Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

And mine is he has said far worse.

As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.

When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.

Worse than what?  I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.

I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff.  That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.

It was a theoretical of one extreme.
In this case it's a nobody who mentioned a silly conspiracy theory. Maybe once.?. No sign of her being utterly devoted to it. She even claims she misspoke.

My position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.

Maybe I missed part of the story here. They "cancelled" somebody before getting doxed?

Engaging in shitty behaviour then acting shocked when it's done to you would indeed be beautiful but I'm not seeing that?

[OttoVonBismarck]

That sounds worse if it's implied that the $30 million was the whole lot but only a minority's worth (say $10 million's worth) actually got through to be shot down. In which case it's more like 100 to 1.

Well, it could be a worse ratio than implied, yes--but there's a lot to it. Military costing is hilariously complex and I don't know off hand what the source of all these weapons were and how much Israel actually paid for them, and as Grumbler mentions, France and the U.S. shot down some of this stuff, so unclear if their costs were included or etc.

[garbon]

My position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media.  You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.

I don't see how public profile makes a difference.  The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.

Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?

Because if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.

30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people.  Such views were odious then, and odious today.  But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks.  Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens.  But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired.  And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.

And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older.  When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse.  There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.

Your racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Otto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.

I know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?

Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.

I also take issue even with non-fascistic Islamic theology, but that is also a difference of degree--it should also be noted the rot among the "Palestinians" is both Islamist and secular, as they have ample genocidal and antisemitic intent in both camps of their "cause."

[Barrister]

Your racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.

Why?  Really - what does that even accomplish?

What about Justine Sacco?  She was boarding a flight for South Africa when she tweeted "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!".  She was fired before her plane landed in South Africa.

What did that accomplish?

If some Palestinian activist posts about how the holocaust was a good idea and all Jews need to be killed - does it help anyone to see them fired from their job at Burger King?

[Admiral Yi]

Because if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.

30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people.  Such views were odious then, and odious today.  But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks.  Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens.  But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired.  And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.

And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older.  When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse.  There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.

If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"

Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer.  He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party.  Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?

[garbon]

Your racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.

Why?  Really - what does that even accomplish?

Establishes consequences for saying racist things.

[Barrister]

Otto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.

I know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?

Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.

I also take issue even with non-fascistic Islamic theology, but that is also a difference of degree--it should also be noted the rot among the "Palestinians" is both Islamist and secular, as they have ample genocidal and antisemitic intent in both camps of their "cause."

I am a Christian.  I think the route to salvation lies with Jesus Christ, and I very much disagree with many aspects of Islamic theology.

I also recognize we live in a religiously diverse world.  In the right circumstances I would encourage Muslims to abandon their faith and embrace Christ.  I think it would be highly counter-productive however to say how much I hate Islam.  And I do know many Muslims who are very lovely people.

But since you responded to part of my post, what about the rest?  Would you say the same things if you were posting under your own name?

[Barrister]

If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"

Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer.  He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party.  Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?

I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.

I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.

[garbon]

If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"

Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer.  He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party.  Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?

I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.

I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.

Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?

[Josquius]

If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"

Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer.  He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party.  Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?

I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.

I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.

Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?

Elderly guy who sometimes slips up and says "coloured" vs. Guy your age who goes out of his way to blow dog whistles and spread offensive memes.

It's not that the old guy did nothing wrong. But priorities.
And even if you had all the time in the world do both really warrant the same punishment?

[garbon]

If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"

Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer.  He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party.  Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?

I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.

I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.

Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?

Elderly guy who sometimes slips up and says "coloured" vs. Guy your age who goes out of his way to blow dog whistles and spread offensive memes.

It's not that the old guy did nothing wrong. But priorities.
And even if you had all the time in the world do both really warrant the same punishment?

This seems irrelevant. Try again?

[viper37]

I know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?

Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.

Because Christianity is much better?

No abortions, check.
Homosexuality is a sin, check.
No acceptance for LGBT, check.
Theocracy is an ideal, check.
Atheists should be executed, check.
Blasphemy is a grave sin that should be punished, check.

I don't really see the difference between one zealot and another.

[Admiral Yi]

It was a theoretical of one extreme.
In this case it's a nobody who mentioned a silly conspiracy theory. Maybe once.?. No sign of her being utterly devoted to it. She even claims she misspoke.

Which one is it, a theoretical or an actual case?

I don't know what you mean by "silly" conspiracy theory.  I think they're all silly in that they ignore evidence.  Do you mean harmless?  As in, no possible harm could come from people thinking the Hamas kidnapping was a false flag operation?

If you treat this chick exactly as you would a Holocaust denier who says it maybe once? Showing no signs of being "utterly devoted" to it, then I've got no beef with you.  I suspect your response to that would be different.

Maybe I missed part of the story here. They "cancelled" somebody before getting doxed?

Engaging in shitty behaviour then acting shocked when it's done to you would indeed be beautiful but I'm not seeing that?

I don't know what you're talking about with cancelled before getting doxed.  Theoretical or specific case?

[Admiral Yi]

I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.

I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.

You opened that door counselor when you said people should not be fired.  One of two things follow from that: either we the general public have a duty to continue to buy their goods or services, or the employer has an obligation to eat the loss.