3 ms·

You aren't paying attention if you think people are complaining about being fired because they're hard to work with. This (Mexican-American) guy was fired for

You aren't paying attention if you think people are complaining about being fired because they're hard to work with. This (Mexican-American) guy was fired for a photo that for a brief moment showed his hand making an OK sign out the window of a truck because for a few months the mainstream media tried to convince everyone that the OK sign is a white supremacist symbol: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-california-man-fired-over-alleged-white-power-sign-says-he-was https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-cal...

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
Here's a general principle: if people repeatedly bring up the same small handful of examples to convince you something is a broad trend, that means it probably isn't a broad trend. Those examples are famous because they are exceptional. That story made it into the papers not because it is representative but because it is not representative. When something is actually widespread, I usually can't usually rattle off a half-dozen examples because they aren't salient. I don't doubt there have been a few dramatic examples of people being fired for innocuous actions. I don't even doubt that there's a widespread trend. What I do doubt is that this is a new thing, that it is perpetrated by one side of the aisle against the other, that most people who are "canceled" are innocent, and that we are in a crisis. >because for a few months the mainstream media tried to convince everyone that the OK sign is a white supremacist symbol No, because white supremacists tried to convince everyone that the OK sign is a white supremacist symbol. They started it as a joke: "Hey, what if we tricked the idiots in the MSM that white supremacists are using the OK symbol?" Somehow they missed the fact that trying to pull such a hoax instantly makes the association real. The mainstream media was well aware it was intended as a hoax. They are not completely clueless about how the internet works. I guarantee you there are people from big news outlets reading /pol/ as we speak. See this article from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/ok-sign-white-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/ok-sign-white-power.ht...

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

Here's a general principle: if people repeatedly bring up the same small handful of examples to convince you something is a broad trend, that means it probably isn't a broad trend. Those examples are famous because they are exceptional. That story made it into the papers not because it is representative but because it is not representative. When something is actually widespread, I usually can't usually rattle off a half-dozen examples because they aren't salient. I don't doubt there have been a few dramatic examples of people being fired for innocuous actions. I don't even doubt that there's a widespread trend. What I do doubt is that this is a new thing, that it is perpetrated by one side of the aisle against the other, that most people who are "canceled" are innocent, and that we are in a crisis. >because for a few months the mainstream media tried to convince everyone that the OK sign is a white supremacist symbol No, because white supremacists tried to convince everyone that the OK sign is a white supremacist symbol. They started it as a joke: "Hey, what if we tricked the idiots in the MSM that white supremacists are using the OK symbol?" Somehow they missed the fact that trying to pull such a hoax instantly makes the association real. The mainstream media was well aware it was intended as a hoax. They are not completely clueless about how the internet works. I guarantee you there are people from big news outlets reading /pol/ as we speak. See this article from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/ok-sign-white-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/ok-sign-white-power.ht...