Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[DGuller]

That's because being fired for being gay and being fired for being a vocal racist homophobe are not the same thing. Just like Nazis wanting to kill Jews and Jews wanting to live are not two sides of a political debate.

No, they're not the same thing.  The point is that neither cancellation nor firing have due process or inherent moral compass, so promoting such tools of social justice is problematic.  Just because these tools today are used against people you think are deserving doesn't mean that they can't be used against other kinds of people just as effectively.

[Sheilbh]

Although again that just goes to US employment law.

In Europe firing people does have due process. It can only be done for breach of contract (or as part of a formal redundancy process), there's various courts and tribunals you can appeal to.

In the UK the courts have ruled on some "cancellations", so it was found that a woman's "gender-critical views" were a protected political or philosophical belief. She can't go around misgendering people and has to follow her employer's polices (which are part of her contract) and the rights of trans people receiving a service from her are also protected by discrimination law so she can't treat trans people any differently than anyone else in a work context, but she cannot be fired for her views or her bad tweets or whatever else. At least unless equalities legislation is changed.

As ever the real route to social justice and moral compasses is more labour rights and power to the unions

[garbon]

That's because being fired for being gay and being fired for being a vocal racist homophobe are not the same thing. Just like Nazis wanting to kill Jews and Jews wanting to live are not two sides of a political debate.

No, they're not the same thing.  The point is that neither cancellation nor firing have due process or inherent moral compass, so promoting such tools of social justice is problematic.  Just because these tools today are used against people you think are deserving doesn't mean that they can't be used against other kinds of people just as effectively.

I'm unclear on the connection. In the absence of getting rid of problematic values, if society takes a regressive streak, they wouldn't then move to discriminate against minorities like they had in the past? After all, they clearly had the tools to discriminate in the past as evidenced by the facting that they were discriminating.

[DGuller]

That's because being fired for being gay and being fired for being a vocal racist homophobe are not the same thing. Just like Nazis wanting to kill Jews and Jews wanting to live are not two sides of a political debate.

No, they're not the same thing.  The point is that neither cancellation nor firing have due process or inherent moral compass, so promoting such tools of social justice is problematic.  Just because these tools today are used against people you think are deserving doesn't mean that they can't be used against other kinds of people just as effectively.

I'm unclear on the connection. In the absence of getting rid of problematic values, if society takes a regressive streak, they wouldn't then move to discriminate against minorities like they had in the past? After all, they clearly had the tools to discriminate in the past as evidenced by the facting that they were discriminating.

The connection is that calling on people to get cancelled is fired is just bad, and a truly liberal person should fight such things on principle rather than call for them.  They're a slightly more civil form of vigilante justice.  Today the seemingly deserving get the summary justice, but yesterday the recipients weren't as deserving, and there is no mechanism to ensure that tomorrow wouldn't have a new set of undeserving victims.

[garbon]

That's because being fired for being gay and being fired for being a vocal racist homophobe are not the same thing. Just like Nazis wanting to kill Jews and Jews wanting to live are not two sides of a political debate.

No, they're not the same thing.  The point is that neither cancellation nor firing have due process or inherent moral compass, so promoting such tools of social justice is problematic.  Just because these tools today are used against people you think are deserving doesn't mean that they can't be used against other kinds of people just as effectively.

I'm unclear on the connection. In the absence of getting rid of problematic values, if society takes a regressive streak, they wouldn't then move to discriminate against minorities like they had in the past? After all, they clearly had the tools to discriminate in the past as evidenced by the facting that they were discriminating.

The connection is that calling on people to get cancelled is fired is just bad, and a truly liberal person should fight such things on principle rather than call for them.  They're a slightly more civil form of vigilante justice.  Today the seemingly deserving get the summary justice, but yesterday the recipients weren't as deserving, and there is no mechanism to ensure that tomorrow wouldn't have a new set of undeserving victims.

There's no guarantee tomorrow won't look like yesterday either way.

[DGuller]

There's no guarantee tomorrow won't look like yesterday either way.

Okay, there are few guarantees on anything in life in general, but following good practices improves your odds.  Summary justice has a long track record in history, and generally not a favorable one.  I don't think humanity has invented a technology yet to ensure that it is only applied to the truly bad people, so I think sticking with an old-fashioned "just always fight it on principle" solution is still wise.

[garbon]

There's no guarantee tomorrow won't look like yesterday either way.

Okay, there are few guarantees on anything in life in general, but following good practices improves your odds.  Summary justice has a long track record in history, and generally not a favorable one.  I don't think humanity has invented a technology yet to ensure that it is only applied to the truly bad people, so I think sticking with an old-fashioned "just always fight it on principle" solution is still wise.

Maybe but if the other side is going to be full of bad actors, couldn't one strategy be to knock them out of the running by making it clear such behaviour/attitudes are not permissible? Could that not forestall a regressive bent (or at least soften it) if there are fewer adherents?

[DGuller]

Maybe but if the other side is going to be full of bad actors, couldn't one strategy be to knock them out of the running by making it clear such behaviour/attitudes are not permissible? Could that not forestall a regressive bent (or at least soften it) if there are fewer adherents?

Harsh and disproportionate reprisals tend to be counterproductive in guerilla warfare, and makes guerilla sympathizers (or worse) out of those who were previously on the sidelines or even on your side.  I'd argue the same applies to social justice. 

Being a racist or a homophobe is not a good thing, but not every bad thing deserves capital punishment.  I'd argue that it's easier to win hearts and minds without resorting to summary executions.  I think a more likely effect of knocking out the adherents in such a way is a massive and sudden blowback, and I would argue that the fact that Democrats massively underperformed in 2020 elections apart from not-Trump winning is a sign of it.

[Syt]

[The Brain]

It's just a bargaining position for opening talks.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

[Berkut]

It is important that we understand the historical context of these demands.

[Josquius]

Free Ruthenia!

[Habbaku]

I stand with the Poniatowskis in exercising their historical claims.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Meanwhile, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Alexey Danilov says "stop panicking about the Russian invasion." As reported by BBC's Russian Service:

https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-60105642

Google translation:

Asked what is happening now near the Ukrainian border, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine said: "The number of Russian troops does not increase as many people depict it today. Do they have maneuvers there - yes, they do, but they were with them all the time. This is their territory, they have the right to grind left and right there. Is it unpleasant for us? Yes, it's unpleasant, but it's not news to us. If it's news for someone in the West, I'm sorry."

...

As for the high-profile statements in the Western media about the possible imminent outbreak of hostilities by Russia, Danilov explains this primarily by major geopolitical processes and domestic political events taking place in many countries of the world. All this together could contribute to the fact that the world community not only finally paid close attention to Ukraine, but also more and more countries are ready to commit themselves to assisting Kiev in case of aggression by Moscow.

However, as Danilov emphasizes, all statements of readiness to help are very, very important, but Kiev is primarily concerned about practical things.

"We are concerned about the availability of weapons to protect against Russian aggression," says the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. "And when these weapons began to enter our country - this is a plus, it has never happened before."

...

Returning to the issue of the inevitability of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Danilov recalled that not all countries share these fears, and cited the EU countries as an example, which are not yet considering the evacuation of their embassies. He noted that any destabilization of the situation in Ukraine, including reasoning in foreign media about the coming war and the departure of foreign diplomats, play only into the hands of the Kremlin and undermines the economy of Ukraine.

Intentionally or not, he's repeating a lot of the same messaging as the Russian officials: Nothing new is happening between the two countries, what's new is the Western reaction including weapons supplies.