• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

JoeMorgue said:
And yet we won't hear a peep from the usual suspects.

Funny... that.

(Oh and don't bother pretending you care after someone else brings it up)
Click to expand...

Oh, what you will hear is that public funding for stadiums is not worth it. On the whole, that's a fair complaint, but that's not what the problem is here. He is doing it completely in a retalitory manner for their public comments.
 
Again when "people having opinions" and "social pressure" actually becomes.... wait for it... wait for.... CANCEL CULTURE is the undefined variable.
 
d4m10n said:
It was an incredibly popular show, arguably the best in the Gimlet lineup.

https://www.inverse.com/article/530...ust-listens-that-lured-in-a-200-million-offer

**** all those fans though, social justice has prevailed.
Click to expand...

I guess they should have done a better job at not having a toxic work environment. There are consequences in life, and most adults understand that .

Usually, the best strategy is to just not be a ****** person instead of complaining how unfairly you were treated for being a ****** person.
 
johnny karate said:
I guess they should have done a better job at not having a toxic work environment. There are consequences in life, and most adults understand that .

Usually, the best strategy is to just not be a ****** person instead of complaining how unfairly you were treated for being a ****** person.
Click to expand...

Wait, don't you understand that if someone is popular they get to be a ****** person with absolutely no repercussions?

/s
 
d4m10n said:
It was an incredibly popular show, arguably the best in the Gimlet lineup.

https://www.inverse.com/article/530...ust-listens-that-lured-in-a-200-million-offer

**** all those fans though, social justice has prevailed.
Click to expand...

**** all those fans, who are undoubtedly a significant portion of the public unhappy to learn about the company's unsavory workplace practices. Or you assuming that the "cancel culture" mobs are some purely external force, raiding from flashpoint to flashpoint?

Someone not trying to fit a round peg through the square "cancel culture" hole might recognize this as a popular show alienating its audience after their bad practices are made public, rather than a raid by a tribe of barbarian woke scolds that suddenly appeared over the horizon.
 
Last edited:
I wish someone would cancel this stupid hill someone is still determined to die trying to defend.
 
Unlike SuburbanTurkey, I actually read the article they linked to in such a gloating manner (I suspect they read nothing more than the url.). The key paragraph is the second last.


Since day one, FIRE has advocated for Shapiro’s right to free expression at Georgetown. We wrote to Georgetown arguing that because the university promises faculty members free expression, it cannot investigate or punish them for exercising that right. By investigating Shapiro for four months and then clearing him not due to the university’s free expression commitments, but due to a technicality — and suggesting the tweets could have been actionable had Shapiro already been in the school’s employ, and that future similar tweets will be actionable — Georgetown has proven it is not committed to protecting free expression for students or faculty. This has certainly caused a chilling effect, and members of the Georgetown community will surely think twice before expressing a viewpoint with which others may disagree.
Click to expand...


https://www.thefire.org/ilya-shapir...tement-after-122-day-investigation-of-tweets/



Cancel Culture is a myth, it covers up the reality of Censorship Culture...
 
The real scandal with Ilya is whoever was dumb enough to hire him in the first place. We're far enough down this "cancelled free-speech martyr" road that institutions should be able to clock these grandstanding idiots a mile away. Whoever responsible for extending a job offer to Ilya Shapiro should be having their job performance scrutinized.

An important part of any academia hiring process should be trying to sort out whether a candidate is seeking out sober academic work, or if they're just looking for a grandstanding opportunity to become a right wing media darling for standing up the woke liberal hivemind.

Shapiro is on Tucker Carlson whining about the "diversicrats". Truly a grave loss of a serious academic. The student body is surely worse off not being able to get lectures from someone who sounds like the comment section of the worst right wing rags come to life.
 
Last edited:
From the NY Intelligencer...


Everybody supports freedom of speech for ideas they agree with. The concept only has meaning if it’s applied to ideas you don’t agree with.

I don’t agree with the idea conservative lawyer Ilya Shapiro expressed in January, when he objected to President Biden’s promise to appoint a Black woman to the first Supreme Court opening. (I wrote a column attacking his position.) But rather than simply refute his easily refutable arguments, Shapiro’s critics demanded he be fired by Georgetown, which had just hired him to teach at its law center. Georgetown agreed on principle with the demand that he could be fired for his opinions but kept him on staff on a technicality.

Shapiro is quitting his position on the grounds that Georgetown refuses to grant his opinions the same protection afforded to people with progressive points of view, and I have to admit he appears to be correct about that.
Click to expand...


https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...aw-affirmative-action-lesser-black-woman.html
 
Georgetown's two standards

Ilya Shapiro's letter was posted at FIRE.

"Third, under the reasoning of the IDEAA Report, none of this objective textual analysis even matters. As the report put it, “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate or show hostility or aversion to individuals based on a protected status. Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.” According to this theory, the mere fact that many people were offended, or claimed to be, is enough for me to have violated the policies under which I was being investigated...In 2018, Georgetown protected this tweet from Professor Carol Christine Fair during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process: “Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.” When Prof. Fair advocated mass murder and castration based on race and gender, Georgetown did not initiate an investigation, but instead invoked Georgetown’s free-expression policy."

One, Georgetown was...grossly inconsistent...in its treatments of the tweets. Two, neither Shapiro nor anyone else could function under these terms. Scott Greenfield observed, "Having already been demonized beyond repair, the ironically subconstitutional notion that any future offense would be determined based not on what was objectively said or intended, but on whether anyone claimed to be offended, harmed or traumatized by it, made his demise essentially inevitable."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Ilya Shapiro's letter was posted at FIRE.

"Third, under the reasoning of the IDEAA Report, none of this objective textual analysis even matters. As the report put it, “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate or show hostility or aversion to individuals based on a protected status. Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.” According to this theory, the mere fact that many people were offended, or claimed to be, is enough for me to have violated the policies under which I was being investigated...In 2018, Georgetown protected this tweet from Professor Carol Christine Fair during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process: “Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.” When Prof. Fair advocated mass murder and castration based on race and gender, Georgetown did not initiate an investigation, but instead invoked Georgetown’s free-expression policy."

One, Georgetown was...grossly inconsistent...in its treatments of the tweets. Two, neither Shapiro nor anyone else could function under these terms. Scott Greenfield observed, "Having already been demonized beyond repair, the ironically subconstitutional notion that any future offense would be determined based not on what was objectively said or intended, but on whether anyone claimed to be offended, harmed or traumatized by it, made his demise essentially inevitable."
Click to expand...
Yet the rest of the faculty does, so I really don't think your 2) passes the sniff test.
 
What actually happened

Darat said:
Yeah these snowflakes - thinking they shouldn't be criticised.
Click to expand...
The tweets predated Mr. Shapiro's appointment at Georgetown. Mr. Shapiro acknowledged that the tweets were poorly worded and deleted them. Other people kept the tweets alive. Mr. Shapiro never said that he should not be criticized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom