5 ms·

Yes, absolutely, and i think that anyone supporting this should take a long and hard look at themselves and ask how someone is supposed to live in society and s

by djbebs 6y ago

Yes, absolutely, and i think that anyone supporting this should take a long and hard look at themselves and ask how someone is supposed to live in society and support themselves when a worldwide mob is actively lobbying to have them unable to acquire/retain gainful employment. Make no mistake, i have no views on this person, and had never heard of them until this thing showed up. I also vehemently disapprove of the way reddit handled it (censorship? No!) And will always be up to giving reddit a bloody nose over the crap they do. But make no mistake this is cancel culture, and this has wide reaching implications.

sorenjan 6y ago
They can work with something else than being an admin on one of the largest social media sites in the world, or a politician influencing public policy, or really anything with power over others. There's plenty of other options available.
- djbebs 6y ago
  Right, of course. Until the mob notices again, right? Come now lets be honest here...
  - judge2020 6y ago
    There are a lot of industries and businesses where they couldn’t care less about public perception. Nestle, for example.
jimbob45 6y ago
I didn’t want the guy fired though. I wanted Reddit to admit that this is the latest in a pattern of site mismanagement. The guy can stay if he likes, doesn’t really bother me. Same story with StackOverflow. Even with their apology, I no longer have faith in their ability to run their site, Monica being employed or not.
- bavent 6y ago
  She’s not a she. Not a he. Disgusting behavior is pronoun-free though, and she is not a good person apparently regardless of her gender identity.
bluefirebrand 6y ago
I don't think that "A person who has strong ties to paedophiles, defends paedophilia, and for who there exists a reasonable suspicion of being a paedophile themselves, should not be in a position or authority over a website where they have incredible reach to youth and teens" counts as cancel culture. Especially not when Reddit admins can likely see private correspondence between users and can definitely see personally identifying information about them.
- exmadscientist 6y ago
  I think one of the points that the post you replied to is trying to make is that it is important to recognize this as an instance of cancel culture, whether it is appropriate in this case or not. Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril. (Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)
  - bluefirebrand 6y ago
    You could just lump this under the umbrella of cancel culture and it would be reasonable. I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior" Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression. As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions. We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard. I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired. On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.

by djbebs 6y ago

sorenjan 6y ago

They can work with something else than being an admin on one of the largest social media sites in the world, or a politician influencing public policy, or really anything with power over others. There's plenty of other options available.

djbebs 6y ago
Right, of course. Until the mob notices again, right? Come now lets be honest here...
- judge2020 6y ago
  There are a lot of industries and businesses where they couldn’t care less about public perception. Nestle, for example.

jimbob45 6y ago

I didn’t want the guy fired though. I wanted Reddit to admit that this is the latest in a pattern of site mismanagement. The guy can stay if he likes, doesn’t really bother me. Same story with StackOverflow. Even with their apology, I no longer have faith in their ability to run their site, Monica being employed or not.

bavent 6y ago
She’s not a she. Not a he. Disgusting behavior is pronoun-free though, and she is not a good person apparently regardless of her gender identity.

bluefirebrand 6y ago

I don't think that "A person who has strong ties to paedophiles, defends paedophilia, and for who there exists a reasonable suspicion of being a paedophile themselves, should not be in a position or authority over a website where they have incredible reach to youth and teens" counts as cancel culture. Especially not when Reddit admins can likely see private correspondence between users and can definitely see personally identifying information about them.

exmadscientist 6y ago
I think one of the points that the post you replied to is trying to make is that it is important to recognize this as an instance of cancel culture, whether it is appropriate in this case or not. Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril. (Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  You could just lump this under the umbrella of cancel culture and it would be reasonable. I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior" Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression. As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions. We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard. I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired. On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.