3 ms·

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

by 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

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.