3 ms·
The author really just brushes over the David Shor situation, because his absolutely indefensible firing more or less obviates this entire essay. You can write
by scarmig 6y ago
The author really just brushes over the David Shor situation, because his absolutely indefensible firing more or less obviates this entire essay. You can write it off as just random noise, but it progressed exactly how critics of cancel culture have identified as the way cancel culture exercises power to deleterious social effect.
Note that the biggest proponents of cancel culture have seen no need to think about that event, which highlights the core issue with granting some people inherent epistemic privilege over others: it attracts the hucksters and con artists who can claim that power like a moth to flame, and the culture immediately rejects any antibodies against them as racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever.
- djaque 6y agoI have to disagree with you that the piece brushes over the firing. The author makes it a point to say that Shor's firing is pretty universally thought of as unjust. They also bring up an open letter written by proponents of cancel culture that says as much. Both you and the pro-cancel culture folks already agree here.