bad IDEAA
 

On the one hand Georgetown suspends someone whose tweets (while ill-judged) were not racist, except by a willful misreading of them. On the other hand, Georgetown is OK with tweets calling for castration of corpses. That is astonishing.

The person who wrote the IDEAA report is the one whose job performance should be "scrutinized".

It's sounds like you're trying to get someone "cancelled".

Why do you not consider your comments as an example of “cancel culture”?

I'm trying to figure out how the comments could be ill-judged but not racist. If you are willfully blind to the obvious racist smear of claiming a black judge is inherently less qualified, then what's ill judged about his comment?

This strikes me as a "splitting the baby" position that makes no sense.

Because the being a hypocrite IS THE POINT.

"You shouldn't get to cancel ME in the same way I can cancel you" has always been the point.

go to the source
 

Why did you ask me and not SuburbanTurkey? See comment #1735.

Reckless
 

Mr. Shapiro's position was that Sri Srinivasan was the best pick for President Biden. It logically follows from this premise that any other pick is lesser, regardless of skin color, as Jonathan Chait noted in his article at The Intelligencer. However, it was ill-judged (or in Scott Greenfield's words "reckless") because it was liable to being misunderstood.

Meh, some millionaires snubbing some other millionaires over a personal grudge. Their game is to get us to take sides between them based on ideology, but the real sides are the millionaires versus the proles.

scrutiny for the goose and not the gander
 

Why not ask SuburbanTurkey the same question? ST wrote, "Whoever responsible for extending a job offer to Ilya Shapiro should be having their job performance scrutinized."

Because Suburban Turkey understands how society works and isn't running through the streets screaming about Cancel Culture.

That's not just "some millionaires". It's a state governor punishing a constituent because the constituent used their free speech right.

But the premise is not logical. There is no single candidate who is best qualified for the job. It assumes a rubric which simply doesn’t exist.

Isn’t that the risk a constituent runs when its business model is based on the whims of the state?

I agree that it is chilling, but is there an argument that such sweetheart deals should be chilled?

Sure they should all be chilled, but they shouldn't be selectively chilled based on supporting the governors positions.

I agree. My hope is that they will be chilled generally because rich people don’t like being muzzled.

My free speech is tempered by the fact that I like my very well paying career more than I would enjoy being able to say things that would ruin my career. But billionaires like both money and freedom, so it gets harder for them. As it should be.

baseball
 

If I said that Ty Cobb is the best baseball player that ever lived, it necessarily follows that Barry Bonds is a lesser baseball player. Whether the premise is correct or incorrect is a separate issue. Georgetown struck out.

This is the "If a cop only pulls over black speeders he's not being racist because, hey the black people were speeding" argument.

Two wrongs don't make a right and selective enforcement of a bad law is still bad.

Yes you can argue that government shouldn't be in the business of supporting this or that, but pulling support from this or that out of pure political spite is still wrong. This is not a paradox.

But that’s not what he said. That’s what you wish he said.

If you follow your claim that Ty Cobb is the best with a further claim that all black players are lesser, you lose the benefit of the doubt.


eta: the tweet in question

This is the other thing, we have to pretend that every statement happens in a vacuum. And if you hate black people for no reason 6 days out of the week you hating one for a valid reason on Sunday isn't allowed to raise any eyebrows.

Doesn't seem to answer my question which was "Why do you not consider your comments as an example of “cancel culture”?"

Governments picking winners and looser in the market place based on which companies support them and which doesn't is a very dangerous precedent. This was the economic model that NAZI Germany used to suppress dissent and it's the model Vladimir Putin uses today to control Russia.

It doesn't matter whether you have sympathy for millionaires or not, if they all support the fascist government because they fear the consequences of dissent then YOU are the one that looses.

plain meaning
 

That is what at least one pundit and one blogger thought he meant, including one who agreed with you that the premise was wrong, and their articles have already been linked here. I am not sure that David Bernstein was, and he makes it clear how and where he draws a line. It is not what I wish Mr. Shapirl meant; it is what I thought he meant. I am still struggling with how anyone could read it any other way.

Mark Joseph Stern
 

I provided a definition of cancel culture in comment #1725, and this incident checked off several boxes and gets bonus points for involving social media. The outside actors trying to get Mr. Shapiro fired included the students and Mark Joseph Stern.
EDT
Given that you read the letter, then you were aware of the comments made by other faculty that were not sanctioned. This nullifies your comment #1939.

simple
 

I did not call for anyone to get fired. Would you now please do me the return courtesy of answering my question?

the tweet itself
 

Thank you for provided the tweet; its wording is plainly different from yours.

Georgetown's record
 

A faculty member whose tweet suggested that certain men die a horrible death to be followed by mutilation of their corpses. If people were offended by this tweet, then it ran afoul of Georgetown's anti-harrassment policy, taking the words of the IDEAA report at face value. Yet Georgetown defended the tweet, while attacking Mr. Shapiro.
EDT
FIRE wrote, "To be clear, no professor should be investigated or punished for subjectively offensive but protected expression, and Georgetown was right to refrain from responding to these speakers by invoking formal processes. However, Georgetown has clearly applied its free expression policies in an inconsistent manner, based on ideology rather than adherence to its own stated principles. In FIRE’s experience, inconsistent treatment of freedom of expression leads to consistent censorship, stifling speech across the ideological spectrum."

Surely Felicia Sonmez deserved a second chance.

That is your definition then, a call for someone to be fired? (Why I didn’t ask another member a question has nothing to do with the question I asked you.)

Your point 2 was “Two, neither Shapiro nor anyone else could function under these terms.”

If your point was correct or even substantially correct they would have no or next to no faculty, that they do demonstrates that other people could and do function under those terms.

FIREs update on the case where a Professor was being 'investigated' for use of 'triggering' material.


Result, the only two people could be bothered to join the 'investigative committe', could not agree...



https://www.thefire.org/soka-profess...e-of-just-two/

Some kerfuffle over a re-tweet of a sexist joke has resulted in one reporter being suspended for one month without pay and admonished, and eventually another reporter was outright fired for publicly feuding with colleagues and her bosses.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/09/m...shington-post/

I don't know whether "cancel culture" is the right word for this. After a certain point, if you're going to be stubbornly insubordinate, you will get yourself fired.

And? What point are you trying to make?

Been there, done that
 

I provided my definition months ago.

Georgetown's inconsistency
 

No, Georgetown's rule for Mr. Shapiro was different from everyone else.

Sometimes I actually wonder who is worse: The ultra trolly and agressive right winger or the confused centrist who will invest a lot of energy to defend the trolly right winger...

This is rather puzzling, when asked why your criticism wasn't an example of the very cancel culture you are railing against. You said:

"I did not call for anyone to get fired...."

How can I interpret your response as to mean anything other than to be an example of the cancel culture you rail against one must call for someone to be fired?

If you are now saying that a call for someone to be fired isn't part of your definition of cancel culture fair enough but it does mean you did not answer the question you quoted.

Why is your criticism or call it behaviour not an example of cancel culture?

On the contrary, you pretended that there was no comment about any other black woman being lesser, and I proved that there was.

Georgetown ruled that Shapiro's tweet was made before he was an employee, so they wouldn't punish him for it. You seem to believe that they rather should have said that they would never investigate any actions he made once he became an employee, which certainly would have been a different rule than anyone else faced.

hostilty or aversion
 

No, that is a complete mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Here is a paragraph from Mr. Shapiro's letter: "Third, under the reasoning of the IDEAA Report, none of this objective textual analysis even matters. As the report put it, “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate or show hostility or aversion to individuals based on a protected status. Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.” According to this theory, the mere fact that many people were offended, or claimed to be, is enough for me to have violated the policies under which I was being investigated. Although there was no formal finding of a violation because of the procedural fact that I wasn’t an employee when I tweeted and so not subject to those policies, so long as some unstated number of students, faculty, or staff claim that a statement “denigrates” or “show[s] hostility or aversion” to a protected class, that’s enough to constitute a violation of Georgetown antidiscrimination rules. The falsity of such a claim is immaterial to being found guilty. Georgetown has adopted what First Amendment jurisprudence describes as an impermissible “heckler’s veto.”"

The key word is "effect." Scott Greenfield wrote, "Having already been demonized beyond repair, the ironically subconstitutional notion that any future offense would be determined based not on what was objectively said or intended, but on whether anyone claimed to be offended, harmed or traumatized by it, made his demise essentially inevitable."

By the standard set forth in the IDEAA report, Professor Feldblum's tweet and especially Professor Fair's tweet are ripe for a finding regarding these antidiscrimination rules.

We are well aware that people who have been held accountable for their actions are upset with that. You, and Shapiro, seem to think it unjust to consider the effect of an action when judging that action. Why? Do you think that a professor specifically saying black women are lesser would or should have no effect?

Why do you think you should have a voice in the disciplinary decisions of a private business with which you have no affiliation?

And so? Seriously what is the point you are trying to make about why this is another example of cancel culture?

Plus of course still want to know why what you are doing is not cancel culture?

I pay for their services.

I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't give you a voice in how they run their business. Just because you buy a burger at McDonald's doesn't mean you get to dictate hiring and firing practices to them.

You, of course, have the option to no longer patronize their business and let them know why, but I think I read somewhere that might be "cancel culture".

That the tools of the censor once established can be used by anyone. The target in this case is 'Woke', the prosecutors are not.



And, they have been subjected to the kind of 'Process Due' the Woke love, the person making the final call on if the accused is guilty is the accuser.

Not strictly 'Cancel Culture' but an interesting dynamic. To summarize, Dave Weigel a reporter at the Washington Post, retweeted a poor taste joke and was censured, suspended, apologised, etc.


Another reporter at the Post, Felicia Sonmez (Looks White, but claims to be LatinX.) launched a twitter crusade against Weigel and anyone who defended him.


She's now been fired from the Washington Post for:



The full NYT article is quite fascinating.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/b...gton-post.html


Also worth looking at is Jerry Coyne's commentary.



https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/...er-an-apology/

That's absolutely ridiculous. The tools of censorship are only available to those with power over others. I can't be censored by just any random person. I can only be censored by someone in a position of authority.

And this whole "cancel culture" freakout is primarily fueled by people in positions of authority feeling their power over the hoi polloi slipping away.

It's called "high school." Or, more specifically, an especially toxic Yearbook Club.

Somebody retweeted a witless joke, deleted it, apologized, was suspended without pay for a month, but that still wasn't enough. Jesus ******* Christ.

Did WaPo have punishment criteria for social media transgressions or did they come up with them on the fly? If they suspended Weigel for a week (or less), then maybe they could have suspended Sonmez for a month (or less). The only winners are the people desperate for Twitter drama and the lawyers.

What he meant is open to argument. What he said is not.