4 ms·

Okay, so it sounds like you do agree with what I actually wrote.

by Jarmsy 4y ago

phpisthebest 4y ago
Your comment was vague to the limits. In modern days cancellation can come from many statements not directly connected to a person's employ, plenty of people have been fired for the social media posting that have NOTHING to do with their employment Thus, when you write "There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job" it is interpreted by me (and it seems many others) to be a much wider context than my narrowly focused statement
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > Your comment was vague to the limits. In modern days cancellation can come from many statements not directly connected to a person's employ, plenty of people have been fired for the social media posting that have NOTHING to do with their employment So you think that in this case employers and other employees should be denied the right to free association so that a racist can keep their job?
  - endominus 4y ago
    This comment very strongly reminded me of the chain of logic called out in an article recently shared on this site, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vam... > In the febrile McCarthyite atmosphere fermented by the moralising left, remarks that could be construed as sexist mean that Brand is a sexist, which also meant that he is a misogynist. Cut and dried, finished, condemned. It is a rather distressing habit to think in this way.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    It is telling that you believe because I said "Someone should not be fired for..." translates to you "Government should prevent someone from being fired for..." Show me where I said employers should be denied any rights?
- Jarmsy 4y ago
  This whole discussion is rather vague from the start - the only specific example given in the article is Rushdie, but the quote I responded to was much more general. The point I made is that inciting harassment of people's children at school is an entirely different thing to making them lose their job (and we've just agreed that there are some things people can write which they should lose their jobs for), and it's a mistake to lump those things together as the same "unconscionable barbarism" as she does here.

Okay, so it sounds like you do agree with what I actually wrote.

by Jarmsy 4y ago

Okay, so it sounds like you do agree with what I actually wrote.

Your comment was vague to the limits. In modern days cancellation can come from many statements not directly connected to a person's employ, plenty of people have been fired for the social media posting that have NOTHING to do with their employment Thus, when you write "There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job" it is interpreted by me (and it seems many others) to be a much wider context than my narrowly focused statement

Kbelicius 4y ago
> Your comment was vague to the limits. In modern days cancellation can come from many statements not directly connected to a person's employ, plenty of people have been fired for the social media posting that have NOTHING to do with their employment So you think that in this case employers and other employees should be denied the right to free association so that a racist can keep their job?
- endominus 4y ago
  This comment very strongly reminded me of the chain of logic called out in an article recently shared on this site, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vam... > In the febrile McCarthyite atmosphere fermented by the moralising left, remarks that could be construed as sexist mean that Brand is a sexist, which also meant that he is a misogynist. Cut and dried, finished, condemned. It is a rather distressing habit to think in this way.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  It is telling that you believe because I said "Someone should not be fired for..." translates to you "Government should prevent someone from being fired for..." Show me where I said employers should be denied any rights?
Jarmsy 4y ago
This whole discussion is rather vague from the start - the only specific example given in the article is Rushdie, but the quote I responded to was much more general. The point I made is that inciting harassment of people's children at school is an entirely different thing to making them lose their job (and we've just agreed that there are some things people can write which they should lose their jobs for), and it's a mistake to lump those things together as the same "unconscionable barbarism" as she does here.