The fact that there wasn't even a need to get specific to refute part of your reasoning isn't 'muddying the waters'.
The part I cut out because it wasn't my place to address it? Yeah, and? You want me to answer for someone else about what they think about FIRE?
Except it was not cut out. It was in the first sentence. Get better at quoting. And writing. And arguing.
No, just like I'll not demand you answer for your compatriot, Warp12.
Uh huh, my fellow traveler. A pathetic smear job. I will say one thing in Warp12's favor: He has been one of the few people on this forum who has apologized for mischaracterizing something I said. It rendered me temporarily aphasic.
Naw, again you think you get to dictate the shape of the discussion to conform to one most amenable to you. There is zero reason to articulate one's own principle to find holes in the soundness of someone else's.
It is saying something that you think this is somehow "amenable" to me. We have two examples side by side:
[Carano's] contract wasn’t renewed because she made her risk-reward ratio too high for Disney’s tolerance on their bottom line and posed a risk to the success of one of their most popular shows.
The tweet is merely how she adjusted her risk to the franchise.
When it comes to Hamline University, the administration chooses not to renew an adjunct's contract (probably) because enrollment increasingly depends on recruiting from a student population that includes many more Muslims.
And if you had bothered to read and understand the thread, you'd see that the very post you entered back into the discussion on was showing how the many of the proponents of cancel culture being a major issue fail to apply their principles evenly. There is no contradiction to being against cancel culture being a major problem and also against some actions that fit the criteria of cancellation. This is the same as not believing in Christian sin but agreeing that murder is bad.
One of the main reasons I bothered to respond at all was to demonstrate that this "free speech warrior" readily condemns the actions of Harvard, and has done so consistently for many years. My goodness, you're like a cannibal trying to someone's table manners. What else did I write: "Right-wingers opportunistically use [cancel culture] as a cudgel, trying to claim the mantle of "warriors for free speech."
We need a left opposition to cancel culture because it's the sort of behavior that comes more naturally to the right. They're ideologically/procedurally more inclined to approve of non-state actors cooperatively shunning; they're temperamentally more inclined to support punitive punishment. Until relatively recently, these ideas have had little purchase on the left, but here you are trying desperately to lump me in with Warp12.
Congratulations on reaching the philosophical level of like page 4 of the first thread. What system of morality do you propose that work better than the freedom of association and freedom of speech being broadly acceptable?
Never mind that I opened by saying I would "restate old ideas." Also, one does not need a "system of morality"; we need a principled way of adjudicating these matters. I've discussed this many times in the thread: Fostering a culture of free expression by separating a person's work from their political views. Gina Carano is unqualified to work for a public health department. I have never watched her former television show, but she generally received critical and popular praise. Kaepernick expressed his views on the field -- before the game, while others are expressing
their political views. Any "distraction" this causes, not unlike, say, having one Black player on an all-white team or in an all-white league, should be trumped by a commitment to free expression, which, if it were to broadly take hold, would reduce social friction.
Popular opinions change, and so do people. Eich opposed same-sex marriage when it was not only a majority view, but a view shared by leading Democrats. While opposing same-sex marriage has always been wrong, most people are not political philosophers and we should give them a wide berth to make mistakes (as they do with religious beliefs). This is something you should acutely understand, what with being so sloppy and unreasonable -- but it's something you don't (because you're sloppy and unreasonable). Even highly educated people know what to make of the metaphysics of gender, so we should allow more grace for new norms.
Punishment should be proportionate to the offense. A related problem with mob "justice" is that similar cases do not have similar outcomes.
Intent matters. A language professor using filler words that sound like a racial slur, or a political science professor reading a letter from Martin Luther King Jr. (which includes a racial slur).
That said, the reason you failed to even attempt to deal with the analogies and general examples in my post was that it shows some of the holes in the 'cancellation is real, wrong, and a major problem'.
...
It's kind of scary how reliable this specific insulting handwave of yours is at identifying the best attacks on your argument.
It's a good illustration that you're going to keep dancing around with pseudo-intellectual pronouncements. If the actions that meet the criteria for 'cancel culture' are indeed wrong in as broad a way as the critics of 'cancel culture' have presented (and you indicate), then trying to get a professional fired for unprofessional conduct directly related to their field (like arguing racial superiority without new evidence or any other disproven and actively harmful idea) would be wrong. This is distinct from those who say the actions described as cancellation are either acceptable or unacceptable depending on the facts of the case. They would say a History professor teaching that the Nazis were actually socialists and leftists should be corrected and if that information is refused, fired.
Of course there are more nuanced stances, but those are all either gaslighting or playing shell games apparently.[/QUOTE]
Eye-rolling stuff. "hey, you can rest assured that the History and Sociology professors won't blame the anti-cancel culture alliance when they get cancelled for teaching that racism is in fact correct..."
This is like a child who instead of saying "beard" says "bwead." And now you're reduced to shoddy Nazi comparisons. As I've said for years (and in this post), there's a distinction made between recent norms and long-standing norms. In academia, this issue is complicated by a fading commitment to tenure, but in the real world, it almost never comes up. Which is not to say racism does not come up. I asked a dean what was the most complain he received and he said it was racism. How do you investigate that? In an exhausted tone, he says "I ask the student what the professor said or did that was racist."
"Handwaving" "evidence" like we know Lauren "I failed the GED three times" Boebert wants trans people to be murdered in mass shootings because of what Tim Pool said on Twitter and two plus two equals cheese fries. Then there are the Bernie Shaw style questions like whether I'd favor an irrevocable death penalty if someone brutally raped and murdered my wife.
