Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[OttoVonBismarck]

I also think that when it comes to such idiotic decisions, there is a concept in play that's well-familiar to Soviet people.  I don't know it if has a name, but I call it a pyramid of fear.  It's best explained by an example.

Let's say that you're in Soviet Union among a group of friends, and you make some careless political statement.  None of your friends really think that you wish to do any harm to Comrade Stalin, they don't even think you have any wrong thoughts, and none of them wish to do any ill to you under some BS pretext.  However, they also know that what you said can you interpreted as such, and if they don't act on it by reporting what you said to the proper authorities, and someone else does, then now they're going to be facing questions as to why they did nothing when you said such things about Comrade Stalin.  Someone's going to report you, because they expect some other friends to do the same calculus and conclude that someone's going to report you anyway, and they better be the first ones to do so.

The same dynamic plays up the chain.  The friendly neighborhood NKVD officer isn't really a butcher he's portrayed to be, but he has to think about himself.  He knows you didn't mean any harm to Comrade Stalin, but he has the same dynamic going on with his colleagues and his bosses.  If he lets you off with a warning, then someone may have some questions to him as to why he's so lenient with Stalin's enemies.  No need to stick your neck out for someone, just do what is expected of the loyal Soviet citizen, and let fate work out the rest.  Eventually you go to the gulag for your careless comment, and at no point of the process did anyone in the chain who played a part in sending you there believed that you actually did anything wrong or had any wrong thoughts.

What we are ultimately talking about here is the idea that you should mostly be able to say what you want without consequence. The problem is, in a huge number of circumstances that significantly constrains other people's rights.

I open a restaurant in a majority black town, and one of my young waiters is recorded singing a rap song on TikTok that includes a racial slur. The waiter is white, the local community becomes aware of it and wants me to fire the waiter.

I can take a stand for this concept of yours, and now I have to weather the social opprobrium because my inaction will seem to be an endorsement of the waiter. I go out of business and cannot pay the loans I took out to start the business, and suffer personal bankruptcy and lose my home.

Are the people who are so vehemently on the side of "you should never take any action against someone for their speech" going to set me up with a new home and a new livelihood? Some of this is a weird expectation that "societal mores and norms" don't exist, and that society has no interest in promoting them. That just isn't realistic. I don't care what the law or some ethics book says--things that go strongly against a society's norms are going to face backlash from a society, and expecting only certain entities to weather the storm against that but not others seems really selective and political to me.

For example, at least on this forum, I would say the vast majority of the time someone talks "woke" it is a situation like this--a white person (often male), saying something that is offensive to a racial minority, sometimes something so minor it probably shouldn't be a big deal, and then the usual suspects come in to decry it.

It is hard for me to take it seriously as a general paean to free expression when I, someone who has spent my whole life deeply engaged with a church, has seen far more people excoriated for violating conservative religious mores than for racial etiquette missteps. But those sorts of things seem to never become viral news stories or Languish posts. It is difficult for me to believe that is pure happenstance and has no selective political component to it.

I know of few institutions more hostile to divergent opinions or people speaking out against cultural norms than American Christian churches (and I think I say that as one of the few if maybe only practicing Christians on this board), but again that isn't considered cancel culture for some reason...it in fact is frequently (if it is even discussed) defended as "religious liberty." Goes back to the whole "rights for me but not for thee" thing. It is fine to push back on the concept of collective response to a norm violation if that norm violation is targeted against racial or sexual minorities.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW my position is not that we should push against Churches doing the same thing--it's more that I think non-governmental entities should more or less be able to address societal norm violations as they see fit, that means some people will face negative consequences with those non-governmental entities. Aside from very broad and very carefully defined protections about things like discrimination based on membership in a protected class, I broadly don't believe it is a positive good for us to tell non-governmental entities what behaviors they have to tolerate, I think that is best left up to them.

[Berkut]

I think taking any negative action against some kid because he sang a song is idiotic.

I think the school has every right to yank his scholarship for stupid reasons*, but that doesn't make the reason less stupid.

*Of course, it isn't stupid from the schools perspective - they aren't yanking his scholarship because they actually think this is evidence of his lack of moral character, but because it simply isn't worth the inevitable blowback from the uber intolerant crowd that is going to start screaming about how the University of Florida gives scholarships to racists if they don't.

Okay, and my question would be how much do you follow college sports? Football scholarships get yanked all the time over all manner of things--BYU will yank a football scholarship if you're caught with a girl sleeping over in your dorm room (and may even expel you.) Is there a reason you think the song issue is worthy of special focus, or do you want to see scholarships in general not revoked? If so, are you more concerned about a situation like a football player losing a scholarship over a song that a university doesn't want its players singing, or with say, a college expelling a female student for reporting a rape? (Because she was cavorting with a male in private.) Do you think there is a reason you're posting about one and not the other? Which one do you think is more injurious?

I am posting about the one and not the other because that is the current topic of conversation.

And yes, I am aware that scholarships get yanked for all kinds of reasons. Some of them are good reason, and some of them are bad reasons. The fact that they get yanked for lots of different reasons doesn't speak at all to any particular evaluation of any particular case.

If you want to talk about BYU yanking a scholarship because some athlete is caught with some girl in his room, then lets talk about that. If I think that is a good reason to take his offer or a bad reason, doesn't actually impact my views on whether or not yanking it for singing along to a song is a good or bad reason.

If you want to talk about a school expelling a student for reporting a rape, I will certainly have a rather strong opinion about that, and it won't be hard to figure out what that might be. Is that something you feel we should discusss? Bring it up, and I will be happy to say that is fucking stupid.

If you want to talk about the "reasons I am posting about one and not the other", I am not much interested in that discussion. I don't feel like I have to follow a priority list in my posting, with the presumption that anything I post about is an implicit claim that I don't care about anything that ought to be a higher priority. And actually, I think stifling speech is a pretty fucking important topic, personally.

[OttoVonBismarck]

My position is it isn't our job to tell non-governmental entities how to regulate their internal rules governing behavior, whether that be a private company deciding to fire someone over a Tweet or a church choosing to ban a member for the content of a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. The University of Florida actually is a governmental entity, but it is also a school--and we are also talking about a special benefit of that school not something like general admission to the college. For better or worse we have long allowed publicly funded schools to regulate student behavior in ways we would not tolerate in the "general public", for the reason we believe it is important an academic institution have certain decorum and rules. I generally think it is wise to give them broad latitude on that matter.

[Berkut]

FWIW my position is not that we should push against Churches doing the same thing--it's more that I think non-governmental entities should more or less be able to address societal norm violations as they see fit, that means some people will face negative consequences with those non-governmental entities. Aside from very broad and very carefully defined protections about things like discrimination based on membership in a protected class, I broadly don't believe it is a positive good for us to tell non-governmental entities what behaviors they have to tolerate, I think that is best left up to them.

I don't disagree with that.

If I thought the University of Florida yanked his offer because they looked at what he did and honestly said to themselves "This is not behavior that reflects the values of our school" I would have zero issue with that.

But I don't think that is what is happening in these kinds of cases. I think the University of Florida is just looking at this and saying "Yeah, this is definitely not worth the trouble of dealing with the OMG HE IS A RACIST! crowd". 

I could be wrong, of course. But I doubt it, in this case.

I generally agree that the University of Florida can, and indeed should, hold their student athletes to high standards of character, and has (and should have) very broad discretion on how they evaluate and apply those standards.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The athletic director at the University of Florida makes over $1m/year, it is his job to make these determinations, and I do not necessarily agree you understand the issue, or the implications better than he does.

An organization like the UF football team is big money, and a huge capacity for success is the ability to recruit young black men, who make up a disproportionate percentage of all Power 5 football rosters. If something happens that at all suggests a school is less supportive of young black men than other schools, that is going to impact player retention and recruiting. I think this is not actually the culture war woke issue you think it is, I think it is quite literally a football competitiveness issue and I think both the AD and the coach realized that right away. I think it probably sticks in the craw of some people, particularly the whites who watch SEC football, that the cultural mores of young black men have so much sway, but when they are a disproportionate percentage of your top recruits that's basically the way it is. Bear Bryant when he pushed for Alabama's desegregation in the football program didn't do it because he was a Civil Rights icon, he did it because he knew he needed black kids to continue winning football games at the rate expected, that concept still applies in 2022, and probably moreso than in 1970.

[Tonitrus]

I think the bigger problem is, rather than what someone says and whether or not it may be offensive...is that society's immediate reaction is "shun, ostracize, impoverish, punish" instead of "educate, persuade, enlighten". 

[OttoVonBismarck]

By the way, there have been a number of similar issues--Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State for example was seen wearing a One American Network t-shirt, and there was backlash, he quickly folded and apologized and bowed and scraped. Do you think that is because evangelical conservative white multimillionaire Mike Gundy is "woke?" Of course not. It's because he actually works with these Gen Z (mostly minority) kids every day. He knows what actually allows him to continue making many millions of dollars a year, and it isn't OAN pundits, it is his ability to recruit and retain players, and his personal political beliefs to him mean very little compared to that.

College football is so cut throat, that if some minor controversy would affect say, 2% of your ability to recruit minority players, most college football coaches would still opt for getting out of the controversy. I have no idea what the real percentage is, but I suspect while low it isn't 0%, and that's all the coach needs to know--this is something that may have an impact on team competitiveness and that advances no real team interest at all.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the bigger problem is, rather than what someone says and whether or not it may be offensive...is that society's immediate reaction is "shun, ostracize, impoverish, punish" instead of "educate, persuade, enlighten". 

Right, but that's the societal reaction. It goes back to my hypothetical about owning a small business and having a controversial waiter--when these controversies arise you are putting all the risk on single entities to fight against society's norms enforcement, it isn't a reasonable position.

[DGuller]

I think the bigger problem is, rather than what someone says and whether or not it may be offensive...is that society's immediate reaction is "shun, ostracize, impoverish, punish" instead of "educate, persuade, enlighten". 

Or how about "do nothing"?  Pretty much everyone is a shitty human being in some way, it doesn't mean that one shitty part of them warrants the wholesale ostracism.  Just treat it as a mark against them, just like you treat other people who are flawed in some way.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the bigger problem is, rather than what someone says and whether or not it may be offensive...is that society's immediate reaction is "shun, ostracize, impoverish, punish" instead of "educate, persuade, enlighten". 

Or how about "do nothing"?  Pretty much everyone is a shitty human being in some way, it doesn't mean that one shitty part of them warrants the wholesale ostracism.  Just treat it as a mark against them, just like you treat other people who are flawed in some way.

Except doing nothing in regard to someone you are associated with does suggest a tacit level of endorsement. Imagine that you're going to a sporting event with a friend, when you go to pick them up they come out of their house wearing full SS Nazi regalia. Do you just go to the ballgame as planned? Everyone has some point where they are going to choose to disassociate with a person for their personal behaviors or actions.

Or better yet, here are three scenarios where people faced sanction for comments they made, what is your opinion on each and how would you have handled them?

Situation 1: John Rocker and the MLB

In a story published in the December 27, 1999, issue of Sports Illustrated, Rocker made a number of allegations stemming from his experiences in New York City and answering a question about whether he would ever play for the New York Yankees or the New York Mets.

I'd retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-wracking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark looking like you're riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing... The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?[11]

During the interview, he also spoke of his opinion of the New York Mets and their fans:

Nowhere else in the country do people spit at you, throw bottles at you, throw quarters at you, throw batteries at you and say, "Hey, I did your mother last night—she's a whore." I talked about what degenerates they were and they proved me right.

The interview was conducted while driving to a speaking engagement in Atlanta. The reporter, Jeff Pearlman, wrote that during the interview session, Rocker spat on a Georgia State Route 400 toll machine and mocked Asian women. Also, Rocker referred to Curaçaoan teammate Randall Simon as a "fat monkey".[11]

Although Rocker later apologized after speaking with Braves legend and Hall of Famer Hank Aaron and former Atlanta mayor and congressman Andrew Young, he continued to make controversial remarks.[12] For his comments, Commissioner Bud Selig suspended Rocker without pay for the remainder of spring training and the first 28 games of the 2000 season,[13] which on appeal was reduced to 14 games (without a spring-training suspension).

Situation 2: Adam Orth pushed out of Microsoft for criticizing people who live in areas without consistent internet coverage:
https://www.n
bcnews.com/tech/tech-news/adam-orth-leaves-microsoft-after-telling-xbox-always-online-critics-flna1C9309284

Situation 3: Cincinnati Reds broadcaster Thom Brennaman fired for on air use of slur:

Unaware he was back on the air, he was caught on hot mic saying, "one of the f*g capitals of the world" during the seventh inning in the first game against Kansas City.

Brennaman later apologised for his comments while still on the air and said he was "deeply ashamed."

The Reds took Brennaman off the broadcast in the fifth inning of the second game as news of the incident filtered through social media.

While he was still on air Brennaman apologised and said: "I made a comment earlier tonight that I guess went over the air that I am deeply ashamed of."

[garbon]

I think the bigger problem is, rather than what someone says and whether or not it may be offensive...is that society's immediate reaction is "shun, ostracize, impoverish, punish" instead of "educate, persuade, enlighten". 

What would educate look like in this situation?

[Darth Wagtaros]

Here is an example of problematic woke culture:

https://www.ktvh.com/news/national/high-school-football-player-loses-scholarship-offer-after-singing-rap-song-with-racial-slur

High school QB says The Most Forbidden Word, and has his scholarship offer revoked.

Context of him saying said word? He recorded himself singing along to a rap song where The Word That Must Not Be Uttered Under Any Circumstances By White People was in the lyrics.

Now he has responded appropriately - he has apologized for such gross insensitivity and agreed that he definitely deserved to have his scholarship pulled, so I imagine he will get another scholarship offer somewhere else and will be just fine.

But this is just more grist for the "OMG TEH CANCEL CULTURE IS OUT OF CONTROL!" mill.

Ridiculous.

As to your grist point, I have long felt all of this was orchestrated as part of the outrage porn industry.

[garbon]

Moral outrage isn't new. What's changed is the focus and power dynamics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There isn't a huge problem with the concept of society collectively deciding what it is okay with, that can mean things happen where someone maybe gets fired for saying stuff that is considered inappropriate. It can also mean that society shifts to where someone doesn't get fired for saying those same things. The line does move and it should, and the discussion is part of how it moves.

What I don't get is the presentation that it is exclusively a left problem, and a "fundamental rights problem", that feels like a very manufactured narrative by forces trying to create a specific political result, not any kind of principled or high-minded thing.