(07-05-2020 10:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I asked if you actually read the thread because in the very first Tweet he explicitly talked about cancel culture, and multiple times implicitly did, yet you originally said he did not.

I said *you* did not. Not *he* did not. I suggest you actually argue something I typed and not what you pull out of thin air.

Perhaps I should do what you did in your first sentence hear, and ask you if you actually read my comment, since you did such a smash up job of stating something as something I said when I definitely did not.

Quote:What I found most interesting in the tweet thread was something I’ve been thinking about recently - that the cancel culture of the left, which does exist, doesn’t actually exist to the extent that the right thinks it does. That the influence of Twitter and social media amplifies it in such a way that it has been turned into a bogey man that far outweighs its actual weight. And that, in the grand scheme of politics, the vocal part of the left that does push cancel culture, hasn’t actually made it mainstream.

I guess this didnt exist:

Paul Krugman, professors seek top economist's removal from influential job for criticizing Black Lives Matter

Perhaps you should tell Professor Wolfers that it is a 'bogey man'. I am sure that will clear that up in a jiff.

Ah, I though you were use the royal “you” since I hadn’t really offered any analysis, and you posted like I had.

This post doesn’t really refute my comment, which isn’t that cancel culture doesn’t exist on the left - it most certainly does. But rather the prevalence and influence is not nearly as strong as the pearl-clutching conservatives think it is.

To that specific example - is it even really cancel culture for someone who is part of an organization to call for a leader to step down when they believe the leader has said something that doesn’t represent the organization well? Wouldn’t the alternative be that leaders could speak with absolute impunity, even though they represent their members?

This wades into an interesting area for two reasons. One, I originally assumed they were calling for the professor to be fired from U Chicago and they aren’t, and Krugman doesn’t even call for him to step down in the tweet that’s referenced. Two, when does the cancel culture line get crossed? Can we agree that some leaders and employees can cross lines with their speech, that can rightfully result in termination?

"rightfully"?

Yes - as in, the organization made the correct decision to fire someone for their speech. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that someone’s speech can rightfully affect their employment?

Of course. Statements like "I'm going to kill you" or "kill cracker babies" cannot be tolerated. Statements like "I don't agree with the objectives of BLM" or "I don't agree with Trump" can be. Statements like "I want a raise" can go either way.