7 ms·

Should these people go broke and starve to death? Or is there a class of job they should be allowed to work?

shadowgovt 6y ago
In the US at least, there is a welfare system in place that you cannot be "canceled" from if you have the need. I'd be surprised to learn there are instances of people being canceled and starving to death. As for going broke... The US system has never and continues to not guarantee people employment. Guaranteed employment is a property of another socioeconomic system that starts with a 'c', but it's not capitalism.
kstrauser 6y ago
I hear Gab's probably going to be hiring soon. But really, if they get fired from one job because of their awful opinions, they can try to find an employer who shares them. I guarantee there's someone out there who will hire people who believe the kinds of things I mentioned above. Maybe their new job will be worse, or have lower pay or benefits, but that's the consequence of sharing those opinions in public. And let me be very explicit: I can happily work with people of all sorts of political persuasions. I couldn't care less if someone's a Republican, Democrat, or neither. If they're a decent person who treats the people around them with respect, then welcome aboard! Again, I've never heard of anyone losing their job just because they thought William F. Buckley had some interesting ideas.
- orblivion 6y ago
  So it's not about cancelling, it's about who you want to work with. Fair enough. There's a gap between genocide and tax cuts. What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity? Or even having strict cultural (I won't even go to racial) standards for immigration. EDIT: Removed a claim that maybe I can't back up.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    The answers for that are going to be different for everyone. For me, personally: if you can come to work and be nice to Joe and his husband Steve, and don't talk about their air-quotes "marriage", and you're not a raging asshole about it online, fine. If you're not sure about trans identity but still call your coworker Jane by name as Jane, and refer to her as a woman, and aren't a raging asshole about it online, then fair enough. And by the online behavior part, I mean I'm personally not going to hate you for discussing the topics civilly and in good faith. If you're nice to Joe at work but on Facebook talk about "the gross gay guy at work", and it got back to me, I'd definitely have issues with it. Some people will have a much lower tolerance for such opinions, just like I know for a fact there are people in the midwest who wouldn't hire me because I'm an "out of touch coastal liberal" or such. Like, I could name names. Similarly, there are people who wouldn't think a thing of it. Also, I truly don't believe there's such a thing as "cancelling". In every case I've seen of it, the root cause was someone who had been making an ass of themself and the people around them had enough.
    - quercusa 6y ago
      I think kstrauser's comment makes the proper distinction between what someone does and what they think.
    - orblivion 6y ago
      Cancelling is a vague term I agree. I meant it here in the sense of going out of your way to discourage anybody from hiring the person in question, which is different from having your own hiring preferences.
    - unishark 6y ago
      Do you think JK Rowling was not a real example? Or that she deserved it?
      - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
        Oh, Rowling was "cancelled," you say? What does that mean? Did she lose her publisher? No: her last book came out in September 2020. Her movie contracts? Nope, still has those, too. Can she still find places to publish whatever she wants? Yes. Can you still read the essay that she was supposedly "cancelled" over? Absolutely -- it was nominated for a prestigious award. Is she still a literal billionaire? Why, yes, from all appearances, she is. Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter? Yes, I suppose they did at that. Perhaps she can console herself by rolling around in her giant bin of money.
  - smileybarry 6y ago
    > What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity? The problem is usually with what backs that opinion up, e.g.: not believing in gay marriage because at its core they don't find the relationship legitimate in the first place. Even discussions on immigration don't have to be bad at their core, it's the "why" that's usually the problem. Trans identity is a different matter because it's essentially: "what difference does it make to (figurative) you?". (i.e.: one's identity shouldn't matter to someone else)
pkulak 6y ago
Who's doing the "allowing" in your question? No one has that kind of power except for the state, and suggesting that the government should step in and make "asshole" a protected class seems silly.
ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
We’re in America. No one is getting fired for being a libertarian or a socialist. Were not jailing flat earthers or people who marry sex dolls. We’re taking about incitement to violence. That’s not something we tolerate as free speech.
- orblivion 6y ago
  Your standard sounds pretty reasonable. I think that there's a lack of trust that people really mean what you're saying. It's a motte and bailey thing. What about when people start saying that denying that transwomen are women equates to "denying the humanity of trans people"? Which puts trans people's lives at risk, they claim. That's practically incitement if you want it to be. I mean heck, they tried the previous president for incitement of violence. As best I can tell he irresponsibly weaved a false reality for people which (I think inadvertently) lead to the storming, but by no legal standard is that incitement. Maybe people in my corner are imagining things, but there's enough fuzzing of the lines that we're uneasy about it.
gdulli 6y ago
You could ask that hypothetical about any of a million different things that aren't a protected status. Should you in theory have a hard time finding employment if you can't be what any employer anywhere wants you to be? Sure. That's on you. Protected statuses are rare, we should encroach as little as possible on the freedom of employers to employ who they want. Should you starve to death? No, that's why we maintain a social safety net.
etchalon 6y ago
So your argument is that we need to be super concerned about the employability of abject evil? "Sure, he's a serial killer, but jeez man, everyone's got to eat" is a hell of a take.

In the US at least, there is a welfare system in place that you cannot be "canceled" from if you have the need. I'd be surprised to learn there are instances of people being canceled and starving to death. As for going broke... The US system has never and continues to not guarantee people employment. Guaranteed employment is a property of another socioeconomic system that starts with a 'c', but it's not capitalism.

kstrauser 6y ago

I hear Gab's probably going to be hiring soon. But really, if they get fired from one job because of their awful opinions, they can try to find an employer who shares them. I guarantee there's someone out there who will hire people who believe the kinds of things I mentioned above. Maybe their new job will be worse, or have lower pay or benefits, but that's the consequence of sharing those opinions in public. And let me be very explicit: I can happily work with people of all sorts of political persuasions. I couldn't care less if someone's a Republican, Democrat, or neither. If they're a decent person who treats the people around them with respect, then welcome aboard! Again, I've never heard of anyone losing their job just because they thought William F. Buckley had some interesting ideas.

orblivion 6y ago
So it's not about cancelling, it's about who you want to work with. Fair enough. There's a gap between genocide and tax cuts. What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity? Or even having strict cultural (I won't even go to racial) standards for immigration. EDIT: Removed a claim that maybe I can't back up.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  The answers for that are going to be different for everyone. For me, personally: if you can come to work and be nice to Joe and his husband Steve, and don't talk about their air-quotes "marriage", and you're not a raging asshole about it online, fine. If you're not sure about trans identity but still call your coworker Jane by name as Jane, and refer to her as a woman, and aren't a raging asshole about it online, then fair enough. And by the online behavior part, I mean I'm personally not going to hate you for discussing the topics civilly and in good faith. If you're nice to Joe at work but on Facebook talk about "the gross gay guy at work", and it got back to me, I'd definitely have issues with it. Some people will have a much lower tolerance for such opinions, just like I know for a fact there are people in the midwest who wouldn't hire me because I'm an "out of touch coastal liberal" or such. Like, I could name names. Similarly, there are people who wouldn't think a thing of it. Also, I truly don't believe there's such a thing as "cancelling". In every case I've seen of it, the root cause was someone who had been making an ass of themself and the people around them had enough.
  - quercusa 6y ago
    I think kstrauser's comment makes the proper distinction between what someone does and what they think.
  - orblivion 6y ago
    Cancelling is a vague term I agree. I meant it here in the sense of going out of your way to discourage anybody from hiring the person in question, which is different from having your own hiring preferences.
  - unishark 6y ago
    Do you think JK Rowling was not a real example? Or that she deserved it?
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      Oh, Rowling was "cancelled," you say? What does that mean? Did she lose her publisher? No: her last book came out in September 2020. Her movie contracts? Nope, still has those, too. Can she still find places to publish whatever she wants? Yes. Can you still read the essay that she was supposedly "cancelled" over? Absolutely -- it was nominated for a prestigious award. Is she still a literal billionaire? Why, yes, from all appearances, she is. Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter? Yes, I suppose they did at that. Perhaps she can console herself by rolling around in her giant bin of money.
- smileybarry 6y ago
  > What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity? The problem is usually with what backs that opinion up, e.g.: not believing in gay marriage because at its core they don't find the relationship legitimate in the first place. Even discussions on immigration don't have to be bad at their core, it's the "why" that's usually the problem. Trans identity is a different matter because it's essentially: "what difference does it make to (figurative) you?". (i.e.: one's identity shouldn't matter to someone else)

pkulak 6y ago

Who's doing the "allowing" in your question? No one has that kind of power except for the state, and suggesting that the government should step in and make "asshole" a protected class seems silly.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago

We’re in America. No one is getting fired for being a libertarian or a socialist. Were not jailing flat earthers or people who marry sex dolls. We’re taking about incitement to violence. That’s not something we tolerate as free speech.

orblivion 6y ago
Your standard sounds pretty reasonable. I think that there's a lack of trust that people really mean what you're saying. It's a motte and bailey thing. What about when people start saying that denying that transwomen are women equates to "denying the humanity of trans people"? Which puts trans people's lives at risk, they claim. That's practically incitement if you want it to be. I mean heck, they tried the previous president for incitement of violence. As best I can tell he irresponsibly weaved a false reality for people which (I think inadvertently) lead to the storming, but by no legal standard is that incitement. Maybe people in my corner are imagining things, but there's enough fuzzing of the lines that we're uneasy about it.

gdulli 6y ago

You could ask that hypothetical about any of a million different things that aren't a protected status. Should you in theory have a hard time finding employment if you can't be what any employer anywhere wants you to be? Sure. That's on you. Protected statuses are rare, we should encroach as little as possible on the freedom of employers to employ who they want. Should you starve to death? No, that's why we maintain a social safety net.

etchalon 6y ago

So your argument is that we need to be super concerned about the employability of abject evil? "Sure, he's a serial killer, but jeez man, everyone's got to eat" is a hell of a take.