Your entire comment is a contradiction.
> you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over.
Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus.
Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"?
Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.
The left either needs to:
1. Play by their own rules (in this case, fire the guy)
2. Stop doing it to their political opponents
The contradiction is pretty clear - the guy is decrying these tactics, but still saying this person should be fired using exactly those same tactics.
To me that speaks volumes.
I probably should have used the word "really" rather than "actually", as I was trying to contrast the minor response with the harm of the offense, not contrast other racist things with this racist thing.
In my opinion, the 1619 Project is a racist and decisive project and has no place at Google, and Kamau Bobb was a public supporter of that.
So if Google is going to support "cancel culture", then Kamau Bobb should have no place at Google, or any major tech company, whatsoever.
Google does this because someone in the corp didn't like what this guy said, and canned them. People do that because they have beliefs. In the U.S. firing people, protesting, and overall underhanded methods are also a Hallmark of "the right" whenever someone does something they don't agree with. Or have we forgotten that the overwhelming majority of day to day business isn't conducted on Twitter?
Six years later I became an atheist. I've been an atheist for 17 years now.
As someone who has personally undergone an extreme change in disposition on something so fundamental with respect to how one views the cosmos, what you did or said 14 years ago is only relevant to me insofar as what your transformation story has been.
More than anything though, I want to know what person you have become today. Bonus points if you used to think the opposite of what you think today, because you've managed to really grok that state of mind and figured out how to get out of it.
Just from reading your one-line description of mormonism, I can tell you are 100% completely genuine. What's the equivalent for Bobb?
Just saying "I regret having posted that" isn't quite the same. Maybe wearing a yamika for a few years would do it, I don't know.
Steve jobs had just launched the first iPhone when he made that blog post. That feels like a life time ago.
[0] Or are we forgetting when people lost their minds about "happy holidays" and starbucks' cup design change? Or Colin Kaepernick? Etc. I don't see how anyone can say it's related to one political party in one country.
Your library of work is on you. Reviewing it, and adding contemporary commentary where needed is again, up to you. If you don't, people assume you still believe it.
This wasn't some woke slip of syntax, he was very literally holding all Jews accountable for Israel's actions. It's a deeply anti-Semitic set of comments. Even without his position, he should have known better.