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

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

(07-05-2020 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you happen to read the Twitter thread?

I did. He revels on mentioning the anti-Constitution aspect, but fails to mention any iota in its backing. I would have assumed that you would have noted that issue between a broad claim and failing to denote any support for it.

Thus I called on you for your insight, since you were so ready and on-the-ball about noting the piece and its relevance

I am sorry that Tom has been attacked thusly by Trumpists. All in all, I find the tweet of one singular and very explicit anti-Trumper that the 'Trump camp is far worse in their attacks in a McCarthy-esque' manner somewhat unpersuasive.

The record is replete with a literal **** ton of proto-brownshirt leftists on their seek and destroy missions based on political expression. I dont find that same record from the Trumpists replete to that level either in scope or ferocity.

I mean, you are the king of 'objective facts' and that difference noted above should have been obvious to you, even in light of the sheer wildness and wackiness that you would post the lesson of 'proof by Twitter example' that it seemingly is calling for.

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?

Thats really a loaded question. I am a 'right to work' state type of guy through and through. Think about that conjunction.

I think it abhorrent that an outside group should use efforts to get people fired, or dismissed, based on non-illegal speech in a non-work concept.

For example, lets use the above. The group of shitbirds was calling on a rather esteemed publication to fire the professor for denoting 'All lives matter'. The publication is a top flight economics journal, so your point about 'he isnt being fired from his U Chi post' really doesnt fly, as an aside.

If I were an employer of any note, I really wouldnt care what my employees said as private individuals, as long is it did not bring them criminal liability or my business civil liability. Much as would not care whom they voted for. If I heard a white dude telling a fried chicken and watermelon joke on site, I would tell them that that is and should be solely reserved for their own private spaces.

After pondering, I would say that if I heard someone say 'all crackers who disagree with me should be killed' or 'all the mud people should be strung up', then the indication of violent behavior might be a factor to consider a termination.

If you are a proponent of all sorts (or any sort) of arbitrary social/political lines that states the 'viability of working', then there are replete examples of such types of groups, times, and societies that should make you equally as proud: Cultural revolution, China, mid 60s; Soviet Union, 1925 - 1990; The Great Social Credit system of China, present day, courtesy of the shitbirds at Google.

So the answer for the great part is no, I dont support what you propose. And especially so in face of outsiders trying to impose a political and/or social correct 'groupthink'.

A comment of 'all lives matter' should not mean the ouster of someone from a position. Nor would I find a comments of: “For the family of George Floyd, the good police officers who keep us safe, my students, faculty and staff. Praying for peace on this #BlackOutTuesday” as a firing offense.

I will leave it to others to act in the stead of the Maoists, the Stalinists, and the current thuggery of the Chinese state to attach the prerequisite of a goodthink social message to employment. If you want to lean to that side, go for it.