I think we're going to get to the point where people only share their views on sensitive manners in anonymous / pseudo-anonymous forums, so they can't be linked to you.
That's not necessarily terrible.
That's not necessarily terrible.
We need to encourage a society that takes words into context, and assumes good faith instead of imagining the worst possible interpretation of everything. Similarly, we need to encourage people changing their views. Casting out anyone who said something bad, ever, independent of any character growth or changes of opinion as one becomes more knowledgeable, is going to lead to people continuing to hold horrible views... just in private.
Right now there is zero incentive to publicly apologize about anything or change one's opinion because people don't care about that, they just want punitive actions taken regardless of any changes afterwards. That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
You can't pretend there are no consequences to stating you have feelings that can impact other people. Even if what you're claiming is that you're reformed.
"I'm a recovering alcoholic," says the doctor. "Great!" say all of the lawyers with malpractice lawsuits against the doctor. You just can't avoid those consequences.
People will always hold horrible views. That's not going to change.
Of course there's an incentive to change your opinion - growth. If you need to PERFORM that you've grown, then I think that's pretty dangerous attention seeking. If you want to make a livelihood out of being a leader, where your transformation is part of your credentials, then yes, that's a risk, which you have to calculate.
> That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
I'm not really convinced talking does address those. Especially not on social media. I think people have to get to know each other on a personal basis.
It's funny to me how we all run so hot and cold on social media. Right now, y'all are defending social media, in the context of performing that you're reformed on some topic.
Also, so much of this is tied up in the context of employee / employer relationships. Like, if you don't work for a company, you're probably way more free to express your views, to a point.
Like for instance, Bill Cosby wants to do a stand-up tour.
Should he be "cancelled"?
If you feel strongly no, then, well, I guess you can support venues that want to host him.
Some companies are going to shun people like this VP. Maybe you want to support companies that don't.
Or what about the Google Creep [1]?
How much should he have to apologize, or take sensitivity training, etc, before you'd hire him at a company where he'd be in touch with sensitive user information? We're all going to have different answers to that. We can't come up with one rule. So, maybe you want to support companies that give people like him a second chance. I don't feel that need.
There's lots of other parameters that are way more important to me, in evaluating companies I want to do business with, than their being responsible for managing the healing and forgiving process for people who made public mistakes that put the companies they worked for in potentially hot legal water.
[1] : https://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-te...
Such places increasingly do not exist.
With few exceptions, practically all electronic communication can be traced.
Microphones are almost everywhere and voice recognition is very advanced.
"Privacy" increasing means that someone is paid well enough to not need to monetize your communications, but that they will still have the data ready to hand over if law enforcement comes knocking with a warrant or subpoena.