What I find shocking is the number of Times employees who protested the initial decision -
> In response, more than 150 Times staffers signed a protest letter. A few days later, Baquet and managing editor Joe Kahn reached a different decision.
*Note that it can be a rational decision to adhere an irrational religion. Excommunication has consequences, in this case, the guy got fired.
Now, those employees are (presumably) intelligent, well-educated adults. What's going on with them that they can't see any nuance in this situation? I suspect that they're afraid. They're committed to the progressive agenda, and they're seeing progress, and they're afraid that if they make any compromise, if they don't keep taking a hard stance, then their agenda will stall and society won't reach the wonderful future they think their agenda is taking us to.
The observant will note strong parallels to religious zealots. In fact, if you view this as a religious hysteria, it makes more sense. It happens to be a secular religion, but it's got all the elements - doctrine, a millennial future, good and evil, sin, repentance, conversion, and evangelists.
That's what you get if a generation thinks speech can be violence. Hurting someones feeling is the same as physically hurting someone and other stupid ideas that may sound reasonable if you never actually thought it trough for yourself.
"He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" in Harry Potter is another example of a rhetorical device used to instill bloodcurdling fear and larger-than-life authority of a a Wizard-of-Oz-style villain. Note that this is a children's book. Every adult person should be able to see through that.
And so - I am sure, there are many other examples - I ask again: Why do such things keep happening? Why, when individuals are clearly able of rational thought, as the editor's initial reaction shows, does there seem to be a hive-mind or "invisible hand of the market", or whatever you call it, that seems to get large groups of people to come together and stone someone for saying "Jehova" because his wife's cooking was so excellent.
I ask this sincerely, even though I use comedic examples. For me, this is an existential question of one's own sanity, that I struggle to comprehend what really is going on here, and I would love to hear what others think about this.
Could a possible answer be, and I realize I might be getting controversial here, could it be that modern American society, lacking a nuanced way of looking at difficult historic matters - because it always seems to be either "Free Speech" or "Death" with no middle way - has chosen this visceral reaction because it never learned to deal with or discuss its history in a non-confrontational, level-headed manner? Clearly, using $badword in normal everyday conversation is unacceptable. So it follows from there - using this logic framework - that any use whatsoever is unacceptable? Just spitballing here, looking for answers. Could very well be that I am wrong. If so, please don't downvote me but instead explain. Thank you.
Moreover, that's a theme in the books. From the outset,Harry is one of the few (along with Dumbledore, the wise old sage) who are not afraid to say the name and consider such fear silly. He's also the only person who can stand up to Voldemort, and presumably those things are related. To him Voldemort is just a guy, not some kind of superhuman Satan, perhaps because he doesn't let himself get caught up the hysteria.
Now we are letting our speech be governed by kids who this they are being polite but are really a generation of self centered monsters.
We lost respect for our elders and worship at the feet of the teen instagram model. I think adult men are most immune to this but in my life I see 20-30 something women jumping on the bandwagon of calling themselves victims and identity politics.
The civil legal system has been destroyed by this mess and we are emptying out our institutions of any logical thought.
Corporate America is the last hold out for logic but even they are quickly succumbing to the idiocracy.
This scene immediately comes to mind because in the film it is obviously ridiculous and everybody can see that. The judge had no other way to express himself without going through some weird verbal contortions. He could, I suppose, have said "Look, he said the J-word!" but that probably was too ridiculous a thought even for Monty Python. He wasn't using the word maliciously, he reported a fact, yet he was in the end seen to be no better than the convict himself.
I wonder if the person who reported the Times journalist to the editor-in-chief also said "Look, he said $badword", and was himself promptly fired.
My point is, every individual person who looks at that situation this way will probably find it comical or at least clearly not to be a firing offence. The Times itself has printed the word in question many times in its reporting, even in recent times. Do they now get to fire themselves, retroactively, as seems to be so en vogue these days? Of course not. Will they print apologies for printing $badword in their paper as recently as 2019? Unlikely.
It is also plainly obvious that "bans on words" that go so far as to be "bans on thoughts" can therefore never serve any good purpose and are a hallmark of totalitarianism.
So why does this keep happening? Why are people getting fired for Monty-Python-level "offences"? Has reality (once again) surpassed satire? Are people getting stupider, weirder, more irrational? Or is there something else at play here?
My point is, most individuals for themselves will recognise the behaviour here as "not horrible", not worthy of a career-death sentence, and judge accordingly, even if only preserve a modicum of nuance and differentiation in handing out sentences. Nobody will probably question the importance of having some steps available inbetween "You are innocent" and "You shall be put to death".
Nobody disputes that the reporter didn't use the word in any bad way; on the contrary, it was used to help and advise someone, a 12 year old student, on the matter: "Look here, young child, it's better if you don't say Jehova". Done. Stoned to death.
Even the editor-in-chief, Baquet, initially said the same in a staff memo: There was no bad intent, all is well. A sane, tempered reaction, level-headed analysis, case closed. Then a few days passed, some meetings happened, he changed his mind and the journalist got fired. Say what?
The more I think about it, the more confused I am, like I am missing a big piece of the puzzle here. Why does this keep happening? Why are people acting like they have been "neuralyzed", Men in Black-style? What an odd situation.