Re: Market mechanisms for Carano vs. a university professor
Once again, everyone agrees that all cases "should be judged by their merits." The substance of the issue is what is considered relevant. The go-to argument, such as it is, usually boils down to freedom of association and freedom of speech. Suppose a university withdraws an admission offer to a student upon learning she tweeted racist things when she was 13. The rapid-fire defense is the same as if she were denied an acting role: the employer has that right. It's something seen consistently through this thread (recently see "constitutionally-protected right." It's built-on quicksand.
Damn, thanks for the lesson on how to say jack **** professor. Super enlightening.
Yes, the ideas of freedom of speech and association, along with employer rights, are used to justify the actions taken. Instead of dealing with the ideas, the hows and whys they do that, you just call it quicksand.
It's just an assertion. A long ass and dumb assertion. You might as well say 'they always justify putting people in prison with saying they broke the law'. It says nothing one way or the other about anything and it leaves figuring out if that was just or not on the individual merits of the case.
This is why you have to be told that over and over. Again, your failure to deal with these issues isn't a problem with anyone else's argument.
Here's the bait...
And here's the switch...
This also speaks to a more general problem of how politics becomes a lifestyle and lifestyles become political. Vacant-eyed people find meaning in their life by litigating a narcissistic culture war.
Weak insults aren't an argument. People are actually impacted by these politics you know, including life and death. You know people have real problems right? These things aren't abstractions that change only when you can afford to redo the kitchen. Only narcissists care about the 'culture war' of *checks notes* the entirety of politics.
All those 'vacant-eyed' people you're looking down on might have damn good reason for holding it against other people when they try to do things like take away their healthcare or remove our family from public life for being trans or gay, or refuse to follow basic precautions during a pandemic. Some of us are trying to keep cancer patients ******* alive, but as long as the people mocking masks can say it's a political question, you argue we should separate that from the person. You'll dismiss this as a cheap emotional argument while looking down on people who have to actually worry about the 'culture wars' removing our support, but it's legitimate to hold people's actions against them when the impact is anything but abstract.
You have worse rationalizations than Warp12 did, and that's saying something.
And what is this willful ignorance?
It isn't worth going back with the quote function yet again. If you didn't care to learn the first three times, it isn't worth repeating to the old men whose ego won't allow them to be wrong.
Manichaeism in all its glory.
Oh no, I forgot how above tactics and strategy the intellectual elite of the self-proclaimed experts on arguing are. Those considerations are for the vacant eyed.
There is no point replacing moldy drywall without first fixing the leaking roof, let alone dealing with the person up there with a drill putting holes in. Your handwave is again pathetic, and dodges dealing with any of the problems of trying to address what you claim is a problem.
Re: Considerations when evaluating cases, such as norms, proportionality, and intent:
Then I strongly suggest you dislodge your skull from your butthole. Or from Johnny's butthole. Or smartcooky's butthole.
I strongly suggest you stop pretending to yourself that you're any good at arguing here when this is the detritus you chum the water with.
Unfortunately, this is a pretty example of how not to argue. It's as if you're speaking a stroke -- just a stream-of-consciousness mess. It's unclear to me what you're struggling to say.
Your refusal to deal with the graciously repeatedly restated examples and reasoning isn't hidden by those wavings hands Cain. Wave all you want, pretend this pretty example of what you consider cancel culture can be not just justified but useful is not understandable, but it's not fooling anyone who isn't already inclined to be fooled.
Yes. And can you see how this is a meaningless question? You're such a complete waste of my time.
Oh the question is meaningless? Sure, seems like it's all meaningless if you don't feel threatened by it. But let's add back in that threat you see; how is calling out people doing that ok to do here but 'vacant eyed people following a narcissistic culture war' above? Oh, it's narcissistic culture war above because above it was for things that might impact your life, isn't it? Call out people yes, unless it's something 'political', or it's a professor, or it's an actress, or, or, or...
You waste your own time with all the rationalization and hand waving. It's easier to think than to avoid thinking, but here you are, still going with your assertions instead.
