Cancel culture IRL

[rockysmith76]

So?

Nowadays, that employee would be able to go to social media and tell everyone that they got fired for supporting the impeachment of Nixon. And if people think that is a bad idea, they can let the company know.

I fail to see the concern?

Because it can be easily twisted and therefore shows the evil of cancel culture, which, you clearly embrace. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I want workplace protections for someone holding up an "Impeach Nixon" sign (or an "Impeach Obama" sign, for that matter), but you're right that racism along the lines of "White Lives Matter More" can reasonably be construed as job-related.

What do you think a job is? To me it it is merely a mutual agreement and should be severable by either party.

What attribute does a job possess such that this grounds for severing a no longer mutual arrangement should exist?

 

[d4m10n]

Yep your kids teacher's white supremacist podcast is no business of yours.

I can never tell if your examples are made up or not.

I mean what does it matter if the teacher actually believes in the holocaust or not?

Yours as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can never tell if your examples are made up or not.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Not made up all are real.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-removes-teacher-who-hosted-white-nationalist-podcast-n853096

Now is her losing her job cancel culture or not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's what the racist daughter of the restaurant was spreading, among other things. Seems that she was (and remains?) quite the vile racist. Not just your everyday racism, but Nazi-boosting, racial slur spewing, advanced racism.

And she got fired for it.

Can you explain how it makes sense for the company that fired her to face censure because of what she did several years ago, when she didn't work there?

 

[Emily's Cat]

********.

How can you know that for someone who is a racist, that their racism will not have anything to do with their job?

See my example of the woman in Tennessee screaming "White Lives Matter More" as a counter protest to BLM. She was it appears a receptionists at an eye doctor.

Would you assume that if a black person came into their clinic, that they would be treated the same as a white person? I don't think you can make that assumption.

If I am an employer and I find out through an off-duty activity that an employee is a racist and I don't want to risk having a discrimination incident, I'm getting rid of that person.

Seriously, would Ricky claim that it doesn't matter if someone is a member of the KKK if they only wear their KKK robes on weekends?

Let's put this in a different light.

If you find out that a receptionist is a strong atheist with very definite anti-christian views, do you think it's reasonable to assume that they would treat someone coming in wearing a clearly visible cross around their necks the same as anyone else?

Would you assume that Craig4 would be able to treat a person decently at work if he knew they were a Republican?

I'm inclined to think that most people are able to separate their personal views from their work comportment on a pretty regular basis. All of us need to be able to do so in order to function in society. I've worked with people who held views I was extremely opposed to, and I've worked with people who were extremely opposed to my views. Most of the time, we're able to compartmentalize.

 

[d4m10n]

Now is her losing her job cancel culture or not?

Sure, why not? As I said earlier, not all cancellations are unwarranted.

ETA: Wouldn't fit Gervais' definition, though, since seeing some of your students as undesirable out-group members seems fairly job-relevant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which is why it is so important for employers to screen against hiring people who have outed themselves. Like, Ex-cons, for example.
How could they possibly know that a history of theft, lies, or assault will not affect a potential hires performance?

Mmm, good point. Might also want to make sure they didn't read any Ayn Rand or Karl Marx in high school either.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And she got fired for it.

Can you explain how it makes sense for the company that fired her to face censure because of what she did several years ago, when she didn't work there?

A quote from the poor misunderstood youth.

”Top 3 races you wish to eliminate. Ready, go! Jews, blacks, and the fats.”

I guess people aren't so quick to forgive and forget when you dabble in a wee bit of exterminationist rhetoric. Color me shocked.

Like so many of these panicked stories of cancel culture run amok, this is another one that is so fresh you can't see how it's going to shake out.

Is there any indication that this current unpopularity in the neighborhood will last forever? Every story indicates that the store owner is taking measures to try to salvage his reputation in the neighborhood and is working with local community leaders to try to repair the damage done.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Who's saying she isn't? It's hard for me to see why it should matter that she was formerly a sex worker.

That's definitely cancel culture.

So is the case of Bret Weinstein. And Judge Aaron Persky. And... need I say it again... Nick Sandmann.

Some people in this thread keep going back to racists as if those are the only people ever involved. They seem to willfully dismiss any cases provided that do NOT include racists, even though there have been several brought up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A quote from the poor misunderstood youth.

Jesus! Nobody said the youth was misunderstood! Nobody has argued that she should not have been fired! This is a strawman, and completely irrelevant to the question being asked!

I guess people aren't so quick to forgive and forget when you dabble in a wee bit of exterminationist rhetoric. Color me shocked.

Like so many of these panicked stories of cancel culture run amok, this is another one that is so fresh you can't see how it's going to shake out.

Again, nobody is asking for HER to be forgiven! Can you not read?

Is there any indication that this current unpopularity in the neighborhood will last forever? Every story indicates that the store owner is taking measures to try to salvage his reputation in the neighborhood and is working with local community leaders to try to repair the damage done.

Why should HIS reputation have been damaged in the first place? Why shouldn't him firing her have been sufficient?

 

[pgwenthold]

Let's put this in a different light.

If you find out that a receptionist is a strong atheist with very definite anti-christian views, do you think it's reasonable to assume that they would treat someone coming in wearing a clearly visible cross around their necks the same as anyone else?

You don't know, but then again, society has determined that religion is a protected class.

Then again, as I responded above, even if that happened, the fired person would have the ability to publicize the fact that they were fired for being an atheist. Granted, most people in america wouldn't care (and that's the benefit of having a protected class), but it would mean something to those who oppose such things.

You are welcome to advocate for laws to protect racists. I disagree. I have no problem laws that protect people based on religious beliefs. Apparently, enough people agree with me that it is already the law.

So to summarize:
I have no problem with laws that protect religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but I do not agree with laws that protect racist beliefs.

Where is the conundrum here?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Why should HIS reputation have been damaged in the first place? Why shouldn't him firing her have been sufficient?

It's a small business. I suppose customers get to make up their own minds. Nobody can "fire" this guy, but you can't make people shop somewhere if they don't want to.

Boycott organizers are now claiming that the grocery store engages in systematic racism, such as paying employees differently based on race and treating Somali customers worse, such as following them around the store like they were thieves.

The way the reporting goes, the daughter's extreme racist comments was just an opening of the dam for people to come forward with their stories of mistreatment at the store. In this context, the efforts taken by the owner to address systematic racism in the store, beyond just firing the genocidal daughter, makes a lot more sense.


https://sahanjournal.com/news/as-holy-land-grocery-attempts-to-mend-relationship-with-community-former-employees-speak-out/

Again, the issue is fresh. If a year from now, the store is still open and this episode is just an expensive and painful memory, would you consider it an example of cancel culture gone too far?

 

[Distracted1]

Let's put this in a different light.

If you find out that a receptionist is a strong atheist with very definite anti-christian views, do you think it's reasonable to assume that they would treat someone coming in wearing a clearly visible cross around their necks the same as anyone else?

Would you assume that Craig4 would be able to treat a person decently at work if he knew they were a Republican?

I'm inclined to think that most people are able to separate their personal views from their work comportment on a pretty regular basis. All of us need to be able to do so in order to function in society. I've worked with people who held views I was extremely opposed to, and I've worked with people who were extremely opposed to my views. Most of the time, we're able to compartmentalize.

If that were not the case, commerce would have come to a halt long since.

Or should I assume that whenever I dine at a restaurant that employs people of color they are corrupting my food in order to punish me for my white privilege?

I probably ought to start making sure that any service companies that wish to send workers to my home are only sending white ones.

Forget about a black teacher or nurse. No way I can trust them to have my best interests at heart.

 

[Elagabalus]

Jesus! Nobody said the youth was misunderstood! Nobody has argued that she should not have been fired! This is a strawman, and completely irrelevant to the question being asked!


Again, nobody is asking for HER to be forgiven! Can you not read?



Why should HIS reputation have been damaged in the first place? Why shouldn't him firing her have been sufficient?

Because she's his daughter? The apple not falling far from the tree and all that ...

 

[Cain]

So?

Nowadays, that employee would be able to go to social media and tell everyone that they got fired for supporting the impeachment of Nixon. And if people think that is a bad idea, they can let the company know.

I fail to see the concern?

That's obnoxious and oppressive. My remedy is putting myself out there to the public? Cancel culture and victimhood culture suck to the extent they're offshoots of camera-sponge culture. If I'm holding up a sign about impeaching whomever, it's not about me. It's about the rat-bastard politician. You put this in the Twittersphere, then the psychos who support the employer will start digging into other things about the employee's past.

I'd rather not live in the sort of world where GoFundMe is our biggest health-care provider. Social media is a tyranny of the gregarious.

 

[pgwenthold]

That's obnoxious and oppressive. My remedy is putting myself out there to the public? Cancel culture and victimhood culture suck to the extent they're offshoots of camera-sponge culture. If I'm holding up a sign about impeaching whomever, it's not about me. It's about the rat-bastard politician. You put this in the Twittersphere, then the psychos who support the employer will start digging into other things about the employee's past.

I'd rather not live in the sort of world where GoFundMe is our biggest health-care provider. Social media is a tyranny of the gregarious.

But given the example, social media is not tyranny, it's the equalizer.

You know all that "the way to counter free speech is with more free speech" stuff? That's what's available now. In the past, the person that lost their job could write a letter to the editor. Now the can be heard worldwide.

I have no idea what your health-care provider comment is about. I agree, but the solution is not to restrict jobs, it's to provide options, such as government providers.

 

[Distracted1]

Back in the 70s, a man was watching television one night and saw an employee holding up an "Impeach Nixon" sign. The man was a Nixon fan, so he fired the employee the next morning.

There was a study some years ago (pre-Trump) showing that liberals were more likely to block conservative friends on Facebook for political content than vice-versa. Conservatives praised the research because it seemed to demonstrate that they were more tolerant. However, if liberals were blocking conservatives for racist comments (like calling Obama a monkey), then it could just prove that conservatives tend to be more intolerable.

I want workplace protections for someone holding up an "Impeach Nixon" sign (or an "Impeach Obama" sign, for that matter), but you're right that racism along the lines of "White Lives Matter More" can reasonably be construed as job-related.

Racism in America could be treated like gambling in baseball. You don't do it. Or at least you don't get caught. Baseball players can argue that there are arguably worse things such as PEDs and electronic sign stealing, but... at this point, all of the players should know not to bet on baseball. It almost destroyed the sport. These other types of cheating are newer, people need time to adjust as we muddle through. The same goes for controversial topics like biological differences between the sexes, trans issues, and so on, but when it comes to racism, you should know better.

This goes for undsiguised racism. It does not apply to the UCLA professor put on leave because he read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (which includes a racial slur). Or to comics working out material in a club.

Bringing things back around again, what are we going to do with the racist receptionist? Do we follow her to future employers? Is she going to be unemployed indefinitely, in which case she's subsidized by taxpayers?

https://www.vondranlegal.com/can-calling-someone-a-racist-be-the-basis-of-a-defamation-claim

From link:

3. Characterizing someone as racist is a nonactionable opinion as a matter of law Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false.

This principle was reaffirmed just months ago in another defamation case where a minor plaintiff sued the press over alleged implications of racism arising out of his perceived support for President Trump. In McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd., plaintiff and his parents sued Newsweek over a report titled “Trump's MiniMes,” alleging in part that the report implied plaintiff “supported or defended racism.” 2019 WL 1078355, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-1545 (3d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019).

The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the report did not reasonably convey any implication of racism – and that even if it did, “labeling someone a racist without more, though undoubtedly uncomplimentary, is non-actionable opinion.”

Here, Sandmann frames a portion of his defamation claim, Statement 42, around a guest column posted on CNN's website and clearly labeled “commentary” and “opinion,” about “the racist disrespect of Nathan Phillips, a Native American elder, by Nick Sandmann and his MAGA-hat clad classmates of Covington Catholic High School.” Compl. ¶ 207(c).

As the precedent reflects, Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

end quote.

Since claims of racism are un-falsifiable the tag must follow her forever. It has no meaning, apparently, or one so mutable as to be meaningless- ergo she cannot ever rid herself of it.

Like having the "cooties"- it is serious and fatal, and the accusation is what gives it to one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's definitely cancel culture.

Then as people have pointed out there is nothing new about it and it should not be treated as if it were some radical new thing. It is just the targets being changing with the times. So why treating it as a huge new problem that it is hitting racists?

 

[Cain]

But given the example, social media is not tyranny, it's the equalizer.

You know all that "the way to counter free speech is with more free speech" stuff? That's what's available now. In the past, the person that lost their job could write a letter to the editor. Now the can be heard worldwide.

That is not an intelligent way to govern a society. It's exhausting. The alternative is not necessarily a letter-to-the-editor or calling upon a Twitter mob. A democratically representative government can secure workplace protections. Employees have rights against capricious abuses of power, even in the private sector (sorry, Bob).

Also, you're not using speech to counter-speech. You're largely using speech to stifle speech. The expression you're drawing upon is mostly intended toward resolving ideas, not a particular individual's employment grievance.