Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[johnny karate]

I don't think that your paradigm entirely applies to higher education, especially at public universities in the U.S. One, a consumer can educate himself or herself before he or she buys something. However, the students are at least partially ignorant of the subject matter; they are not educated consumers, by definition. Two, tuition pays for a fraction of the cost; state governments also pay a portion (these fractions have changed over time). Therefore, the student is not the only consumer. Three, specifically in regard to the Jason Kilborn some of the complaints came from students who were not in his class. If they get a say, then maybe every student at UIC should get a say.

Next you thing you know, people who don't even go to that school will also be allowed to have their say.

From there, anarchy.

 

[EaglePuncher]

specifically in regard to the Jason Kilborn some of the complaints came from students who were not in his class.

How dare these people...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the importance of washing one's hands

I'm still missing the link between demanding someone be fired and them actually getting fired. Anyone can demand someone be fired, but that doesn't mean that demand will manifest itself in reality. The OP in the original thread is a prime example. Someone demanded that Kroger Andy be fired. Kroger Andy wasn't fired.

So again, how does one "get someone fired", as in doing something that will always, 100% of the time, directly lead to someone getting fired?

If you read the original exchange, you will see the context. Eagle Puncher said, "Since no one was banned from applying to another job, 'trying to take away someone else's livelihood' is just another nothingburger." I responded by saying, "If you get someone fired, then you took away their livelihood, and that is on you." My intent was to separate the firing from the obtaining of a different job.

Perhaps my point would have been clearer if I had written, "If you try to get someone fired and they are fired, then you and their employer took away their livelihood, and that is on you." However, the distinction you are raising is debatable. If a person demands that someone be fired, and the employer fires that someone, does the person get to wash his or her hands regarding the consequences to the person who was terminated? I know how I would answer. YMMV.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Fordham lecturer who mixed up names of two students

Alec Schemmel wrote, "The termination of a Fordham University professor reportedly stemmed from his repeated confusion over the names of two students who allegedly said they felt he was mixing up their names because they were Black."

"A former lecturer in the English Department, Christopher Trogan, was terminated by Fordham on Oct. 25 after a series of communications with students that stemmed from an incident where he confused the names of two Black students...She [Pradanya Subramanyan] said she thought Trogan was a “really great professor,” so when she received the email about the name mix-up on Sept. 24 and later learned about his suspension and then termination, she was in disbelief." FordhamObserver

Some aspects of this process would surely have been different if he had tenure.

 

[EaglePuncher]

If you read the original exchange, you will see the context. Eagle Puncher said, "Since no one was banned from applying to another job, 'trying to take away someone else's livelihood' is just another nothingburger." I responded by saying, "If you get someone fired, then you took away their livelihood, and that is on you." My intent was to separate the firing from the obtaining of a different job.

Perhaps my point would have been clearer if I had written, "If you try to get someone fired and they are fired, then you and their employer took away their livelihood, and that is on you." However, the distinction you are raising is debatable. If a person demands that someone be fired, and the employer fires that someone, does the person get to wash his or her hands regarding the consequences to the person who was terminated? I know how I would answer. YMMV.

At this point you are basically repeating yourself for no good reasons at all. You are quite the expert in removing every single shred of responsibility from the professor and putting all the blame on the "cancelers". Really obnoxious.

 

[johnny karate]

If you read the original exchange, you will see the context. Eagle Puncher said, "Since no one was banned from applying to another job, 'trying to take away someone else's livelihood' is just another nothingburger." I responded by saying, "If you get someone fired, then you took away their livelihood, and that is on you." My intent was to separate the firing from the obtaining of a different job.

Perhaps my point would have been clearer if I had written, "If you try to get someone fired and they are fired, then you and their employer took away their livelihood, and that is on you." However, the distinction you are raising is debatable. If a person demands that someone be fired, and the employer fires that someone, does the person get to wash his or her hands regarding the consequences to the person who was terminated? I know how I would answer. YMMV.

Okay, so we agree that there is really no way to "get someone fired" and maybe that phrase should stop being used so casually to make it seem like there is a threat where none exists. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[johnny karate]

Alec Schemmel wrote, "The termination of a Fordham University professor reportedly stemmed from his repeated confusion over the names of two students who allegedly said they felt he was mixing up their names because they were Black."

"A former lecturer in the English Department, Christopher Trogan, was terminated by Fordham on Oct. 25 after a series of communications with students that stemmed from an incident where he confused the names of two Black students...She [Pradanya Subramanyan] said she thought Trogan was a “really great professor,” so when she received the email about the name mix-up on Sept. 24 and later learned about his suspension and then termination, she was in disbelief." FordhamObserver

Some aspects of this process would surely have been different if he had tenure.

From your link:

One of the first-year students who was involved in the name mix-up incident said their experience in Trogan’s class prior to the incident was not great. The student, who asked to remain anonymous due to privacy concerns, told The Observer that Trogan repeatedly got their name incorrect over the course of four classes.

“I felt really disrespected,” they said. “I did not feel heard because every time he (misnamed me) I would tell him, and it just seemed like he would brush it off or that he did not care.”

Does the professor bear responsibility for how what they said made this student feel? Why or why not?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

owning one's actions

Okay, so we agree that there is really no way to "get someone fired" and maybe that phrase should stop being used so casually to make it seem like there is a threat where none exists. Thanks for the clarification.

You didn't answer my question. In addition, no, we do not agree that there is no threat. If students demand that a teacher be fired and then the teacher is fired, then the students own a portion of that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

time to tango

Company A employees Person A. Person A says something I don't like. I stop watching/purchasing Company A's products. Company A decides they would rather have my business so they fire Person A.

What went "wrong" in that process? What should have happened differently? And when I ask that question I mean what changes in the actual sequence of events not yet another mush mouthed troll mumbling about unrelated concepts.

If an individual or a group tries to get someone fired, they should be quite certain that the offense is serious enough to warrant such a penalty, or they are behaving irresponsibly. In addition, claiming a greater degree of offense (I am thoroughly sick and tired of reading about a student's not feeling "safe") is ill-considered.

Having to watch Laurence Olivier and to learn about Verdi from Bright Sheng does not rise to that level of offense. Nor does mixing up someone's name. Regarding the UIC case one student said that she had "heart palpitations." Did she see a doctor? If not, then such language is hyperbolic.

But it does take two to tango, and the UIC administration is an able dance partner. John McWhorter wrote, "The administrators who did this to Kilborn think they are being “allies” of black people. They have actually revealed themselves as neoracists."
EDT
At least the UW-Madison rock was not fired. Yet, the money that was spent to move it had to come from someone, and that money was utterly wasted. In addition, the geology students were negatively effected.

What I would argue for is a bit more intellectual humility from the cancellers; it's been an even tougher sell than I had imagined.

 

[johnny karate]

You didn't answer my question. In addition, no, we do not agree that there is no threat. If students demand that a teacher be fired and then the teacher is fired, then the students own a portion of that.

After reading your subsequent post, it seems you have zero regard for what the students think or feel, and dismiss their concerns out of hand. You don’t seem to care in the slightest.

When you apply judgment and examination to only one side of the issue, the moral posturing rings false. Questions that arise from it can therefore be disregarded.

 

[EaglePuncher]

You didn't answer my question. In addition, no, we do not agree that there is no threat. If students demand that a teacher be fired and then the teacher is fired, then the students own a portion of that.

Sounds an awful lot like "If a criminal is arrested, the victim owns a portion of that" See, it's easy actually: Don't do outlandish **** and no one will call for your firing.

 

[Darat]

If an individual or a group tries to get someone fired, they should be quite certain that the offense is serious enough to warrant such a penalty, or they are behaving irresponsibly.


...snip...

And who is to make that call?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think that your paradigm entirely applies to higher education, especially at public universities in the U.S. One, a consumer can educate himself or herself before he or she buys something. However, the students are at least partially ignorant of the subject matter; they are not educated consumers, by definition. Two, tuition pays for a fraction of the cost; state governments also pay a portion (these fractions have changed over time). Therefore, the student is not the only consumer. Three, specifically in regard to the Jason Kilborn some of the complaints came from students who were not in his class. If they get a say, then maybe every student at UIC should get a say.

Black people couldn't even go to those school 50 years ago and the Right didn't call that "Cancel Culture" and have a big showy handwringing session where they pretended to worry about freedom of speech.

So, and I cannot stress this enough, I don't believe them when they lie about how worried about it they are now.

"Oh that's not the right question" is a very bad way of going "I'm wrong but I either don't want it to matter or don't want to admit it."

 

[Lithrael]

See, it's easy actually: Don't do outlandish **** and no one will call for your firing.

Well to be fair sometimes people will call for your firing for stuff that isn’t that outlandish. The whole thing with Kilborn reads to me like ‘there are professors out there that create hostile environments for nonwhite students, and those professors need to be called to account.’ ‘I think I found one!’ ‘Great! Let’s use up our outrage for genuine injustice on this guy who I heard did three of the things on the racism bingo card!’ But again to be fair the guy has not in fact been fired and the system is still in the middle of figuring out who all actually transgressed or overreacted or what. The students in my view are basically victims of their own overzealousness and in their enthusiasm they have allowed themselves to become polarized against the totally wrong target.

On the other hand the guy ought not to put his foot in the pc mouth by saying stuff like “And I don’t need sensitivity training. I am totally sensitive.”

 

[EaglePuncher]

The students in my view are basically victims of their own overzealousness and in their enthusiasm they have allowed themselves to become polarized against the totally wrong target.

Yeah, **** them, what do they know... Since everyone who speaks out against racism and discrimination is just some overzealous SJW, amirite...Did you get trained by other "conservatives"?

At least you recognized the problem: He was offered to have some training, he refused, made himself look like a fool. Now they will or will not let him go. End of story.

 

[Lithrael]

Since everyone who speaks out against racism and discrimination is just some overzealous SJW, amirite...

Nah, not everyone, but these particular law students in this particular case? Sure looks like it.

ETA: just to say I post about this one cause it’s the exception to the rule kind of thing. Most of these people getting crap for what they said or did actually did or said stuff worth getting crap for. This guy seems more like a regular ol schmo whose words had to be tortured into risibility.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Nah, not everyone, but these particular law students in this particular case? Sure looks like it.

You have received a lot of training by "conservatives".

 

[Lithrael]

Hey even the oppressed can be stupid ******** about things sometimes. Everybody can. It’s built in to humanity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well to be fair sometimes people will call for your firing for stuff that isn’t that outlandish.

"Sometimes people are unreasonable, ergo people being reasonable is a problem to be solved" has never made sense.

If you give people the freedom to do something some of them are going to be stupid about. Again I would like to introduce my friend "All society ever of all time." None of this is new. There's no new thing to slap the label of "Cancel Culture" on outside of the dishonest, ulterior motives we've already discussed to death.

My sister dumped her boyfriend for a stupid reason. That doesn't mean "Breakup Culture" is now a thing that actually exists.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My sister dumped her boyfriend for a stupid reason. That doesn't mean "Breakup Culture" is now a thing that actually exists.

Somehow I think the right wing freaks that insist that cancel culture is a real problem probably have a lot of opinions on how women have unreasonable dating standards.