Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

They did make it of their own free will.

"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?

Wait, what?  Some is threating the employers children?

[garbon]

I tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.

I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.

Quite possibly.

My point of view is mostly informed by the dynamics of social media rather than specifics of the transgression.

I don't believe I am in position of significant privilege when it comes to social media.

But that's just it. I think the only way to evaluate is in the specifics of the transgression. And if the transgression is not targeted at one's own identity, it is easier to wave it by as not warranting any reaction.

[Jacob]

But that's just it. I think the only way to evaluate is in the specifics of the transgression. And if the transgression is not targeted at one's own identity, it is easier to wave it by as not warranting any reaction.

Yeah for sure.

Nonetheless, the dynamics by which one transgressor gets subjected to long term consequences while (most) others do not,  often seemingly independently of the seriousness of the transgression, seems arbitrary and problematic to me.

I'll note here that I'm not speaking exclusively about social justice and political related topics but also things like (alleged) animal cruelty, crappy customer and other social behaviour, (alleged) petty crime, road rage, and the like.

That said the main driver of my current ambivalence on the topic is seeing how elements on both sides in the current Israel-Palestinian conflict are attempting (sometimes successfully) to deploy this kind of social media "fuck around and find out" consequence-visiting on their opponents. And since I'm not in a place where I have the moral conviction that "everyone on this side is evil, and everyone on that side stands with truth and justice sufficiently that whatever wrongs they commit are acceptable" I find that the problematic elements of the dynamic stand out much more starkly.

You can posit that that position is informed by privilege, but honestly I think it's more informed by the fact that I don't strongly identify with a side in this particular case and can see the humanity of most of the people involved (and maybe that's a privilege). Normally I do identify with one of the sides (and typically I believe we're on the same side in most things, privilege notwithstanding), and I'm reasonably prone to indulge in "and fuck you, and you... and you deserve what you got you fucker. This is justice being served and it's oh so satisfying", much like many people.

[PJL]

I'm with Jacob on this. The specifics may be different but I'm broadly in the same boat as him.

[Admiral Yi]

"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Otto thinks the scenario you described does not constitute coercion.  None whatsoever.  The fact that you do indicates a massive failure of basic understanding.

[Josquius]

"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Otto thinks the scenario you described does not constitute coercion.  None whatsoever.  The fact that you do indicates a massive failure of basic understanding.

Except where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?

[The Brain]

The position that cancel culture is a good thing is as valid as any other value judgment. If it is limited to situations where people who express views the person strongly disagrees with are cancelled though, then the position isn't really complete.

There are some similarities to criminal justice (similarities, they are not the same) where the conventional view is to prefer fair trials with a requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such a system means that some murderers and active pedophiles will walk. Which is unfortunate, but you don't have such a system to protect murderers and active pedophiles (and other criminals). You have it to protect everyone else.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the richest man in Finland came out against what he considered excessive executions and general poor treatment of the losing Reds. He was cancelled, emigrated and eventually killed himself. I don't view this as positive.

I haven't been cancelled myself, the closest I came was on a forum some years ago where there was a discussion about sexual abuse in the workplace. I said that to me it was unacceptable that an employer covers up sexual abuse in the workplace. This made me "a very bad person" who "should be blocked" and similar. On the plus side I did learn my lesson, I won't speak against sexual abuse in public again. And as I've mentioned before I won't defend  democracy or freedom of speech under my own name in public anymore, because I don't want to get cancelled. Me and people like me shutting up and withdrawing from public discourse may be viewed as a positive or negative, but I think it's a negative.

I have encountered people who have said that people like me should go die. I do not want them to be cancelled for that. I think people daring to voice their opinion is a strength in society, not a weakness. I think attacking opinions is more constructive than attacking people.

[Barrister]

This racist uncle character - maybe he's supporting his wife, and maybe kids.  He's got bills to pay.  Who is it really helping to try and get him fired?  And do you really think it'll make him less racist?  Or maybe even more racist, but just less willing to say something in public.

I don't care if he is racist. It isn't my job to teach people not to be racist. And that's what you appear to be saying with 'You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.' I'm just trying to live my life and it was luck of the draw that I ended up with a skin color that some people choose to go off about.

It isn't like it is hard to know that racism is wrong. That's why many times people will say 'I'm not being racist' and then go on to say something incredibly racist. I would have thought one positive out of the BLM protests was the idea that minorities should not have to bear the burden of educating others but that people can educate themselves.

No, it's not your job to do anything.

But let's go back to the example - someone says they hate black people online, and then anti-racism activists find out where this guy works and pressure the company to fire them.  These activists certainly *do* think it's their job to do something.

I'm saying that demanding a stupid person be fired over saying something stupid online is not effective, does nothing to lessen the presence of racism in the world, and now gets this guy to portray himself as a victim.

[Admiral Yi]

Except where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?

And in none of those cases did anyone point a gun at their head.  They might have eaten a sandwich, but it wasn't reported.

[Josquius]

Except where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?

And in none of those cases did anyone point a gun at their head.  They might have eaten a sandwich, but it wasn't reported.

It's called an analogy.
It often helps to spell out the problem out in simpler and more straight forward terms.
I do note I haven't got an answer on this.

What we did have was a pretty clear threat to a business not from the person employed but from those shouting about them being anti semites.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.

Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.

[Josquius]

The core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.

Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.

Except that's not the factor here.
It's that the business is under attack with the claim that it is employing an anti semite.

Whether the person actually is a raging anti semite or simply someone pro Palestinian who attracted the ire of pro Israel zealots is irrelevant.
The business is best served by erring on the side of caution and just sacking the person rather than attracting the hate of organised well funded zealots itself.

This is entirely intentional in this manner of working. The business has no rational  choice in the matter. It's all very public.
Even if they accept that the person has been misquoted and is in no way an anti semite, it's a problem they cour do without.

Quite a different situation to a business owner themselves finding an employee saying something that could be taken as anti semitic without it attracting the attention of campaigners. There they would have an actual choice.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And, what is your remedy? Prohibit businesses from deciding who gets to work for them? Prohibiting private citizens on choosing to publicize things? This is America. We have a first amendment. We have property rights. Our government doesn't decide what we can talk about like they do in Canada or Britain, even if it really bothers specific people.

[Josquius]

And, what is your remedy? Prohibit businesses from deciding who gets to work for them? Prohibiting private citizens on choosing to publicize things? This is America. We have a first amendment. We have property rights. Our government doesn't decide what we can talk about like they do in Canada or Britain, even if it really bothers specific people.

I have no idea what the cure for social media is.

As I've said before I do think China had one thing right in tying real IDs to social media accounts.

There really needs to be decent coverage of this kind of shit highlighting groups that operate in bad faith and fuck with the lives of the undeserving.
That done maybe as social media becomes less and less the wild west maybe businesses can once again be free to make decisions.

Also more employee rights are an obvious requirement. Give them scope to appeal and get compensation if they're the victim of unjust targeted harassment.
This would make employers actually check if the claims are valid or not rather than just taking the easy way out.

[Barrister]

The core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.

Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.

Yes, it is up to the business who they employ.

But most of the time this social media pressure tactics isn't doing anything to actually harm their business.  It's just that day's story on Twitter.  Companies could easily afford to wait it out.

Remember it's not always going to be people you dislike getting fired.