"The line between good and evil may cut through every human heart, but let us not forget that there are such things as good and evil." "Americans, Westerners, citizens in liberal societies the world over, should see this false moral equivalency for what it is: apologetics for evil." Agree with this 100%. Great article.
Really awesome piece and I especially liked "But nothing in life is free of tradeoffs." I often say nothing is free, listening to fools and evil people is the price we pay for free speech. Also a new word "oikophobes" sent me scurrying for my search engine to look that one up.
Curious about your take on the debate about employers rescinding employment for pro Hamas agitators. My gut tells me the employers are in the right but wanted your thoughts.
I generally think an employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason so long as it doesn’t violate the terms of the contract. If a new hire makes the company look bad the company is perfectly within its rights to rescind the offer of employment. While I’m generally against cancel culture, the first amendment applies to the government, not to businesses, and nobody has a right to work at any particular place of employment.
The line I've been drawing is that cancel culture is levying consequences for people taking positions on issues that are in open contest in society in order to silence dissent. That is different from an employer choosing not to associate with a position or action that a reasonable person would deem as wrong outside the norms of respectable society.
Cancel culture leads to professional consequences for holding reasonable and traditional beliefs, on gender, marriage, etc. Meanwhile, a employer is not engaging in cancel culture by deciding it doesn't want to represented by people who celebrate such things as terrorism, genocide, etc. I don't view the latter as cancel culture, because it isn't part of culture war where one side is trying to silence the other through professional consequences for holding traditional views, its simply the exercise of the right to disassociate from views an average person would deems as disturbing and concerning.
Yeah I think that makes sense. You could also think of it as a “reasonable person” test, or an Overton window test. If an employee endorses Nazism and the Holocaust, that’s outside the Overton window and a reasonable person wouldn’t think it was “discrimination” for an employer to fire him or her. If an employee uses an OK symbol that happens to look like some offensive hand gesture nobody has ever heard of, firing him or her would be cancel culture.
Great points, using your "reasonable person" criteria I would posit an example of James Bennet, fired from the Times for running an op ed from a sitting Senator. And though Cotton is not the Left's cup of tea, he is not radical nor suffering from border line narcissism. SLIGHTLY different than taking the side of org that ordered the murder of over 1,400 people.
"The line between good and evil may cut through every human heart, but let us not forget that there are such things as good and evil." "Americans, Westerners, citizens in liberal societies the world over, should see this false moral equivalency for what it is: apologetics for evil." Agree with this 100%. Great article.
Really awesome piece and I especially liked "But nothing in life is free of tradeoffs." I often say nothing is free, listening to fools and evil people is the price we pay for free speech. Also a new word "oikophobes" sent me scurrying for my search engine to look that one up.
Curious about your take on the debate about employers rescinding employment for pro Hamas agitators. My gut tells me the employers are in the right but wanted your thoughts.
I generally think an employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason so long as it doesn’t violate the terms of the contract. If a new hire makes the company look bad the company is perfectly within its rights to rescind the offer of employment. While I’m generally against cancel culture, the first amendment applies to the government, not to businesses, and nobody has a right to work at any particular place of employment.
The line I've been drawing is that cancel culture is levying consequences for people taking positions on issues that are in open contest in society in order to silence dissent. That is different from an employer choosing not to associate with a position or action that a reasonable person would deem as wrong outside the norms of respectable society.
Cancel culture leads to professional consequences for holding reasonable and traditional beliefs, on gender, marriage, etc. Meanwhile, a employer is not engaging in cancel culture by deciding it doesn't want to represented by people who celebrate such things as terrorism, genocide, etc. I don't view the latter as cancel culture, because it isn't part of culture war where one side is trying to silence the other through professional consequences for holding traditional views, its simply the exercise of the right to disassociate from views an average person would deems as disturbing and concerning.
Yeah I think that makes sense. You could also think of it as a “reasonable person” test, or an Overton window test. If an employee endorses Nazism and the Holocaust, that’s outside the Overton window and a reasonable person wouldn’t think it was “discrimination” for an employer to fire him or her. If an employee uses an OK symbol that happens to look like some offensive hand gesture nobody has ever heard of, firing him or her would be cancel culture.
Great points, using your "reasonable person" criteria I would posit an example of James Bennet, fired from the Times for running an op ed from a sitting Senator. And though Cotton is not the Left's cup of tea, he is not radical nor suffering from border line narcissism. SLIGHTLY different than taking the side of org that ordered the murder of over 1,400 people.