5 ms·

Cancel culture is about making sure people you disagree with (and their dependants) are out of jobs. Pressing companies to fire people for their political view

by raarts 6y ago

Cancel culture is about making sure people you disagree with (and their dependants) are out of jobs. Pressing companies to fire people for their political views should be a crime. The judicial system is meant for punishing people, not a pile-on of twitter users. Over here in The Netherlands it is illegal to fire employees for their political views. Although that law is increasingly ineffective because of the huge (biggest in EU) growth of contract workers.

perl4ever 6y ago
You could ask, are murders, rapists, felons in general, entitled to have jobs? We have existing ethical standards which might be a good jumping off point. I think the conventional answer used to be that mainstream politically moderate people believe that criminals should be able to work, that the government should take steps to encourage people to hire those with criminal records, but that there are legitimate concerns for specific jobs. But we can and do pass laws that say the discrimination must directly relate to logically necessary aspects of the job. It seems to me like this standard could be applied to behavior people think is abhorrent (but not technically criminal yet) basically the same way. Being able to work is a human right, but having a specific high status, high trust job is not.
- raarts 6y ago
  I see two problems with your response: 1. Are felons entitled to have jobs? To which my response would be: are you entitled to decide? 2. We have existing ethical standards Where my response would be: who is 'we'? Do you think society is one group, that has the same ethical standards? Because in fact there are many groups, with different values, that's why democracy was invented. Summarizing you may be unaware you are speaking from a position of privilege here.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    We means Americans, and more specifically I'm thinking of NY state laws. The existing norms are that felons are not expected to be excluded from society forever and reforms have been made to try to deal with discrimination against them. I wasn't suggesting that you or I get to decide. Obviously we don't. My point was that collectively, people have decided, and extrapolating from that would be logical. I'm not advocating any specific policy, I'm concerned that people are debating stuff while losing track of or just being ignorant what their fellow citizens and the establishment considers normal and reasonable. I'm not expressing an opinion of my own, but trying to provide what I think is an appropriate frame for discussion. Did you know that it's possible to lose constitutional rights according to law without being accused, arrested or convicted of a crime? That too is a feature of our society and its laws. Have you ever thought about that? Should it be abolished?
    - raarts 6y ago
      I re-read your responses multiple times, and it seems you are advocating for pushing people out of high-paying jobs in case they display morally reprehensible behavior, for example racism? If you are, I can only repeat what I said earlier: we have the judicial system for punishing people, not the twitterverse. Cancelculture itself is morally wrong.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        No, I wasn't advocating anything or taking any side really - about people with criminal records or any other records that stigmatize them. I was highlighting that there are existing norms, laws, balancing acts, for people who are stigmatized for past actions, because I feel like these discussions often seem like they are in a vacuum without context. Rightly or wrongly, it's normal and always has been, that people get punished in many ways beyond the specific penalty that results from being convicted of a crime. If you don't pay your bills or you sue people, there are consequences even if you don't lose a court case. If you have a health problem that is considered to cause risk to others, you can lose rights without any criminal issues. Despite ideas about criminals being rehabilitated, or exonerated, you don't necessarily get back 100% of everything you lost after being arrested or imprisoned, guilty or innocent. Historically, there is no single answer to whether any particular consequences are ok and just. It evolves over time depending on what people think is right and struggle politically over. Extremism makes more sense if you have somehow blocked out of your mind or are just ignorant of every moderate opinion, and my goal was just to rub peoples' noses in the conventional attitudes, not because I believe they are correct or the best, but because I think you have to be aware of everyday reality as a reference point for any reasonable debate. We always have had people pushed out of high paying jobs for "morally reprehensible behavior" and always will, so injustice lies in the details. I can't advocate or be against it in general. If internet mobs make injustice more common, it certainly seems reasonable to have debates and political concerns about it, the conditions that lead to it, etc. But I think it's palpably absurd to say "we have the judicial system for punishing people" in an exclusive sense. It's never been limited to that and never will be.

by raarts 6y ago

perl4ever 6y ago

You could ask, are murders, rapists, felons in general, entitled to have jobs? We have existing ethical standards which might be a good jumping off point. I think the conventional answer used to be that mainstream politically moderate people believe that criminals should be able to work, that the government should take steps to encourage people to hire those with criminal records, but that there are legitimate concerns for specific jobs. But we can and do pass laws that say the discrimination must directly relate to logically necessary aspects of the job. It seems to me like this standard could be applied to behavior people think is abhorrent (but not technically criminal yet) basically the same way. Being able to work is a human right, but having a specific high status, high trust job is not.

raarts 6y ago
I see two problems with your response: 1. Are felons entitled to have jobs? To which my response would be: are you entitled to decide? 2. We have existing ethical standards Where my response would be: who is 'we'? Do you think society is one group, that has the same ethical standards? Because in fact there are many groups, with different values, that's why democracy was invented. Summarizing you may be unaware you are speaking from a position of privilege here.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  We means Americans, and more specifically I'm thinking of NY state laws. The existing norms are that felons are not expected to be excluded from society forever and reforms have been made to try to deal with discrimination against them. I wasn't suggesting that you or I get to decide. Obviously we don't. My point was that collectively, people have decided, and extrapolating from that would be logical. I'm not advocating any specific policy, I'm concerned that people are debating stuff while losing track of or just being ignorant what their fellow citizens and the establishment considers normal and reasonable. I'm not expressing an opinion of my own, but trying to provide what I think is an appropriate frame for discussion. Did you know that it's possible to lose constitutional rights according to law without being accused, arrested or convicted of a crime? That too is a feature of our society and its laws. Have you ever thought about that? Should it be abolished?
  - raarts 6y ago
    I re-read your responses multiple times, and it seems you are advocating for pushing people out of high-paying jobs in case they display morally reprehensible behavior, for example racism? If you are, I can only repeat what I said earlier: we have the judicial system for punishing people, not the twitterverse. Cancelculture itself is morally wrong.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      No, I wasn't advocating anything or taking any side really - about people with criminal records or any other records that stigmatize them. I was highlighting that there are existing norms, laws, balancing acts, for people who are stigmatized for past actions, because I feel like these discussions often seem like they are in a vacuum without context. Rightly or wrongly, it's normal and always has been, that people get punished in many ways beyond the specific penalty that results from being convicted of a crime. If you don't pay your bills or you sue people, there are consequences even if you don't lose a court case. If you have a health problem that is considered to cause risk to others, you can lose rights without any criminal issues. Despite ideas about criminals being rehabilitated, or exonerated, you don't necessarily get back 100% of everything you lost after being arrested or imprisoned, guilty or innocent. Historically, there is no single answer to whether any particular consequences are ok and just. It evolves over time depending on what people think is right and struggle politically over. Extremism makes more sense if you have somehow blocked out of your mind or are just ignorant of every moderate opinion, and my goal was just to rub peoples' noses in the conventional attitudes, not because I believe they are correct or the best, but because I think you have to be aware of everyday reality as a reference point for any reasonable debate. We always have had people pushed out of high paying jobs for "morally reprehensible behavior" and always will, so injustice lies in the details. I can't advocate or be against it in general. If internet mobs make injustice more common, it certainly seems reasonable to have debates and political concerns about it, the conditions that lead to it, etc. But I think it's palpably absurd to say "we have the judicial system for punishing people" in an exclusive sense. It's never been limited to that and never will be.