they stopped doing that.

Ok...not a cancelation.

No, it didn't.

Good, my memory still works. Not a cancelation.

I've no idea. I'm sure it's explained somewhere in the article.

Something his wife said on social media. Completely unrelated to him and his work. He lost his job anyway.

I suppose that's because she didn't have a job, and therefore couldn't be canceled. The woke mob went after her husband instead, for something he didn't say or express.

Surely you can see the difference between a cancelation like my example and yours.

Seems so. Didn't work out that well, did it?

I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring here.

The current version of an ongoing struggle for some people to disagree with others, and take action based on that disagreement.

And take action based on disagreement....aka punishing speech.

Much like when a black man would whistle at a white woman in the past... and get hung from a tree for it. Mob justice. Vigilantes. Or as the new dumb call it...social justice.

Because the employer listened and agreed with those making the demand...or, at the very least acceded to those demands.

Right. They didn't merely voice their disagreement in respect for freedom of beliefs, opinions, views. They sought to punish those who think differently from themselves. The new moralists....except without any morals.

I'm sure Frederic Wertham or Terry Rakolta felt otherwise, but if you wish to argue their points, you'd have to take it up with them. Dr. Wertham is no longer with us, but I believe Ms. Rakolta is still around, somewhere.

Not relevant.
.

And I'm sure you see a marked difference between these examples. Personally, I do not.

Well let's be fair.. you admitted to not reading the article.
The difference is that the person punished didn't say or express anything.

C'est la vie.

Adios.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
-- George Carlin

Live by the sword, die by the sword.-

Ancient proverb.

Before twitter, people used other means. In the future, they'll find new ones.

I don't want to be a bummer....but we already have them. Unless you're like me and never post an image of yourself anywhere....your likeness (including voice) can be modeled into deep fakes so realistic that even your family won't be able to tell that you weren't really saying/doing those things.

The beat goes on....

-- A2SG, drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.....

Best of luck...or take my advice, scrub your social media presence of all images and recordings.

Ana the Ist- good faith discussion requires honest engagement first...or you're just trolling.

 

[A2SG]

Ok...not a cancelation.

Good, my memory still works. Not a cancelation.

It seemed to be an attempt at one. It just didn't work out.

Something his wife said on social media. Completely unrelated to him and his work. He lost his job anyway.

I suppose that's because she didn't have a job, and therefore couldn't be canceled. The woke mob went after her husband instead, for something he didn't say or express.

Surely you can see the difference between a cancelation like my example and yours.

Someone used their freedom of speech to say something, and others used their freedom of speech to disagree. Sometimes, stuff happens as a result.

Same old, same old...

I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring here.

Someone a long time ago said some stuff, and others at the time disagreed and did some stuff as a result.

And take action based on disagreement....aka punishing speech.

Much like when a black man would whistle at a white woman in the past... and get hung from a tree for it. Mob justice. Vigilantes. Or as the new dumb call it...social justice.

That certainly is one way to look at it. As I've said, this kinda thing has been going on for a long, long time.

Right. They didn't merely voice their disagreement in respect for freedom of beliefs, opinions, views. They sought to punish those who think differently from themselves. The new moralists....except without any morals.

Or different morals than those they disagreed with. History is rife with examples of one group trying to impose their version of morality on others who don't agree with it.

Not relevant.

Just me glibly saying that I'm not defending or objecting to any particular example, just citing them.

Well let's be fair.. you admitted to not reading the article.
The difference is that the person punished didn't say or express anything.

Actions have consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are not the ones we expect or intend.

I don't want to be a bummer....but we already have them. Unless you're like me and never post an image of yourself anywhere....your likeness (including voice) can be modeled into deep fakes so realistic that even your family won't be able to tell that you weren't really saying/doing those things.

I'm sure someone will use that as an excuse to pretend they didn't say something they said. Be interesting to see if it works.

Best of luck...or take my advice, scrub your social media presence of all images and recordings.

Ana the Ist- good faith discussion requires honest engagement first...or you're just trolling.

I always try my best to be as honest as possible when engaging with others. Thanks for doing the same.

-- A2SG, always nice to end on a positive note.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seemed to be an attempt at one. It just didn't work out.

Ok....

Someone used their freedom of speech to say something, and others used their freedom of speech to disagree. Sometimes, stuff happens as a result.

Same old, same old...

Well there's definitely a couple of distinctions you seem to be glossing over and missing...

Your examples are essentially....criticism of content...art....or perhaps theme. They aren't demanding that those involved in these projects never work on another again...simply that the content of the project is distasteful in some way and shouldn't be supported.

In my example however, it's just a person exercising their expressed freedom of speech....and an angry mob trying to inflict a sort of financial lynching on them. In regards to where one person's right ends and another begins...the old idiom is something like...

"My right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins"

Now I'll admit, maybe that's too complicated for the drooling smooth brained power hungry fools that loved trying to cancel people....but it's basically over now, they've lost their corrupt little toy. Real power was never in their reach. They simply sped up their own demise.

Someone a long time ago said some stuff, and others at the time disagreed and did some stuff as a result.

As long as you try your hardest to not understand the difference between punishing people smarter than you for expressing themselves....and criticizing a piece of art or entertainment....and use the vaguest possible terms so all distinction disappears....sure.

That certainly is one way to look at it. As I've said, this kinda thing has been going on for a long, long time.

Yeah it's funny really to see people whine and moan about injustice while simultaneously conspiring to commit and promoting injustice. Our schools are in trouble.

Or different morals than those they disagreed with. History is rife with examples of one group trying to impose their version of morality on others who don't agree with it.

And I hate everyone who does it...and never insist upon anyone adopting mine. I honestly don't understand what's so difficult about that but....should push genuinely come to shove, I'll start shoving I guess.

Just me glibly saying that I'm not defending or objecting to any particular example, just citing them.

If you genuinely don't see the distinction...I can understand that. I don't think objections to a piece of entertainment is the same as attempting to enact extra-judicial justice by loss of employment for the mere exercise of one's freedoms.

Perhaps when some person with sufficient funds and....I don't know...access to the sort of legal proceedings that would allow them to retrieve IP addresses and identify the mob that canceled them, they can file for legal damages and send a few thousand people right into poverty as a lesson for the rest.

Actions have consequences.

Absolutely.

Sometimes, those consequences are not the ones we expect or intend.

Well there's consequences....and then there's just people too dumb to think for themselves. I have a right to own property. The government does secure this right....from private entities....as theft represents a nonconsensual loss of property (aka damages) and similarly, the government should protect my speech in much the same way.

But the idiots who did this stuff never considered that and rarely succeeded against anyone who had the resources to do anything about it.

I'm sure someone will use that as an excuse to pretend they didn't say something they said. Be interesting to see if it works.

Well my guess is if it's admitted as evidence of guilt....they'll need to prove it a deep fake. Good luck with that.

I always try my best to be as honest as possible when engaging with others. Thanks for doing the same.

-- A2SG, always nice to end on a positive note.....

No I can certainly understand why someone might not see the distinction I'm making or understand the legal limitations of their rights....especially when employed to deny a citizen of their rights. It's not a simple concept....and I'm not even sure it's explained in schools anymore.

 

[A2SG]

Well there's definitely a couple of distinctions you seem to be glossing over and missing...

Your examples are essentially....criticism of content...art....or perhaps theme. They aren't demanding that those involved in these projects never work on another again...simply that the content of the project is distasteful in some way and shouldn't be supported.

In my example however, it's just a person exercising their expressed freedom of speech....and an angry mob trying to inflict a sort of financial lynching on them. In regards to where one person's right ends and another begins...the old idiom is something like...

"My right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins"

Now I'll admit, maybe that's too complicated for the drooling smooth brained power hungry fools that loved trying to cancel people....but it's basically over now, they've lost their corrupt little toy. Real power was never in their reach. They simply sped up their own demise.

It's still the same thing, over and over. Someone exercises their freedom of speech, and others use theirs to disagree. Sometimes, stuff happens as a result.

As long as you try your hardest to not understand the difference between punishing people smarter than you for expressing themselves....and criticizing a piece of art or entertainment....and use the vaguest possible terms so all distinction disappears....sure.

I'm not taking a stand on any of the examples we're citing here, just pointing out that it's been going on for a long time, and will probably continue to go on for a while longer. Seems to me it's only a problem when the people who used to do the cancelling are being cancelled.

What goes around, comes around....

Yeah it's funny really to see people whine and moan about injustice while simultaneously conspiring to commit and promoting injustice. Our schools are in trouble.

Not sure how funny your example was, or how it reflects on our educational system.

And I hate everyone who does it...and never insist upon anyone adopting mine. I honestly don't understand what's so difficult about that but....should push genuinely come to shove, I'll start shoving I guess.

I also try not to impose my views on morality on anyone else. So we seem to agree on that point.

If you genuinely don't see the distinction...I can understand that. I don't think objections to a piece of entertainment is the same as attempting to enact extra-judicial justice by loss of employment for the mere exercise of one's freedoms.

Perhaps when some person with sufficient funds and....I don't know...access to the sort of legal proceedings that would allow them to retrieve IP addresses and identify the mob that canceled them, they can file for legal damages and send a few thousand people right into poverty as a lesson for the rest.

Oh, I see the distinctions. Usually, it comes down to whether or not you agree with what one side or the other is saying.

I'm simply pointing out how often it's happened, and how little difference there is when you take whether or not you agree out of the equation.

Absolutely.

Well there's consequences....and then there's just people too dumb to think for themselves. I have a right to own property. The government does secure this right....from private entities....as theft represents a nonconsensual loss of property (aka damages) and similarly, the government should protect my speech in much the same way.

But the idiots who did this stuff never considered that and rarely succeeded against anyone who had the resources to do anything about it.

Sometimes David wins, sometimes Goliath wins.

Well my guess is if it's admitted as evidence of guilt....they'll need to prove it a deep fake. Good luck with that.

I guess we'll have to see.

No I can certainly understand why someone might not see the distinction I'm making or understand the legal limitations of their rights....especially when employed to deny a citizen of their rights. It's not a simple concept....and I'm not even sure it's explained in schools anymore.

Sometimes, schools are limited by external factors in what they can and can't teach. I'd recommend every individual take their own education upon themselves, rather than rely solely on what they're being taught.

But that's really another issue entirely.

-- A2SG, worthy of its own thread, at the very least.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's still the same thing, over and over. Someone exercises their freedom of speech, and others use theirs to disagree. Sometimes, stuff happens as a result.

You're correct in that it's both parties using words....just like two people could be punching each other. That doesn't mean that one of those people punching isn't committing assault though....it would depend upon whether or not he was correct in his exercise of his rights.

Oh, I see the distinctions. Usually, it comes down to whether or not you agree with what one side or the other is saying.

No...that's not the distinction I'm making.

You understand that if I were walking down the street towards you....and you saw perhaps a word, or phrase, or picture on my shirt that angered you. You could punch me....but you'd be infringing upon my rights, breaking the law, and I can seek both your criminal punishment as well as civil punishment for any damages to me.....right?

Well this is essentially the same thing. It's a different type of damage (financial) and it's probably lacking a criminal statute. The civil statute though....probably entirely valid. Job loss would significantly cause damages and effectively....I would be able to sue for everything up to my retirement age, and all average accrued interests, etc. Those are the damages, that's what I would have lost.

Surely you're aware you can't yell fire in a crowded room theatre, right? It's because of the resulting damages. You would need to be justified by an actual fire that posed an actual threat in order to avoid liability. If my words offend you....you definitely have the ability to try and get me fired, and my employer can decide to fire me to shut you up if a large crowd was perhaps willing to help you....

But you'd be causing damages without justification. I was merely expressing my right to free speech. You were using yours to harm. There's situations where it was justified, right? If I ran a daycare shift and told you I typically drank half a bottle of cough syrup and slept through to the following shift....you telling my employer this to get me fired is justified in the defense of the children in my care.

See the difference?

I'm simply pointing out how often it's happened, and how little difference there is when you take whether or not you agree out of the equation.

My position has never changed. I unequivocally oppose using freedom of speech to inflict unjustified harm on anyone. I understand that employers are typically going to be exempt from damages because they can justify it under the threat of loss of business. They aren't required to keep me if they've found reason to believe my words will cost them profits. It wouldn't matter if this resulted from a mob or if my employer simply saw my Twitter feed. My employment would be conditional.

Or at least that's how it normally works in the private sector. I'm in the public sector and frankly, I'm told all the time I can't speak about stuff. Gag order in this administration since 2021.

Sometimes David wins, sometimes Goliath wins.

Yeah sadly it was really only good against the weak. The mob was always "punching down" if they succeeded. The times they tried to "punch up" like Joe Rogan or JK Rowling....I think Rogan gained a couple million new subscribers and JK Rowling probably would have faded into total abscurity by now if not for being labeled a Terf. The mob basically hyped that Hogwarts video game more than she ever could have hoped.

But there's also the victories....the nameless barista at Starbucks that lost her job. Heard she was actually a progressive and it was store policy to ask people to leave if they didn't order after a few minutes. Pretty embarrassing....but at least she kept her name out of the headlines....

I think there was a couple of teens who lost university acceptances.

I remember 1 Karen who lost her job at a bank...and thought, she's going to change her name, apply for a hr position, get moved into hiring, and spend the next 20 years quietly discriminating against blacks and liberals. It seems like a potentially unproductive strategy for anything.

Plus, if we're honest...stupid, childish, and petty. The Twitter liberals simply created a kind of general fear of being fired that made people turn on the woke. Meanwhile, actual valid racist targets are starting their own NFT company, making blatantly racist NFTs that were obvious to anyone who recognized them, and sold them to NBA players and celebrities for tens of millions.

Why go after a barista when that's happening? Why not go after real targets?

I guess we'll have to see.

Is it still a thing even? I sort of haven't heard of any real attempts after Musk got Twitter. When I think back at the collective Ws and Ls of the collective Twitter woke mob....there's just very few big Ws and so many Ls it doesn't seem like it was a net positive I guess. I can remember a few celebrities who were pretty dedicated to the mob talking about it after it turned on them and ate them. It sounds like they just got sucked into a little dopamine release cycle of Twitter alerts and mobbing targets....but ultimately just petty. It didn't really matter who they were going after or why. The tiny modicum of power they felt was enough to corrupt any sense of morality....which is ironic....given the way they characterized police who had so much more power but abused it far less lol.

I never saw the point of Twitter myself. I only post on message boards of various different groups. I see Twitter as a kind of mini-blog and blogs are generally awful even in long form.

Do you remember some big Ws for the Twitter woke mob? I guess Louis CK lost a lot of money. Weinstein more recently but who cares now....hmmmm....I doubt the name Karen is making a comeback this decade. Lots of small targets that may or may not have been bad actors or racists....but almost certainly are now.

Sometimes, schools are limited by external factors in what they can and can't teach. I'd recommend every individual take their own education upon themselves, rather than rely solely on what they're being taught.

I couldn't agree more. I'd only add that to understand any subject, seek the widest variety of opinions on it.

But that's really another issue entirely.

-- A2SG, worthy of its own thread, at the very least.....

...I don't see many long term trends out of our current socio-economic situation that look good.

 

[A2SG]

You're correct in that it's both parties using words....just like two people could be punching each other. That doesn't mean that one of those people punching isn't committing assault though....it would depend upon whether or not he was correct in his exercise of his rights.

In the case of people using their freedom of speech, the only way to determine whether one party or the other is wrong is whether you agree with them or not. If there's a question of assault, that's something a court can decide on.

No...that's not the distinction I'm making.

You understand that if I were walking down the street towards you....and you saw perhaps a word, or phrase, or picture on my shirt that angered you. You could punch me....but you'd be infringing upon my rights, breaking the law, and I can seek both your criminal punishment as well as civil punishment for any damages to me.....right?

Sure.

Well this is essentially the same thing. It's a different type of damage (financial) and it's probably lacking a criminal statute. The civil statute though....probably entirely valid. Job loss would significantly cause damages and effectively....I would be able to sue for everything up to my retirement age, and all average accrued interests, etc. Those are the damages, that's what I would have lost.

That's why tort law exists.

Surely you're aware you can't yell fire in a crowded room theatre, right? It's because of the resulting damages. You would need to be justified by an actual fire that posed an actual threat in order to avoid liability. If my words offend you....you definitely have the ability to try and get me fired, and my employer can decide to fire me to shut you up if a large crowd was perhaps willing to help you....

You want to hear something funny? I've done that. I have yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

And nothing happened. I broke no laws.

Of course, I was in a production of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" at the time, but....

But you'd be causing damages without justification. I was merely expressing my right to free speech. You were using yours to harm. There's situations where it was justified, right? If I ran a daycare shift and told you I typically drank half a bottle of cough syrup and slept through to the following shift....you telling my employer this to get me fired is justified in the defense of the children in my care.

See the difference?

Sure. The problem doesn't come from people simply exercising their freedom of speech, it comes from what they do afterward, and the stuff that happens as a result.

Today is no different than it's always been.

My position has never changed. I unequivocally oppose using freedom of speech to inflict unjustified harm on anyone. I understand that employers are typically going to be exempt from damages because they can justify it under the threat of loss of business. They aren't required to keep me if they've found reason to believe my words will cost them profits. It wouldn't matter if this resulted from a mob or if my employer simply saw my Twitter feed. My employment would be conditional.

Or at least that's how it normally works in the private sector. I'm in the public sector and frankly, I'm told all the time I can't speak about stuff. Gag order in this administration since 2021.

If someone says something stupid, and a few other people call them on it, and that first person's employer fires them as a result, the second group of people did not cause the firing, even if they wished it to happen, or even called for it to happen. The employer made the decision, not the second group of people.

So who's at fault for the first person being fired? The second group, or the first person for saying the stupid thing?

Yeah sadly it was really only good against the weak. The mob was always "punching down" if they succeeded. The times they tried to "punch up" like Joe Rogan or JK Rowling....I think Rogan gained a couple million new subscribers and JK Rowling probably would have faded into total abscurity by now if not for being labeled a Terf. The mob basically hyped that Hogwarts video game more than she ever could have hoped.

But there's also the victories....the nameless barista at Starbucks that lost her job. Heard she was actually a progressive and it was store policy to ask people to leave if they didn't order after a few minutes. Pretty embarrassing....but at least she kept her name out of the headlines....

I think there was a couple of teens who lost university acceptances.

I remember 1 Karen who lost her job at a bank...and thought, she's going to change her name, apply for a hr position, get moved into hiring, and spend the next 20 years quietly discriminating against blacks and liberals. It seems like a potentially unproductive strategy for anything.

Plus, if we're honest...stupid, childish, and petty. The Twitter liberals simply created a kind of general fear of being fired that made people turn on the woke. Meanwhile, actual valid racist targets are starting their own NFT company, making blatantly racist NFTs that were obvious to anyone who recognized them, and sold them to NBA players and celebrities for tens of millions.

Why go after a barista when that's happening? Why not go after real targets?

So go after them. You don't need my permission to do so.

Is it still a thing even? I sort of haven't heard of any real attempts after Musk got Twitter. When I think back at the collective Ws and Ls of the collective Twitter woke mob....there's just very few big Ws and so many Ls it doesn't seem like it was a net positive I guess. I can remember a few celebrities who were pretty dedicated to the mob talking about it after it turned on them and ate them. It sounds like they just got sucked into a little dopamine release cycle of Twitter alerts and mobbing targets....but ultimately just petty. It didn't really matter who they were going after or why. The tiny modicum of power they felt was enough to corrupt any sense of morality....which is ironic....given the way they characterized police who had so much more power but abused it far less lol.

I never saw the point of Twitter myself. I only post on message boards of various different groups. I see Twitter as a kind of mini-blog and blogs are generally awful even in long form.

Do you remember some big Ws for the Twitter woke mob? I guess Louis CK lost a lot of money. Weinstein more recently but who cares now....hmmmm....I doubt the name Karen is making a comeback this decade. Lots of small targets that may or may not have been bad actors or racists....but almost certainly are now.

I've never been on twitter, so I have no idea what's going on there. I also don't know much about Louis CK, but I do understand that people speaking out about Harvey Weinstein's crimes did help cause him to have to pay for them. Seems to be a good thing, from what I've heard.

But, I suppose, it all depends on whether or not you agree that what Weinstein did was wrong.

I couldn't agree more. I'd only add that to understand any subject, seek the widest variety of opinions on it.

Or seek facts instead of opinions.

...I don't see many long term trends out of our current socio-economic situation that look good.

I wonder how often that's been said over the years.

-- A2SG, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the case of people using their freedom of speech, the only way to determine whether one party or the other is wrong is whether you agree with them or not. If there's a question of assault, that's something a court can decide on.

You would be right in regards criminality.

And as of my knowledge, no precedent exists for a situation where someone manages to leverage a mob towards getting someone fired for saying something completely legal....whether or not you agree with it.

However, plenty of precedent exists protecting my speech (and yours) so broadly that I could literally support anything from nazism to pedophilia to a new cult I claim to be the leader of....as it's a right.

There's also plenty of precedent set for recovering damages caused by someone else's speech used against me. If you lie about someone (for example) and they were fired over these lies....that person can sue you and collect damages. If you decide to look into the legal aspects of it, defamation of character, libel, slander....these are well established, well recognized violations of civil rights. They typically apply to publishers....but they don't have to...I think only libel does.

Anyway, the two most important factors are...
1. Damages. Without any evidence of damages, little chance of the case moving forward.
2. Truth. Call someone a racist? Call someone a white supremacist? If you cannot prove these statements factual you're probably being going to be held liable for those damages. If you think the judge is going to accept some broad brushed definition of those terms....it's unlikely.

Sure. The problem doesn't come from people simply exercising their freedom of speech,

Well the woman in my example simply exercised her freedom of speech.

it comes from what they do afterward, and the stuff that happens as a result.

She didn't do anything afterwards. Perhaps you had a specific example in mind.

Today is no different than it's always been.

No...in the past, for whatever reason, people weren't so fragile that they had felt any need to attack others for having a different opinion. Today's youth are emotionally fragile, cowardly, petty, foolish.

If someone says something stupid,

Twitter is filled with stupid. By design, it promotes posts that appeal the most to the crowd (which is always only ever average) or conversely....posts that the crowd disagrees with (which can be either because they are smart or stupid).

If you're finding yourself broadly agreeing with the crowd...well you're probably average. There's nothing wrong with that....but the broad masses of the common people aren't doing themselves any favor by chasing off the smart and dumb simply because they can't tell the two apart.

and a few other people call them on it, and that first person's employer fires them as a result,

Well it's not really just a bunch of people disagreeing....

It's disagreeing and seeking out a person's loss of employment.

the second group of people did not cause the firing, even if they wished it to happen, or even called for it to happen.

That would depend upon what the employer said the employee was fired for....

Generally though, if the employer gives a reason related to the people calling for the firing...that's a case.

So who's at fault for the first person being fired? The second group, or the first person for saying the stupid thing?

Again, I don't see any reason to pretend that people were getting fired without pressure from social media users. The idea that your boss is sitting on twitter following you and all employees is pretty silly. It's possible, but in the majority of cases....there's a deliberate effort to identify the employer and pressure them. It's all very public too. The crowd is to blame. Unless it's both relevant to the person's job (like it expresses a public danger) and verifiably factual....

It's always the crowd's fault. They're making a choice to try and get someone fired.

So go after them. You don't need my permission to do so.

I'm not on Twitter...and like I said, it's died down. They had far left sycophants tipping the scales of that platform in their favor. On the even playing field...they cried over losing their favorite toy and skulked away. Like I said, cowards.

I've never been on twitter, so I have no idea what's going on there. I also don't know much about Louis CK, but I do understand that people speaking out about Harvey Weinstein's crimes did help cause him to have to pay for them. Seems to be a good thing, from what I've heard.

Sure. I don't think it's done anything regarding those problems in that industry. Bigger names got ignored. I don't think the fact that Alyssa Milano is married to a CIA agent makes it a psyop to distract from Epstein's death, or preempt Ginsburgs replacement. Again though....hard to think of it as a net positive.

But, I suppose, it all depends on whether or not you agree that what Weinstein did was wrong.

I never looked into the full scope of his accusations. I'm certain he's guilty of something. He was convicted.

Whether or not all the accusations were representing "wrong" behavior I suppose depends upon consent and honesty.

I guess that if we, as a society, allow adults to exchange one type of power for another...I find it less respectable when it's done dishonestly.

Or seek facts instead of opinions.

One would need to first understand how to spot the difference between the two. Given the extreme propensity of so many people to simply take the word of others as factual despite the subject being supposedly "important" to them....it doesn't appear that many people can even identify fact from opinions.

So in this case, I'd recommend they consider the widest number of views possible.

I wonder how often that's been said over the years.

-- A2SG, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.....

Often surely....but one doesn't have to read a lot of history to realize that often, those people were correct.

 

[A2SG]

You would be right in regards criminality.

And as of my knowledge, no precedent exists for a situation where someone manages to leverage a mob towards getting someone fired for saying something completely legal....whether or not you agree with it.

However, plenty of precedent exists protecting my speech (and yours) so broadly that I could literally support anything from nazism to pedophilia to a new cult I claim to be the leader of....as it's a right.

There's also plenty of precedent set for recovering damages caused by someone else's speech used against me. If you lie about someone (for example) and they were fired over these lies....that person can sue you and collect damages. If you decide to look into the legal aspects of it, defamation of character, libel, slander....these are well established, well recognized violations of civil rights. They typically apply to publishers....but they don't have to...I think only libel does.

Anyway, the two most important factors are...
1. Damages. Without any evidence of damages, little chance of the case moving forward.
2. Truth. Call someone a racist? Call someone a white supremacist? If you cannot prove these statements factual you're probably being going to be held liable for those damages. If you think the judge is going to accept some broad brushed definition of those terms....it's unlikely.

Yup. Tort law is a thing.

Well the woman in my example simply exercised her freedom of speech.

She didn't do anything afterwards. Perhaps you had a specific example in mind.

I was just referring to the one you cited. Sometimes what we say has unintended or unforeseen consequences.

No...in the past, for whatever reason, people weren't so fragile that they had felt any need to attack others for having a different opinion.

Tell that to Senator Charles Sumner.

Today's youth are emotionally fragile, cowardly, petty, foolish.

I bet you could have made that same statement 30 years ago. In fact, I seem to remember people saying stuff just like that back then.

Twitter is filled with stupid. By design, it promotes posts that appeal the most to the crowd (which is always only ever average) or conversely....posts that the crowd disagrees with (which can be either because they are smart or stupid).

If you're finding yourself broadly agreeing with the crowd...well you're probably average. There's nothing wrong with that....but the broad masses of the common people aren't doing themselves any favor by chasing off the smart and dumb simply because they can't tell the two apart.

Was it in this exchange I quoted George Carlin?

Should I do it again?

Well it's not really just a bunch of people disagreeing....

It's disagreeing and seeking out a person's loss of employment.

Or urging advertisers to boycott a certain TV show you don't like.

That would depend upon what the employer said the employee was fired for....

Generally though, if the employer gives a reason related to the people calling for the firing...that's a case.

I've found that if an employer wants to fire an employee for any reason, they'll find a cause somehow.

Again, I don't see any reason to pretend that people were getting fired without pressure from social media users. The idea that your boss is sitting on twitter following you and all employees is pretty silly. It's possible, but in the majority of cases....there's a deliberate effort to identify the employer and pressure them. It's all very public too. The crowd is to blame. Unless it's both relevant to the person's job (like it expresses a public danger) and verifiably factual....

It's always the crowd's fault. They're making a choice to try and get someone fired.

And they only succeed when the employer agrees, or accedes to pressure. But without the employer's involvement, they're only exercising their freedom of speech.

I'm not on Twitter...and like I said, it's died down. They had far left sycophants tipping the scales of that platform in their favor. On the even playing field...they cried over losing their favorite toy and skulked away. Like I said, cowards.

Sounds like what the right did when they lost platforms like twitter themselves. Different tune, same old song....

Sure. I don't think it's done anything regarding those problems in that industry. Bigger names got ignored. I don't think the fact that Alyssa Milano us married to a CIA agent makes it a psyop to distract from Epstein's death, or preempt Ginsburgs replacement. Again though....hard to think of it as a net positive.

As I said, it all depends on what you agree with, and what you don't.

I never looked into the full scope of his accusations. I'm certain he's guilty of something. He was convicted.

Whether or not all the accusations were representing "wrong" behavior I suppose depends upon consent and honesty.

I guess that if we, as a society, allow adults to exchange one type of power for another...I find it less respectable when it's done dishonestly.

Again, some people exercised their freedom of speech...and stuff happened. Same as it always was....

One would need to first understand how to spot the difference between the two. Given the extreme propensity of so many people to simply take the word of others as factual despite the subject being supposedly "important" to them....it doesn't appear that many people can even identify fact from opinions.

So in this case, I'd recommend they consider the widest number of views possible.

Well, facts are easily differentiated from opinions: they can be verified. Opinions about facts can vary, of course.

Often surely....but one doesn't have to read a lot of history to realize that often, those people were correct.

Yup. Nothing new happening here.

-- A2SG, only the names have changed.....

 

[perplexed]

There was an attempt to ban the name "French Fries" because the French did not send troops to help with the
invasion of Iraq

There was an attempt to ban the bad "the chicks (formerly the Dixie chicks) " for not supporting Bush.

Most of people involved in these attempts would have ended up being Trump supporters who love Trump for attacking the silly RINO Bush for attacking Iraq and are offended by the left that tries to cancel them