>you don’t denounce meat eating therefore you are evil and your peers and employers should ostracize you (...)

This seems like a valid position to me. It’s extreme, I don’t agree with it, and I think people with such positions should be encouraged to be more tolerant, but it’s a valid position to hold in the public space nonetheless.

I don’t think the problem is people holding these positions - outrage will always exist if you allow crowds to converse freely, which is easy on the internet - but that institutions like universities instead see the outrage as an excuse to fire people. The institutions ultimately make the choices that alter people’s careers, not the crowd. Universities and companies should do more to stand up for tolerance of opinions. If the crowds themselves are viewed as the problem, then I fear for the future of free communication on the internet.

I don’t think it’s a valid reason. It’s not considered widely unethical or evil to eat meat, therefore people should not suffer disproportionate consequences. Note I’m not saying eating meat is unassailable, I’m saying for most people it’s an okay position.

In the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s universities allowed people to espouse things which were then outside the norm, contrarian and subversive. We could construct philosophies to either support or impune (the whole somewhat discredited moral relativism which had garnered popularity) but at the end of the day universities allowed people to say foul things or upset large populations of people without resorting to firing or censuring or shaming them.

> This seems like a valid position to me.

I don't. It makes no sense to intimidate and threaten anyone just because that person happens to not agree with you on a position you singled out as being relevant.

It may make no sense to you (or me, much of the time), but should they be allowed to say it? I think so.

To me, I think it’s valid for a group of people to organize and write a letter criticizing someone, and then to send that letter to the person’s peer group. They can also criticize the employer of that person. That’s part of what of what being in a free speech society entails.

I don’t agree with the positions, but I think the complainers should have a space too, even if it’s outside of the relevant institution.

I also don’t like that universities threaten people’s jobs over this such complaints. I agree with mc32 in that such places should tolerate unpopular or contrarian opinions. And that’s where I view the problem appearing: it’s not the angry internet mob, it’s the university giving in to them. It’s up to the university to show thought leadership in their own spaces, and to ignore such ridiculous controversies. If signatories on my imagined letter threatened to stop working with the institution if not have their requests met, it might be best to cut ties with them, not the allegedly problematic peer. The university has to show that leadership.

(edit: grammar)

It doesn’t make sense and is wrong. Kind of like the Westboro Baptist church protesting funerals is wrong.

Not sure there’s anything to really do about it in a free society though. All the talk about cancel culture doesn’t seem to propose any solution.

There's a world of difference between expressing an opinion on how you feel something is wrong, and demanding that anyone who doesn't show enough enthusiasm for your personal cause should be punished and persecuted out of existence or relevance.

You don’t propose a solution but you seem to imply, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things, and maybe given the context of this case prevent people sending letters asking for honorary titles to be withdrawn from members of their society as in this case. Is that right?

> but you seem to imply, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things,

Please don't put your words on anyone else's mouth. If you didn't understood what someone said then try do get information instead of trying to attribute to others the absurd and entirely baseless statements that you're fabricating.

Let me adjust it: You don’t propose a solution but I infer, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things, and maybe given the context of this case prevent people sending letters asking for honorary titles to be withdrawn from members of their society as in this case. Is that right?

> They want to control other people by means of intimidation (force people out for having a difference in opinion) via economic peer pressure.

I would argue that the nebulous they want people to face consequences for the things they say.