The point is not whether he is deemed unpopular or takes a risk....the idea is that the ability to have that conversation should be honored. It is a debate and if there is an argument to be made, let it be made.

If the majority disagree that is their right but respecting the fact someone has a differing opinion is the point.

"Great minds think alike....lesser minds seldom differ".

Let's take your statement and apply it to something else. Are you indicating the early women of the #MeToo movement got what they deserved for speaking up about the disgusting acts committed against them in the early days? The ones whose careers were destroyed?

This cuts both ways and what we are looking for is balance.

I agree that the ability to have a conversation should be honored by the broader society, hence why I dislike Twitter outrage culture.

This is separate from whether there would be consequences for your employment at a company wishing to minimize negative PR around itself.

So to reiterate, his ability to have the conversation outside of work should absolutely be tolerated and protected. Within a work environment however, it is currently unreasonable to expect the same free speech rights as one is guaranteed from the state, regardless of my opinion that this should not be the case.

Therefore getting dismissed should not be a surprising outcome.

What is your definition of "neoliberalism?" To my understanding, it is a center-left economic ideology that promotes globalization, free trade, and cooperation between nations as a way to lift up the poor. Neoliberals might be critical of some of the policies that you point out (e.g. free college) due to implementation concerns.

However, isn't this orthogonal to one's attitude to culture war controversies? At least from my experience lurking r/neoliberal, the people there seem reasonable and don't seem to be the overzealous "outrage culture" types, but they perceive that "neoliberal" has become a negative label associated with center-left people who disagree with say, some of the policies proposed by Sanders.

I'm usually apprehensive about getting involved in these culture war threads; please understand that I'm not advocating for any political position, I just want to understand what "neoliberalism" means from your point of view.

With regards to medicare for all and free college, I am an European, where these policies have been implemented to various degrees rather successfully.

My issue is with the way neoliberalism seems to be clinically used to rhetorically support many left ideas, while in reality not doing anything to get them close to reality, if not outright undermining them.

They're the ultimate 'human interventionists', so where neoconservatives will just outright acknowledge they're in it to show America's muscle, get U.S. business access to new markets, confront a competitor etc. the neoliberals tend to use a more veiled language, but ultimately peruse similar policies.

So while the Iraq War was drawn up by neocons, the Libya intervention was drawn up by neoliberals. The difference? Neoliberals used much more soft, humanitarian language, for what was ultimately a disaster of similar proportions to Iraq, including the return of slave markets.

That is my problem with neoliberals, the cynical use of floury, high-minded language in persit of ultimately goals not so different from neoconservatives after all.

https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1258900004623835136

And who wouldn’t talk to people willing to listen?

Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territory in the West Bank, they suddenly have less than nothing to say about it, not to mention the issue of U.S. States passing anti-boycott laws censoring BDS and yet crickets from the IDW.

Being selective in your concern for free speech and only criticizing one side seems hardly "intellectual" to me and I can't take it seriously.

P.S. While the IDW is not exactly defined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associat... has a decent list.

Dave Rubin for example has had several offers from some prominent left-wing commentators to debate the issue, among others, yet he's always busy or some other excuse.

Sam Harris definitely knows about it as well, (has even spoken about BDS itself, just not their censorship), Ben Shapiro too, yet besides "Israel has the right to defend itself", (which is not the issue), crickets.

This is not an issue like whether they have played Animal Crossing, this is an issue where several states already are in violation of the First Amendment, an issue, they claim, is above all for them.

This is wilful ignorance because it would require leveling criticism at some of the same people they usually praise, instead of the usual college students and Twitter mobs, that's the issue.

I don't think there is any way of knowing, but I suspect different individuals listed on that page have different reasons and motivations for saying what they say and not saying what they say. I'd bet on Ben Shapiro genuinely supporting Israel, but some of the rest I'm not sure about (I suspect at least some of those on that list are genuinely antisemites. For instance: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ukip-candidate-carl-benja...)

Anyway my point is it's much easier to judge people based on what they say, rather than what they don't say.

That I do not know for sure, but isn't their trademark to speak openly regardless of what their opponents would label them as?

It's easy to attack college students. If they're afraid to criticism Israel, they can't claim to stand for free speech regardless of what they opponents think, as they often do.

That's not clear to me, no. To be frank it's not clear to me the 'IDW' categorization has much worth at all if it includes people as diametrically opposed as fervent zionists and antisemitic neonazis. It's a very loose categorization at best.