http://inlandnwreport.com/2021/04/08/here-is-your-boycott-li...
Numerous others
https://www.cancelthiscompany.com/index.html
https://www.cancelthiscompany.com/Company-Reviews/Sonic_Revi...
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/conservatives-call-for-paypal-b...
University of California President Clark Kerr: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-fbis-vendetta-against-...
Nikole Hannah-Jones: https://www.wral.com/faculty-say-hannah-jones-tenure-saga-ta...
James Whitfield: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/us/texas-principal-paid-leave...
Strong arguments for: Dan Rather, Sarah Jeong (attempted), Quinn Norton (succeeded), Al Franken, Emily Wilder, Noah Adams, Bob Edwards, Daniel Schorr.
(So many in the press. Interesting.)
Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens.
The Hollywood Blacklist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
Note that business itself tends to be dominated by conservatives, with some exceptions.
Quinn Norton was fired for anti-black, anti-gay, and “Friends with Nazis” comments. If you want to associate this with a political side at all in the USA, then (especially the anti-gay language) it would be right-wing. https://www.wired.com/story/the-ny-times-fires-tech-writer-q...
Al Franken wasn’t fired at all, he resigned from his job as senator after being accused of sexual harassment by multiple women.
Continuing along your example list seems pointless since examination of the first few suggests it’s rather a jumble of names. How is such a list of academics, journalists, and a US Senator relative to the parent’s original question of “ When was the last time that a CEO got canceled by right-leaning consumers for making a left-leaning post?” A CEO position seems quite different from the ones you listed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy#...
And not just any fraudulent documents, but ones that had typography that was so anachronistic that amateur bloggers were able to discover and prove their fraudulence.
CBS appointed a panel led by Republican Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General under George H. W. Bush, and Louis Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press. Released in January 5, 2005, their report concluded that CBS rushed to make inadequately verified allegations public and it was slow in responding to criticism. The panel, however, was unable to conclude whether the documents were forgeries or not, nor did it conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content. Like the story itself, the report and its conclusions were divisive....
Rather has stood by the story. In a 2007 interview with Larry King, Rather argued that the review panel was “a set-up,” and pointed to the fact that “nobody to this day has proved these documents were fraudulent. . . . The story was true.” The journalist also talked about the story in his 2012 memoir, Rather Outspoken: My Life in the News, and claimed that internal CBS documents that came to light during his lawsuit show how Viacom lobbyist Carol Melton, under pressure from GOP House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, urged Heyward to retract the Bush/TexANG story. In Rather's words, Melton "made it clear that Blunt was speaking for an even more powerful constituency—the White House.” Rather was especially critical of Leslie Moonves, who was then chairman and CEO of CBS, explaining that CBS should not have retracted the story "but that was the way that Blunt and the White House wanted it, and Moonves chose to oblige." His 2012 memoir led a new wave of articles that revisited the 60 Minutes II piece. Most of them, like the extensive Texas Monthly article in 2012, concluded that the story was and remained far more complex than expected.
https://danratherjournalist.org/about-dan/controversies
Note that Rather's "controversies" page shows he has been attacked by conservatives and the GOP since the Nixon administration in 1972. It's also quite candid on the controversies with which he's been involved. I'd be interested in similar personally-hosted pages from other persuasions.
Moreover, the question was "When was the last time that a CEO got canceled" by the right. I think I've demonstrated and documented that that particular practice is in fact very well established.
> Moreover, the question was "When was the last time that a CEO got canceled" by the right. I think I've demonstrated and documented that that particular practice is in fact very well established.
By listing random non-CEOs who were fired or resigned for reasons like sexual harassment or anti-gay comments? I don’t get how you say that establishes anything related to the quoted question.
If you are on the left, it's great.
If you're on the right, you just lost your right to have free speech and stay employed.
It's not just CEOs. An everyday engineer can be fired for publicly repeating political opinions on the right. See Damore. But no one who repeats public opinions on the left gets fired.
Actually you'd probably get fired most places for publishing a company wide memo of any kind with the primary purpose of criticizing your bosses and workplace.
That's apples and oranges. Conservatives can boycott all they want, but they don't have the same cultural power to get people fired for ideological transgressions like this. I read somewhere that while conservatives have been very effective at achieving and maintaining political power, it turns out that's not a substitute for cultural power, so their strategy ultimately failed.
Ultimately, they can probably blame their allegiance to free market capitalism for that weakness. It seems that, when conservatives actually achieve economic power, making money takes priority over their other ideological commitments.
Conservatives have been quite successful in the past.
Any failure is not for lack of trying.
The hypocrisy is flagrant.