5 ms·

The left’s obsession with cancel culture and conducting archeological digs on past comments, tweets, etc is coming back to bite them. I think removing this guy

The left’s obsession with cancel culture and conducting archeological digs on past comments, tweets, etc is coming back to bite them. I think removing this guy was the right thing to do, BUT I also think a major company like Google needs to set an example: Something someone tweeted more than ten years ago should no longer be relevant and should be ignored. However until that standard is set as example by a major company, we are going to see this dig up and burn for some time.

ravedave5 5y ago
If this guy were a CTO or something sure. He was chief diversity officer though, there's gotta be a higher standard there.
- jsiepkes 5y ago
  True, but then again this was 14 years ago. People can change. Steve jobs had just launched the first iPhone when he made that blog post. That feels like a life time ago.
  - lawnchair_larry 5y ago
    Depends how old you are. Feels like yesterday to me.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  How far is it OK and relevant to look back for dirt in someone's posting history? 20 years? 30? Rants to their college newspaper? High school yearbook? Today's sensitivity yardstick is much less forgiving than it was in decades past. It's getting to the point where it is safest to just not participate at all, in case something you say today becomes taboo in 30 years.
- steelframe 5y ago
  In 1998 I was running around Italy telling people that Joseph Smith translated magic transdimensional golden plates that a disembodied Native American spirit materialized for him. Six years later I became an atheist. I've been an atheist for 17 years now. As someone who has personally undergone an extreme change in disposition on something so fundamental with respect to how one views the cosmos, what you did or said 14 years ago is only relevant to me insofar as what your transformation story has been. More than anything though, I want to know what person you have become today. Bonus points if you used to think the opposite of what you think today, because you've managed to really grok that state of mind and figured out how to get out of it.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Do we have any reason to believe the guy has transformed? Just from reading your one-line description of mormonism, I can tell you are 100% completely genuine. What's the equivalent for Bobb? Just saying "I regret having posted that" isn't quite the same. Maybe wearing a yamika for a few years would do it, I don't know.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
whimsicalism 5y ago
Sorry, but if you think it was the right thing to do to remove him, then you agree with the methods, you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over. Your entire comment is a contradiction.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  I don't see the contradiction. He's arguing that this is the tit, in response to the left's tat (as in tit for tat). The left either needs to: 1. Play by their own rules (in this case, fire the guy) 2. Stop doing it to their political opponents
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    These are rules that you've invented, not every "cancellation" results in a firing even for people posting actually racist stuff. Indeed, there are plenty of people with racist posts who are routinely not fired by these companies. The contradiction is pretty clear - the guy is decrying these tactics, but still saying this person should be fired using exactly those same tactics.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Interesting that your comment implies that the blog post in question wasn't "actually racist". To me that speaks volumes.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        I can see where you got that implication, it wasn't the intention of my comment - the last few line of the blog post are obviously anti-semitic. I probably should have used the word "really" rather than "actually", as I was trying to contrast the minor response with the harm of the offense, not contrast other racist things with this racist thing.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  It's not a contradiction in the slightest. It's possible to disagree with a belief/norm system while still respecting those that adhere to it as reasonable moral entities. This is the foundation of Enlightenment pluralism: you can coexist peacefully with those that have different worldviews, managing the behavior of each group only when it affects others (eg, you can pray to whomever you want, but you can't burn witches at the stake). But if they don't adhere to their own belief system when inconvenient, then absolute normative judgments about their behavior become appropriate (like the one you're making in the quote below). > you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over. Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus. Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"? Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.
devwastaken 5y ago
Google is not threatened by "cancel culture". What are people going to do? Get them banned on Twitter? Won't happen, and that's the extent of the possible damage. Google does this because someone in the corp didn't like what this guy said, and canned them. People do that because they have beliefs. In the U.S. firing people, protesting, and overall underhanded methods are also a Hallmark of "the right" whenever someone does something they don't agree with. Or have we forgotten that the overwhelming majority of day to day business isn't conducted on Twitter?
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  The religious right was also wrong. The 90s were abhorrent. But that doesn't excuse current behaviour from the left today.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I'm curious - is it ever okay to fire someone based on something they posted on their blog?
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      I think we should try to avoid it at all costs, because otherwise we can't keep a liberal society. Being able to think and express yourself risks offending others. I do not like what this guy had to say, but I'd rather he not get sacked - same with people on the 'opposite' side of the debate. It's gross but we have to stick up for people to be allowed to say gross things.
burkaman 5y ago
You think it was the right thing to do, but they should stop doing it?
oliwarner 5y ago
Something they wrote and then hosted without retraction for 14 years. Your library of work is on you. Reviewing it, and adding contemporary commentary where needed is again, up to you. If you don't, people assume you still believe it. This wasn't some woke slip of syntax, he was very literally holding all Jews accountable for Israel's actions. It's a deeply anti-Semitic set of comments. Even without his position, he should have known better.
koheripbal 5y ago
Notably, Kamau Bobb removed ALL of his blog posts over from his personal website. It looks like some people on Twitter began looking through all of his blog posts and finding controversial opinions. In my opinion, the 1619 Project is a racist and decisive project and has no place at Google, and Kamau Bobb was a public supporter of that. So if Google is going to support "cancel culture", then Kamau Bobb should have no place at Google, or any major tech company, whatsoever.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I think the 1619 project is.. not great history and it is unfortunate that it has gotten such accolades, but how is it racist?
andrewzah 5y ago
Both US parties try and "cancel" things they don't like. It's not related to one party or the other. [0] Also, "cancel culture" isn't some new concept. Humans have rebuked and ostracized each other forever. [0] Or are we forgetting when people lost their minds about "happy holidays" and starbucks' cup design change? Or Colin Kaepernick? Etc. I don't see how anyone can say it's related to one political party in one country.
- IE6 5y ago
  It's not but right now it's a common talking point that only the left practices "cancel culture" so you will see it surfacing in many discussions online.

ravedave5 5y ago

If this guy were a CTO or something sure. He was chief diversity officer though, there's gotta be a higher standard there.

jsiepkes 5y ago
True, but then again this was 14 years ago. People can change. Steve jobs had just launched the first iPhone when he made that blog post. That feels like a life time ago.
- lawnchair_larry 5y ago
  Depends how old you are. Feels like yesterday to me.
ryandrake 5y ago
How far is it OK and relevant to look back for dirt in someone's posting history? 20 years? 30? Rants to their college newspaper? High school yearbook? Today's sensitivity yardstick is much less forgiving than it was in decades past. It's getting to the point where it is safest to just not participate at all, in case something you say today becomes taboo in 30 years.
steelframe 5y ago
In 1998 I was running around Italy telling people that Joseph Smith translated magic transdimensional golden plates that a disembodied Native American spirit materialized for him. Six years later I became an atheist. I've been an atheist for 17 years now. As someone who has personally undergone an extreme change in disposition on something so fundamental with respect to how one views the cosmos, what you did or said 14 years ago is only relevant to me insofar as what your transformation story has been. More than anything though, I want to know what person you have become today. Bonus points if you used to think the opposite of what you think today, because you've managed to really grok that state of mind and figured out how to get out of it.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Do we have any reason to believe the guy has transformed? Just from reading your one-line description of mormonism, I can tell you are 100% completely genuine. What's the equivalent for Bobb? Just saying "I regret having posted that" isn't quite the same. Maybe wearing a yamika for a few years would do it, I don't know.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

whimsicalism 5y ago

Sorry, but if you think it was the right thing to do to remove him, then you agree with the methods, you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over. Your entire comment is a contradiction.

chitowneats 5y ago
I don't see the contradiction. He's arguing that this is the tit, in response to the left's tat (as in tit for tat). The left either needs to: 1. Play by their own rules (in this case, fire the guy) 2. Stop doing it to their political opponents
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  These are rules that you've invented, not every "cancellation" results in a firing even for people posting actually racist stuff. Indeed, there are plenty of people with racist posts who are routinely not fired by these companies. The contradiction is pretty clear - the guy is decrying these tactics, but still saying this person should be fired using exactly those same tactics.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Interesting that your comment implies that the blog post in question wasn't "actually racist". To me that speaks volumes.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      I can see where you got that implication, it wasn't the intention of my comment - the last few line of the blog post are obviously anti-semitic. I probably should have used the word "really" rather than "actually", as I was trying to contrast the minor response with the harm of the offense, not contrast other racist things with this racist thing.
wutbrodo 5y ago
It's not a contradiction in the slightest. It's possible to disagree with a belief/norm system while still respecting those that adhere to it as reasonable moral entities. This is the foundation of Enlightenment pluralism: you can coexist peacefully with those that have different worldviews, managing the behavior of each group only when it affects others (eg, you can pray to whomever you want, but you can't burn witches at the stake). But if they don't adhere to their own belief system when inconvenient, then absolute normative judgments about their behavior become appropriate (like the one you're making in the quote below). > you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over. Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus. Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"? Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.

devwastaken 5y ago

Google is not threatened by "cancel culture". What are people going to do? Get them banned on Twitter? Won't happen, and that's the extent of the possible damage. Google does this because someone in the corp didn't like what this guy said, and canned them. People do that because they have beliefs. In the U.S. firing people, protesting, and overall underhanded methods are also a Hallmark of "the right" whenever someone does something they don't agree with. Or have we forgotten that the overwhelming majority of day to day business isn't conducted on Twitter?

throwaway3699 5y ago
The religious right was also wrong. The 90s were abhorrent. But that doesn't excuse current behaviour from the left today.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I'm curious - is it ever okay to fire someone based on something they posted on their blog?
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    I think we should try to avoid it at all costs, because otherwise we can't keep a liberal society. Being able to think and express yourself risks offending others. I do not like what this guy had to say, but I'd rather he not get sacked - same with people on the 'opposite' side of the debate. It's gross but we have to stick up for people to be allowed to say gross things.

burkaman 5y ago

You think it was the right thing to do, but they should stop doing it?

oliwarner 5y ago

Something they wrote and then hosted without retraction for 14 years. Your library of work is on you. Reviewing it, and adding contemporary commentary where needed is again, up to you. If you don't, people assume you still believe it. This wasn't some woke slip of syntax, he was very literally holding all Jews accountable for Israel's actions. It's a deeply anti-Semitic set of comments. Even without his position, he should have known better.

koheripbal 5y ago

Notably, Kamau Bobb removed ALL of his blog posts over from his personal website. It looks like some people on Twitter began looking through all of his blog posts and finding controversial opinions. In my opinion, the 1619 Project is a racist and decisive project and has no place at Google, and Kamau Bobb was a public supporter of that. So if Google is going to support "cancel culture", then Kamau Bobb should have no place at Google, or any major tech company, whatsoever.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I think the 1619 project is.. not great history and it is unfortunate that it has gotten such accolades, but how is it racist?

andrewzah 5y ago

Both US parties try and "cancel" things they don't like. It's not related to one party or the other. [0] Also, "cancel culture" isn't some new concept. Humans have rebuked and ostracized each other forever. [0] Or are we forgetting when people lost their minds about "happy holidays" and starbucks' cup design change? Or Colin Kaepernick? Etc. I don't see how anyone can say it's related to one political party in one country.

IE6 5y ago
It's not but right now it's a common talking point that only the left practices "cancel culture" so you will see it surfacing in many discussions online.