4 ms·
Insisting that someone stick to doing their actual job, while they're at their actual job, isn't tone policing. And the fact that they could do damage to their
by etherael 6y ago
Insisting that someone stick to doing their actual job, while they're at their actual job, isn't tone policing. And the fact that they could do damage to their company by their speech outside the context of their employment is nothing wrong with the employee, it's symptomatic of the cancerous state of modern western society (and as an expat, I can tell you it's mercifully absent outside the west) and the idiotic cancel culture nonsense, currently in the process of ending extremely badly.
- notahacker 6y ago> And the fact that they could do damage to their company by their speech outside the context of their employment is nothing wrong with the employee, it's symptomatic of the cancerous state of modern western society (and as an expat, I can tell you it's mercifully absent outside the west) I can assure you that there are no shortage of people on the receiving end of non-Western boycott threats for making comments deemed to offend, say, religious sensitivities in India or support calls for democracy in Hong Kong. The idea the rest of the world is some paragon of free speech or labour relations is not one well supported by reality. And needless to say there's no shortage of things that can be said or done outside work which call into question one's suitability for the role or commitment to actually helping the company succeed which have nothing to do with 'cancel culture'.
- etherael 6y ago> I can assure you that there are no shortage of people on the receiving end of non-Western boycott threats for making comments deemed to offend, say, religious sensitivities in India or support calls for democracy in Hong Kong. The best defense that can be mustered is that the worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships of the world do the same thing so it's no big deal? To be fair to you I guess the truth of the matter is that really is the best defense. It just happens to be terrible. > And needless to say there's no shortage of things that can be said or done outside work which call into question one's suitability for the role or commitment to actually helping the company succeed which have nothing to do with 'cancel culture'. It's just a coincidence that what we actually hear month in and month out year after year is professional offense taking victims out to collect scalps on behalf of their cancerous idiotic ideology, right?
- notahacker 6y ago> The best defense that can be mustered is that the worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships of the world do the same thing so it's no big deal? To be fair to you I guess the truth of the matter is that really is the best defense. It just happens to be terrible. It's not a 'defence' but a simple refutation of your claim that companies coming under pressure from some quarters to fire employees for sentiments they have expressed is a uniquely Western thing (Bit of a stretch to suggest India has been amongst the 'worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships' since its independence too...). Just because local populations in much of the world are seldom bothered by comments perceived as insulting to black or gay people doesn't mean they all extend the same tolerance towards people they perceive as insulting their national pride, family values, religion, behavioural norms, officials they need to curry favour with etc. > It's just a coincidence that what we actually hear month in and month out year after year is professional offense taking victims out to collect scalps on behalf of their cancerous idiotic ideology, right? For someone who claims to be averse to 'professional offence taking', you're trying remarkably hard to find an angle sufficiently obtuse for you to drag my bland statement that companies think all sorts of different behaviour outside working hours gives them cause to fire people into your culture war...
- etherael 6y ago> It's not a 'defence' but a simple refutation of your claim that companies coming under pressure from some quarters to fire employees for sentiments they have expressed is a uniquely Western thing And it's not a refutation at all, because the examples you cite are themselves restricted to particular jurisdictions (and I'm sure of this because I spent the past ten years travelling the entire world and never saw anything of the magnitude I've seen coming from the west during that period), and the incidents are far more excessive breaches of the local cultural etiquette in incidents where they do end up causing outrage, whereas in the west you can be legally hounded by professional victims for not using their pretend pronouns, and people make art forms out of misinterpreting things to be as offended as possible for no reason at all obviously because it gives them power whilst those who would like to pretend it's not the fatal problem it clearly is choose to continuously ignore or minimise it, even while cadres of the discussed movements in question are out burning down cities, looting, and other typical obvious indicators that things have gone seriously wrong, this discussion itself being a perfect case in point. > (Bit of a stretch to suggest India has been amongst the 'worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships' since its independence too...). Pointing out that the worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships are the nearest analogs to the "me-too"-ism you cite doesn't imply that applies to India in particular, my reference to theocratic dictatorships was mostly regarding middle eastern jurisdictions at any rate. > you're trying remarkably hard to find an angle sufficiently obtuse for you to drag my bland statement that companies think all sorts of different behaviour outside working hours gives them cause to fire people into your culture war... Not at all, I'm not even disagreeing with that statement. I'm simply pointing out it's symptomatic of a disease rather than a positive or neutral thing that should just be accepted.