> McNeil repeatedly made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip including, according to two complaints, using the “n-word.”
I don’t understand how this is related to cancel culture, given it’s been corporate policy to not make racist and sexist remarks for decades? And just, regular human decency? What are the arguments for keeping this person employed by a major news organization?
> In the absence of a full accounting of this episode, I can’t make any firm judgment about the merits of McNeil’s departure. For all I know, he could have been acting unprofessionally for years, and it took a few teens to force the Times to take action it should have taken years ago.
So this is a he said they said situation. The nymag article doesn’t account for the sexist accusations as well. The NYT say they performed an investigation and based on that decided to fire him. So if you believe the NYT is liable to fire a senior reporter over the say so if a few “woke” college students you will feel justified to protest this. If you believe the NYT corroborated the college students story that were extremely uncomfortable due to actual sexist/racist behavior and then fired him, it doesnt look like much of a story.
Neither you nor I know the specifics of what he said or didn’t say - that’s only him, the students, and maybe to an extent the NYT investigators. I’m not saying I inherently agree with the assessment of one side at all here, just that to say he was “canceled” is quite a bit of a reach.
Second, what sexist language, exactly? What did he actually say? We certainly can't trust the mere accusation from a source like The Daily Beast. And again, this story is all about details.
Third, it's easy to believe the NYT overreacted here given the evidence from other incidents. For example:
James Bennet, the editorial page editor, resigned under pressure after publishing an op-ed by a sitting US Senator.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-benn...
Lauren Wolfe, a freelance editor, claims she was fired for tweeting “Biden landing at Joint Base Andrews now. I have chills.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wo...
Bari Weiss, who accused the paper of "unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge" described the situation as:
> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.
> Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.
> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain.
> Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
> Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
No one reasonable thinks he made a racist remark.
> I told him what I’d actually said in Peru. He said, “Donald, you sound exactly like my father. He would also say ‘You can’t dress like a thug to a job interview and expect to get the job.’ But from you, it sounds racist.” I said “How is ‘thug’ racist? What about Thug Life Records?” He said “It’s almost the equivalent of the n-word. Don’t you know about Marshawn Lynch?’’ I said: “He plays for Seattle?” I could hear him sigh. “No, Donald, let me explain…”
So it seems like he by his own admission probably said some stuff that was frankly out of bounds. But doesn’t necessarily mean he deserves to be fired.
Being blind to how one speaks and how it affects others however, is not a trait that I’d imagine most newsrooms are looking for, at all. His finally thought:
> One last thought: what’s happened to me has been called a “witch hunt.” It isn’t. It’s a series of misunderstandings and blunders.
I mean, I feel like that says it all? A victim of a changing culture? Probably. But sound judgement in the here and now is a prerequisite for employment in an industry like journalism. You can’t just lie back and wax nostalgic about how things that were acceptable aren’t now, and believe that excuses ones current actions. Hopefully we’ve progressed a bit. It’s sad what happened to him, but I get the feeling he knows he did make a few “off-color” remarks and was quite unaware of the lens society views comments like that. The latter part is probably the real fault.
Now it's manufactured outrage about the word "thug", a word used quite recently by President Biden, and not that long ago by President Obama.
Suddenly "it’s almost the equivalent of the n-word."
How could a coronavirus reporter possibly keep up with that?
It sounds to me like a few kids at this conference were butthurt for being told they were wrong about completely unrelated questions, and pounced like jackals for anything to make this guy look like a nazi. "I might be completely wrong about Jared Diamond and look like a dumbass... but 'n______' came out of this guy's mouth at some point! Get him!"
If it fits ones narrative then they’ll believe it one way. If it fits ones narrative that old reporter said a bunch of stuff that demonstrated really questionable judgement if not disdain, then you’ll believe it that way. The NYT say they investigated, so it comes down to whether you believe them to be fair in that process (I would think if I worked there I’d want it to be a fair process). Not having any primary information, I don’t feel compelled to make any judgement of fault here.
His use of that word was supposed to be a smoking gun, but instead their story seems to be all smoke and mirrors.
That's a perfect example of cancel culture: the mere allegation is enough, proof is neither required nor given.
Some Evangelical Christians, being Protestants, have a ton of disagreement with Catholics, and disagree at this point, too.
Muslims universally agree, AFAICT, because Muhammad himself stated this explicitly (and Christ figures prominently as a prophet in Quran).
See a short analysis in [1].
Even though the OP was not correct at classifying the case as a manifestation of "cancel culture", I can see the similarity. It is in the same intolerance and unwillingness to discuss and listen in either case. The truth is known, any doubt is a vice, whoever disagrees should be shamed away. This is what I find the most dangerous part of the phenomenon.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/20/460480698/do-christians-and-m...
Every Christian worships Jesus as God. No Muslim will. It’s that simple.
When Muhammad says that Jesus is a prophet, it is a rejection of what Jesus claimed about Himself. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”
Many of course have tried to act as though the two are compatible, but when you come right down to it, I believe what Jesus said, and Muhammad didn’t.
If you’re trying to tell me what Muslims believe, you’re also wrong.
Saying that Jesus is the Son of God is very different from saying that He is a prophet of God. That difference is precisely why Muslims cannot agree that Jesus is the Son of God and why I cannot agree that Muhammad is a prophet of God.
I don't dispute that's what you believe, but it isn't the position of all Christians.
The Catholic Church is quite explicit about its belief that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. It has expressed that belief in the decree Nostra aetate of the Second Vatican Council, and numerous other Vatican documents since. And the Catholic Church is not alone among Christians in this belief.
I think there is a real disagreement among Christians as to whether the God of Islam is a (somewhat distorted) account of the God of Christianity (the official Catholic position, but certainly some Protestants agree with it too), or whether it is a completely different entity (the position of yourself among others).
I think from the Muslim point of view – the Islamic designation of Christians as "People of the Book" only makes sense if Muslims believe that Christians worship the same God as they do, even if wrongly and confusedly.
Techy: Ummm... no.
Me: Techies can be so sensitive about minor things. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. But it is a fact that Java and Javascript are both programming languages. If you don't like it that doesn't change the fact.
Wheaton’s college is an extremely narrow evangelical Protestant theology, that as well as dismissing Hawkins for her statements and firing a professor a few years before for becoming Catholic as it violated the schools duty to employ faculty embodying it's Protestant ideals, also led it to sue against the ACA’s preventive services mandate.
I'm not sure why you would suggest that “cancellation” under that theology has anything to do with progressivism.
Regarding your edit:
> Edit: Forgot to mention this extreme example of cancel culture: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/professor-who-wore-hijab-...
The professor was fired from a Christian school for making an assertion (that Muslims and Christians “worship the same god”) that, according to its theology, amounts to heresy: https://www.businessinsider.com/professor-maybe-fired-for-hi...
> “Contrary to some media reports, social media activity and subsequent public perception, Dr. Hawkins' administrative leave resulted from theological statements that seemed inconsistent with Wheaton College's doctrinal convictions, and is in no way related to her race, gender, or commitment to wear a hijab during Advent," Wheaton's administration said in a statement released December 16th.
So if your point is that cancel culture is the expression of a new progressive theology, then again I accept your concession.