And hey, great news, now we have every line written by every man, woman and child automatically captured and archived forever in an easy to search dossier.
Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview. But the writing remains forever, conveniently accessible.
Not all writing is equal. There is a difference between let's say a tweet that was sent in during a flamewar versus a personal blog post that has been penned in the past and stayed published until today. The function of the latter is closer to a book, in that it explicitly aims to persist and communicate thoughts through time. If one changes, they could have taken the post down. If there was regret about the contents, one could have published an update/apology etc with the post.
And the post wasn't picked from a web archive; it had stayed up until it the pushback reached career threatening levels. Yet there is still no evidence or apology in any medium that the person has actually changed their viewpoint. All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption.
More details here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...
People do change and also understand when they do «downright stupid things», but we have to give them a chance to arrive at that point.
If the post is still online, like the videos and photos of Tom Petty's 1985 tour, that could also be interpreted as a sign of honesty, it's also possible that the author forgot that he wrote it.
I write a lot of things that I don't remember soon after.
It happens to code as well, sometimes I ask myself «who's the genius that wrote this beautiful code» and I'm shocked when I find out it was me years ago, but most of the times I regret writing it.
Some people spend hours writing a single tweet to get the message exactly right.
Yup, I'm a little disturbed that people jump to defending him to a degree that borders on reinterpreting history.
Eg:
> Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding
Ok. Is there any evidence this specific person did? Did he apologize? Did his public writing change substantially since then?
It's not like this is an embarrassing photo taken during a party the guy had forgotten about. I have trouble imagining how someone could be hired as head of diversity for Google and forget that they published a screed about how jews should confront their appetite for war or whatever.
If the only information you have about this person is this, your first reaction should not be to find excuses to dismiss the information; or if it is, you should at least look for additional information, instead of speculating about how maybe the person totally changed their mind and is totally being treated unfairly.
The issue isn’t that this person didn’t make a mistake - we all agree on that. The issue is that in our culture, we don’t make room for a person to make mistakes and grow (often the only way to grow) by forgiving them and believing that they are a better person now and can contribute to society more effectively going forward.
I understand this is a tricky balance to maintain. But I sincerely believe the internet junta is unforgiving and judgemental beyond the point of any utility except making oneself feel better by “other-ising” people they don’t know, and claiming that they wouldn’t ever be like that person.
The reality is that we are all remarkably similar. We’ve just been in radically different circumstances and who knows how we would have behaved had we been in a similar situation?
I don’t mean to pick a battle with you. I understand where you are coming from. I would love to have a civil discussion with you. Have a wonderful day.
I mean, you sound like you think you have moral clarity to denounce someone as inhumane, and I guess this is how you lead in your conversational style.
I'm talking about a technologically interconnected world where other nations and parties never have to agree to forget anything.
Either we decide to excommunicate or suppress every nation and party that chooses to remember, or we decide what it means to coexist with those who remember. The humane way to do things is to decide how we should treat each other despite flaws, not stamp out every nation or peoples in the world that seeks to remember forever.
I'm talking about co-existence between nations with different policies, a world where the US may not agree to forget everything Germany asks of them.
> Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an excuses - they did it, because they are oppressed. And this is how the Commies executed tens of million of people - they were imperialists and enemies of Communism and there was no chance for them; they were sentences as permanently damaged goods and deserved only a bullet!
So you lead with your sense of moral and conversational clarity.
> then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess.
And so you follow with your sense of moral and conversational clarity.
and
> bad behavior
Nuff said!
You have left yourself zero room to discuss anything else, because you have spent your entire thread analyzing how someone is inhumane without even getting to know them, like an internet warrior or moral busybody. Every time you pick up the microphone that's the only thing you have to say.
That is what I mean by your sense of moral and conversational clarity.
As a late 70's child that got the internet when I was in my late teens it was unthinkable at that time to give anyone any personal info about you online. "Stranger Danger" and everyone online should be thought of as an axe murder was the dominant position
I am not sure when or why this shift happen to where it was common for people to not only post their full personal info but also post real time location information about where they are and what they are doing...
It is all baffling to me even today
* https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140879480/who-are-you-really-...
Unfortunately, as we've seen from the many instances where utterers of comments have suffered the consequences, Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote has turned out to be truer than it ought to be—especially so in this internet age where ancient dirt is seemingly dragged up from anywhere. (This quote also tells us much about Richelieu's devious mind and I'd suggest that with this one line of his that he's told us more about himself than most six lines of many others!)
One of the problems with the internet is being heard amongst the many voices so there's a tendency for people to use hyperbole and or exaggerate for the point of emphasis and yours truly is no exception (there are some comments of mine on the net that, in hindsight, I'd like to rephrase with more eloquence). :-) Expressing one's view is especially problematic with the net, as one has to be succinct and to the point if one's to be heard at all. Thus, more often than not, expediency wins out and only the raw message is heard sans nuances and without qualifications.
That said, whether any of those scenarios is relevant in instance seems moot but I will say that generalizations of that sort aren't helpful as they're both dangerous to oneself and unfair to those about whom one has made comment. One cannot generalize as a whole about a nation, society etc. as within any group of people one will find a remarkably diverse range of views and beliefs. I have many Jewish friends and acquaintances and I can only say that I do not know of a more diverse group of people. If I were to generalize at all then the only reasonable comment I could make would be that they're all remarkably interesting individuals but each in different ways.
The matter of whether some ancient and possibly intemperate remark is used against someone many years later is a troubling and vexed matter, especially so in this internet age. For starters, that person may have changed his or her mind in the intervening time. Then there's the issue of why someone has raised this matter after all that time not to mention the fact that once it's been raised and has gone viral across the net then the individual will have essentially no reasonable chance of ever defending himself or herself—whether his or her opinion is now right or wrong. Then there's the matter of Google protecting its corporate image so it's little wonder that he was dismissed (irrespective of his current beliefs or convictions). Unfortunately, that's the way things are.
There is no easy answer to this matter. Fear of speaking out stifles free speech and we're seeing more and more self-censorship on the net day by day and it's truly worrying. Moreover, if one speaks out or expresses an opinion on any controversial matter then woes betide the consequences.
In the days before the net and the sensational tabloid press there was a chance that a long-past dubious event from one's past may have gotten lost in the noise of old newspaper reports but the net has put a stop to that. Perhaps it's time to restate the age-old adage, which is to:
'Never discuss one's views on politics and religion as emotions run high and you'll surely make enemies.'
Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.
They tend not to get put in charge of anti-murder departments, though, like this person being made Head Of Diversity.
On the other hand the exception to that rule would be - I've known guys who were drug addicts, caught, go through rehabs, and become counselors and psychologists in the judicial system. Which is pretty close to the scenario under discussion.
on edit - ok only know two guys who did that, but they exist.
How do you know if the veteran you’re thanking on Memorial Day did not commit murder, rape, or other war crimes?
Or is it OK if done in uniform, with 21st Century weapons, or following orders?
People learn.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
Maybe this person didn’t, and it is not appropriate to hold the head of diversity title.
But if they’re doing everything right, and do represent diverse workforce, then is “not having had anti-Semitic views 14 years ago” a job requirement?
What do the Jewish/POC colleagues have to say about the quality of their workplace?
I definitely wouldn't want to work at Google with this guy in management. Sorry, but I'm just not interested in having my "insatiable appetite for war" touted as an asset to a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace.
Which crimes do you feel are beyond rehabilitation? I can only think of one area of crime where the majority of people would agree without hesitation.