He has no record of "hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities" and the post itself did not contain such either.
The blog post in question: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
The way the word offensive is used here is offensive in the military way since it is meant as an attack which is supposed to silence the person who spoke those words.
Free speech should be defended not for those people you agree with but for those you disagree with.
For the record, I’m Jewish and don’t see such comparisons as offensive. It’s good to try to learn from historical similarities, however faint.
That study was probably accurate. Obviously, rioting alienates voters.
But the mob attacked Shor. "Come get your boy," one tweeted.
His bosses did. Even though Shor issued a groveling apology, he was fired.”
1) What is a "race riot"?
Definitions are important. Should we call it the Tulsa Massacre or the Tulsa Race Riot? And does the choice of term reflect your view?
2) Are there any race riots going on now? Which events are race riots and which are not?
My reading of the history of the topic is that "race riot" was the term used by whites to describe resistance by minorities to white oppression, as in the Tulsa example above.
3) Why did Shor decide to characterize the linked-to paper http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf as providing information on "race riot"s?
The referenced paper uses the term "race riot" twice, both when referencing the works of other people.
Instead, it uses the description "black-led protests" and proposes that "nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights." which it juxtaposes with "Protester-initiated violence".
If we accept the narrative that the violence of many of the current protests are the results of state-initiated repression, then do those protests fall in the first category or the second? Or neither, in which case the study isn't relevant.
Note that if we use the definition of "Protester-initiated violence" then if we call it the Tulsa Race Riot then it's clearly a race riot initiated by white protestors. (One of many, I'll add.)
Is the implication that all black-lead protests with protester-initiated violence should be characterized as a "race riot"?
4) You write "rioting alienates voters".
Is that really true?
I assume that white-lead protests with protester-initiated violence against non-whites are also race riots. Do you agree?
Did the Tulsa Massacre/"Race Riot" alienate voters against the protesting whites? Did the Zoot Suit Riots alienate voters against Navy sailors?
I .. don't think they did. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite.
So I don't think your "obviously" is all that correct a summary.
5) How is the term "killing free speech" at all relevant?
Over and over I see "cancel culture" applied to famous or influential people who have a loss of prestige based on what they wrote or said, but who are NOT CANCELED in any meaningful sense. Eg, at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-cu... I read that "Shor is still consulting in Democratic politics, but he is no longer working for a firm that restricts his freedom to publicly opine."
ECA_stax pointed out the hyperbole in using the term "kill". How do you get from "still consulting in Democratic politics" to "killed", or from "must conform to an employer's policies" to "killing free speech"?
If the J.K. Rowling thing came up in a group setting, and you stated one of the central points of this article: that there are biological differences between the sexes, people would slowly back away from you. People who have known you for a long time would throw you to the wolves rather than get taken along with you. Is that your idea of free speech?
Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?
If I would say my opinion is white people are inferior and violent, or Christians are primitive and a danger to society, would that not be hateful?
Even if she is never allowed to write a book again, never invited on Oprah again, she has $1B dollars, which is more than any of us will ever see.
Larry Summers is more controversial but same result.
But I don't really care personally about any specific words so that is not where I see the problem.
What I'm worried about is when entire topics become taboo and impossible to discuss. I don't think this is specific to "PC culture", its just different topics that get avoided than in other in-groups.
As an example, During the "European refugee crisis", even as a leftist, in favor of letting the people in, it has been neigh impossible to discuss any potential problems without getting called or at least suspected a Nazi or similar.
Not sure if you're mocking the LGBT group or what? Is that a real thing now? Googling it gives me only a (seemingly) mocking Urban Dictionary entry.
https://queerevents.ca/events/toronto/social/2020-02-08/lgbt...
http://internationalstudentconnect.org/lgbtqiaa2s
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-46418045
etc.
I've seen longer versions of the same in use like LGGBDTTTIQQAAP, this is used for some 'inclusiveness training' by the Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) of Ontario, it supposedly stands for Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and Polyamorous.
I am European btw. This is the first time I heard about two-spiritedness.
And mind you, my opinions aren't like of that guy who worked at Google and wrote "if women weren't bad at math, wouldn't they be working with computers?" or whatever that guy wrote. That's not my style of thinking.
But my style of thinking is definitely not "woke" and therefore many of my thoughts would easily be categorized as hate speech or something by woke people.
My vibe is the people who keep saying free speech these days isn't a problem are the same people who demand you only speak their orthodoxy. Always has, always will be.
That is not what he said. Read the memo. That said I agree with the rest of your points.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
1) He had right wing political ideas which most people at Google strongly disagree with.
2) He wrote them down in a shared work forum.
I've read second hand accounts of many unusual ideas which have been shared on internal Google forums. I agree with lots. I also disagree with lots, both left and right.
But it was only the guy on the right who got fired. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting fired from Google for expressing far left political ideas. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.
It's 2020. Today's lesson is that if I have an idea out of the accepted mainstream of my company, and they are on the right, then keep my mouth shut, or I'll be fired. If the idea is on the left, I can go ahead and share my thoughts.
Sarah Jeong repeatedly made offensive and racist comments on her Twitter — unapologetically, while Roseanne triggered a national conniption fit.
And what the heck is LGBTQIAA2S+? We have initialed and labeled and divided people so much with this hyper-woke activism that civil rights activism has become a caricature. It’s like the whole world has gone full-blown Portlandia. And the whole crowd has gone so extreme that even disagreeing on economic theory gets you labeled an -ist.
JK Rowling was the target of cancellation after she expressed her opinion on sexuality. People literally can’t disagree anymore. Either toe the line, or get butchered by the Twitterari. JK Rowling isn’t even a conservative or even remotely right wing, but she is apparently not entitled to an opinion unless it’s perfectly in line. Ricky Gervais is another person that’s is constantly in hot water. He got tarred and feathered for daring to make a Bruce Jenner joke. Any disagreement or even harmless misstep results in outrage. Calm the f down people.
You literally can’t have a disagreement with anything “on the left” without facing the rapid wrath of the professionally offended. Even standup comics, where offending literally everyone is their job get “cancelled” because people can’t even laugh anymore. It must be a miserable life to be perpetually offended.
Interestingly, it’s ok and even encouraged to make fun of or spout hatred against “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” Christians, and in many circles, Jewish people. But make fun of a LGBTQIAA2S+ vegan Saudi woman and all hell will break lose.
It’s like Thought Police are real. Don’t like something being said? Then say your own thing. Or turn the damned channel. There is a reason many stand up comedians avoid college campuses these days; everyone is so delicate and offended that comedy is essentially a dead art. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1kVdHr7sR0o
I am not condoning “hate,” but “hate” has become a synonym with “disagree” or “doesn’t support.” If someone doesn’t like Obama, they are immediately a “racist,” but if someone doesn’t like Clarence Thomas, then suddenly it’s about “ideas” and not race. People that criticized Condi Rice weren’t called mysogynist, but criticize Hillary Clinton and you apparently “hate women.” Supporting Bret Kavanaugh makes you a woman hater, but supporting Bill Clinton gets a pass. And it’s because of politics, not any particular social enlightenment. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Biden should be cancelled after his recent claim that “Latinos are diverse, unlike the African-American community.” He really said that. Incredibly racist. Yet aside from some right wing ramblings, that comment has been ignored by the very people so readily looking to cancel people.
It’s a fact that the left is far more tolerated and protected while anyone who dares disagree is sent to the woodshed. As much as I detest Amy Schumer, I’m not calling for her to be banished, nor do I form noble sounding organizations dedicated to getting her “cancelled.” Organizations like Media Matters have made it their mission to cultivate outrage and attempt to sanitize any thoughts that might bruise their delicate sensibilities.
What a miserable time in which we live. When comics are fearful of playing a university, then you know we’ve done some serious shark jumping. Berkeley used to be a center of contrarian thought and free speech, but not it’s positively East German in their level of tolerance of dissenting opinions.