15 ms·

Stop Firing the Innocent

• jeffcarmichael 6y ago
  Wish there was more coverage of stories like this. Interesting (but more disheartening) to see just how far people will go.
• brighton36 6y ago
  When politicians don't represent voters, chaos is the only way to get representation.
• Animats 6y ago
  Remember the CEO of Mozilla who was forced out for opposing gay marriage?[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-i...
  • renewiltord 6y ago
    I think that one doesn't fit with these examples because it wasn't a misinterpretation. There are the two separate questions of: * Was person X bigoted? * Was the 'punishment' befitting what they did? Well, donating against gay marriage is some big-government bigoted shit, not gonna lie. You can still ask the second question, though.
    • TAForObvReasons 6y ago
      The punishment befits the situation. There's a profound difference between a normal worker supporting anti-gay-marriage causes with a donation and the CEO doing the same thing, since the CEO is near the top of the org chart and a large number of employees are under his org tree. The CEO's views reflect poorly on the organization and hiring practices to a more significant extent than any normal non-management worker
      • ameen 6y ago
        I don't think any CEO (bigoted or not) can retaliate against their employees for their sexual orientation - it's illegal. While it reflects poorly on him, it seems to be the norm in the U.S. to donate to lobbies.
        • scarface74 6y ago
          It wasn’t illegal in all states until the recent Supreme Court decision. I wouldn’t want someone in a position of power that went to Klan rallies on the weekend either. They aren’t going to outright say they are discriminating against you. They are going to say the person isn’t a “culture fit”.
          • zebnyc 6y ago
            You are equating making a donation to a political cause (which was a mainstream opinion at that time) to the Klan. A bit extreme don't you think?
            • scarface74 6y ago
              What’s the difference? In both cases someone wants to take away rights from someone else because of their own belief system.
      • paulryanrogers 6y ago
        When the donation was made when a super majority of United Statians opposed allowing same gender marriage. That said I've come to agree that leadership should be held to a higher standard. And IIRC Eich did not, and still has not, publicly expressed support for such marriages.
      • Ymous 6y ago
        I'm thinking about this and am wondering, does this mean that in an ideal scenario (where CEOs of every company maximally considers the larger impact of their personal actions reflecting upon the company they're helming), they must all support the same things? I can imagine two CEO's of companies A and B (which each own exactly 50% of an industry and are precisely equivalent in public visibility and internal policy). The CEOs are also identical in every way except that one supports a opinion M and the other supports a opinion M' Assuming that they both make public their support, which one would get executed in the court of public opinion? Would it be fair for (any)one of them to get expelled from his/her post just because the masses collapsed the narrative to uphold either only M or M'? (I'm assuming that whether M or M' is the majority opinion is irrelevant) The only solution I can see is that both CEOs collude and decide to either not support anything, or support the same, agreed-upon thing. Assuming that is so, what if we extend this past 2 companies, and into 2000? ---- I'm not convinced that the punishment does befit the situation.
    • Animats 6y ago
      "Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June." So he supported a ballot proposition which won. That was a majority political position.
      • renewiltord 6y ago
        That's right. A majority political position that was bigoted. It's pretty common for a plurality to be bigoted.
      • harryh 6y ago
        That was a majority political position. Majority political positions can still be morally wrong.
        • username90 6y ago
          Should we fire a majority of people?
          • marcinzm 6y ago
            That's a straw man argument. He represented a company that claimed to be progressive which isn't what the majority of people do.
            • hpcjoe 6y ago
              I've worked at a company where every single meeting I had with a certain set of engineers started and rapidly devolved into a political narrative of how bad certain groups where. I smiled and ignored them. I subconsciously made sure to avoid their input on important things. The narrative was in-your-face progressive activist SJW to the max. Many people I privately spoke with in the company were sick of this idiocy, but couldn't see themselves speaking up, as they needed the job. They couldn't risk being fired by the company. Imagine if you had to live that life. Companies should not have political opinions or leanings.
    • analyte123 6y ago
      The year that Brendan Eich donated for the proposition against gay marriage (6 years before he was fired), 52% of Californian voters and the president (Barack Obama) agreed with him. This is why anonymous voting is important, so that it is harder to retroactively punish the other 7 million people that supported the proposition, many of whom have probably changed their mind since then. Also, "big-government bigoted shit" would have to describe literally every government in human history before the year 2001 when the Netherlands formally recognized same-sex marriage as equivalent to opposite-sex marriage.
      • renewiltord 6y ago
        That's right. And the Chinese Exclusion Act was generally popular too. Also big-government bigoted shit. That's the funny thing about bigotry. It doesn't matter how big your posse is. You can still be bigoted. For instance, oppression of the Uighur community is generally tolerated in China. The support is greater than the 52%. Still bigotry.
        • saagarjha 6y ago
          Yes, that is something you could always do. But are you going to hold it against every single individual Chinese who supports such oppression? How about ever Chinese who “supports” such oppression? The environment you’re in has a huge effect on the views you have; should you be allowed to rethink those?
          • renewiltord 6y ago
            I think it would be fair to hold it against anyone who believes it's acceptable. I'm pretty forgiving of those under a regime merely trying to survive, but if then they voluntarily gave 1000 RMB to a "Let's keep the Uighurs Oppressed" charity which tries to convince the Politburo that more attacks are better than fewer attacks, I think I'm going to judge them for using the instrument of the state as a weapon against people, yeah. And because my society is free, I get to judge. And because my society is free, I get to speak my mind. And because my society is free, I get to say, "I won't use this product". And because my society is free, you get to say, "Oh okay, I'll do what you want" or you can say "Fine, don't use the product". We're just people interacting freely. And thank god for liberty.
    • apta 6y ago
      > Well, donating against gay marriage is some big-government bigoted shit, So freedom of speech/expression isn't when it doesn't align with group think, got it.
  • CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Regardless of whether people agree with that decision or not, it is not the same as what is being talked about in the article. The article talks about mob justice rapidly impacting peoples' lives even though everything they did would be seen as extremely reasonable. In the case of Mozilla, he wasn't only accused of supporting gay marriage, he donated money to groups whose goals were to get people to vote against gay marriage. There weren't actions taken due to misunderstandings as far as I know. Also I think strong opposition to him as a CEO came from the employees, not outside partners cutting ties to avoid being associated.
  • Kaze404 6y ago
    Awesome
  • dkdk8283 6y ago
    Great example - he was punished hard by the media and public. I don’t agree with him but I’ll defend his right to believe what he wants.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      He can believe what he wants, but I also have the legal right not to want a person in power who wants to discriminate against someone because he thinks an invisible being is going to reign hellfire and damnation in the country if you let gay people get married. These are the same type of people who a generation earlier supported laws against interracial marriage.
    • CyberDildonics 6y ago
      The article was about people who were accused of beliefs they didn't hold, so this example is different. Also, if lots of your employees threaten to quit, your company has a big problem. The examples in the article were about individual employees, two of which had employers that said the employees were fired for other reasons. In the example of mozilla, separate from agreeing with the decisions, the actions were known and done for known reasons. No one lied about why they did what they did.
      • LyndsySimon 6y ago
        > The article was about people who were accused of beliefs they didn't hold, so this example is different. Is it? I may be misremembering, but my impression was that Eich was pushed out because people interpreted his political donation as being indicative of a larger belief. I don’t recall Eich ever making a statement on the issue. I’m not defending him here, so please don’t get me wrong. I’m only pointing out that there seems to be some level of inferring someone’s “true beliefs” in both cases. There’s a lot more of it in the article, granted, but it leads me to ask: where is the bar?
        • CyberDildonics 6y ago
          I think he donated his own money to an organization lobbying against gay marriage, so it doesn't seem like a huge leap. In any event, the article was about people who had much more abstract and ambiguous actions interpreted by an internet mob as them having ingrained bigoted beliefs, so I think there is a very wide gap.
  • dogecoinbase 6y ago
    I really can't believe we're still talking about this. He could easily have moved past what he did by making a short statement and a donation to an LGBTQ+-friendly cause. Instead, he was apparently completely unprepared for something that had been brought up internally at Moz many times and made a blundery, offensive non-response. That is what was disqualifying for the position of CEO.
    • apta 6y ago
      > He could easily have moved past what he did by making a short statement and a donation What if he still doesn't agree with homosexual marriage? Who are you to force him to change his view?
      • dogecoinbase 6y ago
        That is not a counterargument to me -- I simply explained one of many ways that he could easily have kept the job (the easiest would have not to have been a bigot in the first place, but hey). It's that he had no communication plan for an easily-foreseeable controversy that was disqualifying, not his views specifically.
        • apta 6y ago
          So conform to group think or lose your job. If he doesn't believe in homosexuality, he's a bigot and deserves to lose his job. Got it.
  • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Its interesting that you're getting a lot of responses to the effect of "well no, that was justified." Hillary Clinton was at one point an opponent of gay marriage: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-presidential-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/hillary-clin... Edit: Originally had Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage in the 2008 campaign but people keep trying to defend him in particular and that's not the point. Biden, voted for Defense of Marriage Act: > https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/26/justice-democrats/biden-draws-barbs-progressive-democratic-organizat/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/26/justice-de... So did Chuck Schumer and more than a hundred other Democrats, many still in office: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316 (For the record, Lofgren and Wyden voted Nay.) They're mostly all going to want to walk it back these days, but did we give Brendan Eich that opportunity? Is it available to everyone? Or should we cancel all of them too?
    • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      FWIW Obama was likely opposing it for expediency. The switch was made by a strategic Biden "gaffe" that allowed Obama to change sides while looking like his hand was forced. The same way that Bush-2.0 disclosed his cocaine use by a "betrayal" of an old friend.
      • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        So does everybody get this consideration of subtlety and nuance and benefit of the doubt or is it only for people we like?
        • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
          Only presidents facing an overwhelmingly obstructionist Congress of racist white people.
    • elicash 6y ago
      Just to correct the record, the Mozilla guy controversy seems like it was about Prop 8 and that they were worried they were losing users due to the controversy. Here was Obama's position on prop 8: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/obamas-brief-against-proposition-8-goes-far https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/obamas-brief-agains... The Obama admin's opposition and Justices appointed by Obama (and favored by Senate Dems) led the way to marriage equality. Whether to 'cancel' is an entirely different issue, but I think you're being dishonest here. There was concrete action these Democrats took that defeated terrible discrimination.
• kstenerud 6y ago
  This is human nature. We need social movements like metoo and BLM because they are vehicles of change for the better. But eventually the outragers and virtue signalers will get into the game, and innocents will be taken down since they make easy targets for people looking to do some damage or boost their prestige. Your best bet when the tornado comes is to keep a low profile and guard your privacy like it was latinum.
  • fsociety 6y ago
    Sounds like going to war and accepting civilian casualties. Surely we can do better than that.
    • paulcole 6y ago
      > Surely we can do better than that Seeing as going to war and accepting civilian casualties has only been acceptable for the entirety of human history up to and including the present, I’m not so sure.
    • scarface74 6y ago
      Tell that to all of the foreign countries we destroy trying to “bring democracy”. I guess people are okay with destroying property in other countries just not in their backyard.
    • kstenerud 6y ago
      What are you going to do? Charge the person who dredged up the info? Charge the people who express outrage over it? Charge the employer for bowing to public pressure? Things get complicated pretty fast once the shit starts flying. If you're the CEO and the company under your watch is at risk of being boycotted into bankruptcy while the mob outside is baying for blood, what do you do?
      • paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Is there really anything that the government should do if the mob is only boycotting? No one is required to continue with their past buying habits once their mind has changed. The word 'mob' implies unregulated violence, usually based on emotion and not reason. And the vast majority protesting racism appear to be peaceful and thoughtful.
• encoderer 6y ago
  The only solution seems to be equally organized mobs outraged at cancel culture. I think we will get there.
  • sixothree 6y ago
    Is this sarcasm? That defines a pretty large part of America already.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • randallsquared 6y ago
    How would that work? A social norm against cancel culture might be a solution (though it's not clear how we would get there from here), but "organized mobs outraged at cancel culture"? I don't really understand what the intended effects would be -- canceling the cancellers? That doesn't seem like it would be against cancel culture, but only picking new criteria for cancellation.
    • ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      The cancellers can be cancelled; this very article is an example. Show the public the chain of events that occurred, show the victims, and show the identities of the cancellers and the mean-spiritedness and illogic involved. And show, like Obama did[0], that cancel-culture progressivism is not what the the American left stands for. We can (we must!) turn the left against cancel culture if the left is to regain the moral high ground and the trust of the voters. And, ironically, we'll make more progress that way on the issues that progressives care about than by using their methods. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261
  • elicash 6y ago
    The only solution is labor unions. You need a CONTRACT that determines what happens when a company wants to discipline or fire an employee. So firing is still possible, but it's a process that's negotiated and agreed to beforehand by two sides and generally not the first step (minus certain circumstances). The truth is, people are fired for arbitrary and unfair reasons constantly. I'd imagine 1 out of a million times someone is fired for unfair reasons it has something to do with cancel culture.
• xook 6y ago
  Never has the compartmentalization of personality (online and off) been more relevant. I only wish it wasn't under such ridiculous circumstances. It's a different feeling to require a different set of emotions, opinions, and accounts, just to feel ease within a group (civilians) who may or may not have their own agenda to ruin your life for personal gain, as opposed to a corrupt government bent on silencing dissidence.
  • nine_k 6y ago
    Relevant pg's essays, both quite insightful: Keep your identity small — http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html What you cannot say — http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  • klyrs 6y ago
    > Never has the compartmentalization of personality (online and off) been more relevant. I assume that you aren't LGBT. Because we've been getting fired and murdered over failures to compartmentalize since time immemorial; our right to employment was only confirmed by the supreme court this month.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
• rectang 6y ago
  We accept the status quo of countless racist tragedies occurring day after day. But if even one individual is falsely accused of racism, that's untenable?
  • harryh 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    • rectang 6y ago
      Huh? I'm directly addressing the point of the article. Because our institutions are structurally racist and legislative remedies are unattainable, social pressure must be applied. It's unfortunate that while just in the aggregate social pressure is occasionally unjust in the specific, but that's what you get when you deny justice systemically.
      • zozbot234 6y ago
        > Because our institutions are structurally racist and legislative remedies are unattainable, social pressure must be applied. This is 100% backwards; structural, institutional problems demand structural, institutional solutions. Want to end structural racism in the U.S.? Start from the clearest near-term goal, viz. reforming criminal justice. Then move on to the next most visible problem.
  • apsec112 6y ago
    Someone should say something before the list of victims is as long as McCarthy's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarth... Stalin was a monster, but history doesn't remember McCarthy and HUAC fondly either.
  • MattGaiser 6y ago
    More that caving blindly to mob behavior is untenable. We don't handle crime by letting people shout "hang him" and following through.
• draw_down 6y ago
  Instead, fire the wicked.
• ufmace 6y ago
  It seems to me that we're in the middle of a witch hunt. The actual existence of witches (racists) is not necessary. Keeping the hunt on and amping it up is what's most important. If we can't find any real witches, we'll just have to make some up and assume the worst about them. I wonder how the last witch hunt ended, and if that might be applicable here. I also fully expect to see comments demanding that the article author, Yascha Mounk, be fired for daring to imply that something else might be of comparable importance to the witch hunt.
  • ptero 6y ago
    It seems to me as well -- we are in a witch hunt run amok. You do not need truth, you do not need actual witches, just keep raising fear. Once the fear is high enough, even those who do not support such causeless insta-firings would vote for it out of fear that if they do not participate in a witch hunt they may end up on a target list. Personally, I work in a great place (large R&D lab), enjoy a lot of respect and an almost complete technical freedom to pursue interesting projects, good salary (not FAANG-level, but plenty for a comfortable life), etc. and I am seriously considering bugging out, at least for a year or two, exactly because of witch hunts. Our management is sane, but should I end up in a wrong bucket (and I will not participate in a witch hunt and will speak for a friend if he is attacked, so it is possible) no one would be able to save my ass. A couple of friends that work in small companies (20 ppl or less) generally report a much saner environment, with no company-level witch hunts. I wonder if this is true overall -- smaller companies focus less on external politics and more on technical tasks, allowing employees to participate in politics, or not, in their free time.
• softwaredoug 6y ago
  Is this really typical? Or are we more aware of these “edge case” stories nowadays given social media? Just seems we’re in the perfect storm for cherry picking outrage these days. But it’s hard to know if there’s a new or statistically novel pattern occurring.
  • JacksonGariety 6y ago
    It depends what industry you work in and how big the company is. The worst is higher education. Endless scandals over nothing. The most notable example is Bret Weinstein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State_College_Day_of_Absence_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State...
    • softwaredoug 6y ago
      I don’t know enough to litigate the particulars though it does seem from the wiki article it catapulted him into a kind of celebrity...
      • JacksonGariety 6y ago
        It's true that he got a lot of attention after he appeared on FOX, but there's more to the story. You can read about it (and many other examples of cancel culture) in the controversial book "The Coddling of the American Mind": https://www.thecoddling.com/ https://www.thecoddling.com/
      • scruple 6y ago
        Well, has he been proven wrong in his assessment of the situation thus far? I found myself supporting his side during the original debacle but also kind of wrote him off as a bit of a crank because he went on a sort of national tour about this supposed problem. Today, though? It's pretty damn clear he was calling it correctly. See the ACA5 vote in California today, for a very timely example.
    • pas 6y ago
      And maybe the most recent is Stephen Hsu of MSU: https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-calls-to-remove-vp-research-administrator-stephen-hsu?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... (though it's not surprising, he seems rather unsavvy when it comes to communicating about sensitive topics)
• raincom 6y ago
  In a culture, where appearances dominate, this is the end result. Look at any work place, it is all about appearances: appearance of doing the great job, appearance of managers' helping the company goals, appearance of being busy, appearance of product novelty, appearance that company X cares about African Americans, etc. Extend this game of appearance to personal life, as others can capture your personal life and post it on twitter; then look at the consequences: losing the livelihood.
  • chippy 6y ago
    society of the spectacle perhaps? even communication is done at the level of the image
• Exmoor 6y ago
  The United States (and perhaps other countries?) decent into mob "justice" has been breathtaking. Many people I've known for over half my life and known to be fairly reasonable people now routinely repost "make this person famous" posts pointing out a variety of behaviors deemed unacceptable without any evidence other than what's posted in an image. If you question the evidence or whether shaming someone as punishment is an appropriate response you're instantly vilified. I have little doubt that I could pick a stranger at random, create a social media post with some baseless accusations and fabricated screenshots and get it shared extensively. I really hope our society can find a way out of this, but I honestly don't see it.
  • rectang 6y ago
    It's been mob justice all along — just institutionalized and directed at minorities. I agree that we are unlikely to find our way out of it any time soon, because the dominant majority is entirely unwilling to give up its institutionalized advantages.
    • ethanbond 6y ago
      If this is your position, shouldn't we be focusing on fixing the institutions?
      • CydeWeys 6y ago
        Why do you think crowds have been taking to the streets these past weeks?
        • ethanbond 6y ago
          That's obvious, but we were discussing the deployment of mob justice, especially against innocent people. Surely you agree those are different things.
      • zwkrt 6y ago
        The only reasonable way to fix an institution is to get the majority of its members to want change.
• mtgp1000 6y ago
  >Likely unbeknownst to most Americans, the alt-right has appropriated a version of the “okay” symbol for their own purposes because it looks like the initials for “white power”; this is the symbol the man accused Cafferty of making when his hand was dangling out of his truck. I am so tired of watching journalists repeat this irresponsible lie. The "white power" symbol was the result of a spontaneous flashmob campaign to prove that journalists will pick up and run with any ridiculous "trend" that fills their demand for racism. I challenge anyone to find a legitimate link explaining the relationship between the symbol and white supremacy that doesn't ultimately lead to a journal article sourced from cherry picked Twitter threads. Journalism died when ideologues normalized activist journalism. We are in the midst of a mass hysteria and media outlets are fully culpable. 70 years ago we called it McCarthyism.
  • dropit_sphere 6y ago
    >The "white power" symbol was the result of a spontaneous flashmob campaign to prove that journalists will pick up and run with any ridiculous "trend" that fills their demand for racism. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like the media took the bait?
    • nomdep 6y ago
      The media knew well it was a fake, but anything these days that can polarize people more ("You won't believe the secret symbol the alt-right uses! Click here to learn about it") it's a gold mine for them.
    • Traster 6y ago
      Unfortunately, the type of people who think it's a good idea to go around trying to invent racist symbols to try and prove that the media is fake news also happen to be the people who are coincidentally holidaying in Charlottesville in August if you know what I mean.
      • mtgp1000 6y ago
        You're stereotyping. There was a time when we agreed it was wrong to do.
• smogcutter 6y ago
  First, to head off the flames: yes, what happened to the people in the article is terrible. Cooler heads should’ve prevailed. But here’s a take: cancel culture is not new, it’s just changed direction and is scaring the pants off people who previously had the luxury of ignoring it (or taking advantage). What happened to Cafferty is a shame, but the article left out another person who was cancelled over a vicious lie: Emmett Till.
  • aliante 6y ago
    The solution is not the diversification of lynching.
    • softwaredoug 6y ago
      Learn about lynching before you compare anything here as even close to lynching https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/26/lynchings-memorial-us-south-montgomery-alabama https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/26/lynchings-me...
      • oh_sigh 6y ago
        OP is the one who likened cancel culture to lynching, not the person you are responding to.
        • smogcutter 6y ago
          No, I chose a deliberately provocative example in order to illustrate the comparatively low stakes it takes to get people clutching their pearls.
          • dang 6y ago
            "Choosing a deliberately provocative example" on an inflammatory topic is already trolling. You've broken the site guidelines by taking the thread further into ideological flamewar. Same with your comment here. Nothing good can come of this, so please don't. I realize yours is far from the only account stoking the flamewar in this thread, but this example was noticeable even in this wretched context. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• kirse 6y ago
  This growing societal condemnation for every sin (past, present, or associated) may be called "virtue signaling" or "cancel culture" these days, but it already had a personified name thousands of years ago - self-righteous Pharisee-ism - and it's ultimately what put Jesus on the cross. Say what you want about the resurrection, he at least lived an innocent life but was beaten and hung for execution by the shame-filled rage of the masses. Ironically we live in a society that now claims more than ever to know what it means to "do right", but that growing moral burden of "doing right" produces an ever greater internal sense of shame (for missing the mark) that is often projected outwards onto easy targets. Outrage is what wins eyeballs in the media, because messages of shame penetrate to the core. Thanks to social media, these messages clone themselves far more easily. Acts of injustice stir up outrage via a message of shame, and the cycle often perpetuates itself with further acts of outrage/injustice. America has a growing self-righteousness induced shame problem is what this is, and until we identify that source of grace [1] that can transform sin into honor, shame into dignity, and moral outrage into forgiveness, it will only continue to worsen. Yes, we are to have deep sorrow and compassion regarding acts of injustice, but grace and forgiveness are the only legitimate exits from the emotional/spiritual burdens they impose. [1] Romans 8:1-2
  • thu2111 6y ago
    Thanks for posting this. Very insightful. I've come to believe lately that this sort of thing is caused, to some extent, by the decline of Christianity in the west. I'm not religious myself and used to consider that a virtue (rational man yadda yadda). These days I'm much less sure it's such a good idea. It appears that with the decline of the Church all that's happened is people invented a new one, but a rather nasty one that sounds a lot like the religions of a couple thousand years ago: obsessed with converting heretics whether they want to be converted or not, a whole lot of destruction of pagan idols, making people into martyrs and so on. On balance, given a choice between the kind of hate filled behaviour the article describes, or God-fearing people, I'd much rather be around the latter. And if forced to choose a tribe I guess I'd pick them too, as the modern religious seem much nicer, calmer and more accepting than the "woke".
• buboard 6y ago
  the trough of disillusionment
• softwaredoug 6y ago
  As mostly white males here, maybe we should re-examine the sense of victimization here... the “mob justice” in US history has largely applied to lyching, slave hunting, violence against gays, and other horrific acts we’ve never had to think about. Sure it sucks when mistakes are made, but fearing saying the wrong thing in an emotionally raw time around racial issues, isn’t even close to what really has counted as “mob justice” in American history. Edit - sometimes you get horribly downvoted, but still stand by the comment. Few downvoting really have an appreciation for how horrific US history has been. For example I encourage you to read this article on lynching https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/26/lynchings-memorial-us-south-montgomery-alabama https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/26/lynchings-me...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • dependenttypes 6y ago
    > but fearing saying the wrong thing Indeed, fear itself is not mob justice, rather, the actions of the mod itself is mob justice. > emotionally raw time ... This was a thing before the riots too. The Stallman case happened last year for example. > Downvotes are expected from those ignorant of history ;) I do not think that anyone sane is doubting the historical mob justice against certain groups. It is just that just as these instances of mobbing were wrong so are the modern ones. (plus I believe that some of the people downvoting do so due to how us-centric this comment is)
  • rectang 6y ago
    The tech industry is a sloshing cesspool of privilege. When its day of reckoning arrives, you will be relieved to have distanced yourself from it by staking out unpopular opinions.
  • glerk 6y ago
    > Sure it sucks when mistakes are made, but fearing saying the wrong thing in an emotionally raw time around racial issues, isn’t even close to what really has counted as “mob justice” in American history. This argument boils down to whataboutism if you dig down under the overly emotional packaging. This is not bringing anything to the discussion, it is an attempt to shut down the discussion. This is why you are getting downvoted.
• ycombonator 6y ago
  "Dignity Culture" has been replaced with "victimhood culture" in United States[1] >A dignity culture, according to Campbell and Manning, has moral values and behavioral norms that promote the value of every human life, encouraging achievement in its children while teaching that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." >Because victimhood culture is now claimed to confer the highest moral status on victims, Campbell and Manning argue that it “increases the incentive to publicize grievances.” Injured and offended parties who might once have thrown a punch or filed a law suit now appeal for support on social media [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Victimhood_Culture
• momentmaker 6y ago
  Voltaire: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
  • neonate 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom#%22True_Rulers%22_quotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom#%22True_Rul...
• rajekas 6y ago
  When white people make a mistake they lose their jobs. When black people make a mistake they aren't allowed to breathe. Both are unjust but they are far from morally equivalent.
  • randompwd 6y ago
    Please stop with the melodramatic rhetoric.
• pessimizer 6y ago
  Let's stop firing people for arbitrary reasons, rather than going through a process negotiated between the employees' union and the employer to end someone's employment. A lot of this whining about celebrities (and sometimes others) getting canceled stinks of special exceptions in employment law being made for people who say offensive things. That's even dumber than the religious carve-outs, i.e. the rights that have been exclusively granted to people who believe things that cannot by definition be proved, and that if you fail to have beliefs that cannot by definition be proved (no matter how minority, or how discriminated against) you are excluded from. The problem is the lack of process. I don't somehow care more about the suffering of people who have tweeted things that look racist to someone, than the suffering of others fired because they were accused of being unproductive on the job then fired with no hearing or documentation of that lack of productivity, or somebody fired because the company thought it would be cheaper to outsource their job. The idea that random companies and academic institutions carry the authority to either define somebody as racist, or can lose that authority to credibly point out racism by unfairly exercising it is laughable. Maybe, instead, random companies shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily take away someone's living by a functional government working in the public interest.
  • Klinky 6y ago
    I agree, this seems to be the biggest take away. The company fired him exceedingly quickly. This is what "at-will" employment looks like. Seems a lot of people getting angry at ghosts/ideas("cancel culture"/"mob mentality" - a mob against "mob mentality") or people doing technically legal things(taking a picture in public, calling a business to voice a complaint). Those ghosts/people didn't actually fire the guy, his company did. It'll be impossible to stop trolls. You can't just say "knock it off guys", nor can you ban people from taking pictures or voicing an opinion. However, you could put some restrictions around firings, but many would view that as stifling business, so this is the outcome instead. What may or may not have been a knee-jerk firing, but that's the cost of "at-will" employment. Also, there is a devils advocate point to be made in that corrupt police unions have created difficulties with removing bad cops from the field, so this can be a double-edged sword. Overall employer/union accountability needs to be higher when it comes to who they hire and who they fire.
• causality0 6y ago
  90s PSAs about internet usage continues to serve me well. When it comes to social media, it behooves me to act as if there's a sociopath with a grudge against me. I don't use my real name. I don't reuse usernames on different sites. I don't give out personal information of any kind. You're bound to say something that someone decides make you worthy of digital crucifixion and will stop at nothing to ruin your life. I've received a handful of death threats but they don't worry me because I refuse to give the internet a way to target my real life.
  • zozbot234 6y ago
    This. There is zero functional difference between Facebook or Twitter and 4chan at this point. If you can't preserve a reasonable level of privacy on either site, you should just avoid interacting altogether.
• FabHK 6y ago
  In the past, I've argued in favour of "public shaming", eg of anti-vaxxers. This makes me less sure about it. However, what these stories seem to have in common is lack of due process: A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on [1]. Maybe people should get off Twitter and put some work (or money) into actual organisations that engage in concerted political effort to change things. [1] Not Mark Twain... https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
• robomartin 6y ago
  It is sad to see the internet weaponized this way. I remember when the internet was at its embryonic stage; when most sites were universities, personal and few businesses. How sad. My thinking on this has changed based on circumstances. My current thinking is that we need to shut down Twitter and Facebook for six months. World wide. I know this is harsh. I know they do a lot of good. And I know this is difficult yet doable (they don’t own their domains, they are borrowed). And yet the world existed just fine before Twitter and Facebook. Things have gotten out of hand. More harm will come out of this kind of irresponsible unchecked mass communication. These companies don’t seem to care about the damage they enable through their flawed technology. They enable real white supremacists, terrorists, cancel culture warriors, child pornographers, human traffickers and all kinds of criminals to form massive groups and organize action like never before in history. I’ve said it before, for all their technical prowess they sure have shitty algorithms, lousy rules of operation, nonexistent customer service and no accountability. For example, How hard would it be to classify post subject matter and throttle comment rate to one per 60, 30, 10, 5 or 1 minutes? Can’t classify reliably? 60 minutes between comments. Groups on FB? Your content is deleted every 30 days so you can’t accumulate walls of hatred. Also, all group owners and moderators must use real names and submit identification, maybe even post a bond refundable after a period of time. Don’t like it? Go start a website. I know a bunch of the above is crazy. Sorry. I am angry. I started with the Internet before most people knew it existed. Before that it was services like Compuserve. There was great hope for the internet and the enlightenment it could bring to society. And, for the most part, it has done far more good than harm. Yet there are a handful of companies, including “news” outlets who have managed to use the Internet to defecate and vomit all over society. And they don’t seem to care at all. Anything from lies to orchestrating mob attacks on individuals, businesses and institutions —even history— is fair game. They have enabled the lowest of society to engage in mob rule in exchange for returning profits to their investors. This is where Silicon Valley is to blame as well. For all their virtue signaling they seem perfectly fine with focusing their money and resources getting people to click on stuff. I have yet to see any of these virtuous individuals apply a significant amount of time, money and effort towards fixing the shit culture that produces companies who seem content with being the conduit for hatred and destruction. Bravo! Take Twitter and Facebook off air for six months. Force them to think about what they are doing and find solutions. Send a solid message to others (media/news) that being conduits for destruction and radicalization has consequences. Maybe, just maybe, we come out of such an experience with the Internet we all thought we were going to enjoy. One that would enlighten, elevate and unite people. An internet that would erase inequality, bigotry and racism. One that would eventually even remove borders and unite all on this blue marble and move humanity towards an unimaginably great future.
• randompwd 6y ago
  If only the New York Times had interviewed the person who took the photo and spread the false narrative, we would knew who it was, and then we could go harass them... /s
• froasty 6y ago
  From two years ago: "O Lord, this zealotry to punish the heretics could easily escape from the control of God's chosen and not only destabilize society but also cause us to perform un-Christlike deeds that the Church shall repent of for all eternity!" "Let's inquisit that heresy when we get to it." SOME TIME LATER "Truly, monsigneur, this escalation of the Crusade to extirpate the Lutherans could spiral out of our grasp and trigger a continental conflagration that would disturb the harmony of the Catholic Church and cause us to finalize the fracture in Christendom in its entirety!" "Let us rupture that schism when we come to it." SOME TIME LATER "O Puritan Lawyers! I cannot abide this constant seeking of devilry amongst the burghers; for though thy use the Devil chained and cowed, if the Devil escapeth thine chains placyd upon hym, might he wreck also thine own soul's of pleasant Albion forevermore?" "Let us burn that witch when we come to it." SOME TIME LATER "Je dis, this never-ending mission to purify France of the Anciens Regime could easily escape the control of the Bourgeosie and not only destabilize society but also cause us to perform inhumane deeds against the Third Estate that we will regret in the Eye of Providence for all recorded history!" "Let's get a-head of that when the time arrives." SOME TIME LATER "I say, these attempts to civilize the Savages of the outer colonies could easily escape the oversight of the Provincial Governments and not only jeopardize our economic interests, but enable the performance by Europeans of barbarisms that would surely be worse than the practices of the Savages in the first place!" "Let us lift the White Man's burden when we reach it." SOME TIME LATER "I don't know Comrade, this ten-year-old five-year plan to purify Russia of the Bourgeosie could easily escape control of the Central Committee and not only jeopardize the Revolution, but also cause us to engage in the same Tsarist evils of terror that the Revolution was launched to eliminate!" "Let's rehabilitate that kulak when we get to it." SOME TIME LATER > We run the risk that the act of deplatforming can become as extreme as the hate speech it seeks to banish. Let us cross that bridge when we get to it.
• afiori 6y ago
  I feel like the media is doing a disservice to the protests in the way they show their support. I feel like they both focused on the violent riots and ignored/diminished them. This way they gave the impression of a strong bias with not enough coverage of the distinction between the huge number of peaceful protests and the riots. In my opinion had they been more focused on how the riots where taking advantage of the protests (also focusing on how this should not diminish the importance of either) the media could have shown a less biased wider support for the just cause of the protests. To me it looks like they have been quite opportunistic while pretending not to be so.
• woodruffw 6y ago
  This article is a very clever example of political manoeuvring by the Atlantic: it starts with a reasonable claim ("don't fire people who aren't actually racist") and redirects blame onto anti-racists and away from the social and political instruments that make workers disposable (at-will employment, entrenched underpayment, broken safety nets). Cafferty's firing was wrong because his employer shouldn't have the right to fire him like that. But this is a harder position to defend when you're running conservative interference in an ostensibly liberal publication.
  • blub 6y ago
    "Cafferty's firing was wrong because his employer shouldn't have the right to fire him like that." That is an excellent point. However, countries which do have political instruments that prevent workers from being disposable are not immune to this either. This US-centric movement has resonated surprisingly strong in the media and social media in Germany, to the point that there were several protests which broke the rules designed to stem the pandemic. This wasn't by any means unique, as several countries in Western Europe were affected. There's also a deep conflict running in German society between the left (which consider themselves the good guys) and the right (which are considered basically Nazis by the left). The definition of what it means to be right-wing is predictably expanding to encompass relatively minor gestures, comments or actions and the label of right-wing is then applied to more and more people. It is my impression that it's hard to fire someone for being right-wing though, since the courts have reversed such decisions, but there are social consequences. In general AfD voters are considered right-wing and terrible people. But on the other hand, the AfD enjoyed quite some success in the elections, so what does this tell us about German society? It seems to me that there's a big disconnect between the media and intellectual elites and the average Joe (or Fritz). Furthermore, a society which is willing to ostracize a significant number of its own for holding specific opinions instead of working through its differences - like many Western European countries or the US wrongly do - is weakening itself. This is one of the paradoxes of this cancel culture: it's doing away with otherwise productive members of society for minor offenses which objectively do not cause harm. It's essentially a form of ideological cleansing.
    • 6y ago
• RickJWagner 6y ago
  I find this disturbing. It's the changing nature of what's offensive that I find bothersome. In the early 80s, one of the top-rated shows featured a Dodge Charger with a Confederate flag on the roof and a horn that played 'Dixie'. I don't recall hearing any objections, even from the brave men and women of the civil rights movement. Tom Petty (who tended to lean left, politically) toured with the Confedrate flat. I knew people with flag tattoos (usually with text like 'Born to raise hell' or something similar). Poltical candidates of both parties (including Bill Clinton) had backers that distributed campaign buttons with the flag. But that changed. The flag became a divisive symbol. I recognized it myself when Dr. Ben Carson said he found it offensive. At that point, I changed my attitude towards the flag, but I remembered the time when it was not offensive. I feel bad for people like Civil War re-enactors, or history buffs that invested in memorabelia. Their hobbies are now hallmarks of racism. I don't see where they have much choice but to give them up. So today the 'ok' symbol is racist and can get someone fired. What comes tomorrow? Clicking a pen? Snapping your fingers? There's no telling. Pepe the frog went that way, as far as I can tell. Is Kermit next? How about Bugs Bunny? There's no telling. I hope it stops.
• a_puppy 6y ago
  Racial inequality is a huge problem in the United States. If a few innocent people get fired, that's tiny compared to the injustice that Black people have suffered over the past centuries. So if fighting racial inequality means a few innocent people get fired, then that would be a small price to pay. But I worry that the long-term cost of this tactic is much bigger than "a few innocent people get fired". I really want Biden to win the 2020 election. But for that to happen, the Democrats will need support from swing voters. When innocent people get fired, this scares and alienates swing voters, and they'll be more likely to vote Republican. I worry that this kind of thing will result in another four years of Trump. And in the long term, it's not just about swing voters, but also about the 40%+ of the US that consistently votes Republican. We'll never have real equality and peace if 40%+ of the US isn't on board. I truly believe it's possible to change conservatives' minds: polls find widespread support for police reform even among people who identify as Republican [1], and Republican support for gay marriage increased from 16% to 49% over the past few decades [2]. But when innocent people get fired, that's going to make conservatives scared, and they're going to push back by turning out to vote for Trump, and by nominating more extreme candidates in future Republican primaries. So we should fight for racial equality in ways that don't antagonize conservatives any more than necessary. Of course, it's inevitable that fighting for progress will antagonize conservatives to _some_ extent; but we should try to minimize this when we can. So the real cost of firing innocent people is that it alienates swing voters, and also antagonizes conservatives and hardens their resolve. That's _not_ a small price to pay. We should make a real effort to avoid firing innocent people, and when it does happen, we should express regret instead of doubling down. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN23I380 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-poll-e... [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...
  • gentleman11 6y ago
    I disagree. The real cost of firing innocent people is that justice is overridden by mob rule and political trends. It isn’t acceptable to “sacrifice” a small population for the sake of another in this way, an incredible amount of evil has been done with those sorts of justifications, and usually to some minority
• dragonwriter 6y ago
  “Start employing people under contracts like those typically held by key employees that do not allow them to be fired but for enumerated reasons and with specified, fair process for determining that the reasons are factually true”, perhaps. Otherwise, if you are asking for protection of those not firmly established as guilty of certain accusations, you are advocating for a double standard designed to delegitimize pressure in that area, not for protection of the innocent in any principled way.
• luord 6y ago
  Before, I would have said something naive like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but now I refuse to give these so called "activists" the benefit of the doubt. There was no good intention here, these are just power trips. These people's lives were damaged/ruined for no legitimate reason.
• xtiansimon 6y ago
  > "...unbeknownst to most Americans, the alt-right has appropriated a version of the “okay” symbol for their own purposes because it looks like the initials for “white power”; this is the symbol the man accused Cafferty of making when his hand was dangling out of his truck. [...] Repeatedly asked whether they had any evidence that Cafferty was a white supremacist, had known the meaning of the inverted “okay” symbol, or had previously been reprimanded for his performance, SDG&E refused to answer." The article suggests Cafferty made the inverted Ok hand gesture, because he was being lazy with his arm hanging outside of his truck. If you believe Cafferty (and for the record I find it entirely plausible), then his casual expression was misinterpreted by a narrow community (the man's twitter followers), who in turn lobbied SDG&E to fire the employee. WOW! Remember when the internet was the place where you could find your own community of like minded individuals, because living in society in the physical you just can't make the numbers? Second, it seems Cafferty accidentally made the wrong hand gesture to the wrong person. This reminds me of classic stories of gang violence, where an unsuspecting outsider walks into a community and their mode of dress has encoded meaning--leading to a violent response. Memes appear on the scene, and some take hold (I heart NY) and stick around, and others die out. variation-replication-selection, repeat.
  • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Or that's a naive view, and Cafferty knew exactly what it meant.
    • eitland 6y ago
      An important point here - clearly readable early in the article: > “If I was a white supremacist,” he told me, “I would literally have to hate 75 percent of myself.”
      • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Kind of. What side you choose has almost nothing to do with that. Witness the homophobes, who are that way because they hate themselves. Anyway, agreed hating folks for the sake of it is pointless. Whatever group you choose to hate on.
• fortran77 6y ago
  I don't feel to sorry for Wadi. The other stories, though, seem outrageous.