5 ms·
> And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective. They really aren't. I used the word "historically"
by abnry 5y ago
> And, of course, "for offenses that are minor in comparison" or "speculative" is almost always subjective.
They really aren't. I used the word "historically" for this reason. Years ago, for example, people would openly espouse directly racist views. Today, you can get fired for using a slur in the "mention" category, rather than in the "use" category.
And speculative inference isn't anything more than saying, "this person said x, y, & z... which means they _must_ also believe horrendous things a, b & c" when it is in fact logically possible to believe x, y & z without believing a, b, & c.
- tptacek 5y agoYou can get fired for having the wrong hairstyle --- that is a thing that in fact happens more often than firings because of cancel mobs. So we're not really saying much yet. Similarly, you can use the logic in your second paragraph to insulate any kind of speech at all from approbation; if you take what you're saying to its clear conclusion, what you're really saying is that it's never OK to boycott anything over speech. That's far beyond what even the most vigorous anti-cancel-culture advocates are saying.
- musicale 5y ago> Today, you can get fired for using a slur in the "mention" category, rather than in the "use" category. Surely a reference to something is different than the thing itself, and quoting someone does not mean that you endorse their viewpoint. Claiming or acting otherwise seems like it would lead to all sorts of logical contradictions.